Straight-Foward Truth on GMO Safety [Video Lecture]

GM Watch | June 19, 2018 | Claire Robinson

Watch lecture ten of our independent lecture series to learn that Cornell is indeed misleading us on the safety of GMOs (among a host of other topics). (Time 1:01:27)

Monsanto in Epic Fail with Attempted Attack on Global Glyphosate Study

Sustainable Pulse | May 22, 2009

The peer-reviewed accepted manuscripts from the pilot phase of the Global Glyphosate Study were revealed last Wednesday in a Press Conference at the European Parliament.

The results of the short-term pilot study showed that glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) were able to alter certain important biological parameters in rats, mainly relating to sexual development, genotoxicity and the alteration of the intestinal microbiome, at the ‘safe’ level of 1.75 mg/kg/day set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

As is normal practice for Monsanto, their Public Relations department was soon in action to try and crush the scientists involved and the study results, which could cause major damage to the product that supports their whole business model – the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup.
However, this time their PR campaign against the Study was only met with contempt and disdain from journalists, politicians, scientists and the public in countries across Europe.

Urban Dictionary – Epic Fail: A mistake of such monumental proportions that it requires its own term in order to sucessfully point out the unfathomable shortcomings of an individual or group.

Monsanto’s epic fail began with their comments in The Guardian newspaper:

Scott Partridge, Monsanto’s VP for global strategy told the Guardian: “The Ramazzini Institute is an activist organisation with an agenda that they have not disclosed as part of their crowdfunding efforts. They wish to support a ban on glyphosate and they have a long history of rendering opinions not supported by regulatory testing agencies.”

There are many things that are ‘interesting’ about Scott Partridge’s comment:

Epic Fail #1: Monsanto attacked the wrong Institute

The excellent Guardian article was mainly discussing a study on the microbiome of the rats, hence the title: “Glyphosate shown to disrupt microbiome ‘at safe levels’, study claims”. This study was actually carried out at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York on samples provided by The Ramazzini Institute.

The truth is that Monsanto has never been faced with an independent study on glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides, in which multiple Institutions and Universities are involved. They are used to attacking one single scientist or a small institution.

The Global Glyphosate Study involves The Ramazzini Institute, the University of Bologna (Faculty of Agriculture, Veterinary Science and Biostatistics) the Genoa Hospital San Martino, the Italian National Institute of Health, the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York and the George Washington University.

Monsanto have now shown that they will struggle to attack this group of well-respected Institutions!

Epic Fail #2: Monsanto suggests expert cancer scientists are activists

Monsanto’s Mr. Partridge was obviously having a bad day, as he also suggested that “The Ramazzini Institute is an activist organization”. This could not be further from the truth. In fact they are expert scientists who have been protecting public health for over 40 years.

The activities of the Ramazzini Institute (RI) focus primarily on the experimental identification and quantification of carcinogenic risks and on the evaluation of the efficacy and safety of drug therapies and active ingredients that may be used to prevent the development and/or progression of cancer.

The Ramazzini Institute’s long-term studies on Formaldehyde, Vinyl Chloride and Benzene, amongst others have led to global regulatory change on these chemicals.

The RI study design closely mirrors the human condition, in which persons may be exposed to agents in all phases of life for varying lengths of time. A distinctive characteristic of most RI carcinogenicity studies is that rodents are treated from prenatal life and kept under observation until natural death or at least 130 weeks of age. This lifespan protocol is in contrast with most laboratories where rodents are treated starting from adulthood and sacrificed at 110 weeks of age (representing about 2/3 of the lifespan) and corresponding to 60-65 years in humans. This practice means that the researchers miss a significant proportion of cancers induced by early exposure during pregnancy and that might show up in old age.

Sorry Mr. Partridge and Monsanto, you cannot change the truth!

Epic Fail #3: Monsanto claims no link between glyphosate and cancer…off topic

Monsanto’s Mr. Partridge continued by telling the Guardian; “All the research to date has demonstrated that there is no link between glyphosate and cancer.”

Does this not seem to be a bit off topic Mr. Partridge? There is no suggestion in the short-term studies, which he was being asked about, that glyphosate is linked to cancer.

However, if Monsanto really want to bring up this topic, we would suggest they have a chat to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), who classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen” in 2015.

Oh…..I forgot they are currently also trying to campaign against IARC too, including an attempt to stop the U.S. government from funding the Agency. I wonder why that is…..

It is time that we all stop Monsanto in their tracks and support the Global Glyphosate Study, which is being funded by the public worldwide. You can help them by donating here.

California Defeats Monsanto in Court to List Glyphosate as Carcinogen

Sustainable Pulse | Apr 20, 2018

A California Appellate Court sided with the State of California and Center for Food Safety (CFS) on Thursday, affirming that Monsanto’s glyphosate pesticide can be listed as a known carcinogen under Proposition 65.

Monsanto’s lawsuit challenged the 2015 announcement by California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) that it intended to list glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide, Roundup, under California’s landmark Proposition 65.

Proposition 65 requires notification and labeling of all chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm, and prohibits their discharge into drinking waters of the state. CFS intervened in the case, defending the listing of glyphosate as a carcinogen and the public’s right to know when it is being exposed to cancer-causing chemicals.

“This is a huge win for all Californians—and a huge loss for Monsanto—as it upholds our right to protect ourselves and our environment from unnecessary and unwanted exposure to the dangerous chemical, glyphosate,” said Adam Keats, senior attorney at CFS.

Glyphosate is a broad spectrum herbicide that is widely used in agriculture, parks, home gardens, and residential landscapes. It is the most heavily used pesticide in the world, in large part due to the proliferation of Monsanto’s genetically engineered Roundup Ready crops that are resistant to glyphosate.

In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) concluded that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic.” California subsequently issued the notice of intent to list glyphosate as a Proposition 65 chemical based on the IARC finding. Under Proposition 65, no person in the course of doing business may knowingly or intentionally expose any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving a clear and reasonable warning. The discharge of such chemical into a source of drinking water is prohibited. With today’s court ruling, these protections will now be required for glyphosate products.

“All California consumers have the right to know that glyphosate is considered a probable carcinogen, and Proposition 65 ensures that the public obtains that knowledge,” concluded Rebecca Spector, West Coast Director at Center for Food Safety. ”We are pleased that the California Appellate Court prevented Monsanto’s attempt to keep the public in the dark about potential hazards from their products.”

A Cancer on Society: Monsanto claims right not to speak about Roundup

SOTT | Apr 29, 2018 | Alfonso Saldaña & Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap

Common Dreams - Monsanto doesn't want the world to know their product is labeled a "probable carcinogen."

It's no secret that Monsanto Corporation's trademarked pesticide Ready Roundup has become one of the most widely used herbicides in agriculture since its introduction in the mid-1970s. What might be a surprise to most is that, according to the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), glyphosate, the principal ingredient in the herbicide, is a "probable carcinogen." Acting to protect its public, as governments should do, the State of California required that food labels indicate the presence of glyphosate. Problem sorta solved... except for Monsanto's ill-gotten and ill-considered constitutional rights.

Obviously, Monsanto doesn't want the world to know that it is highly likely their product is a carcinogen, so Monsanto took California to court - and won. Despite the IARC's findings, a U.S. District Judge has temporarily suspended the labeling of food products that contain traces of the herbicide, because it violates Monsanto's First Amendment "right not to speak".

"We are pleased Judge Shubb granted our request," said Chandler Goule, the chief executive officer for the National Assn. of Wheat Growers after the ruling. Goule went on to say that this is the first step in preventing California environmental officials "from forcing farmers, growers, and manufacturers to place false and misleading labels on agricultural products."

Back in 2015, when the WHO brought together 17 oncology experts from 11 countries to review the long-suspected link between glyphosate and kidney disease in farm workers, they concluded and published, that glyphosate is a "probable carcinogen." However, the WHO conclusion stirred an international controversy: European pesticide regulators and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency alleged that contrary evidence was ignored or omitted.

It should come as no surprise that Monsanto also rejected the WHO's findings, which predicted the IARC would find carcinogens in its weed killer. Reminiscent of Big Tobacco and Big Oil companies' tactics, they set in motion a plan to discredit the international agency's study in order to continue selling their dangerous product. And thanks to its corporate constitutional rights and deep pockets, Monsanto found a willing shill in climate-change-denier and, ironically, the chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee: Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas).

