Glyphosate Testing Full Report: Findings in American Mothers’ Breast Milk, Urine and Water.
Conducted by Mamás en toda América 
y Pulso sostenible
abril 7, 2014
Zen Honeycutt, Moms Across America | Henry Rowlands, Sustainable Pulse
Supporter: Lori Grace, Environmental Arts & Research
Contents:
- Presione soltar
- What is Glyphosate?
- Quotes from Scientists on Testing
- Quotes from Mothers on Testing
- Similar Testing on Urine in Europe
- Independent Science on Glyphosate
- Testing Method
- Testing Results – Tables / Maps
- Contacts
- References
(1) World’s Number 1 Herbicide Discovered in U.S. Mothers’ Breast Milk
Urine Testing also Shows Levels over 10 Times Higher than in Europe
Water Testing shows 70% of American household's drinking water positive for above detectable levels
In the first ever testing on glyphosate herbicide in the breast milk of American women, Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse have found ‘high’ levels in 3 out of the 10 samples tested. The shocking results point to glyphosate levels building up in women’s bodies over a period of time, which has until now been refuted by both global regulatory authorities and the biotech industry.
The levels found in the breast milk testing of 76 ug/l to 166 ug/l are 760 to 1600 times higher than the European Drinking Water Directive allows for individual pesticides (Glyphosate is both a pesticide and herbicide). They are however less than the 700 ug/l maximum contaminant level (MCL) for glyphosate in the U.S., which was decided upon by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) based on the now seemingly false premise that glyphosate was not bio-accumulative.
Glyphosate-containing herbicides are the top-selling herbicides in the world and are sold under trademarks such as Monsanto’s ‘Roundup’. Monsanto’s sales of Roundup jumped 73 percent to $371 million in 2013 because of its increasing use on genetically engineered crops (GE Crops).
The glyphosate testing commissioned by Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse, with support from Environmental Arts & Research, also analyzed 35 urine samples and 21 drinking water samples from across the US and found levels in urine that were over 10 times higher than those found in a similar survey done in the EU by Friends of the Earth Europe in 2013.
The initial testing that has been completed at Microbe Inotech Labs, St. Louis, Missouri, is not meant to be a full scientific study. Instead it was set up to inspire and initiate full peer-reviewed scientific studies on glyphosate, by regulatory bodies and independent scientists worldwide.
The initial testing was done using ELISA tests and due to a high minimum detection level in breast milk and urine, it is possible that even those samples which tested negative contained ‘worrying’ levels of glyphosate.
Moms Across America Founder and Director, Zen Honeycutt, stated Monday, “When I was told by several doctors and labs that I could not test my own or my children's urine for the most widely used herbicide in the world over a year ago, I became determined to find a way. Parents and citizens deserve the ability to be able to take care of themselves and their families by finding out if herbicides could be impacting their health. The purpose of this glyphosate testing project is to shed light upon the presence of glyphosate in our water, children's bodies and mother's breast milk, hopefully inspiring further scientific studies to support the world in being a healthy, safe place to live.
“It is important to note that the mothers and supporters who participated in this project are mostly familiar with GMOs and glyphosate. The majority of them have been trying to avoid GMOs and glyphosate for several months to two years, so the findings are alarming. We can only wonder what the levels of glyphosate are in those who are not aware of GMOs and glyphosate,” Honeycutt added.
High Glyphosate Levels – Danger for Infants?
There is currently no regulatory limit for the amount of glyphosate in breast milk anywhere in the world. However, the EPA has set a legally enforceable maximum contaminant level (MCL) for glyphosate of 700 ug/l in drinking water, which is 7,000 times higher than the MCL in Europe.
Monsanto and regulatory bodies worldwide have based all of their regulations on the assumption that glyphosate is not bio-accumulative. Senior Monsanto scientist, Dan Goldstein, even recently stated (1) , “If ingested, glyphosate is excreted rapidly, does not accumulate in body fat or tissues, and does not undergo metabolism in humans. Rather, it is excreted unchanged in the urine.”
The discovery of levels of glyphosate in breast milk that are much higher than any reported results for urine samples is a source of concern to both the general public and government regulators worldwide, as the data suggests that glyphosate is bio-accumulative; building up in people’s bodies over a period of time.
Earth Open Source Research Director Claire Robinson said, “Regulators and industry always say it is the dose that makes the poison, and even the increasing levels of glyphosate currently found in food and feed and the environment are not a problem. However, that argument only holds true if glyphosate doesn't build up in the human body and is excreted as fast as we take it in. These breast milk results suggest glyphosate may bio-accumulate. That means that our body tissues might be exposed to higher levels than the so-called safe levels set by regulators. So the regulations are not protecting us."
From a total of 10 samples sent in by mothers from states across the U.S., 3 women had detectable levels of glyphosate in their breast milk. The highest glyphosate level was detected in a mother from Florida (166 ug/l) and the other two mothers with ‘positive’ results were from Virginia (76 ug/l) and Oregon (99 ug/l).
Dr Angelika Hilbeck, senior scientist at the Institute of Integrative Biology in Zurich, stated,
“If confirmed in a full investigation, it seems that glyphosate has become a ubiquitous chemical in terms of presence and persistence. This data also offers a first indication of potential accumulation in the human body, giving newborns a substantial dose of synthetic chemicals as a ‘gift' for their start into life, with unknown consequences. This is reckless and irresponsible conduct in a democratic society, which still has a living memory of previous reckless chemical contaminations, such as DDT. It seems we either did not learn, or we have forgotten, our lessons from Rachel Carson!”(2)
Honeycutt added, “Moms Across America feels very strongly that breast milk should still be the number one choice for mothers and certainly preferred over GMO soy formula ingredients. We just urge all mothers to eat as organic as possible, especially avoiding meat, dairy, oils and grains that are sprayed with glyphosate at harvest as a drying agent.”
“What we have found encouraging is that the women who have been eating organic and non-GMO food only, for several months to two years, did not find detectable levels of glyphosate in their breast milk.”
Why Are Glyphosate Levels in Urine Higher than in Europe?
In 2013 people in 18 countries across Europe were found to have traces of glyphosate in their urine by a test commissioned by Friends of The Earth Europe (3). The maximum levels of glyphosate found in the tests ranged from 0.16 ug/l in Switzerland to 1.82 ug/l in Latvia.
Shockingly, the new US testing by Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse, with support from Environmental Arts & Research, found maximum glyphosate levels in urine over 8 times higher than those found in Europe.
From the 35 samples received from across the U.S., 13 samples were above the minimum detectable level. The three highest levels were all found in women, with the highest in Oregon (18.8 ug/l). Other positive results were found in samples from the states of California, Washington, Maryland, Colorado and Hawaii.
Experts point to the GE Crop industry as being to blame for the results in both breast milk and urine, due to the amount of glyphosate used on ‘Roundup-Ready GE Crops’ in the U.S.
The U.S. has a high percentage of its farmland controlled by the GE crops industry, with many varieties of GE soybeans, GE corn, GE cotton and others, whereas Europe has only allowed one GE Crop – Monsanto’s MON810 maize – which is still not grown in most EU states due to health and environmental concerns.
A 2012 study published by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook (4) found that the use of glyphosate in the production of three genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops - cotton, soybeans and corn - has increased. Benbrook’s analysis was the first peer-reviewed, published estimate of the impacts of genetically engineered (GE) herbicide-resistant (HT) crops on pesticide use.
Benbrook’s response to the findings: "Most genetically engineered soybeans now moving through trade channels worldwide contain 2 ppm to over 10 ppm of glyphosate plus its major metabolite, AMPA. These are extraordinarily high residues that raise concerns, given that many people are exposed to glyphosate through drinking water, the air, and a variety of foods. I am particularly worried by exposures during pregnancy and through the first years of a child's life, when the risk of harm to developing organ systems is greatest. More research is urgently needed on glyphosate's capacity to disrupt normal development,” Benbrook stated.
Glyphosate in U.S. Drinking Water
In this initial testing phase 21 samples of drinking water were tested for glyphosate from across the Unites States individually by Moms Across America supporters.
13 of the samples contained glyphosate levels of between 0.085 ug/l and 0.33 ug/l. This is well below the levels found in both urine and breast milk but is still cause for concern, as the European (EU) maximum allowed level for glyphosate in drinking water is 0.1 ug/l.
Regulatory Bodies Urged to Act – Further Testing Needed
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) and other regulatory bodies around the world are being urged to act following the release of this initial testing data, to prevent what is a dangerous public health situation.
