What is Roundup ( Glyphosate) Doing to Our Families? : New Study

"Glyphosate Exposure in a Farmer’s Family"

Journal of Environmental Protection, 2012, 3, 1001-1003 doi:10.4236/jep.2012.39115 Published Online September 2012 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/jep) 1001

The following studies explain the health crisis in America. Really truly. This is it...all the searching for the cure is over. These studies show the cause. And as a mother, I am both outraged and relieved to finally know. Now we can do something about it. If there was ever a reason to eat organic and share information, this is it.

Glyphosate may not be a household word, but Roundup* is. You likely spray it on your weeds, or your neighbor does. Your children's school definitely does. Your city sprays it on your sidewalks and parks and the farmers who grow your food have been told it's the best thing since sliced bread to spray on the grounds surrounding almond trees, fruit trees, strawberries and almost every non-organic vegetable grown in America. Roundup is the most widely used pesticide in the world, 185 million pounds (1) are used in the USA alone each year and glyphosate is the active chemical ingredient.

Not only is it sprayed on the soil, the chemical is drawn into it root system and plant, it is also now being sprayed on the GMO plant in ever increasing doses and it is absorbed into every cell of the plant. It's called "Roundup Ready”. The problem is, that means it is in our food, potentially for 14 years plus, it cannot be washed off, and the food is not labeled.

Some of you may know this already...but what you may not know is that the impact of Glyphosate is equally as potentially harmful as Genetically Modified foods. In a peer reviewed published scientific study titled "Glyphosate Exposure in a Farmer's Family" published in the Journal of Environmental Protection. This has not been widely circulated in the USA however, Moms Across America just found out that glyphosate has been proven to harm humans more than anyone realized. 

The family in the study lived 1.5 miles away from their fields that were sprayed with Roundup. The father would spray the fields, come home and wash his hands thoroughly, but not take a shower. Apparently he hugged his children, because the levels of glyphosate found in their urine were far above what has shown to be toxic in animals. The glyphosate level in the  father's urine was 9.5 ppm and the children's was 2 ppm. It is scientifically documented that infertility is caused by glyphosate at .5 ppm and endocrine disruption (which causes birth defects) is caused by glyphosate at .2 ppm.

 The farmer and his wife had two children with birth defects including imperforated anus, growth hormone deficiency, hypospadias (which is when the urethra of the male penis's opening is not at the end but under, and along the side instead), heart defect and micro penis.

 

We also have a brand new scientific study which connects glyphosate and numerous diseases which have skyrocketed in our Western culture since the introduction of GMOs to our food supply . 

 "Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases" states that glyphosate residues have been found primarily in corn, sugar, soy and wheat. Good God, that is practically in everything all of us eat!

"Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. We explain the documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease, and we show that glyphosate is the “textbook example” of exogenous semiotic entropy: the disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins."

 This new 48 page published scientific study is extensive and complicated. I have to say as a mother I would much rather be playing play dough with my kids or even cleaning a crusty toilet than scouring through these scientific reports and trying to decipher sentences like "Elevated amounts of shikimate-derived benzoic acids such as protocatechuate and gallate are also found in plants exposed to glyphosate."

 So without further ado, I post these studies for you to make sense of. All I know is that glyphosate = harm to my family. So Stop It People! Stop spraying it on my food, stop spraying it on my school playground and stop spraying it in the city parks. And tell your city council, your representative, your congressmen/women. Share this report with them and demand that we stop using this chemical. If for no other reason than to err on the side of safety.  These are our families we are talking about.

You need someone to pull up weeds? They are called Boy Scouts who need community service projects. No harmful side effects from a Boy Scout.