Throughout his 32 years in Congress, Rep. Smith has received large monetary contributions from fossil fuel, automobile, and pharmaceutical/health industries, including Monsanto. Rep. Smith lashed out against the IARC during a hearing last February, accusing it of conducting "cherry-picked science" and even threatening retaliation by cutting off the U.S. contribution to the international agency. Such biased behavior has been a constant throughout his 5-year tenure as the science committee chairman, while Rep. Smith has made it his personal mission to relentlessly attack the integrity of individual scientists and the scientific community at large.

It is outrageous for an elected official to willingly jeopardize his constituents' health and safety to protect Monsanto's profits. Citizen backlash exploded; thousands expressed their anger online as a petition to tell Congress not to defund cancer research had reached over 42,800 signatures. After 16 terms of loyally supporting his campaign contributors, Smith announced last year that he won't seek re-election when his term ends in 2018.

The congressman's departure may be good riddance, but the root problem does not lie with any individual political figure or party. It lies with the Supreme Court's interpretation of constitutional "personhood." As long as we fail to fix the Constitution by establishing once and for all that human beings, not corporations like Monsanto, are entitled to constitutional rights, and that political money is not free speech, more corporate-funded shills will ascend to power to assert corporate interests over environmental sustainability and human wellbeing.

To prevent this cancerous process from metastasizing, take action now! Join the hundreds of organizations and over 450,000 individuals all across the nation working with the Move to Amend to pass the We the People Amendment. It is the only amendment bill before Congress that will address both doctrines undermining democratic self-governance: money as speech and corporate constitutional rights. It's high time to demand government serves We the People, not corporate donors. Sign the petition at: MoveToAmend.org/motion.

Roundup - a converging pattern of toxicity from farm to clinic to laboratory

Chafer Sentry applying glyphosate to
stubbles in North Yorkshire on a sunny
December day. Photo: Chafer
Machinery via Flickr (CC BY).

 

The Ecologist | Feb 25, 2015 | Dr Eva Sirinathsinghji / ISIS

As scientific evidence grows of the many ways in which glyphosate - pipe-cleaner, herbicide and antibiotic - damages the environment and health, governments and regulators turn a blind eye, writes Dr Eva Sirinathsinghji, and the EU has even raised allowable residue levels. It's time for us all to put bans in place wherever we can!

"Not only is glyphosate toxic to health and the environment, but a cocktail of even more lethal herbicides have to be deployed to deal with glyphosate-resistant weeds. In short, we have an ecological and agronomic disaster."

Glyphosate, perhaps surprisingly for a chemical so ubiquitously associated with our food, was not first used as an agricultural chemical.

Instead it was first patented as a metal chelator in 1964 by Stauffer Chemical company (US 3160632 A) and used as an industrial pipe cleaner.

It was later patented by Monsanto as an herbicidal agent in 1974 (US3799758 A) based on its ability to block the shikimate pathway involved in the production of aromatic amino acids in both plants and bacteria.

It has become the most popular herbicide in the world especially since glyphosate tolerant genetically modified (GM) crops were commercialized in the mid-1990s, together with the assumption (perpetrated by Monsanto) that the herbicide is safe for health and the environment. In 2010, it was also patented by Monsanto as an antibiotic agent.

Widespread use as pre-harvest 'dessicant'

Moreover, it is being increasingly used as a pre-harvest desiccant for drying seeds, a process that results in contamination of non-GM grains, one of the main exposure routes in the EU where GM crops are not commonly grown.

Thus, an estimated 70% of UK oil seed rape (canola) and 50-60% of EU sunflowers are sprayed with glyphosate, resulting in products of major food brands in the UK testing positive for glyphosate residues in a 2014 analysis by GM Freeze, with glyphosate the most commonly detected of all chemicals.

All of glyphosate's chemical properties already mentioned have implications for the health of both people and planet. Scientific research has additionally implicated glyphosate as an endocrine disruptor and a DNA mutagen; and it affects over 291 different enzymes in the body.

It is increasingly linked with a wide variety of illnesses, the sharp rises in illnesses occurring in parallel with glyphosate application across various GM cultivating regions of the world.

The most convincing evidence of glyphosate toxicity is the consistent pattern of diseases associated with glyphosate that has emerged from the farm to the clinic and from scientific studies to citizen testimonials.

Glyphosate widespread in the environment and in our bodies

Glyphosate's popularity is due in large measure to its concomitant use with the most widely planted type of GM crops, those tolerant to glyphosate-herbicides.

Monsanto commercialised the first Roundup-ready crop in 1996 (Roundup being the commercial formulation containing 'adjuvants' that make it much more toxic than the active ingredient glyphosate alone, see later).

In countries such as Argentina where large swaths of the country have been dubbed soy deserts, GM soybean cultivation has resulted in an 858% rise in glyphosate use. Similarly, the US has seen even greater rises of 2,500% from 1987 to 2007.

This widespread and massive application of glyphosate herbicides has resulted in almost ubiquitous contamination of the environment. A 2014 study on US water systems across 38 states found glyphosate and its principle metabolite AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid) not only in rivers, lakes and streams, but also rain, soil and sediment, ditches and drains and groundwater.

Yes, it's even found in rainwater!

Some 70% of rain samples tested positive for glyphosate. Similarly in Europe, (in Catalonia, a large region of Spain) it was found that all 11 groundwater sites were positive for glyphosate despite it being a region free from glyphosate-tolerant crop cultivation: 41% of samples were above detection limits.

The detection in groundwater goes against one of the claims on glyphosate safety that its propensity to bind to soil and sediment means it will not leach into our fresh water supplies.

In Argentina, new data of rain sample measurements averaged an extreme 6.5 µg/L and reaching as high as 67 µg/L (67 ppb) across four regions from October 2012 to April 2014. These levels are far higher than those seen in US rain samples where the average and maximum concentrations were 0.11 µg/L and 2.5 µg/L respectively.

Tap water and rivers also test positive for glyphosate with UK samples coming up (30 parts per trillion (ppt) and 190 ppt respectively) at concentrations within range of those found to be toxic in lab studies (see How Roundup Poisoned my Nature Reserve, SiS 64).

Urban areas also get sprayed, prompting London citizens to organise banning campaigns of glyphosate spraying in public areas including child-friendly zones. Even oceans are not spared from glyphosate poisoning, with run-offs into the sea persisting for up to 267 days in sea water obtained from the Great Barrier Reef and tested in the lab.

Officially 'safe' - but where are the data?

Due to the official 'safe' status of glyphosate, data on how much we are being exposed have been scarce, forcing citizen activists and civil society organizations to find out for themselves.

Friends of the Earth Europe commissioned an analysis of 182 volunteers across 18 EU countries and found detectable levels in 44% of urine samples with concentrations ranging from 0.16 ug/L average in Switzerland, to 1.82ug/L in Latvia. Of the UK citizens tested, 7 out of 10 were positive. In the US, urine samples show concentrations 8 times those in Europe.

The analysis, commissioned by Moms Across America, also tested 10 mother's breast milk, which came up positive for glyphosate with levels ranging from 76 µg/L to 166 µg/L (76-166 ppb).

These levels are 760 to 1,600 times higher than the European Drinking Water Directive allows for individual pesticides, and raise obvious concerns as they fall within the range of concentrations at which developmental toxicity has been observed in animal studies (see below).

This analysis is the only study on breast milk to date, as no government or public health body has found it necessary to carry out any study on bioaccumulation in internal organs and tissues or in breast milk fed to infants.

Glyphosate levels in urine samples correlate to ill-health

Recent independent scientific studies have backed up the work of activists and civil society organisations. Awad Shehata and colleagues in Germany looked at glyphosate levels in the urine of both chronically ill and healthy people, and found significantly higher levels in ill people in samples taken from 102 and 199 healthy and chronically ill people respectively.

Those who ate predominantly organic food had lower levels, along with livestock that were fed conventional versus genetically modified feed. The study also looked at levels in cow tissues as well as urine.

Detection of glyphosate in the tissues contradicts one of the assumption-based arguments used by industry and regulators that due to glyphosate's high water solubility, it is rapidly excreted from the body and therefore risks of harm are negligible.