Sustainable Pulse Director Henry Rowlands stated, “Regulatory bodies and governments worldwide need to act fast to ban all glyphosate-based herbicides as a temporary measure, while further long-term testing is completed by both them and independent scientists. This is the only way that they can regain the trust and protect the health of mothers, infants and the general public as a whole.”
“It was a huge mistake by both the U.S. government and the biotech industry to promote and release products without long-term independent studies. What we are now looking at with glyphosate-based herbicides is a similar situation to what we all faced in the 20th Century with PCBs, DDT and Agent Orange,” Rowlands concluded.
Due to the testing results and skyrocketing health issues, as a matter of precaution, Moms Across America calls for a cease and desist of the practice of spraying glyphosate on GE foods and as a drying agent on food crops, increasing the consumption of glyphosate in our food, including but not limited to, wheat, corn, soy, sugar, rice, dry peas and beans and tea. The EPA lists over 160 foods with allowable levels of glyphosate that are unacceptable to mothers.
Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse are also calling for:
- Adequate long-term independent testing to ensure that glyphosate herbicide formulations as sold and used are not persistent, bio-accumulative or toxic. This testing must include the outcomes most relevant to children’s health.
- The U.S. Congress should supply funding for urgently needed long-term independent research on glyphosate herbicide formulations, including their health effects, how they get into the human body, and current levels of accumulation in people, animals and the environment. Studies performed for regulatory authorization up until now have only tested the isolated ingredient glyphosate, not the complete formulations as sold and used, even though the formulations have been found in many studies to be much more toxic than the isolated ingredient. Also these studies are funded by the agrochemical industry, i.e. they are not independent. Finally, they are kept secret under commercial confidentiality rules, so cannot be scrutinized by independent scientists and the public.
PCB Similarities
This case of finding high levels of glyphosate in breast milk is a re-run of the Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) scandal (5) in the 1970s, which ended up in the toxic chemical compound’s production being banned by the U.S. Congress in 1979.
Before the ban Monsanto, the only North American producer, had marketed PCBs under the trade name Aroclor from 1930 to 1977 and had insisted that it was not toxic.
It was not until levels of PCBs in breast milk were found to be 10 times those in blood, obtained from residents in the Osaka Prefecture of Japan (6), that the toxicity of PCBs was questioned by regulators, leading to the 1979 ban.
According to the EPA, PCBs, which were widely used for over 40 years as dielectric and coolant fluids, have now been shown to cause cancer in humans.
Is it not time that regulators learned lessons from past mistakes?
(2) What is Glyphosate?
Glyphosate is the presumed active ingredient of Roundup and other commercial glyphosate herbicide formulations. Glyphosate was developed by John E. Franz of Monsanto Company. It was first used in 1972 as a non-selective, water-soluble herbicide with a specific mechanism of action: the directed interruption of plant development through metabolic poisoning. The chemical is a specific inhibitor of the plant enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS), which does not exist in mammals, including humans. Based on this known mechanism of toxicity, the herbicide has been claimed to have low toxicity for mammalian species. However, glyphosate and its formulations have other mechanisms of toxicity.
Monsanto’s US patent for Roundup expired in 2000 and it ceased production in 2007. Other glyphosate herbicides manufactured by Monsanto, such as PROMAX and WeatherMAX, are in current use. Moreover, numerous generic glyphosate formulations (e.g. Clearout 41) are now produced by at least 100 manufacturers worldwide.
Glyphosate is:
#1: A Patented Antibiótico – 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.
Riesgos de salud
Laboratory and epidemiological studies confirm that Roundup and glyphosate pose serious health and environmental hazards, including possible endocrine (hormone) disruption, cell death, DNA damage, cancer, birth defects, and neurological disorders.
Some of these toxic effects are observed at low, realistic doses that could be found as residues in food and feed crops and in drinking water.
People are exposed to glyphosate though contaminated food, water and air, often as a result of the herbicides application to fields. This is not only the case in rural areas, where ‘Roundup Ready’ GM crops are grown on a large scale. Glyphosate-based herbicides are widely used by municipal authorities on roadsides, pavements, and in public parks and school grounds. It is also widely used by home gardeners.
Roundup and glyphosate and their residues have been detected in previous testing in air, rain, groundwater and even circulating in women’s blood.
Not Enough Safety Tests
Roundup and other glyphosate herbicide formulations as sold and used have been found in studies to be more toxic than the isolated ingredient, glyphosate. However, only glyphosate alone is tested in long-term safety tests for regulatory authorizations. This is a fundamental problem affecting all pesticide authorizations.
The ‘safe’ dose for Roundup exposure set by regulators is not based on up-to-date objective evidence. So, current regulations do not protect the public.
The chemicals used in the GM model of farming are toxic, and the model of farming itself is unsustainable and damaging to the environment – with an increase in herbicides significantly increasing pollution and health risks for citizens, and contributing to biodiversity loss. The only people who stand to gain from this model are those that produce the herbicide-resistant crop the chemicals required to grow them.
The chemicals used in the GM model of farming are toxic, and the model of farming itself is unsustainable and damaging to the environment – with an increase in herbicides significantly increasing pollution and health risks for citizens, and contributing to biodiversity loss. The only people who stand to gain from this model are those that produce the herbicide-resistant crops and the chemicals required to grow them.
(3) Quotes from Scientists on Testing
Jack Heinemann, Professor of genetics and molecular biology in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
“We have an inadequate knowledge of the effects of real life exposures to the many potentially and actually toxic chemicals that are part of daily modern life. This snapshot of just one pervasive chemical, glyphosate, in the fluids of human bodies is therefore important and timely. No single study of this type or scale is enough to determine if this chemical alone or in combination with the many other “approved as safe if exposed below certain amounts” cause harm. But that this study was initiated by a grassroots campaign rather than government or funded by the industries that profit from mass release of these compounds, says to me how neglected this area of public good research is.
“Glyphosate was measured in parts per billion in urine and breast milk. Are these levels too low to cause harm in people after a lifetime of constant low level exposure? Possibly, but possibly not.
“What does this mean for women who choose to breastfeed? In my opinion, the many good things that breastfeeding does for babies far outweighs the risk of the low level exposures to this pesticide. But it is also my opinion that, until such low level exposures to nursing babies can be determined to be safe there should be an obligation placed on the pesticide industry and the relevant government agencies to reduce exposures that are sufficient to cause accumulation of the pesticide in breast milk.
“Urban lawns and roadsides as well as the farm in America and many other places have become addicted to these agrochemicals. There is far too little emphasis on providing services to agriculture that reduce this dependency and too much emphasis on innovation dependent upon it. Let’s wean the farmer from these chemicals rather than our babies from their milk.”- Heinemann
Anthony Samsel, a former private environmental U.S. government contractor as well as a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists
“Everyone eating the western diet of food grown, sprayed and desiccated with Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide can expect to find its active ingredient glyphosate in their body. Glyphosate chelates chemical elements important to our existence, disrupts vitamin synthesis and detoxification enzymes like glutathione and CYP 450 enzymes, as well as many essential amino acids. Glyphosate is an antibiotic, capable of killing hundreds of species of bacteria which are directly responsible for our immune function and overall health. It is a chronic toxin, a chemical weapon like no other, which is capable of killing organisms both directly and indirectly. Monsanto’s Roundup-glyphosate based herbicide may in fact be, the most disruptive chemical to our biology and our environment.
“The glyphosate in humans data recently collected from volunteers across the USA serves as a snapshot of the general population... Breast milk samples contained levels from 76 to 166 ug/L, levels that can cause harm. The thought of babies receiving glyphosate through their mother’s milk is particularly troubling as it demonstrates that there is no escape from this antibiotic chemical.
“If the HPLC method was used (High Pressure Liquid Chromatography), it would have yielded an increased statistical result, as this method has a lower range of detection. However, there is a higher cost associated with the method which would have made it prohibitive for many participants. The result of my own urine test in this group was below the detection level, as were over 50% of the participants. Dietary exposure is an obvious function in this regard. Not all glyphosate ingested is passed in the urine and feces, a small portion is metabolized to AMPA another toxin. The remainder of the glyphosate continues to circulate in the blood and cerebral fluid where it travels to the cells and causes cumulative, chronic damage. It is deposited in the body's tissues which include but are not limited to the liver, kidneys, pancreas, heart and other muscles.
