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 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

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 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 119 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • commented 2014-04-25 22:03:37 -0700
    “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
  • commented 2014-04-25 09:57:08 -0700
    Chuck, this Salk Institute study should make us all sit up and ask for better evidence. I am open minded but nothing I have seen or read convinces me that the problems of GM and the use of chemicals is done and dusted.

    You need to be more open – otherwise you seem like a a zealot – almost to the point that science has become a religion for you – ie it will solve all our problems! For me you come over as a person who has made up your mind! Read again what Schubert said re his comprehensive peer-reviewed at study of US GM regulation. You should be worried – cannot we agree that we need to do more – we haven’t got there yet?

    “One thing that surprised us is that US regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by the biotech crop developer, and those data are not published in journals or subjected to peer review… The picture that emerges from our study of US regulation of GM foods is a rubber-stamp ‘approval process’ designed to increase public confidence in, but not ensure the safety of, genetically engineered foods.”

    – David Schubert, professor and head, Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory, Salk Institute, commenting on a comprehensive peer-reviewed study of US government’s regulation of GMOs that he co-authored.
  • commented 2014-04-24 22:26:02 -0700
    Highly pathogenic bacteria are highly resistant to glyphosate while most of the beneficial bacteria are moderately to highly susceptible to glyphosate poisoning. Glyphosate can both disturb the normal gut bacterial community and also be a significant predisposing factor associated with botulism mediated diseases.

    Shehata, Awad, et al., The effect of glyphosate on potential pathogens and beneficial members of poultry microbiota in vitro, Curr Microbiol DOI 10.1007/s00284-012-0277-2 .
  • commented 2014-04-24 21:59:38 -0700
    “You can reach into the non-GMO-fed rat cage and pull one out. Put it on your lap and it can be patted just like a cat.

    But try and reach into the cage where the rats are being fed GMO feed. Here they have had to limit it to one rat per cage. The rats are irritated. They don’t get along together. They always go off into their own little world. They do backflips. They crawl up and run around the cage. They can’t get any peace; can’t settle down.  

    That is very typical of what you’d see with aautism.”

    Roundup Herbicide – Glyphosate – is possibly the most important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases and conditions (NCD’s) that have become prevalent in Westernized societies.
  • commented 2014-04-24 14:23:33 -0700
    You guys need to have open minds if you are to be truly scientific.

    What is very clear is that you want to shut down all debate. Gish Gallop is a very successful way to do this – you are very good at at. But it helps no one least of all those who want to find the truth.

    Re the Sprague-Dawley rats, I quote James “so often develop tumours after 90 days that exceeding this duration renders the results inconclusive.” A great over simplifications.

    What is very interesting about the Seralini control group is that they didn’t suffer cancer in the numbers found in conventional studies. Seralini’s team mixed their own food for their studies and did not use the usual ‘crap’ they feed rats on in conventional trials.
    They were surprised at the lack of cancers in their control rats and are now testing conventional foods with their own mixes. It will be interesting to see their results. I suspect they will find that ordinary rat food is not chosen for its quality!

    So it maybe that the Sprague-Dawley rats don’t have the problem – we give it to them!

    How about this new study – presumably you will dismiss this too..

    Increased seizure risk in autistic children – is there a GM link?
    (GMO health risks: 17th April 2014) An accidental discovery has linked the use of soy in infant formula to increased rates of seizures in autistic children. It raises critical questions. Is genetically engineered soya a factor? And can control diets in US research trials be trusted?

    The research team from the University of Wisconsin-Madison found that children with autism who were fed soy based formula had 2.6 times as many seizures as children fed a dairy based formula.

    Autism has increased since Roundups introduction in the 90’s. They reckon that every other baby born in 20 years will be autistic.

