No surprises really, in light of their blatant denial of all Prof Seralini’s work! (and many others). You cannot believe a word from lying Monsanto cum Bayer … EWNZ
Prof Seralini’s tumour ridden rats fed daily with minute amounts of glyphosate
Despite a growing block of opposition to it, the European Union has voted to give glyphosate another 10 years of life for use with crops grown with chemicals like Roundup.
Originally a Monsanto product, Bayer now owns Roundup, along with billions of dollars in lawsuits of consumers claiming the herbicide caused their cancers. “Bayer bought Monsanto for $63 billion in 2018 and … announced it would pay up to $10.9 billion to settle about 125,000 filed and unfiled claims,” Yahoo! said.
The EU’s extension of glyphosate’s approval for another 10 years could still be challenged, as Greenpeace vowed to continue pushing to get it banned. While proponents argue that there is nothing to fear with glyphosate, and “no viable alternatives,” Greenpeace insists it is carcinogenic, citing studies supporting their stance. It also is harmful to bees, Greenpeace says.
In its ongoing saga of losses in lawsuits with people who say their cancer was caused by the herbicide Roundup, Bayer has lost another round, to the tune of $332 million.
Bayer acquired the Roundup lawsuits with its purchase of Monsanto. According to Reuters, this is the third such loss for Bayer in a month. The current loss reflects $7 million in compensatory damages and $325 million in punitive damages for Mike Dennis, who was diagnosed at age 51 with a form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Bayer paid $63 billion for Monsanto in 2018; since then, it’s settled lawsuits in the amount of $10.9 billion. It still has another 40,000 Roundup cases to go.
With glyphosate featuring again lately, this will be a useful tool in helping determine which are the safer products to purchase. The report is free, however you will need to register an email to enable you to download. Go to ‘Glyphosate Report’ in the main menu, top of page. EWNZ
ROUNDUP®(OR OTHER GLYPHOSATE BASED HERBICIDES) ARE SPRAYED ONTO NON-GMO CROPS AS A DRYING AGENT, JUST BEFORE HARVEST…LEARN MORE FROM OUR DATABASE AND CHOOSE ORGANIC TO AVOID HIGH LEVELS OF GLYPHOSATE (AND OTHER SYNTHETIC PESTICIDES) IN YOUR FOOD.
Glyphosate is the main ingredient in Roundup®, the most popular herbicide in the world. This defoliant destroys vegetation. Do you know how much glyphosate is in the foods you and your family consume?Crops such as corn, soybeans, and cotton have been genetically engineered to resist Roundup. Why is there so much glyphosate in oats and other food grains? How much is safe? Who decides food safety, and how are the tests conducted? Does glyphosate cause cancer?
As food has become increasingly adulterated, contaminated and genetically engineered, the need for laboratory testing has grown
HRI Labs is often hired to test foods claiming to be non-GMO, “all natural” and/or organic. Testing often reveals such claims to be untrue. Several Ben & Jerry’s ice cream flavors were recently found to contain glyphosate
Grains, legumes and beans typically have the highest levels of glyphosate contamination due to the routine practice of desiccation, where glyphosate is sprayed on the crop shortly before harvest to improve yield
HRI Labs has created two glyphosate tests for the public — a water test and an environmental exposure test. The latter will tell you how much glyphosate you have in your system, giving you an indication of the purity of your diet
Seventy-six percent of people tested have glyphosate in their system. People who regularly eat nonorganic oats have double the glyphosate of those who don’t. People who regularly eat organic food have glyphosate levels 80% lower than those who rarely eat organic
Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published October 29, 2017.
As food has become increasingly adulterated, contaminated and genetically engineered, the need for laboratory testing has exponentially grown. John Fagan, president of Health Research Institute Labs (HRI Labs), is an expert in this area. As explained by Fagan, HRI Labs “makes the invisible, visible, giving you the ability to see what is in your food and your environment.”
Fagan studied biochemistry and molecular biology at Cornell University, where he also got his Ph.D. After doing research for eight years at the National Institutes of Health, he went into academia and conducted cancer research using genetic engineering as a research tool. This experience is ultimately what raised his concerns about genetic engineering, especially as it pertains to food.
As a result, he created the first lab for GMO testing in the U.S., followed by labs in Europe and Japan. He’s also trained laboratories in 17 other countries in GMO testing. “What this did was make GMOs visible. Before that testing was there, nobody could tell whether those soybeans, or that corn was genetically engineered or not,” Fagan says. “After GMO testing was available, people had a choice.”
HRI Labs tests both micronutrients and toxins — the good and the bad. “We feel that the kind of testing we’re doing can open a window for you in each of those areas, so you can make better choices about the food you eat, and that you share with your family,” he says.
Testing Techniques and Equipment
There are several types of tests that can be done on a GMO food. Antigens are one type of test. DNA testing is another. Since DNA is far more stable than proteins, genetically engineered foods, even when highly processed, can be easily identified with DNA testing.
A test commonly used to check DNA is the polymerase chain reaction or PCR test. Because it amplifies the DNA signal, it can detect even a single genetically engineered corn kernel in a bag containing 10,000 or more corn kernels.
The chromatograph linked to a mass spectrometer is another central piece of equipment that HRI uses. It allows you to test for a wide variety of things at very high sensitivity. Unfortunately, the cost and complexity involved prevents many labs from having this tool.
“Liquid chromatography is capable of taking a sample of food … or whatever you’re interested in, and fractionating it into hundreds of compounds, separating them out. That is then fed into a mass spectrometer; a machine that measures, ultimately, molecular weight of whatever it’s looking at.
With that you can detect — at extremely low levels and identify very specifically — almost any natural or unnatural compound … down to the parts per trillion in many cases. To give you a sense of what that means, 40 parts per trillion, which is [the limit of] detection that we have for some materials, is like if you were to take a single drop of that chemical and dilute it into 20 Olympic swimming pools full of water.
That’s the extent of dilution required to achieve 40 parts per trillion. This is extreme sensitivity. These [instruments] are like the Teslas of analytical chemistry.
[Liquid chromatography linked to a mass spectrometer] is what we use for measuring glyphosate. Because these machines are very expensive, many of the analytical labs out there don’t have access to them. Also, because it is very specialized equipment, you need somebody with a Ph.D. in analytical chemistry, or equivalent, to do this kind of testing. What we’re doing is … unique in that way.”
The Politics of Food Testing
One of the reasons we decided to collaborate with HRI Labs in testing our own supplements is because many commercial laboratories used to confirm the purity of raw materials tend to provide distorted or prejudicial information. One of the great benefits of HRI Labs, in my view, is its objectivity and ability to provide accurate data, thanks to the sensitivity of their equipment. While many labs will claim to be independent, their primary customers are big food companies.
“They don’t want to embarrass [their customers]. They don’t want to bring anything to the surface on that level, so they tend to give very superficial numbers,” Fagan says. “Typically, they work to thresholds that are established based on politics and convenience, not science and safety.
For instance, you can go to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) website, or the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s website and they will say, ‘Wheat should have less than such and such amount of glyphosate in it.’
Glyphosate is … the most commonly used agrochemical, and it’s now been demonstrated to cause cancer, liver and kidney damage and birth defects. You’ll find there a number for it, but if you go to the scientific literature you discover that levels [of glyphosate] hundred or a thousand times lower … are in fact toxic to the system. For that reason, those government established thresholds are not very meaningful.”
