Glyphosate Testing Full Report: Findings in American Mothers’ Breast Milk, Urine and Water.
Conducted by Moms Across America 
and Sustainable Pulse
April 7, 2014
Zen Honeycutt, Moms Across America | Henry Rowlands, Sustainable Pulse
Supporter: Lori Grace, Environmental Arts & Research
Contents:
- Press Release
- What is Glyphosate?
- Quotes from Scientists on Testing
- Quotes from Mothers on Testing
- Similar Testing on Urine in Europe
- Independent Science on Glyphosate
- Testing Method
- Testing Results – Tables / Maps
- Contacts
- 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).
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 authorization 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 # 7771736. 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
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.
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
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
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
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
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, [email protected], Skype: zen.honeycutt. Moms Across America 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:
- http://gmoanswers.com/ask/given-glyphosate-lipid-soluble-and-knowing-its-really-only-ingested-humans-through-gm-foods-how
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson
- https://www.foeeurope.org/weed-killer-glyphosate-found-human-urine-across-Europe-130613
- http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychlorinated_biphenyl
- http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00454276
Showing 117 reactions
Sign in with
Truth: Roundup causes soil and plant problems that negatively impact yield
Myth at a glance
Roundup and other glyphosate herbicides are not benign but have negative effects on soil and crops, some of which impact plant health and yield.
Glyphosate increases the incidence and severity of infection with Fusarium fungus, which is especially serious as Fusarium can harm humans and livestock.
Glyphosate binds (chelates) essential metal nutrients in the soil, making them unavailable to plants and impacting yield.
Glyphosate has been found to impair nitrogen fixation in plants and to impact yield in drought conditions.
Seed and agrochemical companies are marketing various “techno-fixes” to address these problems, tying farmers to a chemical treadmill.
GM Roundup Ready (RR) crops are marketed on the basis that Roundup is a safe herbicide that simplifies weed control and makes the farmer’s life easier. But recent studies show that Roundup and glyphosate can accumulate in plants, have negative effects on soil organisms, and harm the growth and health even of soy plants that are genetically engineered to tolerate it. These effects may be partly responsible for yield decline and disease outbreaks found in GM Roundup Ready soy and maize.
For those who want real information go to GMO Myths and Truth authored by real scientists! Not The GTF who will never put their theories to the test!
Truth: Roundup causes soil and plant problems that negatively impact yield
Myth at a glance
Roundup and other glyphosate herbicides are not benign but have negative effects on soil and crops, some of which impact plant health and yield.
Glyphosate increases the incidence and severity of infection with Fusarium fungus, which is especially serious as Fusarium can harm humans and livestock.
Glyphosate binds (chelates) essential metal nutrients in the soil, making them unavailable to plants and impacting yield.
Glyphosate has been found to impair nitrogen fixation in plants and to impact yield in drought conditions.
Seed and agrochemical companies are marketing various “techno-fixes” to address these problems, tying farmers to a chemical treadmill.
GM Roundup Ready (RR) crops are marketed on the basis that Roundup is a safe herbicide that simplifies weed control and makes the farmer’s life easier. But recent studies show that Roundup and glyphosate can accumulate in plants, have negative effects on soil organisms, and harm the growth and health even of soy plants that are genetically engineered to tolerate it. These effects may be partly responsible for yield decline and disease outbreaks found in GM Roundup Ready soy and maize.
For those who want real information go to GMO Myths and Truth authored by real scientists! Not The GTF who will never put their theories to the test!
Real science stands the test of real life testing – not endless Gish Gallop as you serve up. It is the only way to resolve this issue. Agreed??
But of course I forgot you are on Monsanto’s payroll so why would you? Being paid to serve up this type of stuff is The Glyphosate Task Force job – what’s it like working for the most hated company in the world?
There is great information on GMOs and Roundup in the new version of GMO Myths and Truths. I am sure you have seen it.
But the most depressing book is Poison Spring about the EPA.
Thank you David.
Finally, let me ask you this – given the recent evidence casting doubt on the safety of glyphosate in formulation, why are you not calling for more research. Why do you continue to insist that it is only the safety of glyphosate and not the formulation that is an issue? If there is a possible safety issue then we should all be calling for more research instead of dismissing new findings as “irrelevant” as one would expect from the industry.