    I will wait your defence of Roundup and how autism isn’t a problem.
  • commented 2014-04-22 12:26:59 -0700
    Dear Chuck, you have not answered one question in my piece that I put to you re this issue. Just more teaching your grandmother how to suck eggs – or Gish Gallop – confusing everyone with too much detail. Just answer everything I said that has a question mark – we can then go from there.
  • commented 2014-04-22 12:21:41 -0700
    Wonderful work – this is really important for the world to know how deeply corrupt our regulation is on these issues. It takes a small group to reveal the truth. I congratulate you.
  • commented 2014-04-21 04:32:29 -0700
    Dear James! you and I get a special kick out of abusing each other – I started it! Let’s stop.
  • commented 2014-04-21 04:27:23 -0700
    Dear Chuck, The problem for the "Gish Gallop’ you have just served up is that the Seralini trial was an EXACT replica of the one EU required Monsanto to carry out to get their GMO maize accepted by the EU. Was that wrong too?

    As you know the results of the EU/ Monsanto trial were kept secret and not available to you and I as Seralini’s is now (I must stress this). Under the guise of confidential information that might be useful to a competitor companies are allowed to prevent the public seeing all kinds of information including safety testing. We can all read Seralini’s test results which were properly peer reviewed too.

    Seralini had to go to a European court to get the information from the EU of how Monsanto did their toxicity testing and their results. Not very transparent you must agree and of course the results of the Monsanto tests were never peered reviewed!

    Eventually he won in court and the EU were forced to pass it over to him. Talk about transparency!!!! Would you agree the system is broke?

    Then when he looked at the results he saw worrying trends in toxicity but because the Monsanto trial only lasted for 90 days (who lives just 90 days, not even a rat is a good question!!!) he decided to do exactly the same feeding protocols with the same rats as EU/Monsanto used but for the rats life time – 2+ years. And that is the only difference. Would you want all toxicity tests carried out for just 90 days Chuck to see damage to organs etc?

    Then what you have to realise – I assume you do – is that this was a toxicity test which only requires batches of 10 rats. If you were to run a cancer test you would have to use 50 rats because for reasons we are all aware of cancer develops differently and is not as predictable as toxicity.

    But what Seralini found in his testing was that he was getting alarming cancer outcomes in just the 10 rats. He didn’t need 50 to tell him something was seriously adrift. This shows how serious the findings were and why there has been such a hullabaloo around them since.

    However this was still a toxicity test – not a cancer test.

    Given these facts that have not been challenged by anyone – the results he got are the results. No one has questioned them as he just redid the same protocols of feeding etc on the same type of rat as Monsanto did but for longer.

    So would you agree Chuck that the right thing to do now is to repeat these tests on the basis of the precautionary principle and also as cancer tests using 50 rats?

    Why wouldn’t you? Even the guys who retracted the paper have said it was not because of quality of the research or the way it was done or any mistakes – they just defended their decision on the basis that it was ‘inconclusive’.

    This was an extraordinary decision. To remove Seralini’s scientific information from the record was unnecessary and also irresponsible science. Eventually the truth would come out if all papers that are peer reviewed are left in place – all add to the sum of human knowledge. Incidentally the number of scientists and experts condemning the journal editor’s retraction of Seralini’s study has climbed to 150!

    As I have said several times it is a ridiculous idea that you can ever get 100% certainty – only you ask for it! What we need is to use these results plus many others to create a clear picture of where we are heading.

    One thing we can both agree on is we want more certainty and a close to this testing and we want the testing to be transparent – open to everyone like Seralini’s was.
  • commented 2014-04-19 08:13:52 -0700
    Dear james, here is the true evaluation of the retraction of the Seralini paper. Even the guys who retracted it said it was good honest work!

    I have met Seralini and know him to be a good scientist. Here goes:

    The well publicised study by French researchers highlighting significant potential health risks from eating genetically engineered crops has been withdrawn (retracted) by the scientific journal which published it.

    This follows a seemingly orchestrated campaign by pro-GM lobbyists and scientists. But the journal’s explanation is ambivalent; they found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation and said the results are correct. So is there a health risk or not?

    The study, conducted by a team of researchers from the University of Caen led by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini, found that rats fed Monsanto’s GM maize NK603 suffered severe toxic effects, including kidney and liver damage and increased rates of tumours and mortality.

    Publication of the study in the Journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) in November 2012 led to a torrent of abuse and much criticism from pro-GM scientists and commentators; a robust defence from those opposed to GM; and a demand for more research and more regulatory transparency from concerned citizens and scientists.