This is a point worthy of reiteration: The use of politically-influenced safety thresholds to “prove” a food is safe is pervasive in the food industry. The only thing such safety levels accomplish is generating a false sense of security, which benefits food companies financially. HRI Labs, on the other hand, looks at the available research when establishing their threshold levels.
Glyphosate Testing
One of the toxins HRI Labs is currently focusing on is glyphosate, and the public testing being offered (see below) allows them to compile data on the pervasiveness of this chemical in the food supply.
When I participated in the environmental exposure test a while back, glyphosate was undetectable, which means levels in my system were below 40 parts per trillion, likely because I eat primarily organic and homegrown foods, and expel toxins I might come in contact with through exercise and regular sauna use.
“What we’re finding is there’s quite a range of levels of exposure, but that people who are eating organic generally have much lower levels. Women tend to have, on average, slightly lower levels than men. There are certain behaviors that tend to lead one to have higher levels.
For instance, it isn’t a super strong correlation, but it appears that if you are a golfer, you’re more likely to get exposed, because they use [glyphosate and other pesticides] on golf courses …
The reassuring thing is that if you … change your diet … and go to a diet that avoids things that might contain these chemicals, then within a week or two your levels of glyphosate will drop significantly. Glyphosate levels are a good indicator for guiding your dietary choices … Often people come back to us saying, ‘This changed my way of thinking about my diet.’ This is a good thing.”
Glyphosate Found in Popular Ice Cream Brand
HRI Labs is often hired to test foods claiming to be non-GMO, “all natural” and/or organic. Unfortunately, many times testing reveals such claims to be untrue. A recent case in point is that of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. HRI Labs’ testing revealed their ice cream contains glyphosate. Fagan tells the story:
“Organic Consumers Association and … Regeneration Vermont were concerned about what was happening with Ben & Jerry’s. They were concerned … that the dairy producers … were not even able to get a price for their product that would cover their costs for producing the milk. There was also a concern from people in the state that the dairies were polluting the lakes, and creating problems for the Vermont tourist industry …
They wanted to look into what was going on with the quality of the milk. They sent us samples and we did some really in-depth testing using the very best methods out there.
We used triple quadrupole mass spectrometry linked to high pressure liquid chromatography to actually look at the quality of the ingredients in a product. What we found with Ben & Jerry’s ice cream was a bit shocking in that it contained substantial levels of glyphosate …
Ten of the 11 flavors we looked at contained measurable amounts of glyphosate, and at least one of them contained levels that, according to most recent research, raised questions about safety. In particular, it had been found that glyphosate at quite low levels — levels considered safe by the Environmental Protection Agency and FDA — … could actually cause problems like fatty liver disease.
As you may know, there’s an epidemic of fatty liver disease in America today, and it’s linked with things like metabolic syndrome … Organic Consumers Association has been discussing those results around the country, and discussing with Ben & Jerry’s if they could do something about that.
The obvious and most logical thing for them to do is to begin to use ingredients that are organic instead of just conventional ingredients, because organic bans the use of things like glyphosate in the production of crops …”
Substantial Amounts of Glyphosate Found in Many Foods
HRI Labs has investigated a number of other foods as well, including grains, legumes and beans. Most if not all of these types of crops need to dry in the field before being harvested, and to speed that process, the fields are doused with glyphosate a couple weeks before harvest. As a result of this practice, called desiccation, grain-based products, legumes and beans contain rather substantial amounts of glyphosate.
Quaker Oats,1 for example, were found to contain very high levels of glyphosate. People who regularly eat nonorganic oats also have elevated levels of the chemical in their urine. “These are the kinds of problems that are coming up out there,” Fagan says. “All that’s needed is for the grain producers to change their practices, so that they’re not spraying the fields with this weed killer immediately before they harvest it, and it will solve those problems.”
Wines also contain surprising amounts of glyphosate. As it turns out, weeds in vineyards are managed by spraying glyphosate, which ends up in the grapes as the roots of the grape vines pick it up through the soil.
“This testing … is making something that’s been invisible in our food system, visible to us,” Fagan says. “[A] vegetable like spinach that you buy in an American grocery store is going to contain, on average, eight different pesticides. That’s eight different pesticides, and you’re taking it home to feed your family without knowing that’s the case …
The reason you aren’t able to know that is because the chemical companies have done a really good job lobbying our government so that nobody in the supply chain has to talk about these … agrochemicals. The farmer doesn’t have to talk about them.
The brands that are selling products made from those [raw ingredients] don’t have to talk about them. The grocery stores don’t have to. They’ve been made invisible in our food system, and that’s a big concern.
We’re doing testing using rigorous methods, the very best methods out there, the most sensitive methods out there, to make these invisible things visible, so that you know more about what’s in your food system, and in the foods you’re giving to your family. This is so important, because this allows each of us to make better choices about the food they provide to their children.”
Water and Environmental Exposure Tests Now Available
HRI Labs is unique in that they’ve created two glyphosate tests for the public — a water testing kit and an environmental exposure test kit. The environmental exposure test is a urine test that will tell you how much glyphosate you have in your system. As mentioned earlier, this will give you a good idea of the purity of your diet. If your glyphosate level is high, chances are you’ve been exposed to many other agrochemicals as well.
So far, HRI Labs has analyzed more than 1,200 urine samples. The testing is being done as part of a research project, which will provide valuable information about the presence of glyphosate in the diet. It will also help answer questions about how lifestyle and location affects people’s exposure to agrochemicals. Here are some of their findings to date:
76% of people tested have some level of glyphosate in their system
Men typically have higher levels than women
People who eat oats on a regular basis have twice as much glyphosate in their system as people who don’t (likely because oats are desiccated with glyphosate before harvest)
People who eat organic food on a regular basis have an 80% lower level of glyphosate than those who rarely eat organic. This indicates organic products are a safer choice
People who eat five or more servings of vegetables per day have glyphosate levels that are 50% lower than those who don’t eat fewer vegetables
According to Fagan:
“So far, we haven’t seen any connection with rural versus city dwellers, or with seasonal changes. This indicates that most of the glyphosate is coming into our [bodies] through the food we eat and not through the environment around us.
Though, we have seen some interesting things. For instance, in the Midwest, we’re seeing that rain water has quite substantial levels of glyphosate … Rain water, although you might think of that as being a healthy source of water, is a little risky that way.”
GMOs Linked to Dramatic Rise in Glyphosate Contamination
HRI Labs is also collaborating with a research group at the University of California in San Diego that has access to urine samples from epidemiological studies in which populations were tracked over 15 and 20 years. By comparing urine samples from people going back into the 1970s, up until the present, they’ve been able to show that once GMOs appeared in the marketplace, glyphosate levels rose dramatically.
“[I]t shows there’s a correlation between the use of [glyphosate] in agriculture and the level of exposure of the population,” Fagan says. “Remember, there’s growing evidence that low levels of [chemicals] interact with each other, so that you have a little glyphosate here, and maybe some atrazine from another place, and those together might have a nasty impact …
That’s where we are with things today. We’re working in a focused way to look at other aspects of our food system, and looking not just for the pesticides and the negative things, but we want to look and understand what the connections between the way food is produced … and its nutritional value are.
What we’re seeing is that healthy soil makes healthy food, makes healthy people. We’re going to go into that using these very sophisticated techniques, like high pressure liquid chromatography linked to mass spectrometry, to look at all of the nutrients at once.