“We have got to get glyphosate out of the food supply. Our health and the health of those we love may be in grave danger from exposure to this chemical. It is urgent that people know and time is of the essence. Every moment lost will be a new health casualty.”- Samsel
(4) Quotes from Mothers on Testing
Jessica M. from Virginia:
"It is frightening to see any glyphosate in my body, especially in my breast milk that will then contaminate my son's growing body. It's particularly upsetting to test positive for glyphosate because I go to great lengths to eat organic and GMO free. I do not consume any meats or seafood and only very rarely eat dairy. This really shows me, and should show others, just how pervasive this toxin is in our food system."
Rachel T. from Illinois:
“I tested negative. I am relieved to know that the time, money, and effort we have spent to source good quality, organic, GMO-free food over the past several years has paid off. This should offer hope and encouragement to many families; that what we eat truly does affect us. I hope that someday in the future the knowledge of how to source these foods becomes more main stream so that others can benefit and heal their bodies from the countless health problems caused by GMO laden foods.”
Most recent map of glyphosate use in America with Breast Milk results. Red-Negative, Green Positive.
Moms Across America discovered that the quantity of local glyphosate spraying at farms does NOT correlate to positive or negative glyphosate detectable levels in mothers, suggesting the glyphosate is coming from another source, such as national brands of food, which are not connected to local environmental conditions. Manufacturers must be responsible and conduct further testing.
(5) Similar testing on Urine in Europe
Two full-scale glyphosate testing projects have been carried out in Europe over the last year on urine in humans.
The first was organized by Friends of the Earth Europe and the second was led by Dr. Monika Krüger of the University of Leipzig in Germany.
When looking at the data from both of these tests please keep in mind that the U.S glyphosate testing has already detected glyphosate levels in urine of between 8.1 ug/l and 18.8 ug/l with a much smaller survey.
Determination of Glyphosate residues in human urine samples from 18 European countries: (Medical Laboratory Bremen commissioned by Friends of the Earth Europe)
http://www.gmoevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/glyphosate_studyresults_june12.pdf
In this study, 182 urine samples received from 18 European countries were analyzed for glyphosate and AMPA residues using a new GC-MSMS method. With a LOQ of 0.15 ug/l, on average 44 % and 36 % of the urine samples analyzed were found to contain quantifiable levels of glyphosate and AMPA, respectively. However the frequency of detection calculated for each individual EU-state ranged from 10% to 90%. The highest glyphosate concentration was 1.8 ug/L (Latvia), the highest AMPA concentration was 2.6 ug/L (Croatia). All in all 12 (6.6%) participants of the study significantly exceeded the tentative reference value of 0.8 ug/L for glyphosate.
Detection of Glyphosate Residues in Animals and Humans: Dr. Monika Krüger
In this study glyphosate residues were tested in urine and different organs of dairy cows as well as in urine of hares, rabbits and humans using ELISA and Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectroscopy (GC-MS). Cows kept in genetically modified free area had significantly lower glyphosate concentrations in urine than conventional husbandry cows. Also glyphosate was detected in different organs of slaughtered cows as intestine, liver, muscles, spleen and kidney. Fattening rabbits showed significantly higher glyphosate residues in urine than hares.
Glyphosate was significantly higher in the urine of humans who didn’t eat organic food. Furthermore, chronically ill humans showed significantly higher glyphosate residues in urine than in the healthy population.
The glyphosate levels detected Kruger’s study were all under 2 ug/l in human urine.
(6) Independent Science on Glyphosate
There have been a large number of independent studies carried out on glyphosate and Roundup which show why the public and media should be concerned over the possible harm that the herbicide is causing.
Below is a small selection of these studies. For a wider selection please visit here: http://www.gmoevidence.com/location/roundup-evidence/
2014: Glyphosate, Hard Water and Nephrotoxic Metals: Are They the Culprits Behind the Epidemic of Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown Etiology in Sri Lanka?: Dr. Jayasumana (Sri Lanka)
The Sri Lankan President has put a ban on all glyphosate-based pesticides following this study.
The study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health links glyphosate (Roundup) to a series of mysterious epidemics of fatal chronic kidney disease of unknown origin (CKDu) affecting several poor farming regions around the world. The current death toll from CKDu is 20 000 and the number of those with the disease number over 400 000.
Full Paper Here: http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/2/2125
2013: Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via oestrogen receptors: Dr. Thongprakaisang (Thailand)
This study shows that glyphosate exerted proliferative effects only in human hormone-dependent breast cancer, T47D cells, but not in hormone independent breast cancer, MDA-MB231 cells, at 10-12 to 10-6 M in estrogen withdrawal condition.
Full Paper Here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Thongprakaisang%20S%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=23756170
2010: Glyphosate Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signalling: Dr. Andres Carrasco (Argentina)
This study, by a team led by Prof Andres Carrasco at Buenos Aires University , found that glyphosate and Roundup cause birth defects in frog and chicken embryos at extremely low doses.
http://www.gmwatch.eu/images/pdf/Carrasco_research_paper.pdf
More information on glyphosate’s possible links to birth defects can be found here: http://www.earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/Roundup-and-birth-defects/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5.pdf
2012: Teratogenic Effects of Glyphosate-Based Herbicides: Divergence of Regulatory Decisions from Scientific Evidence: Dr. Michael Antoniou (UK)
Malformations were seen from the administration of glyphosate to rabbits and rats in studies commissioned by industry for regulatory purposes. These effects were not found only at high maternally toxic doses but also at lower doses. Statistical significance was not always achieved at lower doses because too few animals are used in such tests. “Historical control data” and other excuses were used to dismiss the findings.
Full paper here: http://omicsonline.org/2161-0525/2161-0525-S4-006.php?aid=7453
2004: Neural Tube Defects and Maternal Residential Proximity to Agricultural Pesticide Applications: Dr. Rull (US)
This study evaluated the effects of maternal environmental exposure to 59 agricultural pesticides on neural tube defects (NTDs) in babies born in California between 1987 and 1991. Maternal residential proximity within 1,000 meters of crop pesticide applications occurring around the month of conception was assessed using a model based on linking California Pesticide Use Reports (PUR) and land-use survey maps. The study found an association between glyphosate exposure and anencephaly, a type of neural tube defect.
Full paper here: http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Fulltext/2004/07000/Neural_Tube_Defects_and_Maternal_Residential.499.aspx
2002: Birth defects, season of conception, and sex of children born to pesticide applicators living in the Red River Valley of Minnesota, USA: Dr. Garry (U.S.)
An epidemiological study carried out in Minnesota, USA found that the children of pesticide applicators exposed to glyphosate herbicides had an increased incidence of neurobehavioral disorders, including ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder). This suggests that glyphosate herbicide impacts neurological development.
Full paper here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12060842
2007: Evaluation of DNA damage in an Ecuadorian population exposed to glyphosate: Dr. Paz-y-Miño (Ecuador)
Ecuadorian people exposed to aerial glyphosate herbicide spraying on coca crops showed a much higher degree of DNA damage in blood cells than a control population living 80 km away. The researchers ruled out tobacco, alcohol, non-prescription drugs and asbestos as causes. None of the individuals had used or been exposed to other herbicides or pesticides when the samples were taken. The study also found acute poisoning reactions to the glyphosate spraying, including intestinal pain and vomiting, diarrhoea, fever, heart palpitations, headaches, dizziness, numbness, insomnia, burning eyes, blurred vision, difficulty in breathing, and skin rash.
Full paper here: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/gmb/v30n2/a26v30n2.pdf
1997: Male Pesticide Exposure and Pregnancy Outcome: Dr Savitz (Canada)
A study of farming families in Ontario, Canada found a higher than normal rate of late miscarriages and pre-term deliveries associated with glyphosate exposure.
Full paper here: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/146/12/1025.full.pdf
2005: Differential effects of glyphosate and roundup on human placental cells and aromatase: Dr Seralini (France)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257596/
2006: Time- and Dose-Dependent Effects of Roundup on Human Embryonic and Placental Cells: Dr Seralini (France)
http://www.gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Benachoural.AECT_2007.pdf
In these in vitro experiments, glyphosate was found to be toxic to human placental cells and Roundup formulation was more toxic. Glyphosate and Roundup damaged human embryonic cells and placental cells in vitro in concentrations well below those recommended for agricultural use. The study’s authors concluded that Roundup may interfere with human reproduction and embryonic development.
(7) Testing Method
Glyphosate Testing Method: Glyphosate Plate Assay
The testing of drinking water, urine and breast milk was carried out by Microbe Inotech Laboratories, Inc. (MiL inc.)