In such a case, the levels of glyphosate in urine would be expected to be much greater than levels found in the tissues. However, urine levels in cows averaged 27-42 µg/ml (27-42 parts per million (ppm)), while the level in tissues (intestine, liver, spleen, kidney and muscle) averaged between 14-20 µg/ml, which is within range of urine levels.

Though they did not compare glyphosate levels in urine and internal organs of the same cow, the average levels across all cow samples dispute the assumptions taken by regulators that glyphosate does not remain in the body at levels that can cause harm.

In summary, glyphosate is almost ubiquitous in our environment and in people and livestock; it has even been discovered in hospital feeding tubes for child cancer patients in the US. The impacts are described below.

A birth defect epidemic in people and animals

Argentina is one of the biggest cultivators of GM soybeans and the country has witnessed a sharp increase in serious illnesses since cultivation began. Concerned doctors and health practitioners founded the Network of Physicians of Crop Sprayed Towns and met in 2010.

They presented data showing increased incidence of birth defects, spontaneous abortions, infertility, still births, cancers, Down's syndrome, mental disability, immune and endocrine disorders, as well as acute effects such as increased convulsions in epileptic patients at time of fumigation, respiratory and dermatological problems (see ) and Pesticide Illnesses and GM Soybeans, SiS53 ).

The Network, together with a large citizen movement, is pushing for a complete ban on aerial spraying of agrochemicals plus a ban of its use within a kilometre of residential areas. They documented a 2-5 times increase in birth defects in sprayed towns compared to before spraying began.

Common defects include neural tube defects, which are replicated in laboratory studies on glyphosate (see later).

A 2013 report from the Centre of Congenital defects claims that nationally, the number of cases has not gone up, but a closer scrutiny gives a different picture. Data gathered during a six month period from the hospital Maternidad Provincial in Córdoba showed that despite recording a low level of birth defects of 36 out of a total of 2140 births (1.68%), 22 of those came from mothers living in crop-sprayed towns, which accounts for 61% of all the birth defects.

The US has seen a surge in neural tube birth defects (anencephaly) in the Yakima River, Washington State. The source remains a mystery to officials who have ruled out common causes such as low folic acid and lifestyle choices. Rates have reached 8 cases per 10 000 births from 2010-2013 compared to a national average of 3 cases per 10 000 births.

Glyphosate has emerged as a prime suspect as the state of Washington use herbicides, most often glyphosates, to kill noxious weeds in both land and water. An estimated 146 pesticides were applied in the area in the year 2000, and studies are now needed to confirm whether or not glyphosate, either alone or in combination with other chemicals is responsible for neural tube defects in the area.

Reproductive problems such as miscarriages and infertility have also risen in Argentina (see Glyphosate/Roundup & Human Male Infertility, SiS62). Physicians of sprayed towns have recorded as many as 23% of women suffering from miscarriage in the last 5 years.

The latest victims of Argentina's chemical agricultural system, of which GM cultivation is an extreme example, could very well have been spared if the evidence of the teratogenic properties of glyphosate produced by industry since the 1980s had not been dismissed.

Glyphosate is teratogenic - according to Monsanto's own data

Monsanto's own toxicology tests submitted to the EU commission showed evidence of teratogenicity (see EU Regulators and Monsanto Exposed for Hiding Glyphosate Toxicity, SiS51). The submitted test reports describe rats and rabbits with skeletal abnormalities including the development of a 13^th rib in offspring, as well as cardiac abnormalities.

Scientific studies such as that of the late Professor Andrés Carrasco reporting neural tube birth defects in frog and chick embryos exposed to agricultural concentrations of glyphosate have validated both Monsanto's findings and clinical observations (see also Lab Study Establishes Glyphosate Link to Birth Defects, SiS48).

Probing into the mechanisms underlying the defects, Carrasco discovered that glyphosate disrupted retinoic acid activity, a well-known regulator of developmental processes.

Epidemiological studies have linked increased incidence of birth defects (spina bifida, circulatory/respiratory anomalies, tracheo-esophogeal defects, gastrointestinal defects, urogenital defects, cleft lip, adactyly, clubfoot, musculoskeletal anomalies, Down's syndrome and other birth defects) and reproductive toxicity in those who live near agrochemical-sprayed fields.

Other lab studies are accumulating evidence of birth defects and reproductive toxicity in a range of animals from rats to catfish.

Evidence from the farm follows the same pattern. Ib Borup Pedersen recently documented personal experiences on his pig farm, where removing GM soybean feed from the diet resulted in pronounced improvement in the health of his pigs, reducing medicine use by a third and increasing his profits (see "Changing from GMO to Non-GMO Natural Soy, Experiences from Denmark, SiS 64).

Profits were also increased due to his sows living longer and giving birth to more piglets. After researching glyphosate and GMOs Ib investigated further and collaborated with scientists in Germany who analysed 38 of his 1-day old deformed piglets, finding glyphosate in various organs of the pigs.

Pigs suffered defects ranging from severe to mild, including spinal, cranial defects and others affecting limbs, gender, internal organs, tongue and more. Many appear to be neural tube defects as seen in the clinic and laboratory.

Cancer rates skyrocket in South American regions of GM cultivation

Neighbourhood resident organisations such as the association of Mothers of Ituzaingo, in collaboration with the Network of Sprayed Towns have been mapping cancer incidence in their towns for many years to draw attention to the epidemic they are facing.

It is has reached the point where now, 30% of all deaths in these regions are from cancers, affecting both adults and children. Cities such as Hernando have seen a 258% rise in cases between 2001-2002 and 2010-2012.

Rises in cancer rates can be explained by glyphosate's role in cancer-causing mechanisms including DNA damage and endocrine disruption. Endocrine disruption may well also underlie some of the reproductive and teratogenic effects of glyphosate described above.

Lab studies show glyphosate damages DNA in lab animals as well as in people who were exposed to the chemical in Argentina. It also disrupts cell cycle regulation that can lead to increased cell division and cancer development [36,37].

The glyphosate metabolite AMPA was also shown in a 2014 study to induce DNA damage in fish at concentration ranges previously documented in streams and surface water in N. America. Glyphosate's carcinogenic potential has been documented since the 1980s (see Glyphosate & Cancer, SiS 62)

Distinct from DNA damaging properties, glyphosate also mimics oestrogen at very low levels and promotes the growth of hormone-dependent breast cancer cell lines.

Actually glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor and alters the expression of multiple hormones including testosterone, leutinising hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone, and the aromatase enzyme complexes that convert testosterone to oestrogen.

Cancer doubles in areas of high agro-chemical use

Epidemiological studies corroborate lab studies and reports from local citizens in Argentina and the US. The Ministry of Health of Córdoba in Argentina reported in June 2014 the doubling of cancer cases in high agrochemical use areas compared to the national average.

Consistently, a new meta-analysis found association between glyphosate and cancers following occupational exposure. The study looked at all epidemiological papers on non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) incidence that had been published in English since 1980 that reported agricultural, occupational exposure to specific pesticides.

A total of 44 papers were analysed, covering 80 active ingredients and 21 pesticide chemicals, finding the strongest associations between pesticides and specific subtypes of NHL, including an association between glyphosate and B lymphoma.

They also found that phenoxy herbicides, carbamate insecticides, organophosphorus insecticides and the active ingredient lindane, an organochlorine insecticide, were positively associated with NHL.

The most comprehensive GMO feeding study to date carried out by Gilles-Eric Séralini and his team, looked at the effects glyphosate and glyphosate tolerant maize NK603 on rats during their two-year life-time.

It showed increased incidence of tumours (including cancers), other illnesses, as well as reduced life-span and altered hormone status. The 2012 publication was aggressively attacked by industry and its supporters and unilaterally and illicitly retracted a year after publication following the appointment of an ex-Monsanto employee as an editor for the journal (see Retracting Séralini Study Violates Science and Ethics, SiS 61).

It has subsequently been republished elsewhere after massive public protest (see Open Letter on Retraction and Pledge to Boycott, SiS 61).

Fatal kidney disease epidemic across continents foreseen by lab studies

Kidney disease has reached epidemic levels in regions that heavily use glyphosate such as farmers in Sri Lanka and sugar cane workers in Central America. Kidney problems have been highlighted by scientific studies, including Séralini's rat feeding study where kidney tumours were observed.