With these machines, from a single sample of broccoli we can look at 500 to 1,000 different metabolites, different nutrients, and in one fell swoop get a sense of … how does regeneratively produced broccoli compare with broccoli that’s produced using chemicals, or how does a chicken produced in a confined animal feeding operation compare in nutritional value to a chicken produced in a regenerative pasture-based production system?
We don’t have the answers to that yet, but I’ll bet we’re going to find big differences in the nutrition.
The protein value may be the same, and the fats and the carbohydrates, but [in] the micronutrients we’re going to see big differences, and it’s those micronutrients that make the difference in terms of the health of your physiology, the strength of bones, and the balance in your physiology. We hope to be able to bring some really powerful new information to you in this way …”
Food Testing Is Here to Stay The advent of GMOs drastically altered our food system in several respects, and not a single change has been beneficial. Today, factory farms have become one of the largest sources of toxic pollution that destroys soil, water and air quality, and threatens human health in more ways than one. Nutritional quality of food has declined while contamination with toxic chemicals and drug-resistant pathogens has increased. Nutritional and chemical testing is an invaluable tool to get an understanding of the full extent of the problem. It is our hope that, with enough evidence, change will eventually be brought about, if not from a government level, then from the ground up, driven by informed consumers demanding purer food. As mentioned by Fagan, my product development team is now using HRI Labs to evaluate the purity and quality of our own product line as well — an extra double-check, if you will, to ensure our products are maximally pure and safe, and of the highest quality and nutritional value possible. This is being added as another layer of quality control on top of our standard quality protocols. Again, if you want to test your drinking water or environmental exposure levels for glyphosate, those tests are now available to the public. You can find both of them in my online store. They’re provided as a service to my readers at the same price you’d pay if you were to order it right from HRI Labs.
Modern industrial farming has created a food production model that is not only unhealthy, but unsustainable as well. The reliance on GMO-derived products and the toxic chemicals used alongside them are destroying the environment and the public’s health.
To combat the encroaching influence of big GMO companies, I encourage you to support farmers and businesses that practice organic, biodynamic and regenerative farming. This food production model benefits both humans and the environment because it:
Rebuilds topsoil by sequestering atmospheric carbon above ground and below ground
Protects water sources, runoff, and reduces water demand by increasing moisture in the soil
Promotes nutrition and health through nutrient-dense, organic food
Minimizes the risk of foodborne illnesses and drug-resistant disease by avoiding the use of industrial chemicals
Restores damaged ecosystems through regenerative methods
Helps local farmers by giving them larger profits compared to industrial counterparts
How can you play your part? The solution is actually quite simple — buy healthy, organic food. One of the best things you can do is to purchase your food from small-business farmers. To help you in your search, I recommend visiting these websites that point you to non-GMO food producers in your area:
I also urge you to support and donate to organizations like the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), as they are leading the way to promoting regenerative agriculture and sustainable farming practices. By advocating the innovative campaigns of these organizations, you are contributing to the future of regenerative agriculture.
NZ has for many years sprayed glyphosateextensively over farmlands as recommended in NZ’s Ag text books. Farmers (Councils and just about everybody else) believe it is harmless. EWNZ
New research from the UC Berkeley School of Public Health in the U.S. shows that childhood exposure to the world’s most widely used weed killer, glyphosate, is linked to liver inflammation and metabolic disorder in early adulthood, which could lead to liver cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease later in life.
The study of 480 mother-child duos from the Salinas Valley, California—a rich agricultural region that locals call “The World’s Salad bowl”—was published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
The researchers, led by Brenda Eskenazi, director of the UC Berkeley School of Public Health’s Center for Environmental Research and Community Health (CERCH), examined the agricultural use of glyphosate near the homes of the mothers during pregnancy and in the children up to age 5 years; and also measured glyphosate and AMPA, a degradation product of glyphosate and amino-polyphosphonates, in their urine (collected from mothers during pregnancy and from children at ages 5, 14, and 18 years). They assessed liver and metabolic health in the children when they were 18 years old.
The authors reported that higher levels of glyphosate residue and AMPA in urine in childhood and adolescence were associated with higher risk of liver inflammation and metabolic disorders in young adulthood. In addition, the investigators found that agricultural glyphosate use near participants’ homes from birth and up through age five was associated with metabolic disorders at age 18. They reported that diet was likely a major source of glyphosate and AMPA exposure among study participants, as indicated by higher urinary glyphosate or AMPA concentrations among those adolescents who ate more cereal, fruits, vegetables, bread, and in general, carbohydrates.
Glyphosate Box
Glyphosate Residue Free Certification for Food Brands – Click Here
Test Your Food and Water at Home for Glyphosate – Click Here
Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Our Your Long-Term Exposure
Glyphosate is used routinely on genetically modified crops such as corn, soybeans and wheat, as well as oats, legumes and other produce. It is also present in many lawn care products for home and commercial use.
The debate over the impact of glyphosate and AMPA on human health has been contentious. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports no evidence of human health risk. However, most previous glyphosate research has focused on glyphosate’s potential carcinogenicity. This is the first time that researchers have examined the potential connection between early life exposure to glyphosate—whose use has markedly increased over the past two decades—and metabolic and liver disease, both of which are increasing among children and young adults.
The impetus for this study came from Salinas physician Charles Limbach, who was alarmed by the growing number of local youths with liver and metabolic diseases. Dr. Limbach wondered if the increasing public exposure to glyphosate might be a factor. He teamed up with Paul J. Mills, a UC San Diego professor and author of a previous study showing an association between higher levels of glyphosate residue and AMPA in adults and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. The two men then approached Professor Eskenazi, who is also the founder of the Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS), the longest running longitudinal birth cohort investigation on the health effects of pesticides and other environmental exposures among children in a farmworker community. The CHAMACOS researchers reached back into their “library” of frozen biological samples from mother and child dyads, along with more than 20 years of exposure data and health records.
“The study’s implications are troubling,” said Dr. Ana Maria Mora, a CERCH investigator and coauthor, “as the levels of the chemicals found in our study participants are within the range reported for the general U.S. population.”
Professor Eskenazi recommends that the use of glyphosate should be limited to essential use while further studies are conducted. “There’s no reason why anyone should be using glyphosate on their lawn,” she said. “It shouldn’t be sold over the counter in a nursery.”
The study published in Environmental Health Perspectives was funded by NIH, NIEHS, NIDA, and the EPA. Additional support came from The Solomon Dutka Fund in the New York Community Trust and The Westreich Foundation.
Clean Green NZ of course loves glyphosate. A well used Ag text book called Pasture Doctor advocates spraying the fields which stock will graze on. Try and tell NZ farmers it’s a likely carcinogen (as close as the authorities will get to describing it as dangerous) … they don’t want to know. Read our Glyphosate pages and articles, particularly the work of Prof Séralini. EWNZ
It’s been a little over five years since I last visited Brussels, Belgium as an invited guest of the European Parliament to testify about my 20 years of researching and reporting on the world’s most widely used herbicide – glyphosate. The chemical is best known as the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup brand.
The Parliament subsequently voted to ban glyphosate, and the European Commission only narrowly missed confirming that sentiment when Germany’s agriculture minister contradicted German leadership by casting the deciding vote that kept glyphosate on the market. (A few months later German-based Bayer bought Monsanto. Just a coincidence, right?)