 

Zen Honeycutt 

 

 Harm to Farmer’s Family Study page 1

 Harm to Farmer’s Family Study page 2

 Harm to Farmer’s Family Study page 3

 

Glyphosate/Modern Diseases Study page 1

Findings of Glyphosate/Modern Diseases Study page 29

Conclusion of Glyphosate/Modern Diseases Study page 30

For the full report ( which is 48 pages long and too big of a file for my site) go to www.mdpi.com/journal/entropy

(1)http://www.beyondpesticides.org/pesticides/factsheets/Glyphosate.pdf from the latest 2007 report)

* Roundup is a registered trademark of Monsanto


Showing 24 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • commented 2014-03-23 08:23:31 -0700
    Have you considered having an actual scientist review your article? You got the glyphosate number off by 1000-fold!!! This should be 9 parts per BILLION. This level very similar to a survey of over 100 people on U.S. farms using glyphosate, and remarkably similar to the maximum levels found in the urine of 180 random people in 18 European countries. We are talking about levels 1000-fold lower than the strict EU standard for safe levels of glyphosate exposure.

    Please stop this kind of scare-mongering, unless you have some actual data to support it.
  • commented 2013-06-12 23:21:08 -0700
    I’m all for GMO labeling, but there is no “textbook example” of “exogenous semiotic entropy”, the term was made up out of thin air in the report. It’s complete hogwash.
  • commented 2013-05-03 07:44:55 -0700
    Since I am a mother, this is all raising too many questions for me, and I will just err on the side of caution and buy food without pesticides for my family- no matter how much industry people say they are safe. Here’s the fact: I don’t believe you. You eat them. We won’t- because I love my kids.
  • commented 2013-04-25 13:39:41 -0700
    peer reviewed and published. Bt toxin in pregnant women and fetuses. The big chemical ag companies say it cannot survive in our bodies. False. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670
  • commented 2013-04-25 13:33:05 -0700
    Antibiotic use on blossoms was NOT RENEWED- so it will be DISCONTINUED in 2014. Not a good idea, I agree!

    When the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s national organic labeling standards went into effect in 2002, the two antibiotics were listed as synthetic materials approved for use in organic apple and pear production. Items on that list are revisited on a periodic basis. The notion behind the exemption for these two fruit crops was that, in between reviews, growers would devise effective non-antibiotic-based methods for controlling fire blight.

    But the antibiotic exemption is set to expire in October 2014. This week, the National Organic Standards Board is meeting in Portland, Ore., to decide on a petition from organic growers to extend that exemption. Consumers Union, the policy arm of Consumer Reports, is among the groups who say the answer should be a resounding no.
  • commented 2013-04-25 13:21:35 -0700
    I know I am weird, but I prefer my corn without Roundup, OR lab produced Bt toxin.
    Here is the study of Bt toxin in pregnant women and fetuses. Nice.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670
  • commented 2013-04-25 13:21:28 -0700
    Again, why only GMOs? Why not label it ALL!
  • commented 2013-04-25 13:04:31 -0700
    Just label it. We have that right. Here is the list of countries who are AHEAD of us on this issue. (Some are embarrassing.) Really, Russians and Chinese have more rights than we do? Really?

    1998: Europe

    European Union countries beoame the first to embrace labeling for genetically modified food. Companies must label all other food products and animal feed made with more than .9% of ingredients derived by genetically modified processes (including additives and flavorings). Current laws don’t cover genetically modified animals used as food (not yet on the market in Europe), though the European Food Safety Authority is currently working on proposed future guidelines.

    2001: Japan, Australia, New Zealand

    Australia and New Zealand’s laws target a slightly higher threshold than Europe and Russia (1%), while Japan’s laws allow a much higher GM threshold of 5%. Also, Japan’s laws aren’t comprehensive, but rather target a legally specified list of food items and ingredients known to sometimes contain GM content. New introductions would need to be added to the list.

    2002: China, Saudi Arabia, South Korea

    Initially, China’s labeling law resembled Japan’s, requiring labeling of only certain known categories of genetically modified products derived from corn, cotton, rapeseed, soybeans, and tomatoes. In 2007, this law was expanded to stipulate that all GM foods must be labeled (no minimum threshold stipulated). Saudi Arabia, which relies heavily on food imports, follows the 1% threshold, maintains a legally specified list of food items, and exempts restaurants from labeling. South Korea adopted a 3% threshold, and only for products containing GM soybean, corn or soybean sprout.