A meta-analysis of feeding studies conducted by Séralini's lab revealed kidney pathology in animals fed Roundup Ready soybeans, while in vitro studies have shown that glyphosate had cytotoxic effects on human embryonic kidney cell lines [52,53] (see GM Feed Toxic, Meta-Analysis Confirms, SiS52, Death by multiple poisoning ,glyphosate and Roundup, SiS 42).

In Sri Lanka, chronic kidney disease of unknown aetiology (CKDu) has afflicted the agricultural population in recent years. A study published in 2014 linked glyphosate-based herbicides to the epidemic.

It appears that hard water in the agricultural regions leads to heavy metal toxicity in the kidneys via glyphosate's metal chelating activity, and is responsible for the 400,000 cases of the disease and 20 000 fatalities (see Sri Lanka Partially Bans Glyphosate for Deadly Kidney Disease Epidemic, SiS 62).

The government temporarily banned glyphosate from hard water areas, but this decision was reversed due to a lack of agricultural workers to take over the manual weeding required without the application of glyphosate.

Similar health problems are widely affecting communities in Central America with one in four sugar cane workers reporting kidney disease in some areas [58, 59].

This epidemic forced the El Salvador government to call for international help after the epidemic began overwhelming the health systems. The El Salvadorian government has since approved legislation to ban glyphosate herbicides, though this is yet to be enforced.

Digestive illnesses widespread - in pigs, cows and humans

Digestive illnesses plagued the pig farm in Denmark (mentioned earlier) while they were being fed GM soy. When GM produce and glyphosate were removed from their diet, the pigs no longer suffered chronic diarrhoea, which was so severe that 30% of new born piglets were dying as a result.

Chronic botulism, caused by the Clostridium botulinum bacteria, has also been on the rise in livestock in Germany, the US, and UK since the 1990s. The latest study shows that glyphosate results in dysbiosis of the cow gut, with a reduction of beneficial bacteria in the rumen of cows accompanied by a rise in C. botulinum microbes.

The digestive illnesses in livestock mirrors a growing health problem in the West, particularly in the US where food intolerances, allergies, celiac disease, bowel diseases, infections and other problems continue to become more common.

Nancy Swanson and colleagues showed a clear correlation between spikes in both inflammatory bowel disease and intestinal infection with glyphosate in the US. Deaths from intestinal infections have risen from less than 0.25 deaths per 100,000 in 1979 to over 80 deaths per 100,000 in 2010. Inflammatory bowel disease has risen from around 3 diagnosed cases per 100,000 in 1990 to almost 90 per 100,000 in 2010.

Moms across America's testimonials reflect the evidence from the farm and science studies, with children who come off GM and glyphosate covered foods reducing the severity of allergy symptoms as well as other problems such as regular vomiting.

With glyphosate's antibiotic properties, it had already been previously shown to cause disruption of the gut bacteria in poultry, swine and cows. Salmonella and Clostridium are highly resistant to glyphosate, whereas Enterococcus,Bifidobacteria, and Lactobacillus are especially susceptible.

Perturbation in the balance of these microbial species is associated with digestive disorders such as celiac disease. Similarly, chronic botulism in cows is rectified in livestock by feeding fermented and pro-biotic foods along with charcoal and humic acids. These both bind to the toxins produced by the bacterial pathogen.

This treatment also reduces the urinary content of glyphosate, suggesting its binding as an underlying mechanism in the recovery of the infection.

Autistic people are well known to have disturbed intestinal function and dysbiosis of the gut. Autism rates are also spiking in parallel with glyphosate use in the US and glyphosate's antibiotic activity may well be an underlying mechanism behind this.

Indeed, mothers have also documented much improved autism symptoms in their children upon giving them a glyphosate and GM-free diet.

Health of American citizens deteriorating

One argument for the safety of GM food and their associated pesticides is that the US has been consuming them for years without ill effect. However, in the absence of labelling GM foods, it is illegitimate to make such a claim. On the contrary, there has been a drastic deterioration of public health in the US since GM crops were introduced.

A new publication by Swanson and colleagues plots the rise of 20 chronic diseases using available US government data, all correlating closely with increasing glyphosate application to corn and soy crops, especially over the past several years.

The diseases included cancers, Parkinson's, autism, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, digestive disease and kidney failure. Correlation does not prove causation, but such strong association certainly cannot be dismissed, especially in combination with the plethora of other evidence from laboratory studies, and the experiences of doctors in their clinics and farmers in the fields.

For a detailed analysis of the study please see Marked Deterioration of Public Health Parallels Increase in GM Crops and Glyphosate Use, US Government Data Show ( SiS 65).

Though heart disease had not been studied as extensively as cancers and birth defects in relation to glyphosate, the above study implicates its role in cardiac dysfunction. This is corroborated by the new finding that glyphosate formulations cause abnormal heart rhythms (arrhythmia) by interfering with the electrical activity of heart cells in rabbits.

A new study published in 2015 finds a correlation between glyphosate use and pineal gland pathology. The pineal gland is located in the brain and is known to regulate circadian rhythm through melatonin secretion.

Glyphosate is hypothesised to disrupt melatonin metabolism, as well as induce pineal gland neuropathology through aluminium-induced hypoxia that results from the metal chelating properties of glyphosate. In this way, glyphosate use tightly correlates with the rises in sleep disorders as well as other disorders with symptoms of sleep dysfunction such as autism and dementia.

It is becoming clear that glyphosate has multiple toxicities that link it to many diseases through its metal chelating, antibiotic, endocrine disrupting, and genotoxic properties. Glyphosate also has the ability to block cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzyme activity, a class of enzymes involved in detoxifying xenobiotics amongst other things.

Glyphosate therefore not only is a toxin in its own right, but enhances the toxicity of other chemicals by preventing the CYP enzymes from detoxifying the body.

Americans are definitely getting sicker in numerous ways highly correlated with adopting GM crops and rise in glyphosate use and, as shown by all the testimonials from Moms across America, peoples' health improves after removing GMOs and glyphosate residues from their foods by buying organic.

Environmental toxicity a concern for biodiversity, agriculture and sustainability

The spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds is increasingly compromising the effectiveness of the herbicide. There are now a reported 31 species of resistant weeds, up from 23 a year ago as recorded by the Weed Science organisation in the US.

In Brazil, an aggressive spread of weeds prompted a former DuPont agronomist to acknowledge the difficulties faced by farmers cultivating glyphosate-tolerant GM crops both in Brazil and Argentina.

Monsanto now recommends an "integrated weed management" strategy that includes tilling the soil (of previously no-till land) and using multiple herbicides.

The main selling points of Monsanto's Roundup Ready (RR) GM crop system was to reduce environmental damage through no-tillage agriculture and glyphosate use - a supposedly 'safe' herbicide compared to older chemicals.

Not only is glyphosate toxic to health and the environment, but a cocktail of even more lethal herbicides have to be deployed to deal with glyphosate-resistant weeds, and an end to no till agriculture, resulting in further soil erosion. In short, we have an ecological and agronomic disaster.

Glyphosate toxicity to wildlife is well-documented. Many species, including aquatic organisms, reptiles, beneficial soil organisms including certain microbes and worms have been shown in scientific studies to be affected by glyphosate exposure (see Ban GMOS Now, ISIS special report).

This includes chronic and acute toxicity to the model aquatic organism Daphnia magna at below accepted thresholds for glyphosate presence in US freshwater. Amphibians, the most endangered animals in the world, are so sensitive to glyphosate that 78% of frogs died in one study on being exposed to Roundup herbicide.

Glyphosate has also been shown to stimulate the growth of soil fungi, increase the pathogenicity of soil pathogens such as Xylella fastidosa while numerous beneficial soil organisms have been decimated (see Scientists Reveal Glyphosate Poisons Crops and Soil, SiS 47).

The latest study on soil organisms concluded that non-target organisms are at risk of local extinction after finding sub-lethal doses of glyphosate reduced fertility as well as survival of juvenile and adult E.fetida worms.

Monarch butterfly decline has been linked to glyphosate destruction of the milkweed in the US, the only food source for its larvae. Their migration from the US is at an all-time low and has been declining for the last 17 years (1994-5 to 2010-2011) (see Glyphosate and Monarch Butterfly Decline, SiS 52).