But the renewal came with a caveat – the license would be reviewed again after five years, and that is where the European Union sits now, once again locked into a debate over both the safety of glyphosate and what the agricultural industry says is the necessity of glyphosate.
So here I am again – back in Brussels as a new vote looms later this year. The battle lines are drawn as they always seem to be: independent scientists, health advocates and environmentalists are advocating for a ban based on evidence the chemical can cause cancer and other health problems, while the chemical companies that profit from glyphosate sales and industry-backed farm groups are pushing for continued uninterrupted use, saying the concerns lack valid science and that glyphosate is essential to agriculture.
I was fortunate to be invited back to Brussels as part of a group associated with a new, award-winning documentary film called Into the Weeds, which presents many of the grim details laid out in my two books (Whitewash and The Monsanto Papers). The saga is one of corrupted regulators that favor corporate science over independent research; the overwhelming amount of independent scientific evidence tying glyphosate to myriad health and environmental harms; and the devastation wrought on countless human lives. (Disclosure: Filmmaker Jennifer Baichwal bought the documentary rights to the books and lists me in credits as “story consultant.”)
The film screened Wednesday evening in Brussels to a packed house; earlier our group spent time at the European Parliament, the EU’s lawmaking body.
In an address opening the film, Anja Hazekamp, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) who supports a glyphosate ban, said the next months will be “crucial.” She called on the European Commission to “finally start protecting humans, animals and the environment.”
“Despite all the evidence that glyphosate is a threat for the health of animals, humans and the environment, the European Commission keeps reauthorizing this terrible pesticide,” Hazekamp said. “At the end of this year the European Commission will finally make a long-term decision on glyphosate, and it is therefore of paramount importance that the facts presented in this documentary are finally taken on board by the European Commission and the other policy makers.”
Accompanying the film to Brussels was scientist Chris Portier, a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and a former director of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Prior to CDC, Portier was with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences where he served as director of the Environmental Toxicology Program.
Glyphosate Box
Glyphosate Residue Free Certification for Food Brands – Click Here
Test Your Food and Water at Home for Glyphosate – Click Here
Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Our Your Long-Term Exposure
Portier participated as an expert during the World’s Health Organization’s cancer agency review of glyphosate in 2015 that classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans.
In Brussels he told attendees to the film screening how regulators repeatedly have bent the rules to ignore or twist scientific findings in ways that allow them to keep glyphosate on the market. He reiterated what he has said countless times – that extensive scientific evidence ties the chemical to cancer. Portier has been an expert witness for plaintiffs in multiple lawsuits against Monsanto brought by people alleging they developed cancer due to Roundup exposure.
More than a cancer concern
Also speaking in Brussels as part of the group supporting the film was scientist Daniele Mandrioli, coordinator of research on glyphosate at the Ramazzini Institute of Bologna, Italy.
Mandrioli said new research results show various harmful health effects from glyphosate exposure at levels currently considered to be safe by European standards.
Mandrioli told members of the European Parliament that the ongoing “Global Glyphosate Study” has recently confirmed in humans prior alarming findings found in animals – that glyphosate can have disruptive effects on sexual development in newborns. Among the observations were disruptions to the endocrine system, including increased testosterone levels in females exposed to glyphosate. The researchers found an “elongation of anogenital distance, which anticipates different potential problems” correlated with hormone imbalance in newborns that could impair development, Mandrioli said.
As well, glyphosate exposure at doses considered safe trigger alterations in the microbiome, impacting beneficial gut bacteria and fungi at doses considered safe.
“When disrupted, many metabolic conditions, many diseases, have been connected with these alterations,” Mandrioli said in a press conference before meetings at Parliament. The evidence is “solid,” he said.
“We are providing evidence for the all the global population,” he said.
Also in Brussels with our group was Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, the California groundskeeper who sprayed large quantities of RangerPro, a highly concentrated version of Roundup, and who became the first plaintiff to win a court case alleging the glyphosate-based products cause cancer. I chronicle Johnson’s battles – against cancer and against Monsanto – in my second book, and his story is featured in the new film.
Johnson shared his experiences with Parliament members and in a panel discussion after the film, urging action to protect people from having to endure the injustice that comes with cancers that could be prevented.
It is a miracle of modern medicine that Johnson, the father of two teenage sons, is still alive. Before the 2018 trial against Monsanto, doctors told him he would certainly be dead within 18 months. When I first met him several years ago, he was in near-constant agony as cancerous lesions covered his entire body, and even the slightest movement of clothing across his fragile skin burned like fire. He told me then that he was determined to outlive his dire diagnosis, and so far, through a combination of regular radiation and chemo treatments, Johnson has thwarted death just as he thwarted Monsanto’s efforts to beat his argument that exposure to the company’s weed killer caused his disease.
Still, he has lost too many days and nights – years – struggling through immense pain and fear, and with the knowledge that his family lives with the fact that they could lose him all too soon. His story is heart-breaking, noted by the tears shed in the audience at the screening Wednesday night.
But he is only one of too many who have suffered and continue to suffer.
In the months ahead, Europe has a chance to change that.
New findings add to other observations linking glyphosate and Roundup to cancer. Report: Claire Robinson
Glyphosate and Roundup lead to changes in gene regulatory microRNAs (miRNAs or miRs) linked with cancer, newly published data show. The analysis, of a type known as small RNA profiling, was conducted in liver tissue from rats exposed to glyphosate and Roundup MON 52276, an EU-approved formulation, over 90 days.
In the new results, Roundup MON 52276 was found to reduce the levels of miR-22 and miR-17, whereas glyphosate decreased the level of miR-30 and increased the amount of miR-10. These changes in miRNAs are important because they are known to alter the expression of crucial cell growth regulator genes, which can lead to the development of cancer.
A gene function that is central to multiple cellular processes, p53, is a particular target of these miRNAs. The miRNA changes can lead to alterations in p53 gene expression, as has been found in multiple types of cancer in humans.
The link between the changes in miRNAs and p53 gene expression is consistent with the findings within the same study showing gene expression changes in Roundup- and glyphosate-exposed rats. The gene expression changes strongly imply a p53 pathway DNA damage response. DNA damage is a major risk factor for cancer development.
Furthermore, increases in miR-10 have been found in other studies to be associated with leukemia, a blood cancer. The increase in mir-10 caused by glyphosate exposure in the experimental animals may provide one mechanism by which users of Roundup have succumbed to another blood cancer, known as non-Hodgkin lymphoma. These results could strengthen the legal cases of the cancer sufferers in the US who are suing Bayer/Monsanto because they believe that exposure to Roundup caused their disease. Three such cases have already been decided in favour of the plaintiffs.
Study lead Dr Michael Antoniou of King’s College London said, “The new data showing changes in miRNA patterns add yet more evidence to the cancer-causing potential of glyphosate and Roundup. What is more, our results show that it is not just Roundup, which is a mixture of glyphosate with various additives, that has carcinogenic potential, but also glyphosate alone.”
Previously reported findings
The new data confirm and build on previously reported findings that were published as a pre-print in April 2021, which GMWatch reported on. The study with the additional findings has now passed peer review and is published in the prestigious journal, Toxicological Sciences.