    2003: Thailand, Indonesia

    Thailand’s labeling law requires that a food product that lists a GM ingredient as one of the top three ingredients must be labeled, and then only if the GM content accounts for more than 5% of the total product by weight. Indonesia’s labeling law also follows the 5% rule, without the “top-three” stipulation. Animal feed is exempted in both countries.

    2004: Brazil, Venezuela

    All human and animal feed containing more than 1% GM ingredients must be labeled.

    2005: Taiwan

    After a three-part phase-in, Taiwan institutes a 5% threshold labeling law for products containing soy or corn.

    2006: Russia, India, Chile

    Russia’s laws on GM food mirror those of the European Union, including the .9% threshold for food products, but make an exemption in allowing GM animal feed to be sold without a label. One of the most stringent proposals for GM labeling in existence, India’s “draft rule” published in 2006 would require labeling for all “primary or processed food, food ingredients, or food additives.” Six years later, controversy around this language still prevents the draft rule from being codified into law.

    2011: South Africa

    South Africa introduces labeling for all GM products, using the 5% threshold.
  • commented 2013-04-25 12:29:59 -0700
    You should also check the content of the labeling laws in other countries. Many do not require the labeling of process foods that contain ingredients derived from genetically modified commodities. They recognize that the gm trait exists in the plant and not the resulting grain or in the ingredients derived from the grain – and that they, therefore, do not exist in processed foods.
  • commented 2013-04-25 12:26:51 -0700
    Why push to only label gmos? Why settle for less than what is necessary for consumers to make educated choices? Only the labeling of all – gmo, non-gmo and organic – as well as the labeling of chemical use and the use of substances that elevate the risk of E.coli and salmonella provides the information necessary to make those choices. It is not just gmo that uses this chemical – much more of it is used in non-gmo production. Check also the toxicity of the natural chemicals used in organic production. Focusing on just this one chemical or just on Monsanto is like putting a bandaid on a broken leg!

    Also, no response was made to my post indicating that two pages of the report on the farm family are the same. An initial reading of it does not indicate any information on the control group or other factors in their genetics or other environmental factors that may have contributed to their illnesses and/or birth defects.
  • commented 2013-04-25 12:13:21 -0700
    61 other countries around the world have this right- the right to know if their food has been genetically modified and raised with special pesticides and bacteria- and it costs nothing to change the labels. We want labels, plain and simple.
  • commented 2013-04-25 12:03:47 -0700
    I can and do say no one is paying me anything. I love children. My children’s food allergies and autoimmune issues have been greatly reduced since going off of GMOs. I will tell EVERY MOTHER that this is so. No mother would defend NOT KNOWING what is in her family’s food. No one. I want to know what is in our food supply. Last I checked, it is still a free country. Label GMOs :)
  • commented 2013-04-25 10:57:49 -0700
    Kathleen Hallal – It is sad that you view anyone who has an opposing opinion to be a troll. I am not paid by anyone to post and your comment makes me wonder if you can say the same!
  • commented 2013-04-25 10:54:49 -0700
    You should all be researching more credible and unbiased sources for your information!
  • commented 2013-04-25 10:01:42 -0700
    Naturally occurring Bt toxin has a very short half-life. Not so with that kind produced in the lab. GM Bt toxin DOES survive in our bodies. Look at this: http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/50-2011/13047-bt-toxin-found-in-blood-of-pregnant-women-and-fetuses
  • commented 2013-04-25 10:00:17 -0700
    Roundup is what they spray on your food. They are dumping thousands of gallons of the stuff on our farmlands. Google it. More every year. Record profits for the poison companies as the weeds are becoming more and more resistant. Roundup (glyphosate plus other nasties) kills everything BUT that genetically altered plant. Do you really want to feed that food to your kids? Glyphosate harms life. Period. GMO foods contain herbicides and pesticides. End of story. Do you believe that they are good for your kids? I don’t. I will take organic every time.
  • commented 2013-04-25 09:53:56 -0700
    Deb Herring and Madeline Cox are trolls, probably paid per message.
    Listen to the industry, or listen to moms who have seen their children’s health improve with the removal of GMOs from their diet. Who has YOUR best interest at heart?
  • followed this page 2013-04-25 01:13:13 -0700
  • commented 2013-04-25 01:09:38 -0700
    As far as your rock-solid proof goes, notice the use of the words “could be” in “were born with birth defects that could be due to or promoted by pesticides.” Yeah, this study basically says it could be glycophosphate but they don’t really know. And study group was a bit small AND we also aren’t told what else they might have been exposed to. And there is no control group. This isn’t so much of a study as it is an anecdote. You might want to ask yourself why the study was published in an open access journal where anyone can pretty much pay to have their papers published as long as it’s in the proper format and not in a recognized, reputable scientific journal.