    In response to the controversy – which included accusations of fraud – Dr A. Wallace Hayes, FCT’s editor-in-chief instigated a review of the study including all raw data with which Prof Séralini fully co-operated.

    As a result of this review FCT has decided to withdraw – retract – its publication of the study; in effect it no longer exists as a matter of scientific record and cannot be cited or used as scientifically valid evidence. But does this mean that the findings were wrong and that we have all been misled? It doesn’t seem so. Chronic toxicity unquestioned; carcinogenicity unclear In a statement FCT’s publishers Elsevier said: “Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data”

    But “no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size” (number of rats in the study) and the strain of rat used “regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence”
    The results presented were correct but inconclusive
    The retraction is based only on this inconclusiveness
    It is very important to note that these comments relate to the study’s findings regarding overall mortality and tumor incidence and not to its findings of chronic toxicity.

    The study was established as a chronic toxicity study not a carcinogenicity study and the sample sizes are in accordance with established protocols.

    In which case the study’s finding: that males in the treated groups suffered severe liver and kidney dysfunction remain valid. Liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times higher than in the control group. There were also 1.3 – 2.3 times more instances of “marked and severe” kidney disease.

    Even if we set aside the mortality and tumor findings the evidence of chronic toxicity demands that the study is taken seriously and acted upon by the regulatory authorities.

    See GMeducation.org
  • commented 2014-04-18 11:15:43 -0700
    Dear James! the one thing we all agree on is that there is no definitive research on the safety of glyphosate including its breakdown product AMPA . The reason seems to be the one the SALK Institute exposes as well as a new book called Poison Spring – an expose of the inside of the EPA. Until we break this stranglehold on information we will continue to speculate – you and me.
    Maybe video games will always be more rewarding…..

    “One thing that surprised us is that US regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by the biotech crop developer, and those data are not published in journals or subjected to peer review… The picture that emerges from our study of US regulation of GM foods is a rubber-stamp ‘approval process’ designed to increase public confidence in, but not ensure the safety of, genetically engineered foods.”
    – David Schubert, professor and head, Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory, Salk Institute, commenting on a comprehensive peer-reviewed study of US government’s regulation of GMOs that he co-authored.
  • commented 2014-04-16 11:19:38 -0700
    More Gish Gallop…

    Poison Spring: The Secret History of Pollution and the EPA

    Imagine walking into a restaurant and finding chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides, or neonicotinoid insecticides listed in the description of your entree. They may not be printed in the menu, but many are in your food.

    These are a few of the literally millions of pounds of approved synthetic substances dumped into the environment every day, not just in the US but around the world. They seep into our water supply, are carried thousands of miles by wind and rain from the site of application, remain potent long after they are deposited, and constitute, in the words of one scientist, “biologic death bombs with a delayed time fuse and which may prove to be, in the long run, as dangerous to the existence of mankind as the arsenal of atom bombs.” All of these poisons are sanctioned—or in some cases, ignored—by the EPA.

    For twenty-five years E.G. Vallianatos saw the EPA from the inside, with rising dismay over how pressure from politicians and threats from huge corporations were turning it from the public’s watchdog into a “polluter’s protection agency.” Based on his own experience, the testimony of colleagues, and hundreds of documents Vallianatos collected inside the EPA, Poison Spring reveals how the agency has continually reinforced the chemical-industrial complex.

    Writing with acclaimed environmental journalist McKay Jenkins, E.G. Vallianatos provides a devastating exposé of how the agency created to protect Americans and our environment has betrayed its mission. Half a century after after Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring awakened us to the dangers of pesticides, we are poisoning our lands and waters with more toxic chemicals than ever.
  • commented 2014-04-15 02:07:48 -0700
    Dear Chuck,

    The following excerpt is from a peer reviewed published journal in a letter to the Editor by Viljoen (2013) (in Food and Chemical Toxicology volume 59, pages 809-810):

    “Several studies have reported on the toxicity of commercial formulations
    of R and/or glyphosate on mammals, Nile tilapia and sea urchin Benachour and Seralini, 2007; Clair et al., 2012; Daruich et al., 2001; Gasnier et al., 2009; Gui et al., 2012; Jiraungkoorskul et al., 2002; Koller et al., 2012; Malatesta et al., 2008b; Marc et al., 2002, 2004; Paganelli et al., 2010; Romano et al., 2012).