The pre-print version of the study had reported that glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup activate mechanisms involved in cancer development, including DNA damage – and these effects occur at doses assumed by regulators to have no adverse effects. The data suggest that the DNA damage was caused by oxidative stress, a destructive imbalance in the body that can cause a long list of diseases. Oxidative stress is the likely cause of the damage seen to the liver, leading to an inflammatory (immune type) response, which in turn can cause DNA damage.
Crucially, the study found that the isolated active ingredient of Roundup – glyphosate – damaged DNA. This finding, according to the EU’s pesticide law, should result in a ban on glyphosate and all its formulations.
All these findings are carried over into the peer-reviewed version of the study.
How the study was done
The study builds on the findings of a previous one by the same authors. In the previous study, the researchers had compared the effects in rats of MON 52276 with those of its “active ingredient”, glyphosate, tested alone. The findings showed that glyphosate and Roundup herbicide, given at doses that regulators say are safe, resulted in the animals suffering gut microbiome disturbances and oxidative stress, with indications that the liver was affected and possibly damaged.
In the current followup study, the researchers analysed the liver tissue from the same rats to see if damage had indeed occurred.
The researchers carried out some of the standard tests that regulators require the pesticide industry to conduct to gain market authorisation for their products – namely blood biochemistry and kidney and liver histopathology (microscopic examination of tissue).
They also carried out in-depth tests (molecular profiling) that are not demanded by regulators or typically carried out by the industry. One type of test looked for adverse effects at a profound molecular level of biological functioning through analysis of gene expression (transcriptomics) and epigenetics (DNA methylation) in the liver and kidneys. Another type of test, using specialised genetically engineered cell lines, was intended to highlight changes in function linked with cancer formation.
In addition, the researchers carried out tests that can detect direct damage to DNA.
Roundup causes fatty liver disease – confirmed
The standard tests, histopathology and blood biochemistry analysis, found adverse effects from the Roundup treatment, namely a dose-dependent and statistically significant increase in fatty liver disease and liver cell death.
The finding of fatty liver disease from exposure to the MON 52276 formulation of Roundup confirmed the same researchers’ previous observation that an ultra-low dose of another Roundup formulation, Roundup Grand Travaux Plus, administered to the same strain of Sprague-Dawley rats over a 2-year period, caused non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
An increase in liver and kidney lesions was also detected in animals treated with glyphosate, although this did not reach statistical significance. However, the authors commented that an experiment of longer duration using more animals may have resulted in statistical significance.
Non-standard tests most revealing
Worryingly for public health, it was the non-standard molecular profiling tests that are not required by pesticide regulators that were most revealing.
First, Roundup was found to alter the expression of 96 genes in the liver specifically linked to DNA damage and oxidative stress, as well as disruption of circadian rhythms or “body clocks”. The most affected genes in liver also had their expression similarly altered in kidneys. Crucially, a core set of genes whose expression was altered by Roundup was similarly changed in the glyphosate-treated animals. This strongly suggests that the key changes in gene function reflective of oxidative stress and DNA damage was due to glyphosate and not the additional substances (adjuvants) present in the Roundup formulation.
Second, direct DNA damage to the liver was found to increase with glyphosate exposure.
These findings potentially constitute a bombshell that could end the authorisation of glyphosate in the EU. That’s because the EU pesticide regulation (1107/2009) has what’s known as hazard-based cut-off criteria. This means that if a pesticide active ingredient is shown to cause a certain type of harm to health at whatever dose, it must be banned. One of the named types of harm is damage to DNA. The discovery that glyphosate alone damages DNA in a living animal should, if regulators follow the law, result in a ban on the chemical.
Third, both glyphosate and Roundup were found to cause epigenetic changes known as DNA methylation. Epigenetics describes layers of molecular structures associated with DNA that control the underlying function of genes. The defining feature of epigenetic changes is that they can alter how genes work but do not involve changes to the actual DNA sequence. These types of changes were found at over 5,000 genomic sites for glyphosate and over 4,000 for Roundup. This is a concern because such alterations are typically found at high frequency in cancer tissues.
All findings lead to same conclusion
The researchers performed further laboratory tests in mouse cell lines, which are designed to highlight effects that can lead to cancer formation. Glyphosate and three Roundup formulations were assessed in these tester cell lines. It was found that two formulations of Roundup herbicide, but not glyphosate, activated oxidative stress and misfolded protein responses, both clear markers of carcinogenicity.
Commenting on the totality of the data, Dr Antoniou said, “No matter what molecular measurements we undertook, they all led to the same conclusion: that is, both glyphosate and Roundup are potential carcinogens.”
Other studies, including the industry ones submitted to support regulatory approval of glyphosate, have also found that glyphosate causes cancer in experimental animals. Based on studies in animals and humans, as well as mechanistic data, in 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.
Other implications of the new study
1. Ending animal testing is not yet feasible
Interestingly, in the new study, glyphosate was shown to damage DNA in living animals but not in the cell culture system. This shows that in vitro lab tests using isolated cells cannot fully substitute for evaluations in a living animal because certain effects will be missed. This is because animals (including humans) are whole organisms whose complexity cannot be replicated in a flask, petri dish, or test tube. While many people (GMWatch included) would like to see an end to animal testing, as long as pesticides and other chemicals are allowed to be released into the environment, such a move would put public health at risk.
2. Roundup is more toxic than glyphosate
In summary, in general Roundup was found to be more toxic than glyphosate, confirming and building on previous observations. However, taken together, the results from the various assays conducted show that both glyphosate and Roundup herbicides activate mechanisms involved in cancer development, causing gene expression changes reflecting oxidative stress and DNA damage. Also, glyphosate alone was clearly able to induce DNA damage.
These findings directly challenge the global regulatory practice of only assessing the isolated declared active ingredient (glyphosate) and not the complete commercial formulations (Roundup) as sold and used.
The study further highlights the power of in-depth molecular profiling “omics” methods to detect changes that are missed by relying solely on conventional biochemical and histopathological measurements conducted in standardised industry tests on pesticide active ingredients. The study paves the way for future investigations by identifying gene expression changes and altered DNA methylation sites, which can serve as biomarkers and potential predictors of negative health outcomes resulting from exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides.
3. Results could allow survey of human population for glyphosate herbicide exposure
Commenting on the implications of the results for human exposure monitoring, study lead Dr Michael Antoniou said, “The biomarkers we identified (such as the miRNA and gene expression changes) can be tested for in people, but we don’t know if this particular pattern of biomarkers is unique to glyphosate-based herbicide exposure. Thus the biomarkers would need to be correlated with a history of exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and measurements of glyphosate in urine.
“If high levels of glyphosate were found in the urine, and this correlated with the biomarkers identified in the new study and the person’s history of glyphosate herbicide exposure, this would indicate that exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides might be responsible for any health effects that are both indicated by our findings and found in the person. These findings should be tested first by investigations of herbicide applicators, as their exposure can be high and details of the particular herbicides used are often recorded, which would enable clearer results to be obtained.”
4. “Safe” and “no effect” doses were shown to be harmful
In the 90-day rat feeding study, different groups of animals were fed three different doses of glyphosate and the glyphosate-equivalent dose of Roundup MON 52276. The lowest dose was the concentration that regulators assume to be safe to ingest on a daily basis over a lifetime (the EU acceptable daily intake or ADI: 0.5 mg per kg of bodyweight per day). The middle dose was the dose that EU regulators concluded had no observable adverse effect (the “no observable adverse effect” level or NOAEL) in industry-sponsored rat feeding studies (50 mg per kg of bodyweight per day). The highest dose was 175 mg, the dose that US regulators concluded had no observable adverse effect.