Similar trends are obvious from our recent history including the story of DDT. In a book titled “Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth of issues from tobacco smoke to global warming” Robert Proctor disseminates the issue of “manufactured ignorance”. “The U.S. scientific community has long led the world in research on such areas as public health, environmental science, and issues affecting quality of life. Our scientists have produced landmark studies on the dangers of DDT, tobacco smoke, acid rain, and global warming. But at the same time, a small yet potent subset of this community leads the world in vehement denial of these dangers.
Merchants of Doubt tells the story of how a loose-knit group of high-level scientists and scientific advisers, with deep connections in politics and industry, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. Remarkably, the same individuals surface repeatedly-some of the same figures who have claimed that the science of global warming is “not settled” denied the truth of studies linking smoking to lung cancer, coal smoke to acid rain, and CFCs to the ozone hole. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one tobacco executive. These “experts” supplied it.”
Industry may be right and glyphosate even in formulation may be safe. The problem is that the “industry” has used denial tactics in the past. DDT also started showing up everywhere and yes there were studies to show it was entirely safe!!! So what about glyphosate in formulation? We just don’t know but the bottom line is that finding the stuff in breast milk should raise some serious questions – and currently the defence of industry denial by scientists is not helping!
“…Such results are meaningless in the context of residues found on the food people actually eat”. Why are such results meaningless? Can you reference a peer reviewed paper to substantiate this claim? Furthermore, the point of doing in vitro studies is to understand how cells in vivo will react – this is common scientific practice so there no scientific evidence that shows that epithelial cells in the mouth will behave any differently to cells in vitro!!! So such results are not meaningless.
There is a reason that an industry sponsored review (Williams et al. 2012) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1093 separated the issue of glyphosate and surfactant and why the industry does this – because together there is indication of harm. Bellé et al. (2012) respond to Williams et al. (2012) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1093… and I suggest you go and read it. The main points are:
“The authors consider our results as “not environmentally relevant” because of the concentrations used. The sentence was repeated five times in their article. This is a speculative assertion since (1) we observe effects at concentrations (8 mM affecting 100% of the individual cells at short time exposure) below the usage concentration (20 mM) of the herbicide. Therefore, regarding the considerable amount of glyphosate-based product sprayed worldwide, the concentration of Roundup in every single micro droplet is far above the threshold concentration that would activate the cell cycle checkpoint. (2) The effects we demonstrate were obtained by a short exposure time (minutes) of the cells to glyphosate based products, and nothing excludes that prolonged exposure to lower doses may also have effects. Since glyphosate is commonly found present in drinking water in many countries, low doses with long exposure by ingestion are a fact. The consequences of this permanent long term exposure remain to be further investigated but cannot just be ignored.”
“We want to highlight that the context of our results is the field of cell cycle disorders and mechanisms at the origin of tumorization. The authors totally disregard this context and do not even state the DNA-damage checkpoint or G2/M cell cycle transition that are clearly at the center of our results and that situate glyphosate-based products as of human health concern. Using the same experimental model and same experimental procedures, we have further shown that chromium(III) (Le Bouffant et al. 2008) or methyl methanesulfonate (MMS) (Le Bouffant et al. 2007), both known carcinogens, lead to the same molecular phenotype than glyphosate containing formulations. This context is clearly stated in almost all our cited articles and has been reviewed by us (Bellé et al. 2007), including glyphosate-based products’ effects, not quoted by the authors’ bibliographic review. Involvement of the DNAdamage checkpoint at the origin of cancer is widely accepted by scientists (Jackson and Bartek 2009; Kastan and Bartek 2004; Nyberg et al. 2002). The concept that cancer originates from a few (if not one) stem cells that themselves leads by clonal selection to cancerous stem cells and further to cancer development is also well documented and accepted by a large community of scientists (Rahman et al. 2011; Ratajczak et al. 2006). We have worked on embryonic cells, and per se stem cells, and our results at the level of the DNA-damaged checkpoint therefore suggest that glyphosate based products are of human health concern and warrant further investigation.”