This decline has prompted a move to protect the butterflies under the Endangered Species Act by over 200 organisations and 40 scientists in November 2014. A new report on a Welsh nature reserve documents the decline in insects including beneficial pollinators such as bees as glyphosate levels increase (see How Roundup Poisoned my Nature Reserve, SiS 64).

Reducing micro-nutrient availability

Not only are non-target organisms negatively affected, but also the target crops. Glyphosate's metal chelating properties reduce the micronutrients available to the plant, which it needs to maintain a fully-functioning immune system, thereby increasing its susceptibility to disease.

This mechanism is thought to underlie the spread of over 40 crop diseases in glyphosate-tolerant GM crops (see USDA scientist reveals All, SiS53). Indeed, USDA senior scientist Don Huber states that glyphosate's ability to kill plants is through the destruction of their immune system.

This was clearly demonstrated by his experiments showing that non-GM plants grown in a sterile soil do not die when sprayed with glyphosate as the pathogens are not there to take advantage of the compromised immune system.

A reduction in mineral nutrients has health impacts on those eating the crops such as abnormalities in calves that are caused by manganese deficiency, which are on the rise and may well result from glyphosate chelation.

Farm animals are further suffering from other illnesses (and birth defects) as described by the Danish pig farmer earlier. Similar problems have been reported in Germany, where cows are suffering from chronic infections such as botulism. Also in the US, with for example, the veterinarian Art Dunham reporting botulism in dairy cows, as well as reproductive problems, bloody bowels, rickets and viral diseases in hogs.

As a result of the problems faced by farmers, many are now moving away from GM and glyphosate-based systems. The US is seeing a growth in the non-GM seed market (see Global Status of GMO and non-GMO crops, SiS 62).

Agriculture experts such as Howard Vlieger are helping 300-400 farmers in the US switch from GM to non-GM crops without glyphosate use due to its ill effects to soil, plants and animals.

Glyphosate-tolerant crops have also been shown to need more water and do worse in drought situations (see GM Crops and Water - A recipe for Disaster SiS 56, and GM Crops Destroyed by US Drought but non-GM Varieties Flourish, SiS56). This is consistent with their health being compromised by glyphosate.
While GM crops are causing problems for farmers, non-GM crops are leading the way in providing drought- and salt-tolerant varieties, which makes sense when one considers that the majority of traits are highly complex, involving multiple genes and pathways and therefore too complicated to mimic with crude genetic engineering techniques (see Genetic Modification Trails Conventional Breeding By Far, SiS 64).

Regulatory science corrupt, ban glyphosate locally

Glyphosate re-assessment by the EU commission was performed in 2014, not only re-approving glyphosate, but approving increased residue levels for food and feed, with the final decision expected in 2015.

The reassessment was performed by industry, though Germany acted as the rapporteur state, submitting the renewal assessment report to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (see Scandal of Glyphosate Re-assessment in Europe(SiS63).

This report relied on summary assessments provided by the Glyphosate Task Force which consists of Monsanto and other chemical companies such as Syngenta UK and Dow Italy. Assessments were made on glyphosate excluding commercial formulations most frequently used such as Roundup, and focused on studies showing less toxic results.

It has been well-documented and previously explained in Ban GMOS Now , that adjuvants present in glyphosate formulation products such as POEA, as well as glyphosate metabolites like AMPA have their own toxicity and moreover, that glyphosate and the adjuvants together are far more toxic than glyphosate alone.

A new 2014 study by Professor Séralini's group further confirms this, showing for the first time that glyphosate formulation products (as well as insecticide and fungicides) are far more toxic than glyphosate alone at concentrations well below agricultural dilutions.

Using human cell lines (HEK293, JEG3 and HepG2), they showed formulations to cause significant reductions in cell viability at concentrations 125 times less than glyphosate alone, challenging the relevance of the current acceptable daily intake (ADI).

It is important to note that studies on the effects of pesticide cocktail mixtures, a far more likely scenario in real life, have yet to be properly investigated.

We must all act against glyphosate where we can

The evidence of glyphosate toxicity to both human and animal health and the ecosystem has built up to such an extent that some governments are taking action.

As mentioned earlier, both El Salvador and Sri Lanka have made steps towards banning the herbicide. The Netherlands successfully banned its sale to private individuals.

Russia has recently decided to ban the import and cultivation of all GM crops due to health and environmental concerns, while a section of the Chinese army has reportedly banned its consumption. In Brazil a public prosecutor is also looking to suspend its use.

For those of us who are not being protected by our governments, it is time to start initiating our own campaigns - banning it first from our homes, communities, schools, cities, counties and regions.

---

Dr Eva Sirinathsinghji is a scientist working on GMOs with ISIS

This article was originally published by ISIS, the Institute of Science in Society. For ease of reading this version has been stripped of its references, which are available in the PDF version.

Action: Please support research of Seralini's team on analysing glyphosate residues in rats exposed to Roundup.

Monsanto’s Roundup system threatens extinction of monarch butterflies - report

Reuters / Michael Fiala

RT | Feb 5, 2015

Monsanto’s Roundup Ready system – a potent herbicide combined with genetically-modified seeds that can withstand it – has decimated the monarch butterfly’s only source of food in the Midwest, putting it on the edge of extinction, according to a new study.

Biotechnology conglomerate Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup has become the most common herbicide in American agriculture today, used in tandem with the company’s genetically-engineered Roundup Ready crops.

Since its heavy proliferation began in the 1990s, glyphosate has been a leading killer of 99 percent of milkweed in the Midwest’s corn and soybean fields. Glyphosate-sensitive milkweed plants are the only spots where monarchs lay eggs, as the plant is the only food source for monarch larvae.

According to the Center for Food Safety’s new report, “Monarchs in Peril: Herbicide-Resistant Crops and the Decline of Monarch Butterflies in North America,” these conditions have contributed to a drastic 90-percent drop in population for monarchs in their main habitat, crop fields in the Midwest.

“This report is a wake-up call. This iconic species is on the verge of extinction because of Monsanto's Roundup Ready crop system,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director for the Center for Food Safety.

“To let the monarch butterfly die out in order to allow Monsanto to sell its signature herbicide for a few more years is simply shameful.”

As Monsanto is on the precipice of receiving US government approval for its next generation of the Roundup Ready system, the report raises the question of how much longer will the monarch survive?

“Milkweed growing in Midwest cropland is essential to the monarch’s continued survival. Without milkweed, we'll have no monarchs,” said Dr. Martha Crouch, a biologist for the Center for Food Safety and a co-author of the report.

“Very few of us fully understand the ecological impacts of our food system, but we need to pay attention. The decline of the monarch is a stark reminder that the way we farm matters.”
The Center for Food Safety said it was presenting the new report “to Congress today at an expert briefing on the decline of monarchs.”

In December, the US Fish and Wildlife Service said it may designate the monarch as a threatened species under the US Endangered Species Act. The agency review comes in response to a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for Food Safety, and the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation to list the subspecies of monarch (Danaus plexippus plexippus).

Disregarding their natural beauty, monarch butterflies play an important role in ecology. They carry pollen from plant to plant, helping fruits and flowers to produce new seeds. In their caterpillar stage, they are a food source for birds, mammals, and other insects.

While milkweed can grow away from main cropland, there is an increasingly low amount of habitat that can support monarchs. Herbicide spraying over corn and soybeans fields that dominate the Midwestern Corn Belt leave monarchs to search for milkweed in other areas like roadsides and pastures, according to the report. Monarchs also produce four times more eggs per plant on milkweed growing in a crop field as opposed to milkweed sprouting elsewhere, the Center for Food Safety claimed.

Monarchs are also threatened by global climate change, drought and heat waves, other pesticides, urban sprawl, and logging on their Mexican wintering grounds. Scientists have predicted that the monarch's entire winter range in Mexico and large parts of its summer range in the states could become unsuitable due to these threats.

The report said that as monarch population sinks, they will likely become more susceptible to remarkable weather events.

The Center for Food Safety listed a host of policy recommendations in the report, including that the US Department of Agriculture should “reject applications to approve new herbicide-resistant crops, and [US Environmental Protection Agency] should deny registrations of herbicides for use on them, unless or until appropriate restrictions are enacted to ameliorate their harms to milkweeds, monarchs and pollinators.”

“Glyphosate is the monarch’s enemy number one. To save this remarkable species, we must quickly boost milkweed populations and curtail the use of herbicide-resistant crop systems,” said Bill Freese, a co-author of the report.