For the detection and quantitation of glyphosate in water (groundwater, surface water, well water), urine and breast milk, the MiL inc. uses a 96 well microtiter plate assay. For soil, crop, and foods, additional preparation steps are required but can be processed at a small additional fee. This assay applies the principles of enzyme linked immunosorbent assay methodology (ELISA) to the determination of glyphosate.
The sample to be tested is derivatized and then added, along with an antibody (binding protein) specific for glyphosate to microtiter wells coated with Goat Anti-Rabbit Antibody and incubated for 30 minutes. A glyphosate enzyme conjugate is then added.
This particular format is known as a competitive ELISA assay since, at this point in the procedure, a competitive reaction occurs between the glyphosate which may be in the sample and the enzyme labeled glyphosate analog for the antibody binding sites on the microtiter well.
The reaction is allowed to continue for sixty minutes. After a washing step and addition of a substrate (color solution), a color signal (blue color) is generated. The presence of glyphosate is detected by adding the “Color Solution”, which contains the enzyme substrate (hydrogen peroxide) and the chromogen (3,3’,5,5’-tetramethylbenzidine). The enzyme-labeled glyphosate bound to the glyphosate antibody catalyzes the conversion of the substrate/chromogen mixture to a colored product.
After an incubation period, the reaction is stopped and stabilized by the addition of a diluted acid (Stopping Solution). Since the labeled glyphosate (conjugate) was in competition with the unlabelled glyphosate (sample) for the antibody sites, the color developed is inversely proportional to the concentration of glyphosate in the sample.
Six concentrations (0, 0.75, 0.2, 0.5, 1.0, 4.0 ppb) of glyphosate standards in distilled water with a non-mercury preservative and stabilizers are used to generate a standard response curve. A control solution at approximately 0.75 ppb of glyphosate is included in every run and treated in the same manner as unknown samples to serve as a positive control within the assay. The color absorbance is read using a microplate reader (see Figure).
Any results obtained with a calculated glyphosate concentration of less than 0.05 ppb is assumed to be below the detection limit of the assay with glyphosate reported as being absent (7.5 ppb detection limit for Urine) (75 ppb detection limit for Breast Milk).
(8) Test Results
Test Results for the presence of Glyphosate in American Mother’s Breast Milk
Partial display. Interactive Map at http://batchgeo.com/map/9bcabad4abf8e4c4fafa883251c6754d
Test Results for the presence of Glyphosate in American Mothers’ Breast Milk
|
Project # |
Sample # |
Test Results |
Age |
Gender |
Weight |
ESTADO |
Zip |
|
062A |
1 |
<75 ug/L |
26 |
F |
105 |
ILLINOIS |
62521 |
|
062B |
1 |
<75 ug/L |
43 |
F |
225 |
NV |
89109 |
|
062C |
1 |
<75 ug/L |
32 |
F |
113 |
CALIFORNIA |
95521 |
|
062D |
1 |
<75ug/L |
26 |
F |
110 |
ARIZONA |
85741 |
|
062E |
1 |
99 ug/L |
28 |
F |
165 |
o |
97202 |
|
62F |
1 |
76 ug/L |
22 |
F |
100 |
VIRGINIA |
23220 |
|
062G |
1 |
166 ug/L |
30 |
F |
180 |
FLORIDA |
32726 |
|
062H |
1 |
<75 ug/L |
39 |
F |
145 |
CO |
80229 |
|
062I |
1 |
<75 ug/L |
29 |
F |
130 |
I A |
50031 |
|
062J |
1 |
<75 ug/L |
30 |
F |
125 |
PENSILVANIA |
17601 |
Test Results for the presence of Glyphosate in the urine of American adults and children.
Partial display. Interactive Map link to Urine Test results for glyphosate http://batchgeo.com/map/997080dd3f0dbc59b5de665f4ea04bf1
Of the 35 initial samples sent in 34% of the people tested positive for detectable levels of glyphosate in their urine. 85% of all participants noted that they were actively avoiding GE foods and pesticides in their diet.
Test Results for the presence of glyphosate in the urine of American people and children.
|
Project # |
Sample # |
Matrix (Water/Urine) |
Test Results |
Age |
Gender |
Weight (lbs) |
ESTADO |
Zip |
|
glyph001 |
1 |
U |
8.7 ug/L |
8 |
M |
52 |
CALIFORNIA |
92691 |
|
glyph002 |
1 |
U |
<75 ug/L |
67 |
F |
130 |
HOLA |
96821 |
|
glyph004 |
1 |
U |
8.5 ug/L |
13 |
|
|
CALIFORNIA |
91320 |
|
glyph007 |
2 |
U |
<7.5 ug/L |
44 |
F |
180 |
FLORIDA |
33030 |
|
glyph014 |
2 |
U |
<7.5 ug/L |
39 |
F |
130 |
PENSILVANIA |
19072 |
|
glyph016 |
2 |
U |
15.5 ug/L |
52 |
F |
140 |
CAROLINA DEL NORTE |
28711 |
|
glyph018 |
2 |
U |
15.6 ug/L |
69 |
F |
127 |
CALIFORNIA |
95608 |
|
glyph023 |
1 |
U |
9.2 ug/L |
65 |
M |
210 |
MARYLAND |
20874 |
|
glyph020 |
3 |
U |
<7.5 ug/L |
45 |
F |
125 |
MARYLAND |
21022 |
|
glyph037 |
1 |
U |
<7.5 ug/L |
64 |
M |
140 |
NUEVA HAMPSHIRE |
03037 |
|
glyph 036 |
1 |
U |
<7.5 ug/L |
53 |
F |
120 |
CALIFORNIA |
91377 |
|
glyph 038 |
2 |
U |
<7.5 ug/L |
68 |
F |
129 |
CALIFORNIA |
91361 |
|
glyph 038 |
2 |
U |
8.5 ug/L |
13 |
M |
100 |
CALIFORNIA |
91320 |
|
glyph040 |
1 |
U |
<7.5 ug/L |
39 |
F |
|
FLORIDA |
34219 |
|
glyph042 |
1 |
U |
<7.5 ug/L |
63 |
F |
120 |
CALIFORNIA |
94920 |
|
glyph044 |
1 |
U |
15.5 ug/L |
60 |
F |
130 |
o |
97520 |
|
glyph044 |
2 |
U |
18.8 ug/L |
26 |
F |
109 |
o |
97520 |
|
glyph046 |
1 |
U |
13.3 ug/L |
66 |
F |
160 |
WASHINGTON |
98036 |
|
glyph046 |
2 |
U |
<75 ug/L |
4 |
F |
40 |
WASHINGTON |
98036 |
|
glyph048 |
1 |
U |
<7.5 ug/L |
40 |
F |
115 |
CALIFORNIA |
92691 |
|
glyph048 |
2 |
U |
<7.5 ug/L |
11 |
M |
75 |
CALIFORNIA |
92691 |
|
glyph048 |
3 |
U |
<7.5 ug/L |
5 |
M |
36 |
CALIFORNIA |
92691 |
|
glyph048 |
1 |
U |
<7.5 ug/L |
8 |
M |
56 |
CALIFORNIA |
92691 |
|
glyph055 |
1 |
U |
<7.5 ug/L |
39 |
F |
130 |
CALIFORNIA |
92672 |
|
glyph055 |
2 |
U |
<7.5 ug/L |
4 |
M |
35 |
CALIFORNIA |
92672 |
|
glyph055 |
3 |
U |
<7.5 ug/L |
4 |
M |
38 |
CALIFORNIA |
92672 |
|
glyph059 |
1 |
U |
8.1 ug/L |
6 |
M |
49 |
CO |
80302 |
|
glyph 064 |
2 |
U |
14.6 ug/L |
4 |
F |
45 |
MES |
63701 |
|
glyph066A |
1 |
U |
<7.5 ug/L |
31 |
F |
115 |
HOLA |
96725 |
|
glyph066C |
1 |
U |
<7.5 ug/L |
61 |
F |
129 |
CALIFORNIA |
95066 |
|
glyph066D |
1 |
U |
<7.5 ug/L |
31 |
M |
180 |
HOLA |
96732 |
|
glyph066Da |
1 |
U |
8.6 ug/L |
28 |
M |
160 |
HOLA |
96729 |
|
glyph066E |
1 |
U |
<7.5 ug/L |
42 |
M |
200 |
HOLA |
96729 |
|
glyph066F |
1 |
U |
<7.5 ug/L |
9 |
M |
75 |
CALIFORNIA |
92691 |
|
glyph068 |
1 |
U |
10.5 ug/L |
33 |
F |
140 |
HOLA |
96761 |
|
glyph073 |
1 |
U |
<7.5 ug/L |
64 |
F |
131 |
NV |
89439 |
|
glyph075 |
1 |
U |
<7.5 ug/L |
71 |
F |
136 |
VIRGINIA |
22033 |
|
glyph077 |
1 |
U |
<7.5 ug/L |
68 |
M |
145 |
TX |
79453 |
|
glyph080 |
1 |
U |
<7.5 ug/L |
12 |
F |
75 |
HOLA |
96741 |
|
glyph081 |
1 |
U |
<7.5 ug/L |
63 |
M |
180 |
WASHINGTON |
98072 |
The highlighted urine glyphosate test results are after a positive glyphosate result in initial testing of one family member and then 2-6 weeks of switching to 100% organic diet. The negative detection of glyphosate coincides with the disappearance of recorded inflammation and autism symptoms in the 8 year old boy after 6 weeks of an organic diet and 2 weeks of Reverse Osmosis Filtered water which tested negative for detectable levels of glyphosate.