In a letter to the Editor in Food and Chemical Toxicology, Viljoen (2013) notes the following: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0278691513004559/1-s2.0-S0278691513004559-main.pdf?tid=5649d0da-ea44-11e3-8ea8-00000aacb360&acdnat=1401706677692357fa080bed2ce9ab403e01b633ae “Several studies have reported on the toxicity of commercial formulations of R and/or glyphosate on mammals, Nile tilapia and sea urchin …. Despite this, a recent industry sponsored review concluded that ‘‘the the available literature shows no solid evidence linking glyphosate exposure to adverse developmental or reproductive effects at environmentally realistic exposure concentrations’’ (Williams et al., 2012). The authors of the latter suggest that where glyphosate toxicity has been observed, it is the result of ‘‘surfactants present in the formulations and not the direct result of glyphosate exposure’’. This argument is irrelevant since it is the formulation that is being applied in practice and is part of the ‘‘herbicide complex’’ of chemicals taken up by the plant.” which includes surfactant!
“First off, the EPA does not determine whether or not something is safe in an absolute sense, they review the evidence and create regulations that they believe are sufficient to protect the public’s health and welfare.”
You are correct. However, the approach they take to determining safety is flawed. They do not evaluate the commercialized product but the individual ingredients and in doing so assume that the collective will also be safe. That is basically akin to claiming a car is safe by testing whether the tyres on their own (while off the car) constitute a safety risk!!!
You ignore the comments by Bellé et al. (2012) to Williams et al. (2012) on "the very poor cell membrane permeability of pure glyphosate (Riechers et al. 1994), although they do state that “commercial formulations include a surfactant system … allowing penetration of the active ingredient.” They also state that where pure glyphosate has shown no toxic effect "we ascribed the absence of cellular effect of pure glyphosate to this poor permeability. To our knowledge, pure glyphosate is not used as an herbicide in agriculture applications and we ignore whether, in such conditions, pure glyphosate is or not an herbicide.” In other words there is a reason that pure glyphosate shows an absence of toxicity and why surfactant is used.
So basically what you are saying is that the wheels are safe therefore the care is safe. What scientists are pointing out is that car plus wheels (glyphosate plus surfactant) is what will be driving on the road and that is what needs to be shown to be safe. So, EPA criteria for safety assessment is inherently flawed. For example, brake fluid (containing polyglycol ether) is stable in car engines and chlorine is stable in a pool. But if you combine brake fluid and chlorine you get an explosion! So if the intention is to sell them as a formulation (ie glyphosate and surfactant) you have to prove the formulation safe – otherwise ka-boom!
All the evidence suggests we should do proper controlled trials to either prove there is a safe limit or not.
So let’s do them Chuck? Agreed?
Serelini – the biggest such trial ever undertaken showed there were problems. The trial was only an exact replica of the Monsanto trial to prove safety for the EU.
So let’s do it again Chuck?
Any problems with that?
Corruption between government and their paid lackeys has always been – eg the EPA. Read in Poison Spring how from the beginning it has served its masters – the chemical industry – Monsanto and the rest. But Monsanto has been possibly the most criminal/evil organisation ever. These terms could only have been at there prompting:
Like ‘substantial equivalence’ the EPA use another euphemistic term "inert’ ingredients. EPA has long made a false distinction between so called "active ingredients and “inert” ingredients, or adjuvants. The role of the first is responsible for the action – killing a plant or insect. The second is responsible for helping the active ingredient do its job more efficiently. From the word “inert” you would reckon the chemical would have no dangerous effects. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most inert ingredients are very toxic indeed. They include poisons such acetone, benzene, chlorbenzene, chloroform, ethylene oxide, formaldehyde, formic acid, methyl alcohol, naphtha leone, ethylene thioridazine, and petroleum distillates (and just remember all distillates are known carcinogens). Because of the EPA’s surreal “regulation” on both actives and “inerts”, a known toxic chemical like DDT can be branded as “inert” and used in a pesticide! Because there are so many of these chemicals -1800 so called inert ingredients – they can even constitute 99% of a pesticide! It is a con artists wonderland!