As RT reported last month, the Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service approved Monsanto’s new GMO cotton and soybean plants. The company now awaits approval from the Environmental Protection Agency for it latest herbicide – a mix of the formidable chemical dicamba and glyphosate, which the company has developed for use on the newly-approved GMO crops.

The new GMO crops – coupled with the dicamba/glyphosate cocktail – make up what Monsanto has dubbed the 'Roundup Ready Xtend crop system,' designed to trump super weeds that have evolved along with its Roundup biocide.

For its part, Monsanto says it is seeking alternatives for the monarch.

"At Monsanto, we’re committed to doing our part to protect these amazing butterflies. That’s why we are collaborating with experts from universities, nonprofits, and government agencies to help the monarch by restoring their habitat in Crop Reserve Program land, on-farm buffer strips, roadsides, utility rights-of way and government-owned land."

Glyphosate & Honeybees, interview with Don Huber 2014

The Institute for Responsible Technology | Feb 2, 2015

Jeffrey Smith talks to Don Huber about the effects of glyphosate and the dwindling bee population.

Sprayed on our Food, Round Up Deemed ‘Toxic Household Waste’ by Trash Collectors

© Natural Society

Natural Society | Jan 14, 2015 | Christina Sarich

In the same category as paint thinner, mercury, and antifreeze

Did you know that you should not put a bottle of Round Up in your municipal trashcan for pick up? If that is the case, then why on Earth would we put that same chemical trash into our bodies?

Yep – Round Up, Monsanto’s favorite herbicide and one of their best-selling products, is considered a Hazmat issue for local cities and towns. It isn’t supposed to be disposed of in your regular trash pick-up. According to the Department of Public Works, “Employees can be harmed by their toxic fumes.”

Monsanto’s Round Up is in the same category for trash removal as paint, paint thinner, furniture polish, mercury, swimming pool chemicals, CFL and fluorescent light bulbs, and antifreeze.

I certainly wouldn’t eat antifreeze, would you? I know that question may sound a bit insulting, but how is it then that we allow (through the voting process and complicit agreement) the EPA to hike up allowable glyphosate (the main ingredient in Round Up) levels? They’ve done it not once, but multiple times.

Now – the allowed level in teff animal feed is 100 parts per million (ppm); and in [GM] oilseed crops, 40 ppm. Allowed levels in some fruits and vegetables eaten by humans have also risen.

As a comparison, malformations in frog and chicken embryos were documented by Prof Andres Carrasco’s team at 2.03 ppm glyphosate (when injected into the embryos).

We also know that glyphosate exposure boosts harmful bacterial growth in the gut and eliminates healthful bacteria – making our body’s own trash eliminator – the GI tract – highly compromised.

Read: Chronically Sick People Found to Have High Levels of Glyphosate

Dr. Krüger explains in the study’s abstract:

“During the last 10-15 years, an increase of Clostridium botulinum associated diseases in cattle has been observed in Germany. . . The normal intestinal microflora is a critical factor in preventing intestinal colonisation by C. botulinum as shown in the mouse model of infant botulism. . . . A reduction of LAB in the GIT microbiota by ingestion of strong biocides like glyphosate could be an explanation for the observed increase in levels of C. botulinum associated diseases.

In the present paper, we report on the toxicity of glyphosate to the most prevalent Enterococcus spp. in the GIT. Ingestion of this herbicide could be a significant predisposing factor that is associated with the increase in C. botulinum mediated diseases in cattle.”

Remember – you should contact your local authorities when you are going to dispose of Round Up, even an empty bottle. But we keep spraying it on our food – no worries there.

Study Links GMOs to Over 22 Different Diseases

Natural Society | Dec 6, 2014 | Christina Sarich

Yet More Evidence GMOs Should be Banned

A new study released in September of this year gives even more evidence that GMOs should have been banned before they were ever allowed on the market. Read on to find out how “Genetically Engineered Crops, Glyphosate and the Deterioration of Health in the United States of America” pinpoints a significant correlation between GMOs and 22 diseases.

Why does the biotech industry keep hiding the toxicity of their products? Well, there are numerous reasons – the corruption of the American and international governments, the fact that the USDA’s main man appointed by Obama was a former Monsanto executive, and the tremendously deep pockets of mega-corporations to launch propaganda campaigns – are just a few.

The aforementioned title was published in The Journal of Organic Systems. It is full of very detailed evidence of the link between genetically modified ingredients and diseases such as liver failure, urinary and bladder cancers, hypertension, thyroid disease, stroke, obesity, and more. It is replete with telling charts and graphs that describe visually the mayhem that GMOs have unleashed on society.

Much of the study focuses on the introduction of glyphosate and its subsequent ramifications on human health. The herbicide was introduced in 1974, but the research conducted within this study relied on data since the 1990s, since that is all that was available. Since the early 90s, glyphosate use has grown astronomically.

As the study details:

“. . .glyphosate disrupts the ability of animals, including humans, to detoxify xenobiotics. This means that exposures to the numerous chemicals in food and the environment, such as endocrine disrupting chemicals and carcinogens, could be causing levels of damage that would not occur if the body were able to detoxify them.”

Though the authors admit that correlation is not proof of causation, they state that:

“. . .we have data for 22 diseases, all with a high degree of correlation and very high significance. It seems highly unlikely that all of these can be random coincidence.”

They also bring attention to the American Academy of Environmental Medicine’s position paper on genetically modified (GM) foods:

“[S]everal animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.”

So what did the authors of this study conclude?

There is an obvious and significant correlation between the increased use of glyphosate and genetically engineered crops grown specifically to withstand its use, and a growing multitude of diseases and their frequency. Many of the graphs show a marked increase right around the 1990s when the makers of glyphosate enjoyed a boost in their profits and an enormous swell of herbicide use from products like RoundUp and others containing the same chemicals.

There is no mistaking the data – the large increase in glyphosate use in the US is mostly due to the increase in glyphosate-resistant GE crops – and this has led to more disease.

Additional Sources:
Alternet

Additional Sources:
Alternet

The researchers state:

“The probabilities in the graphs and tables show that it is highly unlikely that the correlations are a coincidence. The strength of the correlations shows that there is a very strong probability that they are linked somehow. The number of graphs with similar data trends also indicates a strong probability that there is a link. Although correlation does not necessarily mean causation, when correlation coefficients of over 0.95 (with p-value significance levels less than 0.00001) are calculated for a list of diseases that can be directly linked to glyphosate, via its known biological effects, it would be imprudent not to consider causation as a plausible explanation.”

Sure there are many reasons for chronic disease – diet, lack of exercise, exposure to other environmental toxins, and even genetic predisposition among them, but when your body can’t rid itself of a known carcinogen because it is added straight to the food supply in copious amounts – of course you are going to get sick. It doesn’t take 22 charts to figure that out. After all, glyphosate is appearing in people’s urine, blood, and breast milk.
Since glyphosate is also an endocrine disruptor, this would imply that the current permitted residue levels in food could be causing multiple health problems that have been documented in the scientific literature.
The endocrine system is essential to human health. Since it is being attacked by biotech chemicals on a daily basis, the glands in our bodies like the pituitary, thymus, and pineal can’t secrete hormones that keep us fit, healthy, and disease-free.
All of these functions are carried out by the endocrine system:

• Growth and development

• Homeostasis (the internal balance of body systems)

• Metabolism (body energy levels)

• Reproduction

• Response to stimuli (stress and/or injury)

Of course, the body will start to respond with disease-like symptoms when the metabolism, reproductive system, and nervous system are constantly trying to right themselves due to glyphosate exposure.
We are the guinea pigs of biotech – a grand science experiment gone wrong (or right depending on who you talk to and the motives suspected behind biotech technologies).
The researchers urge independent scientific research. They expound:

“The data presented in this paper highlight the need for independent scientific research to be conducted, especially in the areas of the endocrine disruption, cancer precursor, oxidative stress, gut microbiome and the Cytochrome P450 pathways. It is our hope that, in addition to more basic research in the form of toxicology and carcinogenic studies, epidemiology studies will be undertaken by experts in each of these disease categories.”