    Despite this, 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."
    or humans.

    Don’t you find it strange that studies specifically directed towards finding glyphosate safe for humans do (and are all Biotech industry sponsored or linked) while independent studies (not sponsored by the Biotech industry) show adverse reactions of glyphosate to mammals and other species in ecological studies.

    In an independent study by Bohn et al. (2014) (in Food Chemistry volume 153, pages 207–215) (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814613019201) it was found that “GM-soy contained high residues of glyphosate and AMPA.” If glyphosate residue accumulates in GM soy then what prevents it from accumulating in other tissues, for example human tissue?

    You wanted studies – here are a few that show adverse effects of glyphosate:
    - Daruich, J., Zirulnik, F., Gimenez, M.S., 2001. Effect of the herbicide glyphoasate on enzymatic activity in pregnant rats and their foetuses. Environ. Res. Section 85, 226–231.
    - Gui, Y.-X., Fan, X.-N., Wang, H.-M., Wang, G., Chen, S.-d., 2012. Glyphosate induced cell death through apoptotic and autophagic mechanisms. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 34, 344–349.
    - Jiraungkoorskul, W., Upatham, E.S., Kruatrache, M., Sahaphong, S., Vichasri-Grams, S., Pokethitiyook, P., 2002. Histopathological effects of Roundup, a glyphoaste herbicide, on Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Sci. Asia 28, 121–127.
    - Koller, V.J., Furhacker, M., Nersesyan, A., Misik, M., Eisenbauer, M., 2012. Cytotoxic and DNA-damaging properties of glyphostae and Roundup in human-derived buccal epithelial cells. Arch. Toxicol. 86, 805–813.
    - Malatesta, M., Caporaloni, C., Gavaudan, S., Rocchi, M.B., Serafini, S., Tiberi, C., Gazzanelli, G., 2002. Ultrastructural morphometrical and
    immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on
    genetically modified soybean. Cell Struct. Funct. 27, 173–180.
    - Malatesta, M., Caporaloni, C., Rossi, L., Battistelli, S., Rocchi, M.B., Tonucci, F., Gazzanelli, G., 2002. Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic acinar cells from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. J. Anat. 201, 409–415.
    - Malatesta, M., Boraldi, F., Annovi, G., Baldelli, B., Battistelli, S., Biggiogera, M., Quaglino, D., 2008. A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing. Histochem. Cell Biol. 130, 967–977.
    - Malatesta, M., Perdoni, F., Santin, G., Battistelli, S., Muller, S., Biggiogera, M., 2008. Hepatoma tissue culture (HTC) cells as a model for investigating the effects of low concentrations of herbicide on cell structure and function. Toxicol. Vitro 22, 1853–1860.
    - Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O., Boulben, S., Hureau, D., Durand, G., Belle, R., 2002. Pesticide Roundup provokes cell division dysfunction at the level of CDK1/Cyclin B activation. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 15, 326–331.
    - Marc, J., Belle, R., Morales, J., Cormier, P., Muler-Lorillon, O., 2004. Formulated glyphosate activates DNA-response checkpoint of the cell cycle leading to the prevention of G2/M transition. Toxol. Sci. 82, 436–442.
    - Paganelli, A., Gnazzo, V., Acosta, H., Lopez, S.L., Carrasco, A.E., 2010. Glyphosate based herbicides produce teratoghenic effects on vertebrates by impairing retinoic acid signalling. Chem. Res.Toxicol. 23, 1586–1595.
    - Romano, M.A., Romano, R.M., Santos, L.D., Wisniewski, P., Campos, D.A., de Souza, P.B., Viau, P., Bernardi, M.M., Nunes, M.T., de Oliveira, C.A., 2012. Glyphosate impairs male offspring reproductive development by disrupting gonadotropin expression. Arch. Toxicol. 86, 663–673.