Read Poison Spring – look at the website GMEducation.org – above all use “Common Sense” not the pseudo science served up by Chuck et al as ‘Gish gallop’ to confuse everyone. They are part of the GTF (Glyphosate Task Force) set up by the Monsanto evil empire et al to defend their poisonous ways and the gravy train that results!! Common sense uses science but is not enslaved by it!
By the way did you see China has 20’% of its land too poisonous to work on any longer? China’s equivalents of Monsanto (with Monsanto’s help I am sure) poisoning the world! Are we next?
Lastly note how Chuck et al never answer the question – should we now confirm or otherwise with a proper sampling across the USA the great testing MAA have done on glyphosate in breast milk? It speaks volumes…
Common sense says we should!
Best wishes
Peter
Sent from my iPad
“The argument advanced… for the safety of GM food is false… Yes, the DNA of all living organisms is made up of just four nucleosides, and yes, virtually all proteins are made up from just 20 amino acids. But this does not imply that everything containing these basic building blocks is without risk to human beings. The same units, arranged in different ways, are contained in the smallpox virus, bubonic plague and influenza, deadly nightshade and other poisonous plants, creatures such as poisonous jellyfish, scorpions, deadly snakes, sharks – and people who talk absolute nonsense.”
– G. D. W. Smith, Fellow of the Royal Society, professor of materials, Oxford University, UK1
Chuck talks absolute nonsense!
“The bit about including a herbicide in the risk assessment of glyphosate-resistant crops is not relevant.”
Actually I disagree – that’s like claiming a car is safe without a road test….
In a letter to the editor of Food and Chemical toxicology, Viljoen (2013) observed that “…
a recent industry sponsored review concluded that ‘‘the available literature shows no solid evidence linking glyphosate exposure to adverse developmental or reproductive effects at environmentally realistic exposure concentrations’’ (Williams et al., 2012). The authors of the latter suggest that where glyphosate toxicity has been observed, it is the result of ‘‘surfactants present in the formulations and not the direct result of glyphosate exposure’’. This argument is irrelevant since it is the formulation that is being applied in practice and is part of the ‘‘herbicide complex’’ of chemicals taken up by the plant.”
Bellé et al. (2012) respond to Williams et al. (2012) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1093… and point out the following: “The authors consider our results as “not environmentally relevant” because of the concentrations used. The sentence was repeated five times in their article. This is a speculative assertion since (1) we observe effects at concentrations (8 mM affecting 100% of the individual cells at short time exposure) below the usage concentration (20 mM) of the herbicide. Therefore, regarding the considerable amount of glyphosate-based product sprayed worldwide, the concentration of Roundup in every single micro droplet is far above the threshold concentration that would activate the cell cycle checkpoint. (2) The effects we demonstrate were obtained by a short exposure time (minutes) of the cells to glyphosate based products, and nothing excludes that prolonged exposure to lower doses may also have effects. Since glyphosate is commonly found present in drinking water in many countries, low doses with long exposure by ingestion are a fact. The consequences of this permanent long term exposure remain to be further investigated but cannot just be ignored.”
Furthermore, Bellé et al. (2012) also point out that “The authors" (Williams et al 2012) "do not take into account in their interpretation of our results the very poor cell membrane permeability of pure glyphosate (Riechers et al. 1994), although they do state that “commercial formulations include a surfactant system … allowing penetration of the active ingredient.” Since our results were obtained for short exposure time at neutral pH, we ascribed the absence of cellular effect of pure glyphosate to this poor permeability. To our knowledge, pure glyphosate is not used as an herbicide in agriculture applications and we ignore whether, in such conditions, pure glyphosate is or not an herbicide.”
In other words in pure form glyphosate cannot be taken up by the cell and that is why a surfactant is used. How many safety studies sponsored by industry have included surfactant? In an industry sponsored review of glyphosate, Williams et al. (2012) disregard the role of the surfactant in the uptake of glyphosate and its safety!!!.
You are just wrong. Substantial equivalence was created to avoid testing.
Most independent studies show problems with GMO. Only studies by industry show otherwise.
Look at the online publication ‘GMO Myths and Truths’ by real scientists Chuck – it is all there for you to see. But you ignore what you are paid not to see of course. So I recommend it to everyone else. It is the most thorough commentary on this subject out there.