Test Results for the presence of Glyphosate in the water of American households.
Partial display. Interactive Map at http://www.batchgeo.com/map/8b5b606dab90cba4e8fe828fe0dedeb5
Test Results for the presence of Glyphosate in the water of American households.
|
Project # |
Matrix (Water/Urine) |
Level |
ESTADO |
Zip |
|
glyph001 |
W |
0.085 ug/L |
CALIFORNIA |
92691 |
|
glyph002 |
W |
0.123 ug/L |
CO |
96821 |
|
glyph004 |
W |
0.17 ug/L |
CALIFORNIA |
91320 |
|
glyph007 |
W |
<0.05 ug/L |
FLORIDA |
33030 |
|
glyph014 |
W |
0.167 ug/L |
PENSILVANIA |
19072 |
|
glyph016 |
W |
0.086ug/L |
CAROLINA DEL NORTE |
28711 |
|
glyph018 |
W |
0.087 ug/L |
WISCONSIN |
53588 |
|
glyph020 |
W |
0.140 ug/L |
CALIFORNIA |
95608 |
|
glyph020 |
W |
0.151 ug/L |
CALIFORNIA |
95608 |
|
glyph027 |
W |
0.212 ug/L |
MARYLAND |
21022 |
|
glyph027 |
W |
0.116ug/L |
MARYLAND |
21022 |
|
glyph028 |
W |
<0.05 ug/L |
ILLINOIS |
60441 |
|
glyph 036 |
W |
<0.05 ug/L |
CALIFORNIA |
91377 |
|
glyph038 |
W |
<0.05 ug/L |
CALIFORNIA |
91361 |
|
glyph039 |
W |
0.33 ug/L |
NUEVA YORK |
12561 |
|
glyph042 |
W |
<0.05 ug/L |
CALIFORNIA |
94920 |
|
glyph 064 |
W |
0.096 ug/L |
MES |
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 |
CAROLINA DEL NORTE |
27973 |
|
glyph083 |
W |
<0.05 ug/L |
CALIFORNIA |
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) Contactos:
Henry Rowlands, Director, Sustainable Pulse, www.sustainablepulse.com , Skype: henry.rowlands
Zen Honeycutt, Founder and Director of Moms Across America, www.momsacrossamerica.com, [email protected], Skype: zen.honeycutt. Moms Across America is a national coalition of unstoppable Moms. “Empowered Moms, Healthy Kids.”
Microbe Inotech Labs, Inc. 11754 Westline Industrial Dr., St. Louis, MO 63146-3402 Phone: 1-800-688-9144 www.microbeinotech.com
10) Referencias
- http://gmoanswers.com/ask/given-glyphosate-lipid-soluble-and-knowing-its-really-only-ingested-humans-through-gm-foods-how
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson
- https://www.foeeurope.org/weed-killer-glyphosate-found-human-urine-across-Europe-130613
- http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychlorinated_biphenyl
- http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00454276
Mostrando 104 reacciones
Inicia sesión con
Precautionary Principle: When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.
The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action. . . . it should, to the extent possible, be cost-effective.
It is a human right to live free of chemical contaminants; Chemical industry had lied about its products, making them seem safer and more vetted than they actually were; Our ”love” of techno-fixes may cause us to ”leap before we look” in our use of technologies without sufficient caution. She also thought that it was foolish of people (“man”) to think that they could “control” nature – she called it arrogance
“Now, for what I assure you is the last time… " Play it again Sam!!!
You and every other industry apologist ignore one really important fact. The thing that the industry promised would never happen has now happened. The industry promised based on “scientific evidence” that glyphosate breaks down quickly making it harmless. The fact that glyphosate is breast milk even at low levels debunks the “breaks down quickly” argument. So now the industry is trying to save face by saying that levels of pesticides are low – but don’t consider cumulative effects. It’s not just the industry that is to blame – the EPA have their heads stuck in the sand and are too afraid to pull them out – ignorance is bliss.
The problem with your response as with most of the industry apologists is typified in an article by Steve Savage: “Pesticides: Probably Less Scary Than You Imagine”. Based on LD50 values for acute oral toxicity he makes the following statement: “97% of pesticides used in California, for instance, are less toxic than caffeine or aspirin. Agricultural technologist Steve Savage argues that, sometimes, increased herbicide use is actually a good thing.” http://appliedmythology.blogspot.com/2012/09/pesticides-probably-less-scary-than-you.html
It sounds logical until you actually break the numbers down into facts:
Pure caffeine has an LD50 of 127mg/kg. So a 100 kg person would have to ingest 12.7 grams of pure caffeine for acute toxicity. An average cup of brewed coffee contains about 150 mg of caffeine per cup. In order to get to acute toxic levels a person would have to drink about 85 cups of coffee in one go! (Please don’t try this at home!)
Pure aspirin has an LD50 of 200 mg/kg. So a 100 kg person would have to ingest 20 grams of pure aspirin for acute toxicity. An average aspirin tablet contains between 75-81 mg of aspirin. In order to get to acute toxic levels a person would have to drink about 247-267 aspirin tablets in one go! (Please don’t try this at home!)
Pure glyphosate has an LD50 of 5000 mg/kg. So a 100 kg person would have to ingest 500 grams of pure glyphosate for acute toxicity. The average commercial formulation of glyphosate contains about 360 grams/L of glyphosate. In order to get to acute toxic levels a person would have to drink about 1.4 L of glyphosate formulation.
Makes sense right! Well not quite because in a study by Roberts et al (2010) they found that ingesting just 200 mL of glyphosate formulation (containing about 72 grams of glyphosate) – was in their own words “fatal” (resulting in death) (Monsanto participated in the Roberts study). They also found that 19 grams of glyphosate resulted in “moderate to severe effects (“Poisoning requiring intervention, for example, hypotension, respiratory failure requiring intubation, ventricular dysrhythmias or cardiac arrest, marked sedation or coma, seizures, or oliguria”). http://informahealthcare.com/doi/pdf/10.3109/15563650903476491
So this means that:
1. The real LD50 of glyphosate is actually lower than that reported. How low is it actually? Answer: We don’t know!
2. There does appear to be a dose dependant effect, despite your argument to the contrary.
3. If glyphosate has a fatal effect at one order of magnitude below the reported LD50, what effect is it having at lower doses that appear to be absorbed by the body?
At this point sane people ask for more testing and investigation. Industry apologists are all in denial stating that “Unfortunately (unfortunate for their credibility), there is evidence to support a claim, the claim that Roundup and other glyphosate-containing herbicides do not cause harm to humans at the levels found on the food we buy.”
Ps. Have you thought about where the glyphosate in breast milk and urine is coming from if according to you it is filtered out of the drinking water?
The key point that you have completely missed is that the industry have always argued that Roundup would NEVER bio-accumulate in the body. So the crucial point is that it should simply not be there in breast milk or sperm. Agreed? So regulators who have accepted the industry studies should now be asking why is this happening.
It is not sensible to attack researchers who are being responsible in raising these questions. This is what independent science is about.
To question it is unscientific.
So let’s do proper tests on breast milk and sperm across America to settle this one way or another – agreed?
Moms Acrsoss America have made a great start – let’s all congratulate them.
The study found no difference in sperm concentration, viability and mobility, but there was an increase in abnormal sperm formation measured 2, 3, and 4 months after this short exposure.