In my estimation, there is already ample evidence, even with the biotech white-wash and out-right manipulation of universities, non-profits, and scientific journals, that GMOs are dangerous.
So, until we are able to ban all GMO crops completely, add these 10 GMO foods to your GMO foods list so you can more easily avoid them. You can also avoid the eight main GM crops:

• Corn
• Soybeans
• Canola
• Cottonseed
• Sugar Beets
• Most Hawaiian Papaya
• Some Zucchini and Yellow Squash
• Sugar Derived from GMO Sugar Beets
• Dairy is additionally likely to be GMO unless it is labeled No rBGH, rBST, or artificial hormones.

Below are some of the key charts from the Journal of Organic Systems study. You can also read the full study on the correlation between GMO and 22 different diseases for more details.

How Much Pesticide Residue on Your Produce? FDA Doesn't Know

Common Dreams | Nov 7, 2014 | Andrea Germanos

The Center for Biological Diversity says FDA has "
dropped the ball when it comes to pesticides."
(Photo:  Dean Hochman/flickr/cc)

New GAO report reveals FDA doing scant testing for pesticides

The Food and Drug Administration is carrying out little testing for pesticide residues on fruit and vegetables, a new report by a federal watchdog reveals.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report (pdf) found that in 2012, the FDA tested less than one-tenth of 1 percent of imported shipments.

FDA does not test for some commonly used pesticides—like glyphosate—for which the EPA has established tolerance levels, nor does FDA disclose in its annual reports that it doesn't do this testing, the GAO analysis states.

In addition, GAO charges, "FDA does not use statistically valid methods consistent with Office of Management and Budget standards to collect national information on the incidence and level of pesticide residues."

The Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit conservation organization, says the report shows that inadequate safeguards are in place and urged the FDA to take appropriate action.

"The FDA is supposed to be protecting the American people from dangers in their food and it’s clear they’ve dropped the ball when it comes to pesticides," Lori Ann Burd, endangered species campaign director for the organization, said in a statement.

"As scientists continue to uncover information regarding the harmful effects of pesticides on human health and the environment, the American public deserves to be able to rely on FDA to provide the basic monitoring required to protect the health of people, wildlife and our waterways," Burd added.

Scientists Prove Organic Food More Nutritionally Rich than Conventional, GMO Crops

© Natural Society

Natural Society | Oct 24, 2014 | Christina Sarich

It’s always interesting when biotech shills spout a bunch of their credentials on posts about GMOs, complaining that there is no scientific proof that genetically modified organisms are bad for our health, bad for the environment, or bad for food sustainability. But here’s something positive. In researching the true nutrition of food that is grown organically (without pesticides and herbicides, as GMOs are), one scientist that is well respected in her field found some revealing evidence showing how non-GMO, organic foods are better for us. Read on to learn more.

Many GMO-advocates are probably aware of the fact that genetically modified crops contain higher levels of pesticide residues than conventional crops. But what about organic vs. GMO when it comes to nutrient content? You can argue with a biotech scientist all day long, and they’ll tell you there is no difference, but they are flat wrong. It’s no straw man – there is real evidence that organic produce is better – in a number of ways.

Read more..

The Feds Just Approved a New GMO Corn. Here's Why I'm Not Rejoicing

Mother Jones | Oct 17, 2014 | Tom Philpott

High-tech seeds, old-school
herbicides. Roger Smith/Flickr

In September, the US Department of Agriculture greenlighted new GMO corn and soybean products engineered to resist two kinds of herbicides, Roundup (glyphosate) and an older, more toxic one called 2,4-D (which was one of two ingredients in the powerful defoliant used in the Vietnam War called Agent Orange). And on Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency approved of a new 2,4-D formulation called Enlist, which has been designed for use on the novel seeds, in six corn/soy-heavy states: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. That means starting in spring 2015, farmers in the Midwestern Corn Belt will likely be dousing their crops with 2,4-D as well as Roundup, in an effort to control the plague of weeds that have evolved to resist Roundup.

The authors predict that glyphosate (Roundup)
use will hold steady at high levels—and
use of other herbicides, like 2,4-D, will soar.:
From Mortensen, at al, "Navigating a
Critical Juncture for Sustainable
Weed Management," BioScience, Jan. 2012

So what's the big deal? In this 2012 post, I laid out research by a team led by Pennsylvania State University crop scientist David A. Mortensen (paper abstract  here) on how the new products are at best a temporary solution to the problem of "superweeds"—they lead farmers down a path of ever-increasing reliance on agrichemicals. They argue that chances are "actually quite high" that Dow's new product will unleash a new generation of weeds resistant to both herbicides, because when farmers apply 2,4-D to weeds that are already resistant to Roundup, they'll essentially be selecting for weeds that can resist both. Their projection of how such double resistance will affect herbicide use is at the left—a boon for agrichemical sales, but not so great for the environment.

Toxic glyphosate herbicides fly under the EU's regulatory radar

Glyphosate herbicides are often sprayed on
potato crops prior to harvest to 'dessicate' the plants'
green leaves. Photo: David Wright via Flickr.

The Ecologist | Sep 12, 2014 | Pete Farrer & Marianne Falck

Earlier this year, Germany declared the active substance glyphosate, a component of many herbicides, as 'safe' in its draft re-assessment report.

Germany's words have weight as it is acting as the Rapporteur Member State for this active substance. But an investigation into the report has exposed another story - it is far from 'safe'.

It is well known that glyphosate is one of the most tested active substances, and is seen as a simple and cost-effective way of controlling weeds in a variety of situatuions.

Glyphosate is the active substance in the most widely used herbicide worldwide called RoundUp®, sales were valued at US$ 5.46 bn in 2012 and are expected to reach US$ 8.79bn [i] by 2019; it is big business.
However, the active substance alone is not sprayed by farmers, councils or 'you' in gardens and driveways. Because to work efficiently, it needs additional chemicals called 'surfactants'.

A shocking omission

The widespread use of glyphosate greatly increases the chances that it will be ingested by humans and farm animals. It is now used to desiccate cereal, pulse and oilseed crops prior to harvest - where it produces residues in some of our staple foods [ii]

It is also used extensively on GM crops engineered to be 'Roundup Ready'. This does not (yet) take place in the EU, however such crops dominatye in North and South America and account much of the soy and maize imported to the EU for animal feed.

But whilst active substances are tested and regulated on a European level, pesticide formulations, such as Roundup®, are not.

Because of an initial suspicion [iii] that the surfactant called POEA (polyethoxylated tallow amine) might be toxic for humans, animals and the environment, the German authorities have taken their own protective action.

In the meantime, the EU has failed to take any action at all. "Given the alarming results of independent studies [iv], this is simply shocking", says Martin Häusling, Member of the Greens / European Free Alliance Group.

"Even though I have been criticising The European Food and Safety Authority for many years because of its conflict of interest with the agricultural industry, it would be wrong to blame them alone. The national authorities play a big role in this process."

But in Germany, things are different

Since the late 1990's, the German Federal Institute for Health Protection of Consumers and Veterinary Medicine (BgVV) has called upon Member States in the European Union not to accept glyphosate products containing the surfactant POEA based on the high cytotoxicity [v] of the compounds.

However Monsanto and Cheminova - who at the time were jointly submitting glyphosate for re-approval - quickly disputed all the evidence that was presented [vi]. A 1999 report stated:

"Accordingly, in the formulations for which toxicological data has been submitted as part of the joint dossier of Monsanto and Cheminova, surfactants of this type are not contained any more." [vii].

But the Agro-Chemical companies continued to manufacture and sell products containing POEA. A spokesperson of Monsanto praised surfactants like POEA because "the amount of active ingredient needed per treated area can be reduced."

He also stressed that "the development of new products requires several years of research and development and review by competent public authorities and Europe has some of the highest standards in the world."

These "high standards" seemingly have started to fail, because since 1999 there was scientific consensus that the single active substance approach to risk assessment was flawed.

Finally in 2005 the EU revised the Residue Directive and changed it into Regulation (396/2005) and made Cumulative Risk Assessment mandatory "as soon as methods to assess such effects are available [art 14.b]." [viii]

The next step would be a framework developed by European Food and Safety Authority. But very little has happened since then.

The 'single active substance' approach to risk assessment is flawed

By 2008, more evidence on this specific surfactant was mounting. A paper by J. M Brausch et al. in 2007 [ix] "found all POEA formulations to be extremely toxic".

This prompted the German Environmental Agency (UBA) to request more study data specifically about chronic toxicity. What followed was a "very intense professional dispute" [x] between the UBA and agro-chemical companies, as a source from UBA stated.