The MRL’s for glyphosate have been increased hugely based on no scientific studies – just industries need to use more in advancing a failed technology. Tell me which studies the increase was based on Chuck?
The EPA has long been a captured agency by industry – read the new book about the EPA titled ‘Poison Spring’ – I recommend this too to all free thinkers not captured by industry. There is all the evidence you need for bad bad science.
And “not biologically significant” is a meaningless term – you know it and so do I. It was invented to avoid the issues raised.
To quote your nonsense Chuck:
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. (You are great at this Chuck!) 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.
So hiding data has never ever happened in science Chuck??? Pull the other one!
You do this Chuck all the time! Endless Gish Gallop.
Come on Chuck – grow up! Free yourself from your GTF (Glyphosate Task force) employees and do the right thing for once in your life!
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.
On 26 June 2006 Farmers legal Action-South Africa published an article headed “Monsanto tells a pack of lies in South Africa”. See article below. The article exposed how Monsanto had told the South African Advertising Authority (ASA) that MON 863 was not their product. MON 863 was in fact their product and had been found to cause damage to rats in independent trials in Europe. Monsanto had in fact made an application for this product to be released in South Africa. The ASA ordered Monsanto SA to withdraw its advert which depicted a mother with two children in a kitchen looking at a cake. Among other false claims the advert stated “no negative reactions to GM foods have ever been reported”. The advert also falsely claimed that genetically modified foods contained enhanced proteins, vitamins and anti-oxidants and removed allergens. Whilst there was an uproar from responsible parenting organisations and in fact proof that no commercial GM products had ever been commercially released with the enhanced claims, the ASA found it unnecessary to deal with those aspects. It ordered the removal of the advert based on the false claim that “No negative reactions to GM foods have ever been reported.”
France’s highest court has ruled that US agrochemical giant Monsanto had not told the truth about the safety of its best-selling weed-killer, Roundup.
The court confirmed an earlier judgment that Monsanto had falsely advertised its herbicide as “biodegradable” and claimed it “left the soil clean”.
In the latest ruling, France’s Supreme Court upheld two earlier convictions against Monsanto by the Lyon criminal court in 2007, and the Lyon court of appeal in 2008, the AFP news agency reports.
Your long winded piece is all Gish gallop at a trot.
You simply don’t get it.
Why don’t you agree that following MMA’s great initiative to test a few mothers for glyphosate we should now do proper testing? As you know this was a simple test whereas a more sophisticated test would reveal more. Then we can remove all doubt.
Surely the Hippocratic Oath – “First do no harm” – is where we should all be. Common sense!
Don’t forget the concept of substantial equivalence was set up by Monsanto and regulators to avoid real testing. But is very very unscientific! And I wonder why??
“The concept of substantial equivalence has never been properly defined; the degree of difference between a natural food and its GM alternative before its ‘substance’ ceases to be acceptably ‘equivalent’ is not defined anywhere, nor has an exact definition been agreed by legislators. It is exactly this vagueness that makes the concept useful to industry but unacceptable to the consumer…
“Substantial equivalence is a pseudo- scientific concept because it is a commercial and political judgment masquerading as if it were scientific. It is, moreover, inherently anti-scientific because it was created primarily to provide an excuse for not requiring biochemical or toxicological tests.”
– Millstone E, Brunner E, Mayer S. Beyond “substantial equivalence”. Nature. 1999; 401(6753): 525–526.16
Spraying more and more toxic chemicals worldwide and increasing year on year should raise alarm bells – the precautionary principle! However the whole GMO project was set up to avoid testing – not very scientific Chuck.
Substantial equivalence is the same as stating that a cow with BSE is substantially equivalent to a normal cow! It is not but substantial equivalence would say yes it is!!!
Pseudo science Chuck – don’t be part of it.
For nearly 40 years, while producing the now-banned industrial coolants known as PCBs at a local factory, Monsanto Co. routinely discharged toxic waste into a west Anniston creek and dumped millions of pounds of PCBs into oozing open-pit landfills. And thousands of pages of Monsanto documents — many emblazoned with warnings such as “CONFIDENTIAL: Read and Destroy” — show that for decades, the corporate giant concealed what it did and what it knew.