    Here’s another study. “As part of the Farm Family Exposure Study, we evaluated urinary glyphosate concentrations for 48 farmers, their spouses, and their 79 children (4-18 years of age).” Much larger sample there. And the finding were that “None of the systemic doses estimated in this study approached the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reference dose for glyphosate of 2 mg/kg/day.”

    Summary of another study:
    “The pharmacokinetics of glyphosate and AMPA have been thoroughly evaluated in several studies. Both of these materials have phosphonic acid moieties with low pKas and therefore exist as charged molecules at the physiologic pHs found in the intestinal lumen. Only 15 to 36% of orally administered material given repeatedly, or as a single dose, was absorbed, thereby demonstrating that glyphosate and AMPA are poorly absorbed despite the prevailing acidic conditions. As expected for substances that are not well absorbed from the alimentary tract, the feces was the major route of elimination. The relatively small amounts of absorbed glyphosate and AMPA were rapidly excreted in urine almost exclusively as unchanged parent material. This was confirmed by the determination that levels of glyphosate and AMPA in peripheral tissues were low. Results from the multiple dose studies demonstrated that repeated oral dosing had no significant effect on elimination (compared to a single dose) and that glyphosate does not bioaccumulate. The dermal studies using glyphosate show low rates (less than 2%) of penetration with rhesus monkeys in vivo and human skin in vitro. Therefore, it is concluded that the potential for systemic exposure is limited by the combination of poor absorption and rapid excretion of glyphosate or AMPA after oral and/or dermal contact.”
    “Results from several studies have established that glyphosate is not a reproductive or developmental toxicant. Glyphosate was evaluated in two multigeneration rat reproduction studies and in developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits. There were no effects on fertility or reproductive parameters, and glyphosate did not produce birth defects. Based on
    the lack of reproductive toxicity in two multigenerational studies conducted over a very wide range of dosages (;3 to 2132 mg/kg body wt/day), there is no
    evidence of low-dose effects. The NOAELs for developmental toxicity are equal to or greater than the NOAELs for maternal effects, and the NOAEL for reproductive toxicity is greater than that for systemic toxicity. Therefore, there is no unique sensitivity from
    prenatal exposure (U.S. EPA, 1997a, 1998a). Apparent changes in sperm concentrations and estrous cycle length were reported in the NTP (1992) subchronic rat study at dosages of 1684 mg/kg body wt/day (sperm only) and 3393 mg/kg body wt/day (sperm and estrous cycle). Since these changes are not related to dosage, their magnitude falls well within the normal historical control range, and no such changes were observed in mice even at higher dosages, these findings are suspect and therefore difficult to assess. The reported findings in rats are considered biologically irrelevant because the dosages at which changes were reported are several orders of magnitude higher than any possible human exposure (see “Human Exposure”). ”http://www.ask-force.org/web/HerbizideTol/Williams-Safety-Evaluation-Risk-Assessment-RR-2000.pdf">http://www.ask-force.org/web/HerbizideTol/Williams-Safety-Evaluation-Risk-Assessment-RR-2000.pdf

    OH but this actual study won’t count because it’s not telling you what you want to hear, right?
  • commented 2013-04-25 00:37:04 -0700
    Since you blocked me from responding on your Facebook page, I’m going to do it here.
    Seems to me if you were so confident in your positions, you wouldn’t feel the need to suppress dissent. But you have repeatedly censored people who question your claims.