Adverse effects were found from Roundup exposure at all dose levels in a dose-dependent fashion. These findings show that the glyphosate ADI for the EU – and that of the USA, which is even higher – is not safe to ingest. Likewise, it shows that the EU and US regulators were only able to conclude that glyphosate had “no observable adverse effect” at the levels mentioned above because the tests that they require industry to carry out are insufficiently sensitive.
Study supports plaintiffs in Roundup-cancer litigation
Summarising the implications of the study for the Roundup-cancer litigation in the US, Dr Antoniou said, “Our results are the first to simultaneously show glyphosate and Roundup toxicity in a whole mammalian animal model system and provide a mechanism – oxidative stress – by which DNA damage has been observed in other systems, such as mammalian tissue culture cells.
“These findings show that glyphosate and Roundup score positive in various tests of carcinogenicity – transcriptome/epigenome/miRNA changes, oxidative stress, protein misfolding, and DNA damage – in a living animal (rat) that is accepted as a surrogate for human health effects. In my view, this strengthens the argument that exposure to Roundup herbicides can lead to the type of cancer suffered by the plaintiffs in many of the court cases – non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”
It’s not surprising that glyphosate, the so-called active ingredient in Bayer-Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller, is found in foods made with glyphosate-tolerant GMO crops like corn, soy and canola. But why is glyphosate herbicide showing up in non-GMO and organic foods too?
In the first episode of Fork the System, GMO/Toxin Free USA staffer Nomi Carmona hosts a conversation with Henry Rowlands, founder of The Detox Project and Sustainable Pulse, about the results of the most comprehensive glyphosate testing of food products ever conducted in the United States. The Detox Project’s most recent report, The Poison in Our Daily Bread, shines a light on the true levels of cancer-causing glyphosate contamination in essential foods, like whole grain and whole wheat breads, sold by some of the top grocery stores in the country, including Whole Foods Market, Amazon, Walmart, and Target.
What more can we do to avoid carcinogenic glyphosate in our food? As consumers and as activists, what can we do to help beat back the rising glyphosate contamination of our food supply? Listen to Fork the System episode 1 to find out…
The European Commission is secretly considering the full deregulation of certain types of genetically modified (GM) crops – yet it has not admitted as much publicly. Under such policy scenarios, deregulation could mean scrapping safety checks, traceability, and labelling for GMOs that are claimed to be able to arise naturally – and removing GMO labelling for GM products declared “sustainable”, GMWatch reported on Thursday.
The Commission’s detailed policy plans for 2030-35 are revealed for the first time in a targeted survey, which we’ve published in the public interest after it was only sent to certain stakeholders. The survey is being run by consultants to the Commission. These plans are the basis for the impact assessment that will accompany the Commission’s proposal to change the GMO regulations, planned for spring 2023.
In response to the targeted survey, the Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament has written a letter to the Commission complaining that its “policy scenarios have not been made public but only released to a select group of individuals” via the survey. The letter continues, “We consider that this is not the appropriate way to ensure participants to the consultation have access to all relevant information to make an informed answer and call on you to publish this survey without delay.”
What has the Commission said publicly?
The Commission has announced a new legal framework for plants obtained by “targeted mutagenesis” (by which it seems to mean gene editing of the SDN-1 and SDN-2 types) and cisgenesis (genetic engineering in which genes are artificially transferred between organisms that could otherwise be conventionally bred). The Commission has said it wants to set up a separate regulatory regime for these GM crops, excluding them from existing EU rules for GMOs. It also wants to promote supposedly “sustainable” GM crops – those that it believes can contribute to the EU’s Green Deal objectives.
So far, little has been known about this new framework. The Commission has only set out certain “policy elements” in a so-called Inception Impact Assessment, published in September 2021: * Risk assessment and approval requirements “proportionate to the risk involved” * A sustainability analysis * “Appropriate traceability and labelling provisions” * Mechanisms to be able to rapidly adjust elements of the legislation.
These “policy elements” are not further explained in the Commission’s public consultation, which closes on 22 July (GMWatch has submitted its response).
In line with earlier announcements, the consultation talks about legislation for GM “plants produced by targeted mutagenesis or cisgenesis”. It assumes, without evidence, and ignoring a large pile of evidence showing extensive DNA damage caused by gene editing, that some such GM plants “could have been produced through conventional plant breeding or classical mutagenesis” (questions 3 and 12). “Classical mutagenesis” means the decades-old techniques of radiation- or chemical-induced mutagenesis breeding. The Commission also assumes, again without evidence, that some such GM plants could have “traits contributing to sustainability” (question 7).
The Commission has always rejected the term “deregulation”. It has said it is going to introduce an “appropriate” and fit-for-purpose regulatory framework for certain GM crops derived from new GM techniques, which it calls “new genomic techniques”. It has also said it will not compromise on consumer and environmental safety.
However, the detailed policy scenarios show another picture – that full deregulation of some GM crops is a realistic option.
What are the Commission’s plans?
The Commission’s consultants targeted survey describes seven policy scenarios considered by the Commission – which are not mentioned in the public consultation. These scenarios are important because they form the basis for the upcoming regulatory impact assessment, which compares different policy scenarios with each other and against a baseline scenario (i.e. no policy action).
The seven policy scenarios, A1 to C2, reveal that the Commission is considering scrapping all GMO regulatory requirements for GM crops that “could also be obtained naturally or by conventional breeding”.
The scenarios show that: * The Commission wants to distinguish two new categories of GM plants: GM crops that “could also be obtained naturally or by conventional breeding” and GM crops that have “desirable sustainability impacts”. * For GM crops that the Commission claims could be obtained naturally or by conventional breeding, the Commission is considering scrapping all GMO regulatory requirements (scenarios A2, B3). This includes the requirements for – pre-market safety assessment – product traceability across the supply chain – GMO detection method supplied by the developer of the GMO in question – GMO labelling.
These GM crops would essentially be regulated like non-GM crops, disregarding any risks to public health and the environment, the need of non-GM producers to rule out GM contamination, and the public’s right to know what is in their food.
Commission proposes the “Bayer option”
Commission scenarios A2 and B3 are exactly what Bayer has publicly asked for. In its response to the Commission’s public consultation, Bayer said it wants a screening step in the regulation to decide whether any GMO regulatory steps at all are needed. Bayer said there should be a “first step… assessing whether the changes in the DNA… are similar to the ones that could have been obtained through conventional breeding methods or spontaneous mutation”. According to Bayer, “products with similar safety profiles” should “then be subjected to the same marketing specific regulations” – in other words, there would be no GMO regulation for GMOs that are claimed to have similar changes to what could have happened naturally.
UK Bill
Not coincidentally, this is exactly the same deregulatory scenario that is currently being pursued by the UK Conservative government, in the form of the draft “Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill” that is currently working its way through Parliament. Because the UK is no longer in the EU, the UK government can pass this England-based law unilaterally, aligning England with the USA’s weak standards on GMO regulation. The EU Commission clearly wants the EU to follow England in this “race to the bottom”.
“Sustainable” GMOs
The Commission is also considering the option to scrap the requirement for a GMO label for supposedly “sustainable” GM crops. It also considers lowering the risk assessment requirements for all GM crops engineered with “targeted mutagenesis and cisgenesis” (A1). Again, this information has not been presented publicly and is not available to anyone answering the public consultation.