    Now here are the studies that don’t show adverse effects of glyphoaste and just happen to be Biotech industry sponsored or linked directly to Biotech companies:
    - Brake, D.G., Evenson, D.P., 2004. A generational study of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans on mouse fetal, postnatal, pubertal and adult testicular development. Food Chem. Toxicol. 42, 29–36.
    - Chrenkova, M., Sommer, A., Ceresnakova, Z., Nitrayova, S., Prostredna, M., 2002. Nutritional evaluation of genetically modified maize corn performed on rats. Arch. Anim. Nutr. 56, 229–235.
    - Hammond, B., Dudek, R., Lemen, J., Nemeth, M., 2004. Results of a 13 week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn. Food Chem. Toxicol. 42, 1003–1014.
    - Healy, C., Hammond, B., Kirkpatrick, J., 2008. Results of a 13-week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn rootworm-protected, glyphoassate-tolerant MON 88017 corn. Food Chem. Toxicol. 46, 2517–2524.
    - Taylor, M.L., Hartnell, G.F., Riordan, S.G., Nemeth, M.A., 2003a. Comparison of broiler performance when fed diets containing grain from Roundup Ready (NK603) Roundup Ready (MON810 NK603), non-transgenic control, or commercial corn. Poultry Sci. 82, 443–453.
    - Taylor, M.L., Hartnell, G.F., Riordan, S.G., Nemeth, M.A., Karunanandaam, K., George, B., Astwood, J.D., 2003b. Comparison of broiler performance when fed diets containing grain from YieldGard (MON810), YieldGard Roundup Ready (GA21), nontransgenic control, or commercial corn. Poultry Sci. 82, 823–830.
    - Taylor, M.L., Stanisiewski, E.P., Riosdan, S.G., Nemeth, M.A., George, B., Hartnell, G.F., 2004. Comparison of broiler performance when fed diets containing Roundup Ready (Event RT73), nontransgenic control, or commercial Canola meal. Poultry Sci. 83, 456–461.
    - Teshima, R., Akiyama, H., Okunuki, H., Sakushima, J.-I., Goda, Y., Onodera, H., Sawada, J.-I., Toyoda, M., 2000. Effect of GM and non-GM soybeans on the immune system of BN rats and B10A mice. J. Food Hyg. Soc. Jpn. 41, 188–193.
    - Sidhu, R.S., Hammond, B.G., Fuchs, R.L., Mutz, J.-N., Holden, L.R., George, B., Olson, T., 2000. Gylphosate-tolerant corn: The composition and feeding value of grain from glyphosate-tolerant corn is equivalent to that of conventional corn (Zea mays L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 48, 2305–2312.
    - Williams, A.L., Watson, R.E., DeSesso, J.M., 2012. Development and reproductive outcomes in humans and animals after glyphosate exposure: a critical analysis. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 15, 39–96.
    - Zhu, Y., Li, D., Wang, F., Yin, J., Jin, H., 2004. Nutritional assessment and fate of DNA of soybean meal from roundup ready or conventional soybeans using rats. Arch. Anim. Nutr. 58, 295–310.
  • commented 2014-04-14 20:46:58 -0700
    It might be helpful if you read this again Chuck – it answers your and my question re real info:
    “One thing that surprised us is that US regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by the biotech crop developer, and those data are not published in journals or subjected to peer review… The picture that emerges from our study of US regulation of GM foods is a rubber-stamp ‘approval process’ designed to increase public confidence in, but not ensure the safety of, genetically engineered foods.”
    – David Schubert, professor and head, Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory, Salk Institute, commenting on a comprehensive peer-reviewed study of US government’s regulation of GMOs that he co-authored.
  • commented 2014-04-14 12:19:06 -0700
    We are waiting for the same Chuck!
    And that is where we have to use the ‘precautionary principle’. If only you would understand that better safe than sorry.
    There never will be 100% certainty.
    You start by assuming it is safe – I start by assuming such a huge distortion of nature could be unsafe.
  • commented 2014-04-14 09:25:04 -0700
    Dear Chuck, have you seen this?
    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 communications.
    “Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.”
    – US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)2
    “It is not foreseen that EFSA carry out such [safety] studies as the onus is on the [GM industry] applicant to demonstrate the safety of the GM product in question.”
    – European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)3