    Glycophosphate has a patent as an ANTHELMINTIC, not as an antibiotic. There is a difference. Having a patent doesn’t mean much as I’ve explained before. It doesn’t mean the product has been tested or will be tested for that use. It doesn’t even mean that the product will be useful for the purpose it’s patented for. Want proof? Google ‘weird patents’ and you’ll find wonders such as ‘the rotating ice cream cone’ and ‘the gerbil vest’. A patent doesn’t mean squat.

    That being said, I suppose your concern comes from the thought of using a chemical that kills plants or insects in humans. You ever heard of streptomycin or tetracycline? Antibiotics. Well surprise! They are also used in agriculture. They’re approved for use in organic agriculture actually. They are used as a pesticide to treat fire blight. So your concern that an agricultural pesticide being used as an antibiotic is really baseless. All pesticides, organic or synthetic, are toxic. They kill things. That’s how they work. The important question is “Toxic to what?” And glycophosphate is not toxic to birds or mammals and it’s practically non-toxic to fish and amphibians. Heard of pyrethrins? They are insecticides approved for use in organic production. Guess what they are really really toxic to? Honeybees. Yep. Listed as a PAN bad actor. Look it up. It’s also a carcinogen. Another lovely pesticide used in organic production is rotenone. It has been positively linked with Parkinson’s disease and is highly toxic to fish, amphibians, and crustaceans. Want more bad news about “organic” pesticides? Spinosad. It has “induced structural chromosomal aberrations in rat bone marrow cells” and “treatment with malathion or spinosad caused significant decrease in the serum testosterone concentration and histopathological lesions to testes in a dose-depended manner.” Nice huh? More? Bordeaux mixtures(mixtures of copper sulfide and slaked lime) are used on organic farms as a fungicide and have been found to be harmful to fish, livestock and—due to potential build up of copper in the soil—earthworms. Chlorine dioxide is used in organic production. Nasty stuff too. Check out the CDC for information on that. Sodium nitrate is allowed in organic production. Since your an organic foodie, you probably know that sodium nitrate has been identified as a carcinogen. And if THAT weren’t enough, those nasty chemicals used in conventional farming that you’re afraid of are indeed sometimes used in organic production. “Organophosphate and carbamates are prohibited except for very exceptional circumstances. ‘Natural’ pest control materials such as pyrethrum are allowed under restricted use.” www.ifst.org/document.aspx?id=386

    The point is that your “clean” organic food isn’t as clean as you think it is. “Natural” or “Organic” do not necessarily equal safer or less toxic. Many of the so-called organic pesticides and fungicides are orders of magnitude more toxic than those that have been developed through scientific and technological advancement. If science can make us a agricultural product that is more effective but less toxic to humans and the environment, why would you be opposed to that? I thought you cared about the planet and your health? Glycophosphate is not toxic to people because it acts on a pathway that mammals don’t have. Oh! I almost forgot. You know what else is used in organic production? Bacillus thuringiensis is used as an organic, biologic pesticide. And that means organic food eaters are exposed to the exact same Bt toxin that you freak out over in Bt corn. But it has that magic “organic” designation in it’s free, powder form so I guess that means it’s safe when used that way.

    So I’ll leave you with a break down of the toxicity of widely used “organic” agricultural products and a rebuttal of the claim for superiority for organic produce from someone who is actually well-informed about things like chemistry and biology. You really need to quit with the moral superiority you think you have. Your ignorance is actually leading you to advocate for methods that would put greater amounts of higher toxicity substances into the environment and our food.
    http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/safety/healthcare/handbook/Chap07.pdf
    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/08/15/organic_myths_revisited/
  • commented 2013-04-22 11:54:57 -0700
    Harm to Farmer’s Family links to pages 2 and 3 are the same page.
  • commented 2013-04-18 12:05:04 -0700
    I just want to scream !!!
  • commented 2013-04-18 09:36:44 -0700
    This is an OUTRAGE. We cannot have this pesticide around our children and in their food ANY MORE. We finally have proof. No doubt the corporate-sponsored scientists will come and bash this study, too, but we have to argue that we must trust the independent scientists. We need labels so that we can at least avoid these toxins in our food. Why should they be hidden?
  • followed this page 2013-04-18 06:25:54 -0700