All GM crops must be subject to existing GMO rules
The Greens state in their letter to the Commission, ”As Greens/EFA group, we oppose the introduction of separate legislation for products of new genetic modification (GM) techniques such as targeted mutagenesis (i.e. SDN-1, SDN-2 and ODM [oligo directed mutagenesis]) and cisgenesis. We believe that all genetically modified (GM) crops must be subject to the existing GMO legislation with its requirements for risk assessment, traceability and clear labelling.
”Indeed, the European Court of Justice clarified in 2018 that new GM techniques cannot be excluded from the scope of EU GMO legislation unless they have conventionally been used in a number of applications and have a long safety record. Since this is not the case for gene editing techniques, such as CRISPR, these techniques should be regulated under the EU GMO legislation, in order not to undermine the EU’s Precautionary Principle. As Greens/EFA, we fully support the Court’s ruling.”
The Greens make three demands for all GMOs: That they are subjected to a full and robust risk assessment; that no market access should be permitted without traceability and a detection method; and that there should be clear GMO labelling on the final product so that consumers have the choice of whether to buy it.
All these principles are in place under the current GMO legislation – which the Commission is secretly planning to dismantle.
The Greens rightly conclude: “The sustainability of our food system is not a matter of individual products. A plant trait in isolation, without considering the agricultural context in which the plant is grown, is insufficient to draw any meaningful conclusion. Until today, conventional breeding has consistently outstripped genetic engineering techniques (old and new) in producing crops tolerant to stresses such as drought, floods, pests, and diseases.* Claims that GM plants will contribute to improved EU food systems are not supported by current evidence. The European Union should not weaken its GMO regulations to accommodate empty promises of ‘sustainable’ GM plants.”
Commission proposals spell “disaster” for Non-GMO sector
Commenting on the revelations in the targeted survey, Heike Moldenhauer, Secretary General of the Non-GMO industry association ENGA, said: “The deregulation proposals put forward by the Commission aim to remove the labelling of New GMOs. Should a new legal framework abolish traceability and labelling, then New GMOs will effectively become invisible and the Non-GMO sector would run the risk of unknowingly and unintentionally selling New GMO products. In this new world of unregulated GMOs, untested and invisible GMOs will find their way on to European fields, supermarket shelves and on to the plates of consumers – irreversibly.
“Consumers’ right to know what is in their food, via clear labelling, is a key social and political achievement, guaranteed through the currently legally-binding GMO label. To abolish this or replace it with a sustainable label, and therefore making New GMOs invisible, would be an unjustifiable step backwards and would encourage distrust: Why do New GMOs have to be invisible to gain market acceptance?
“For the Non-GMO food sector this move to deregulate and abolish labelling would spell disaster! It effectively removes the sector’s selling point, meaning massive financial setbacks, if not the end of its business entirely.”
In a new study, Arizona State University (ASU) and the Translational Genomics Research Institute (TGEN) have explored the effects of glyphosate exposure on the brains of mice. The research demonstrates, for the first time, that glyphosate successfully crosses the blood-brain barrier and infiltrates the brain. Once there, it acts to enhance levels of a critical factor known as TNF-α.
TNF-α is a molecule with two faces. This pro-inflammatory cytokine performs vital functions in the neuroimmune system, acting to enhance the immune response and protect the brain. When levels of TNF-α are dysregulated, however, a host of diseases linked with neuroinflammation can result. Among these is Alzheimer’s disease.
Neurodegenerative illnesses, such as Alzheimer’s disease, are among the most perplexing in medical science. The underlying causes of such diseases range from genetic factors and overall cardiovascular health to dietary influences and lifestyle choices. Various environmental contaminants have also been implicated as possible players in the development or advancement of neurodegenerative disease. Among these is a broad-spectrum herbicide known as glyphosate. Glyphosate is the most used pesticide in the world.
This latest study further demonstrates in cell culture studies that glyphosate exposure appears to increase the production of soluble beta amyloid (Aβ) and reduce the viability of neurons. The accumulation of soluble beta amyloid, the sticky protein responsible for the formation of soluble beta amyloid plaques, is one of the central diagnostic hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease.
Further evidence suggestive of potential hazards to neurological health were observed when the researchers examined changes in gene expression via RNA sequencing in the brains of mice following glyphosate exposure.
Glyphosate Box
Glyphosate Residue Free Certification for Food Brands – Click Here
Test Your Food and Water at Home for Glyphosate – Click Here
Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Our Your Long-Term Exposure
These RNA transcripts hinted at disruptions in the expression of genes related to neurodegenerative disease, including dysregulation of a class of brain cells responsible for producing the myelin sheath critical for proper neuronal communication. These cells, known as oligodendrocytes, are affected by elevated levels of TNF-α.
“We find increases in TNF-α in the brain, following glyphosate exposure,” said Dr. Ramon Velazquez, the senior author of the paper. “While we examined (Alzheimer’s disease) pathology, this might have implications for many neurodegenerative diseases, given that neuroinflammation is seen in a variety of brain disorders.”
An enigmatic disease; a path of destruction
A hundred years have passed since the first diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. Despite vast investments in research and drug development, the affliction remains without effective treatment. A suite of therapies, developed over many decades at extravagant cost, have one by one failed to alleviate the symptoms of the disease.
Alzheimer’s disease is the most common form of dementia. The progression of the disease usually begins with mild memory loss. As the disease develops, increasing confusion and a breakdown in communication abilities often result, as the affliction attacks brain pathways involved in memory, language and thought.
Some 5.8 million Americans are living with Alzheimer’s disease, as of 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Unlike heart disease or cancer, the death toll for Alzheimer’s disease is on a frightening upward trajectory. By 2040, costs of the disease are projected to rise dramatically to between $379 billion and more than $500 billion annually. The staggering toll of the illness is currently projected to nearly triple to 14 million people by 2050.
The onset of symptoms typically occurs after age 60, and the risk to individuals doubles every five years after age 65. Although genetics are believed to play a role in some cases of Alzheimer’s disease and a family history of the disorder is considered a significant risk factor, environmental factors are believed to play a significant role in the disease.
Researchers are trying to learn how genetic correlates may subtly interact with environmental and other factors to decrease or enhance the likelihood of developing the affliction. Some recent research suggests that lifestyle changes, including proper physical activity, nutritious food, limited alcohol consumption and not smoking may help prevent or slow cognitive decline, noting that brain and cardiovascular health are closely linked.
Glyphosate toxic effects
This new study examines the neurological effects of glyphosate, the most ubiquitous herbicide. Each year, around 250 million pounds of glyphosate are applied to agricultural crops in the U.S. alone. Although the chemical is regarded as generally safe to humans by the Environmental Protection Agency and the European Food Safety Authority, researchers are taking a second look.
Little is known about possible long-term effects from prolonged exposure to glyphosate. One issue of considerable concern is that glyphosate can cross the blood-brain barrier, a layer of endothelial cells preventing dissolved substances in the circulating bloodstream from readily passing into the extracellular fluid of the central nervous system, where the brain’s neurons reside.
Potential risks to brain health posed by glyphosate should be critically evaluated, particularly for those consistently exposed to the herbicide.
“The Alzheimer’s connection is that there’s a much higher prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease in agricultural communities that are using this chemical,” paper co-author Joanna Winstone said. “We’re trying to establish a more molecular-science based link between the two.”
