Moms Across America reads this and is outraged by the lack of precaution the EPA chooses to exercise.
They are NOT protecting our children, but instead choosing to give more importance to the "studies" that show that glyphosate is "safe" by the chemical companies than on independent, world renowned, ( including MIT) scientists, doctors and moms. This is erring on the side of corruption, not protection.
We gave them studies CLEARLY showing the destruction of the gut bacteria of chickens at .10 ppm by glyphosate, endocrine disruption and testimonials from moms that warrant immediate investigation into glyphosate.
We will continue to do whatever it takes to protect our children.
Today we go to the EPA, we will stand out side with our message "Recall Roundup!" and we will offer the EPA and Washington DC Senate staffers an opportunity to find out for free, how much glyphosate is in their body.
If it's so safe, what's the harm in being informed?
We ask for your continued support of our campaigns. Please chip in and donate to cover transportation and materials.
We are a national coalition of Unstoppable Moms!
Thank you to ALL Of our supporters!
www.momsacrossamerica.com/donate
Zen honeycutt
Moms Across America Team
Showing 7 reactions
Sign in with
http://monsantoblog.com/2013/07/03/a-pediatricians-inside-monsanto/
In regards to the statements regarding infant mortality, rates have been in decline since at least 2005 according to the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db120.htm . Primary infertility rates in the US are mid-range for developed nations, which have higher rates in part due to delays in childbearing. The primary infertility rate has been level for the last 28 years- since before the advent of GM crops. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr067.pdf
I would recommend that you see the statement and Q&A by teh German Institute for Risk assessment, which just completed its initial evaluation for glyphosate in the EU:" In conclusion of this re-evaluation process of the active substance glyphosate by BfR the available data do not show carcinogenic or mutagenic properties of glyphosate nor that glyphosate is toxic to fertility, reproduction or embryonal/fetal development in laboratory animals." http://www.bfr.bund.de/en/the_bfr_has_finalised_its_draft_report_for_the_re_evaluation_of_glyphosate-188632.html
http://www.bfr.bund.de/en/frequently_asked_questions_on_the_health_assessment_of_glyphosate-127871.html
Glyphosate has never been classified as an endocrine disrupter by the EPA. It was included in the first tier screening as a high use molecule which already had extensive reproductive studies in animals available from multiple registrants (Monsanto is not the only maker or seller)- in part because the validation of a test requires that one observe both negative and positive results. The federal register announcement makes very clear that included compounds are not determined to be endocrine disrupters. Glyphosate exposure has been associated with a reduced time to pregnancy- not with infertility. I would not claim this as a benefit, mind you- only pointing out that the allegation that glyphosate accounts for infertility is not consistent with the data. The reproductive epidemiology of glyphosate has recently been reviewed. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230011001516
As noted by Genetic Literacy Project, the breast milk glyphosate concentrations appear to represent either a highly unusual level of exposure or an analytical problem based on the known properties and metabolism of glyphosate. http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/05/06/mass-general-pediatrics-chief-says-glyphosate-poses-no-danger-in-breast-milk/
Given the manner in which these results are currently being interpreted on your website, and given the benefits of breast feeding, I am rather concerned that your efforts may do more harm than good, and would inquire as to whether this program has undergone IRB bioethical review as would be expected for an academic or industry research program involving measurement of human body fluids.