In 1966, Monsanto managers discovered that fish submerged in that creek turned belly-up within 10 seconds, spurting blood and shedding skin as if dunked into boiling water. They told no one. In 1969, they found fish in another creek with 7,500 times the legal PCB levels. They decided “there is little object in going to expensive extremes in limiting discharges.” In 1975, a company study found that PCBs caused tumors in rats. They ordered its conclusion changed from “slightly tumorigenic” to “does not appear to be carcinogenic.”
Common sense plays a big part in this.
I know you are a Monsanto voice so will deny all these issue until there is the usual ‘car crash’. Even Monsanto’s extremely bad track record makes no dent in the ‘belief’ – keep asking for a 100% scientific proof to avoid the real questions while people worldwide suffer. It’s the dollars….
As the manufacturer of Agent Orange, DDT, PCPs and dioxin, Monsanto’s toxic legacy of harm to the environment and human health is without parallel. Now Monsanto owns patents on life and is genetically engineering the food that we eat. In the past 2 years alone, Monsanto has helped fund massive misinformation campaigns to the tune of $70 million to defeat GMO labeling.
You are a defender of the criminal actions of corporations. We know who you work for – it is obvious – how much do they pay you for this science defence garbage?
Look at this article
http://www.nyrnaturalnews.com/pesticides-2/2014/04/children-exposed-to-a-dangerous-cocktail-of-pesticides-says-new-report/
Your instincts – and experience – are likely to be right.
every idea starts with just that – an idea. A car crash for you would only be meaningful if it actually happened – the possibility of it happening is null and void for you! This doesn’t make sense!
But what is worse still is you can see the crazy unscientific safety testing that is taking place for GMO’s and herbicides/pesticides that the editors of Scientific American have written about and you still talk as though science in this context is sacrosanct.
MAA did us all a great favour by taking flawed science and showing that there is a distinct possibility that all the claims for Roundup/glyphosate are wrong – worse still damaging to us all and the environment.
The next stage is to do proper testing. I suspect you are not a big supporter of real testing are you?
Answers needed from you – no more Gish Gallop science rubbish. Just try and answer the questions.
“Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers… Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering… It
would be chilling enough if any other type of company were able to prevent independent researchers from testing its wares and reporting what they find… But when scientists are prevented from examining the raw ingredients in our nation’s food supply or from testing
the plant material that covers a large portion of the country’s agricultural land, the restrictions on free inquiry become dangerous.”
– Editorial, Scientific American62
“Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”
– Philip Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications1 (the FDA is the US government’s Food and Drug Administration, responsible for food safety)
“Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.”
– US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)2
“It is not foreseen that EFSA carry out such [safety] studies as the onus is on the [GM industry] applicant to demonstrate the safety of the GM product in question.” – European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)3
Industry and some government sources claim that GM foods are strictly regulated.4 But GM food regulatory systems worldwide vary from voluntary industry self-regulation (in the US) to weak (in Europe). None are adequate to protect consumers’ health.
Professor C. Vyvyan Howard, a medically qualified toxicopathologist based at the University of Ulster, said: “A substantial number of studies suggest that GM crops and foods can be toxic or allergenic, and that they can have adverse effects on beneficial and non-target organisms.
“It is often claimed that millions of Americans eat GM foods with no ill effects. But as the USA has no GMO labelling and no epidemiological studies have been carried out, there is no way of knowing whether the rising rates of chronic diseases seen in that country have anything to do with GM food consumption or not. Therefore this claim has no scientific basis.”
Glyphosate will turn out to be a monster. First it will be found at measureable levels in virtually everyone. Second, the epigenetic consequences will be shown not to be inconsequential. To establish its total risk (and injury) will take money and time (which unfortunately favors the profits of its manufacturers.).
We live in a world where every environmentally persistent chemical is causing us irreparable harm but safety studies and laws favor release into the environment, a 20-30 year run on the profits and banning only after a replacement chemical is ready for market(and it can enjoy its 20-30 year run).