The study, the first to measure the delayed effects of exposure to Roundup on sperm in mammals from a short exposure, was conducted by a team including Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini at the University of Caen, France.
Roundup was found to change gene expression in sperm cells, which could alter the balance of the sex hormones androgen and estrogen. A negative impact on sperm quality was confirmed, raising questions about impaired sperm efficiency. The authors suggested that repeated exposures to Roundup at doses lower than those used in agriculture could damage mammalian reproduction over the long term.
The study’s findings should raise alarm in farm workers, as well as people who spray Roundup for municipal authorities and even home gardeners. People exposed to lower doses repeated over the long term, including consumers who eat food produced with Roundup and people who happen to be exposed to others’ spraying activities, should also be concerned.
Those who want to conceive a child should take special measures to minimise their exposure, including eating organic food and lobbying for a ban on Roundup spraying in their neighbourhoods.
An acute exposure to glyphosate-based herbicide alters aromatase levels in testis and sperm nuclear quality
Estelle Cassault-Meyer, Steeve Gress, Gilles-Éric Séralini, Isabelle Galeraud-Denis
Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology
Volume 38, Issue 1, julio 2014, pp. 131–140
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1382668914001227
Focus buddy! Where do you get the idea of a conspiracy theory? You are weird!
1. You state it’s not found in drinking water in “your community” – is that before or after treatment to remove it? Can you post a link to the data from “your community”?
2. If it’s not in the water then how come it was found in water in the Moms Across America study and how come other studies have found it in water too:
In the USA: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jawr.12159/full
In Canada: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-011-0600-7#
In Argentina: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653513008837
Since it’s not in “your” drinking water maybe we should have your urine tested for glyphosate – it’s a pity you can’t lactate – you would make an ideal experimental candidate! Mmmm I guess if your urine tested positive for glyphosate we’d have to check for it in your food! And if it tested negative we could get you in a glyphosate human exposure study – long term! What potential you have!
These are desperate times I guess when you have to reference Wiki: http://bit.ly/SlvQXN = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority (nothing personal Wiki)
Do you know that while the EPA monitor pesticide levels in water – they exclude glyphosate! I wonder why?
You cannot spray the earth with toxic chemicals without any adverse effects!
Re Gish Gallop – it perfectly fits you Chuck – thanks for introducing me to it!!
The Gish Gallop is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that their opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time. More often than not, these myriad arguments are full of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments – the only condition is that there be many of them, not that they be particularly compelling on their own. They may be escape hatches or “gotcha” arguments that are specifically designed to be brief, but take a long time to unravel. Thus, galloping is frequently used in timed debates (especially by creationists and GMO proponents) to overwhelm one’s opponent.
Kinda fits you Chuck….
“Last October, a group of 93 international scientists issued a statement saying there was a lack of empirical and scientific evidence to support what they said were false claims the biotech industry was making about a ‘consensus’ on safety.”
On Twitter, the author at Reuters was accused in these words, “You are willfully ignoring the scientific consensus on this.” He dismissed the group, European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), which published the statement, as “a smattering of outliers and GMO opponents.”
ENSSER members include Hans Herren, Ph.D., founder and president of Biovision Foundation and winner of the World Food Prize; Angela Hilbeck, senior scientist at the Institute of Integrative Biology at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, and David Schubert, Ph.D., professor and director of cellular neurobiology, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, among others.
Such respected scientists are hardly “outliers.”
Chuck – say who pays you? And why don’t you answer the question – should we now do comprehensive testing of GMO and Roundup?
Chucks amazing ability to NO answer questions shows how he is an industry plant on this website. Gish Gallop is his speciality under the false guise of ‘science’.
He never answers questions! MAA are absolutely right to ask that proper testing takes place given that most studies by industry show no safety issues while all independent studies show problems.
To cap it all would you trust Monsanto, Dow etc who have horrific levels of contaminating the environment and people.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0101-02.htm
Sylvester Harris, 63, an undertaker who lived across the street from the Monsanto plant, said he always thought he was burying too many young children.
“I knew something was wrong around here,” he said.
A literature review of GM food safety studies found about an equal number of research groups suggesting that GM foods were safe and groups raising serious concerns. However, most studies concluding that GM foods are as nutritious and safe as non-GM counterparts were performed by the companies responsible for developing the GMO or associates.
In spite of the fact that industry-linked studies are biased in favour of conclusions of safety, approvals for GM crops are based solely on industry studies.
“In a study involving 94 articles selected through objective criteria, it was found that the existence of either financial or professional conflict of interest was associated [with] study outcomes that cast genetically modified products in a favourable light.”
– Johan Diels, CBQF/Escola Superior de Biotecnologia da Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Portugal, and colleagues
Conclusion
A comprehensive review of the scientific literature on the health risks and nutritional wholesomeness of GM foods found that studies in which authors had a financial or professional conflict of interest with the GMO industry were more likely to conclude that the GMO was as safe and nutritional as the non-GM food tested.
GMO Myths and Truths – see it online – it is the most comprehensive assessment of the issues of GMO.
Chuck is a representative from the chemical lobby as I have said many times – GTF! The big picture is this:
Would you trust the chemical companies ever again? Look at their history of abuse…
In 2004 the residents of Nitro, West Virginia, sued Monsanto for for the harm they had suffered as a result of Monsanto’s manufacture of Agent Orange and 2.4.5-T. The class action focused only on the dioxin accusing Monsanto of burning dioxin wastes in the community. In febrero 2012, Monsanto agreed to settle the case for $93 million. This is not damages – this money is just a bribe to stop the case! All the harm they have done over the eight years and more ..still goes on… Miscarriages, cancers, inability to concentrate and death etc..
Dow Chemical was doing the same along with other companies – dumping dioxins into the environment 28 years after the EPS had sounded the alarm!
Mary Gade of the EPA assured the American people that the 2007 settlement would force Dow to clean up three contaminated hotspots. But she spoke too soon – the EPA cut off cleanup talks with Dow Chemical just six months later so nothing happened – no cleanup!
And that’s how it stands. Would you trust anything they say about glyphosate and GMO’s – you bet you wouldn’t.
We need proper testing of Roundup et al and then we will know.
Agreed??
Williams et al (2012): An industry sponsored review of glyphosate that ignores the safety of the formulation and focusses on pure glyphosate:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10937404.2012.632361
Bellé et al. (2012): Response to Williams et al (2012) pointing out that they found the formulation Roundup containing glyphosate to be harmful since the formulation contains a surfactant that enables glyphosate uptake by the cell:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10937404.2012.672149
Viljoen (2013): Comment on the toxicity of glyphosate in formulation and this being ignored by Williams et al (2012). Viljoen (2013) also notes that most animal feeding studies to prove Roundup tolerant GM crops safe do not include the application of glyphosate and are therefore not a true test of safety:
http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0278691513004559/1-s2.0-S0278691513004559-main.pdf?tid=e3f2b7c4-ebb3-11e3-9d2e-00000aab0f27&acdnat=1401864540390f9a3983422e69ba651cd1e5e94415
We began work on GMO Myths and Truths in 2010, prompted by frequent claims that the case against genetically modifying our food supply had no science behind it. As we had followed the scientific debate and evidence on genetically modified (GM) crops and foods since the early 1990s, we knew that this was untrue.
Another driving factor was the inflated claims that were being made for GM crops. The public was being told that they would make agriculture more sustainable, provide higher yields to feed the world’s growing population, reduce pesticide use, help meet the challenges of climate change, provide more nutritious foods, and make farming easier and more profitable.
We knew that these claims were at best questionable and at worst false. GM had not provided a single crop that had sustainably delivered these benefits. On the contrary, a considerable and growing body of scientific evidence pointed not only to potential hazards but also to actual harm from GMOs (genetically modified organisms) to animal and human health and the environment. But this evidence was not reaching the public, campaigners, policy-makers, or even the majority of scientists.
We decided to produce a document explaining the evidence in simple language. Initially we planned a short 10-page document. But it grew – and grew. We finally published the first edition of GMO Myths and Truths as a free download on the Earth Open Source website in junio 2012, with more than 120 pages and over 600 references, 280 of them to peer- reviewed papers.
Unexpectedly for such a dry, technical publication, GMO Myths and Truths appeared to hit a nerve. Its publication coincided with a big push for GMO labelling in the United States and campaigners in many states made good use of it. Requests for press interviews flooded in from North America. Well-wishers mailed thousands of copies to the US for those campaigning for GMO food labelling to use and send to their Congressmen and women. Within weeks, GMO Myths and Truths had been translated into Mandarin and published on a Chinese blog. Spanish speakers translated parts for dissemination in South America.