The result: The companies did not submit any data, but agreed to replace POEA in the glyphosate formulations - however this resulted in the UBA still not having the data to prove chronic toxicity.

Two years later the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) carried out its own toxicological evaluation of the glyphosate-POEA formulation, after a German forestry worker developed chest pain with rapidly increasing severe respiratory distress and fever up to approximately 38°C.

His pathology revealed "toxic inflammation of the lungs" that was significantly different from bacterial infection [xi].

This resulted in the German authorities prohibiting the usage of certain glyphosate formulations with a high content of POEA for the production of animal feeds in order to avoid a risk of toxins being passed through the food chain [xii]. But how are these formulations tested?

Each time glyphosate is risk assessed in the EU it is done by the presentation of one 'representative formulation' from the vast quantity available on the market [xiii].

This time, the representative formulation that has been presented by the agro-chemical industries European Glyphosate Task Force (GTF), does not contain the surfactant POEA [xiv]. Only by coincidence? Or was it the least toxic formulation that the GTF could find?

Germany acts - but key data remain under lock and key

This year the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment and other German safety authorities published their draft re-assessment report (RAR) on glyphosate and the representative formulation, in the process re-assessing hundreds of studies and public domain literature.

Then the UBA did something exceptional. They included a chapter 'Further toxicological data for other potential co-formulants' [xv] about the surfactant POEA to make sure all Member States are informed that nearly all toxicological endpoints investigated are clearly more toxic than glyphosate alone.

By the end of this year all formulations containing POEA will have been removed from the German market. So what happened in Germany for them to move from 'restricted' to formally 'banned'?

Answer: we don't know. All requests for a list of which companies had to replace POEA, exactly when, and which surfactants are now used instead has been declined by German authorities on the basis that the information constitutes 'Trade Secrets'.

"The protection of public health must have the highest priority - and not the interests of companies or authorities", commented Martin Häusling. "The public must have the right to check that. The European Precautionary Principle is even as important as the Freedom of Information."

What about the rest of us?

There are only 91 glyphosate products registered in Germany [xvi] - of which only one remaining product contains POEA, which will be removed by the end of the year.

But there are 424 glyphosate products registered in the UK [xvii] and it is not known exactly how many of these products contain POEA). Rosate 36 is one of UK's most widely used herbicides in agricultural, horticultural, industrial, amenity and forestry herbicides in use that contain the surfactant POEA.

The discussion about the surfactant POEA shows that the classic method of testing and regulating individual active substances for toxicity does not work. Or as a source from the BfR said:

"We should have a deeper look at co-formulants in the future. The formulation of glyphosate and POEA is an important lesson in that there might be specific surfactants, which can increase the toxicity of the active substance. We don't assume this is common, but it is an increasingly important factor within the field of toxicity which we are aware of."

But this story is not about just one surfactant. What is now known is that surfactants can be synergistic with glyphosate. When chemicals are synergistic, the combined effect of two chemicals is much greater than the sum of the effects of each agent given alone.

Even Monsanto say in one of their own patents [xviii]:

"By exploiting a newly discovered synergistic interaction between two classes of surfactant applied together with the glyphosate, surprisingly enhanced herbicidal effectiveness is obtained by this method."

But the formulations remain secret!

Due to 'data confidentiality' or putting it bluntly 'data secrets', it is not known what these surfactants are, how much more toxic the formulations might be, or even how many different potentially toxic products there are.

The European Court of Justice ruled [xix] in 2013 that the European Commission should disclose industry safety and compositional studies on the pesticide glyphosate, which are currently hidden from the public under data secrets.

The Commission has appealed against the ruling [xx], but Croplife America, The National Association of Manufacturers of the United States and The American Chemistry Council have submitted an application to intervene [xxi].

It could be viewed as significant that the EU is protecting industry, by not revealing the content of emissions of pesticide formulations into the environment.

Pesticide formulations - as the German Safety authorities explained - are regulated on a national level. But the scientific studies that are presented for approval are carried out by the manufacturers themselves.

Only the authorities have access to these studies and have not been verified by independent scientists.

No EU framework for assessing formulations
"Any regulatory system that treats chemicals in isolation is necessarily flawed", commented Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative MP for Richmond Park & North Kingston.

"Chemicals interact with others when they're put out into the environment, and they interact when mixed with others in different chemical formulas."

"A proper, health-oriented regulatory system must look at the synergistic effects of chemical mixtures, and on that basis what we have at present falls far short."

The bad news is there is still no legal framework at EU level to assess formulations on a regulatory basis. The EU's own documentation admits:

"Current EU legislation does not provide for a comprehensive and integrated assessment of cumulative effects of different chemicals taking into account different routes of exposure". [xxii]

It is known that UBA reported POEA in 2012 as an "unacceptable co-formulant" for a so called 'negative list' [xxiii] to the European Commission. Again nothing happened. A spokesperson for the European Commission has only revealed that "The European Commission is currently preparing a request to the EFSA about POEA."

It has taken 15 years from initial suspicion that a glyphosate formulation was toxic, to approach a situation that it could be banned within the EU, and not just one Member State.

Tougher pesticide regulation of surfactants and formulations must be the next step.

---

Pete Farrer and Marianne Falck are investigative journalists and  film producers, collaborating on the full length investigative documentary Hungry for Pesticides, currently in production.

Pete is also a farmer - an experience which led him to investigate the entire topic of pesticides, herbicides and their health impacts.

This article is a part of an investigation for the film. Please support the investigation and the film.

References

[i] According to a new market report published by Transparency Market Research, 'Glyphosate Market for Genetically Modified and Conventional Crops - Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth, Trends and Forecast 2013 - 2019'.

[ii]http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/Resources/CRD/PRiF/Documents/Results%20and%20Reports/2013/BNA%20Q4%202013%20FINAL.pdf

[iii] http://www.scribd.com/doc/238089929/Glyphosate-RAR-08-Volume-3CA-CP-B-6-2013-12-18-San p799 - German forestry worker - Pers comm (UBA)

[iv] Summary of the relevant literature on surface active substances in glyphosate-based formulations RAR - http://www.scribd.com/doc/238090225/Glyphosate-RAR-13-Volume-3CA-CP-B-9-Appendix-2013-12-18

[v] http://www.moleculardevices.com/applications/areas-research/cytotoxicity

[vi] http://www.scribd.com/doc/238082880/FULLREPORT-GLYPHOSAT-05 p20-21

[vii] http://www.scribd.com/doc/238082880/FULLREPORT-GLYPHOSAT-05 p20

[viii] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:070:0001:0016:en:PDF

[ix] Brausch, J. M., & Smith, P. N. 2007. Toxicity of Three Polyethoxylated Tallowamine Surfactant Formulations to Laboratory and Field Collected Fairy Shrimp, Thamnocephalus platyurus. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 52(2), 217-221

[x] Pers comm. (UBA)

[xi] http://www.scribd.com/doc/238089929/Glyphosate-RAR-08-Volume-3CA-CP-B-6-2013-12-18-San p799 - German forestry worker - Pers comm (UBA)

[xii] Pers comm. (BVL)

[xiii] https://secure.pesticides.gov.uk/pestreg/prodsearch.asp

[xiv] http://www.scribd.com/doc/238082730/Glyphosate-RAR-01-Volume-1-2013-12-18-San p98

[xv] http://www.scribd.com/doc/238089929/Glyphosate-RAR-08-Volume-3CA-CP-B-6-2013-12-18-San p835 B.6.13.3 Further toxicological data for other potential co-formulants

[xvi] https://portal.bvl.bund.de/psm/jsp/

[xvii] https://secure.pesticides.gov.uk/pestreg/prodsearch.asp

[xviii] http://www.google.com/patents/WO2001017358A1?cl=en

[xix] http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=142701&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=59034

[xx] http://www.ashurst.com/publication-item.aspx?id_Content=9722

[xxi] http://www.nam.org/~/media/18A3D55120154CD790089B40F1611C32/European_Commn_v_Stichting_Greenpeace_intervention.pdf

[xxii] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0252&from=EN

[xxiii] [REG] 1107/2009 - Article 27: Co-formulants - http://www.euissuetracker.com/en/focus/Pages/Plant-Protection-Products-Regulation.aspx