    “One thing that surprised us is that US regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by the biotech crop developer, and those data are not published in journals or subjected to peer review… The picture that emerges from our study of US regulation of GM foods is a rubber-stamp ‘approval process’ designed to increase public confidence in, but not ensure the safety of, genetically engineered foods.”
    – David Schubert, professor and head, Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory, Salk Institute, commenting on a comprehensive peer-reviewed study of US government’s regulation of GMOs that he co-authored.
  • @SuwanneeBelle tweeted link to this page. 2014-04-13 07:54:16 -0700
  • posted about this on Facebook 2014-04-13 07:54:16 -0700
    Glyphosate Testing Results
  • commented 2014-04-12 00:12:35 -0700
    Dear Chuck, I could ask the same question of you. Where is the one study that shows Glyphosate is safe, biodegradable and good for the environment – is completely cleared of the body during urination and doesn’t accumulate in humans as well as the natural world.
    You won’t find them. It is a silly question – no science in the world is 100% black or white. But there have been very good studies by very good researchers in the UK and France as well as Russia that have shown problems. But guys like you keep ignoring them. Where do we go from here?
    Common sense plays a awful big part. During the DDT era people like you were going around demonstrating that DDT was safe by eating it. Why don’t you try a wine glass full of glyphosate?
    It took a long time to rid ourselves of the overuse of DDT. There was much opposition – a rerun of today I fear.
  • commented 2014-04-12 00:02:01 -0700
    Wonderful work – this is really important for the world to know how deeply corrupt our regulation is on these issues. It takes a small group to reveal the truth. I congratulate you.
  • commented 2014-04-11 01:08:51 -0700
    James is obviously not following the science here – everything he says is Monsanto speak. All of this type of information has landed Monsanto in court in France where Monsanto had to admit that Roundup isn’t biodegradable and just a few weeks ago they were told to stop similar claims in S Africa. Also do some research into the shikimate pathway – Monsanto told us that this pathway to enable plants to acquire their essential aromatic amino acids (that Roundup disrupts causing the plant to die) didn’t effect humans because we don’t have one. What they didn’t say was everyone of our gut bacteria ( estimated to be 10x our cells in our body) contains a shikimate pathway! I don’t believe it is a coincidence that from the moment roundup started being used we have seen autism and other NCD’s rising in the US at alarming rates. Stick to video games James or if you want the information go to www.GMeduation.org. It has it all there as do many other websites.
  • commented 2014-04-09 13:37:13 -0700
    Everyone knows that Roundup/glyphosate spraying has greatly increased over the last few years. Only an idiot would not ask the question ‘is this good for us?’
    Alarmist this new information may be but dismissal is not an option whatever Chuck says. Now is the time to follow up this preliminary testing with greater numbers of people to make sure we are on the right track.
    I think we are but those that oppose want no further tests so will do all they can to discredit what you have bravely done. That’s the tragic game here…it’s not about truth but vested interests even if it is killing us and our loved ones.
  • commented 2014-04-09 13:37:12 -0700
    Everyone knows that Roundup/glyphosate spraying has greatly increased over the last few years. Only an idiot would not ask the question ‘is this good for us?’
    Alarmist this new information may be but dismissal is not an option whatever Chuck says. Now is the time to follow up this preliminary testing with greater numbers of people to make sure we are on the right track.
    I think we are but those that oppose want no further tests so will do all they can to discredit what you have bravely done. That’s the tragic game here…it’s not about truth but vested interests even if it is killing us and our loved ones.
  • commented 2014-04-09 13:27:15 -0700
    Wonderful work – this is really important for the world to know how deeply corrupt our regulation is on these issues. It takes a small group to reveal the truth. I congratulate you.
  • @SereneColour tweeted link to this page. 2014-04-08 23:50:41 -0700
  • posted about this on Facebook 2014-04-08 23:50:41 -0700
    Glyphosate Testing Results
  • signed up 2014-04-08 23:47:57 -0700
  • commented 2014-04-08 00:15:05 -0700
    Wonderful work – this is really important for the world to know how deeply corrupt our regulation is on these issues. It takes a small group to reveal the truth. I congratulate you.
  • commented 2014-04-07 09:57:53 -0700
    Do you have graphs, maps, to support this data?