In India, where citizens and farmers were smarting from a series of scandals and disasters involving GM Bt cotton, a publishing company asked for our permission to print a few thousand copies under their imprint. They sold them as cheaply as they could manage, given that their target readership was poor villagers and farmers. We were invited to speak in countries all over the world by citizen, government, and industry organizations.
It is the best information out there!
Eg has GMO and glyphosate ever been tested for safety.
We know the reason why – every time there has been independent testing they have found problems. Even Monsanto’s own testing for the EU had issues that were ignored.
So why don’t we do proper testing?
Why we distrust Monsanto and the other chemical companies. They have a long history of falsifying results. I have shown how recently courts in France told Monsanto to stop advertising Roundup as biodegradable and courts in S.Africa did the same. Here is just one bit of history of Monsanto’s treachery aimed at deceiving the American families and farmers.
The EPA relied on Monsanto’s dioxin studies in everything it did. Monsanto subverted its EPA dioxin studies by covering up diseases suffered by its factory workers and even excluded all the workers with cancer by adding them to the control group to make their workers results look normal. Monsanto alone was responsible for the falsification of its own dioxin studies. Monsanto altered their research to " prove to the world that the only health consequences of dioxins was the relative harmless, reversible skin condition of chloracne".
Because of this the already corrupted EPA failed to acknowledge that dioxins cause cancers or other serious health effects (despite the fact that it’s own studies had shown that dioxins were “the most toxic chemical known to man”) for over 20 years. Based on Monsanto’s deliberate falsification The White House even ordered the Centre Disease Control – CDC – to reject veterans claims that their terrible suffering through cancers had anything to do with exposure to dioxins. Monsanto – shame on you!
Most shocking of all this false research it enabled the White House to avoid paying all those poor veterans their health bills even though they had fought courageously for America while being sickened by Monsanto’s Agent Orange/dioxins caused when defoliating the forests in Vietnam!
As usual there was a great deal of money at stake! Monsanto and The White House did not want American families making the connection between poisons that had caused cancer in soldiers in Vietnam and the dioxin laced pesticides citizens used in their homes and lawns.
If you thought that was enough Cate Jackson at the EPA was forced out of her job for leading the dioxin research that showed dioxins in pesticides and other household chemicals was as toxic as their own research showed. This happened several times as the EPA wanted to remove her and her courageous campaigning but each time judges forced the EPA to reappoint her. Well done Cate – a true warrior for the truth.
If you want independent science look at GMO Myths and Truths – they know what they are talking about.
Roundup more toxic than glyphosate
In an in vitro study, eight out of nine major pesticides tested in vitro in their complete formulations, including Roundup, were up to 1,000 times more toxic to human cells than their isolated active ingredients. This increased toxicity of the complete formulation compared with the active ingredient alone was found to be a general principle of pesticide toxicology.8
This principle has been confirmed by experiments in living mammals. An in vivo study in pigs showed that the adjuvant POEA and commercial glyphosate herbicide formulations were toxic and lethal to the pigs, whereas glyphosate alone had no such effects.9 An in vivo study in rats showed that POEA and Roundup formulations containing POEA were more toxic than glyphosate alone.10
Damage to DNA
Glyphosate herbicides altered cell cycle checkpoints in sea urchin embryos by interfering with the DNA repair machinery. Cell cycle dysfunction was seen from the first cell division in the sea urchin embryos.11,12,13,14 The failure of cell cycle checkpoints is known to lead to genomic instability and cancer in humans.
Glyphosate and its main metabolite AMPA have been found to cause irreversible damage to DNA in human cells in vitro and in mice in vivo.15,16 Such damage to DNA may increase the risk of cancer and birth defects. AMPA damaged DNA in human cells in vitro at doses of 2.5- 7.5mM and caused breaks in chromosomes at 1.8mM.16
An in vitro study showed that irradiation corresponding to a few minutes of sun exposure greatly amplified the DNA-damaging effects of glyphosate on mammalian cells. The glyphosate metabolite AMPA proved even more damaging, provoking cellular toxic effects from 0.5 ppb, a low environmentally relevant dose that can be found in European rivers and even in drinking water. The effects were even greater when glyphosate was mixed with other pesticides (the so-called “cocktail effect”), including atrazine. The authors concluded that “the Directive Standards for Pesticides in Drinking Water should be re-evaluated according to these underestimated factors of risk”.17
See GMO Myths & Truths by real scientists who want to protect all of us from corrupt science.
Truth: Roundup causes soil and plant problems that negatively impact yield
Myth at a glance
Roundup and other glyphosate herbicides are not benign but have negative effects on soil and crops, some of which impact plant health and yield.
Glyphosate increases the incidence and severity of infection with Fusarium fungus, which is especially serious as Fusarium can harm humans and livestock.
Glyphosate binds (chelates) essential metal nutrients in the soil, making them unavailable to plants and impacting yield.
Glyphosate has been found to impair nitrogen fixation in plants and to impact yield in drought conditions.
Seed and agrochemical companies are marketing various “techno-fixes” to address these problems, tying farmers to a chemical treadmill.
GM Roundup Ready (RR) crops are marketed on the basis that Roundup is a safe herbicide that simplifies weed control and makes the farmer’s life easier. But recent studies show that Roundup and glyphosate can accumulate in plants, have negative effects on soil organisms, and harm the growth and health even of soy plants that are genetically engineered to tolerate it. These effects may be partly responsible for yield decline and disease outbreaks found in GM Roundup Ready soy and maize.
For those who want real information go to GMO Myths and Truth authored by real scientists! Not The GTF who will never put their theories to the test!
Truth: Roundup causes soil and plant problems that negatively impact yield
Myth at a glance
Roundup and other glyphosate herbicides are not benign but have negative effects on soil and crops, some of which impact plant health and yield.
Glyphosate increases the incidence and severity of infection with Fusarium fungus, which is especially serious as Fusarium can harm humans and livestock.
Glyphosate binds (chelates) essential metal nutrients in the soil, making them unavailable to plants and impacting yield.
Glyphosate has been found to impair nitrogen fixation in plants and to impact yield in drought conditions.
Seed and agrochemical companies are marketing various “techno-fixes” to address these problems, tying farmers to a chemical treadmill.
GM Roundup Ready (RR) crops are marketed on the basis that Roundup is a safe herbicide that simplifies weed control and makes the farmer’s life easier. But recent studies show that Roundup and glyphosate can accumulate in plants, have negative effects on soil organisms, and harm the growth and health even of soy plants that are genetically engineered to tolerate it. These effects may be partly responsible for yield decline and disease outbreaks found in GM Roundup Ready soy and maize.
For those who want real information go to GMO Myths and Truth authored by real scientists! Not The GTF who will never put their theories to the test!
Real science stands the test of real life testing – not endless Gish Gallop as you serve up. It is the only way to resolve this issue. Agreed??
But of course I forgot you are on Monsanto’s payroll so why would you? Being paid to serve up this type of stuff is The Glyphosate Task Force job – what’s it like working for the most hated company in the world?
There is great information on GMOs and Roundup in the new version of GMO Myths and Truths. I am sure you have seen it.
But the most depressing book is Poison Spring about the EPA.
Thank you David.
Finally, let me ask you this – given the recent evidence casting doubt on the safety of glyphosate in formulation, why are you not calling for more research. Why do you continue to insist that it is only the safety of glyphosate and not the formulation that is an issue? If there is a possible safety issue then we should all be calling for more research instead of dismissing new findings as “irrelevant” as one would expect from the industry.
Similar trends are obvious from our recent history including the story of DDT. In a book titled “Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth of issues from tobacco smoke to global warming” Robert Proctor disseminates the issue of “manufactured ignorance”. “The U.S. scientific community has long led the world in research on such areas as public health, environmental science, and issues affecting quality of life. Our scientists have produced landmark studies on the dangers of DDT, tobacco smoke, acid rain, and global warming. But at the same time, a small yet potent subset of this community leads the world in vehement denial of these dangers.
Merchants of Doubt tells the story of how a loose-knit group of high-level scientists and scientific advisers, with deep connections in politics and industry, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. Remarkably, the same individuals surface repeatedly-some of the same figures who have claimed that the science of global warming is “not settled” denied the truth of studies linking smoking to lung cancer, coal smoke to acid rain, and CFCs to the ozone hole. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one tobacco executive. These “experts” supplied it.”