EPA “studies” chemicals in a way which strategically favors this approach, (jobs and profits first, health and human safety second). What is sometimes hard to fathom is the extent to which corporations can strong arm federal entities into limiting investigations into safety. In fact, even my favorite government agency, USGS , nearly agreed for the third consecutive decade NOT to measure glyphosate in its NAWQA study. (my intervention had something to do with it’s being measured). This was only a water study. The NHANES study which is supposed to monitor pesticides in the urine of Americans has removed atrazine and never included glyphosate on its panel. They have no problem measuring already banned chemicals like DDT and Dioxins but they ignore the current use pesticides…..
I suppose by now you are aware that the chemical cocktail now found in every pregnant woman as she begins to create a new baby contains many more than just a few herbicides. It is hard to know even how to study this “body burden” since it is found in 100% of women’s wombs, breast milk samples etc. If the epigenetic work from in lab proves to be true for humans as it has for rodents, our species is at a tipping point when it comes to environmental chemicals and our ability to reproduce.
Quote from Paul Winchester MD
Indiana University School of Medicine
Riley Hospital for Children
How “Extreme Levels” of Roundup in Food Became the Industry Norm By Prof. Thomas Bøhn and Marek Cuhra http://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/how-extreme-levels-of-roundup-in-food-became-the-industry-norm/ Synopsis: Many GMO crops are resistant to the chemical herbicide Roundup (active ingredient: glyphosate). This allows farmers to spray the herbicide over the crop to control weeds. As weeds in the US and elsewhere have progressively gained resistance to Roundup, farmers have been spraying higher doses of the herbicide and spraying them more often. By implication, there will be concomitant effects on food and the environment. However, even though there is increasing concern about the health impacts of Roundup/glyphosate, little is known about current levels in food and animal feed.
Now, a new study has found that glyphosate in GMO soybeans is at levels higher than many vitamins.
So you deny all science that disagrees with your industry pro stance? Amazing…
The preliminary tests that MMA did were exactly what we need – something to spur us into action to do a proper test. They need congratulating. Why don’t you help fund real testing? We could work together…
Prof Paul Winchesters, Neonatologist at Indiana, who did work on atrazine’s birth defects/preterm births – he also believes glyphosate is a ‘monster’ to quote him!
Further you still won’t answer questions I put to you. And you keep asking for 100% proof that glyphosate is harmful – we could equally well ask if you have a 100% safety test. It’s pointless. That not how science works – it builds to a concensus.
GMO has lead to more pesticide being sprayed or possibly worse still, introduced into every cell of a plant to kill pests – is this good science? – that we are now ingesting pesticides from deep within the food we eat? We know nothing about the effects of these on the people and animals but there is worrying levels of antibiotics used to treat animals kept in feed lots prone to diseases of overcrowding making for poor conditions. Then there are their GMO grain based diets. Where is the good science Chuck? – I can only see bad practice/bad science. And we are getting more of the same and you are defending it! Why would you do that?
Where is the precautionary principle?
So please don’t talk about bad science when it is what is happening almost everywhere. Good scientists are the ones we need to listen to. Seralini had the guts – I repeat had the guts and will – to question the system and he replicated Monsanto’s safety trials that had been done to get GMO maize clearance in the EU. He then saw in the results he obtained real issues – organ damage and cancer. But only by being forced to go to court to get the Monsanto safety studies – is that good open science? – bad science always behind closed doors!
So where is the openness in your comments – you keep harping on about bad science but do your best to destroy any science you obviously have been tasked to disagree with – for reasons we can only guess at.
You don’t have to be any type of scientist to see NCD’s rising very fast in our advanced societies (Alzheimer’s and Autism being just two of them) and the reasons are more than likely to be the environment – that is the environment we are creating. Good science would ask the questions – bad science defends the status quo. You defend the status quo.
I have not heard one statement from you as to why all this is happening, why the regularity system is not working. Just business as usual. I have supplied statements from trusted organisations that rightly question the system – eg The Scientific American editors, the Salk Institute, and also telling quotes from Monsanto saying they are not responsible for safety testing – they say their remit is to sell as much as possible!
Silence from Chuck on all these and more! In another incarnation would you be defending Diethylstilbestrol, Thalidomide and DDT? I guess so…
May I ask – who are you working for?