Industry may be right and glyphosate even in formulation may be safe. The problem is that the “industry” has used denial tactics in the past. DDT also started showing up everywhere and yes there were studies to show it was entirely safe!!! So what about glyphosate in formulation? We just don’t know but the bottom line is that finding the stuff in breast milk should raise some serious questions – and currently the defence of industry denial by scientists is not helping!
“…Such results are meaningless in the context of residues found on the food people actually eat”. Why are such results meaningless? Can you reference a peer reviewed paper to substantiate this claim? Furthermore, the point of doing in vitro studies is to understand how cells in vivo will react – this is common scientific practice so there no scientific evidence that shows that epithelial cells in the mouth will behave any differently to cells in vitro!!! So such results are not meaningless.
There is a reason that an industry sponsored review (Williams et al. 2012) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1093 separated the issue of glyphosate and surfactant and why the industry does this – because together there is indication of harm. Bellé et al. (2012) respond to Williams et al. (2012) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1093… and I suggest you go and read it. The main points are:
“The authors consider our results as “not environmentally relevant” because of the concentrations used. The sentence was repeated five times in their article. This is a speculative assertion since (1) we observe effects at concentrations (8 mM affecting 100% of the individual cells at short time exposure) below the usage concentration (20 mM) of the herbicide. Therefore, regarding the considerable amount of glyphosate-based product sprayed worldwide, the concentration of Roundup in every single micro droplet is far above the threshold concentration that would activate the cell cycle checkpoint. (2) The effects we demonstrate were obtained by a short exposure time (minutes) of the cells to glyphosate based products, and nothing excludes that prolonged exposure to lower doses may also have effects. Since glyphosate is commonly found present in drinking water in many countries, low doses with long exposure by ingestion are a fact. The consequences of this permanent long term exposure remain to be further investigated but cannot just be ignored.”
“We want to highlight that the context of our results is the field of cell cycle disorders and mechanisms at the origin of tumorization. The authors totally disregard this context and do not even state the DNA-damage checkpoint or G2/M cell cycle transition that are clearly at the center of our results and that situate glyphosate-based products as of human health concern. Using the same experimental model and same experimental procedures, we have further shown that chromium(III) (Le Bouffant et al. 2008) or methyl methanesulfonate (MMS) (Le Bouffant et al. 2007), both known carcinogens, lead to the same molecular phenotype than glyphosate containing formulations. This context is clearly stated in almost all our cited articles and has been reviewed by us (Bellé et al. 2007), including glyphosate-based products’ effects, not quoted by the authors’ bibliographic review. Involvement of the DNAdamage checkpoint at the origin of cancer is widely accepted by scientists (Jackson and Bartek 2009; Kastan and Bartek 2004; Nyberg et al. 2002). The concept that cancer originates from a few (if not one) stem cells that themselves leads by clonal selection to cancerous stem cells and further to cancer development is also well documented and accepted by a large community of scientists (Rahman et al. 2011; Ratajczak et al. 2006). We have worked on embryonic cells, and per se stem cells, and our results at the level of the DNA-damaged checkpoint therefore suggest that glyphosate based products are of human health concern and warrant further investigation.”
In a letter to the Editor in Food and Chemical Toxicology, Viljoen (2013) notes the following: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0278691513004559/1-s2.0-S0278691513004559-main.pdf?tid=5649d0da-ea44-11e3-8ea8-00000aacb360&acdnat=1401706677692357fa080bed2ce9ab403e01b633ae “Several studies have reported on the toxicity of commercial formulations of R and/or glyphosate on mammals, Nile tilapia and sea urchin …. Despite this, a recent industry sponsored review concluded that ‘‘the the available literature shows no solid evidence linking glyphosate exposure to adverse developmental or reproductive effects at environmentally realistic exposure concentrations’’ (Williams et al., 2012). The authors of the latter suggest that where glyphosate toxicity has been observed, it is the result of ‘‘surfactants present in the formulations and not the direct result of glyphosate exposure’’. This argument is irrelevant since it is the formulation that is being applied in practice and is part of the ‘‘herbicide complex’’ of chemicals taken up by the plant.” which includes surfactant!
“First off, the EPA does not determine whether or not something is safe in an absolute sense, they review the evidence and create regulations that they believe are sufficient to protect the public’s health and welfare.”
You are correct. However, the approach they take to determining safety is flawed. They do not evaluate the commercialized product but the individual ingredients and in doing so assume that the collective will also be safe. That is basically akin to claiming a car is safe by testing whether the tyres on their own (while off the car) constitute a safety risk!!!
You ignore the comments by Bellé et al. (2012) to Williams et al. (2012) on "the very poor cell membrane permeability of pure glyphosate (Riechers et al. 1994), although they do state that “commercial formulations include a surfactant system … allowing penetration of the active ingredient.” They also state that where pure glyphosate has shown no toxic effect "we ascribed the absence of cellular effect of pure glyphosate to this poor permeability. To our knowledge, pure glyphosate is not used as an herbicide in agriculture applications and we ignore whether, in such conditions, pure glyphosate is or not an herbicide.” In other words there is a reason that pure glyphosate shows an absence of toxicity and why surfactant is used.
So basically what you are saying is that the wheels are safe therefore the care is safe. What scientists are pointing out is that car plus wheels (glyphosate plus surfactant) is what will be driving on the road and that is what needs to be shown to be safe. So, EPA criteria for safety assessment is inherently flawed. For example, brake fluid (containing polyglycol ether) is stable in car engines and chlorine is stable in a pool. But if you combine brake fluid and chlorine you get an explosion! So if the intention is to sell them as a formulation (ie glyphosate and surfactant) you have to prove the formulation safe – otherwise ka-boom!
All the evidence suggests we should do proper controlled trials to either prove there is a safe limit or not.
So let’s do them Chuck? Agreed?
Serelini – the biggest such trial ever undertaken showed there were problems. The trial was only an exact replica of the Monsanto trial to prove safety for the EU.
So let’s do it again Chuck?
Any problems with that?
Corruption between government and their paid lackeys has always been – eg the EPA. Read in Poison Spring how from the beginning it has served its masters – the chemical industry – Monsanto and the rest. But Monsanto has been possibly the most criminal/evil organisation ever. These terms could only have been at there prompting:
Like ‘substantial equivalence’ the EPA use another euphemistic term "inert’ ingredients. EPA has long made a false distinction between so called "active ingredients and “inert” ingredients, or adjuvants. The role of the first is responsible for the action – killing a plant or insect. The second is responsible for helping the active ingredient do its job more efficiently. From the word “inert” you would reckon the chemical would have no dangerous effects. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most inert ingredients are very toxic indeed. They include poisons such acetone, benzene, chlorbenzene, chloroform, ethylene oxide, formaldehyde, formic acid, methyl alcohol, naphtha leone, ethylene thioridazine, and petroleum distillates (and just remember all distillates are known carcinogens). Because of the EPA’s surreal “regulation” on both actives and “inerts”, a known toxic chemical like DDT can be branded as “inert” and used in a pesticide! Because there are so many of these chemicals -1800 so called inert ingredients – they can even constitute 99% of a pesticide! It is a con artists wonderland!
Read Poison Spring – look at the website GMEducation.org – above all use “Common Sense” not the pseudo science served up by Chuck et al as ‘Gish gallop’ to confuse everyone. They are part of the GTF (Glyphosate Task Force) set up by the Monsanto evil empire et al to defend their poisonous ways and the gravy train that results!! Common sense uses science but is not enslaved by it!
By the way did you see China has 20’% of its land too poisonous to work on any longer? China’s equivalents of Monsanto (with Monsanto’s help I am sure) poisoning the world! Are we next?
Lastly note how Chuck et al never answer the question – should we now confirm or otherwise with a proper sampling across the USA the great testing MAA have done on glyphosate in breast milk? It speaks volumes…
Common sense says we should!
Best wishes
Peter
Sent from my iPad
“The argument advanced… for the safety of GM food is false… Yes, the DNA of all living organisms is made up of just four nucleosides, and yes, virtually all proteins are made up from just 20 amino acids. But this does not imply that everything containing these basic building blocks is without risk to human beings. The same units, arranged in different ways, are contained in the smallpox virus, bubonic plague and influenza, deadly nightshade and other poisonous plants, creatures such as poisonous jellyfish, scorpions, deadly snakes, sharks – and people who talk absolute nonsense.”
– G. D. W. Smith, Fellow of the Royal Society, professor of materials, Oxford University, UK1
Chuck talks absolute nonsense!