The study exposed mice to high doses of glyphosate, then detected elevated levels of TNF-α in their brains. The researchers then exposed extracted mouse neurons in petri dishes to the same levels of glyphosate detected in the brains of mice, observing elevated amyloid beta and cell death in cortical neurons. Dysregulated oligodendrocyte RNA transcripts, which could indicate disruption of myelination, were detected in brain tissue.
Taken together, the results demonstrate a correlation between glyphosate exposure and classic symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease, though the authors stress that much more work will be required before a causative link can be established.
Nevertheless, the widespread use of the chemical and the disturbing correlation highlighted in the study underscore the need for intensified investigation. Among the pressing questions to be answered: How does prolonged, low-dose exposure to glyphosate affect the brain; does glyphosate act synergistically with other chemicals present in common herbicides; and can glyphosate be detected post-mortem in patients who died of Alzheimer’s disease?
On the horizon, new drugs designed to reduce TNF-α in the brain are being explored, offering renewed hope for those with Alzheimer’s disease as well as other neurodegenerative ailments.
Bayer has been in the news recently (rightfully so) for – you guessed it – poisoning the planet. We have stood against Bayer/Monsanto for twenty years and it’s high time they stand accountable for their planetary injustice.
This week you may have seen that the CDC released a report which stated 80% of urine samples taken from Americans contained glyphosate, “Roundup”.
What you likely didn’t hear is that Bayer/Monsanto has been systematically undercutting science and making large investments to build propaganda that attacks organizations like IRT, GM Watch, NonGMO Project, and other non-GMO activists.
In a 2019 Huff Post article, Bayer stated they, “no longer provided support for the Genetic Literacy Project” – a misinformation website designed to produce content devaluing other scientific studies which are not pro-GMO.
The article (again dated in 2019) points out how Bayer leveraged its many resources to suppress evidence of the health and environmental damage caused by glyphosate and challenged the World Health Organization’s determination that it’s probably “cancer-causing.”
During the Monsanto trials, a secret company email targeted our founder Jeffrey Smith. The subject line was “Whack-a-Mole,” an internal Monsanto joke about how they attack those who expose the true dangers of their products. They even had a large budget-item called “Let Nothing Go,” funding used to suppress all evidence that GMOs, glyphosate, and Gene Editing cause dangerous side effects. Jeffrey’s extensive reporting over two decades was one of their familiar targets.
Their lies and attacks continue. The latest is pretending that gene edited GMOs are safe. And they’ve paid all sorts of organizations and scientists to repeat the lie. Tragically, numerous governments have been tricked, and now allow gene edited GMOs to be introduced into our food supply and environment without any safety checks or even notifying regulators This poses an unprecedented threat to each of us, and future generations. The time to act is now.
Headlined by The Guardian and the Irish Times, and also grimly noted by some journals here and there , this should-be-big news is apparently NOT “fit to print,” or post, or broadcast by the US press
This silence, shocking though it is, should come as no surprise, from a “free press” that’s been meticulously, militantly blacking out the toll of those “vaccines”—as well as (let us not forget) the many real vaccines that have been killing/sickening/crippling us for decades; countless other toxic pharmaceuticals; the additives in most of what we eat, and those in nearly all the products that we use to clean our homes and selves, and most cosmetics.
In short: We’re being poisoned on a mammoth scale, and evidently not by accident, or through incompetence—since, if that were the case, the press would not be blacking all such information out.
Now, if this news re: glyphosate has been reported by a major corporate outlet (or a even major “alternative” outlet), please note it in the comments. My search was, necessarily, a quick one, since we’re short-handed here (and overwhelmed by each week’s news of “sudden deaths”).
News from Underground by Mark Crispin Miller is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
It is sprayed world wide and they don’t it appears, intend letting up. See our Glyphosate pages (main menu) for further info on glyphosate and the Roundup and other brands (check labels) that contain it. A known ‘probable carcinogen’. EWR
The Poison in Our Daily Bread
by Brian Shilhavy Editor, Health Impact News
The Detox Project recently published their latest results from the most comprehensive glyphosate testing of food products ever conducted in the U.S., showing that the contamination of the U.S. food supply with the cancer-causing herbicide glyphosate is becoming significantly worse since their first report published 5 years ago.
In our first report nearly five years ago, we found alarming levels of glyphosate residues in 29 bestselling foods from major food companies in the continental United States, as increases in the spraying of more toxic pesticides was skyrocketing across rural America.
In this new report, we disclose the glyphosate residue testing results of 83 foods found in major Big Box, grocery and natural food stores purchased in Des Moines, Iowa, including Walmart, Whole Foods, Target, Natural Grocers, and Hy-Vee and foods bought online through Amazon.
Incredibly, more than half the foods tested, a total of 45 foods out of 86 products, contained alarming levels of glyphosate, ranging from 12 parts per billion (ppb) in “sprouted wholegrain bread”6 from Whole Foods to as high 889 ppb in Walmart’s brand chickpeas,7 to 1,040 ppb in Whole Food’s 365 Brand Whole Wheat Sandwich Bread, to the highest level detected of 1,150 ppb in Hy-Vee’s 100% Whole Wheat Bread.
While none of these foods are genetically engineered, they still contain ingredients that are at a high risk of glyphosate contamination. There is no GMO wheat or chickpeas on the market in North America. For the past two decades, farmers in the U.S. and Canada have regularly sprayed Monsanto’s (now Bayer) Roundup on wheat, oats, barley and dry bean crops as a ‘pre-harvest drying agent’ to get the harvested crop to market faster.
Findings Released as Major Scientific Study Shows Eating Organic Lowers Cancer Risk
WASHINGTON – A second round of tests commissioned by the Environmental Working Group found the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer in every sample of popular oat-based cereal and other oat-based food marketed to children. These test results fly in the face of claims by two companies, Quaker and General Mills, which have said there is no reason for concern. This is because, they say, their products meet the legal standards.
Yet almost all of the samples tested by EWG had residues of glyphosate at levels higher than what EWG scientists consider protective of children’s health with an adequate margin of safety. The EWG findings of a chemical identified as probably carcinogenic by the World Health Organization come on the heels of a major study published in JAMA Internal Medicine that found a significant reduction in cancer risk for individuals who ate a lot of organic food.
Bayer have announced that they will no longer sell glyphosate-based herbicides to U.S. gardeners as of 2023, following the costly litigation battle over their cancer causing weedkiller Roundup.
“Independent MP Derek Sloan holds a news conference on Parliament Hill to raise concerns about the alleged censorship of doctors and scientists as well as medical information related to vaccines. The Ontario MP has been critical of lockdowns that have been in place due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and also sponsored a petition questioning the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. He is joined by a trio of trio of doctors and scientists.”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=vUrp5PlnBwQ&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3i7xGctVro2H4AfIbbiqza7Zh0HxCac2jJncDOxLnCCcUemtihE9hzoRQ
A topic still of great concern that’s slipped by the wayside, overshadowed by the plandemic ….
From sustainablepulse.com
Bayer’s share price crashed over 4% on Thursday after Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California threw out their attempted $ 2 Bilion deal to settle future cancer claims against their top selling glyphosate-based herbicide, Roundup.
Bayer reacted by stating Thursday: “While the Company will remain in the residential lawn and garden market, it will immediately engage with partners to discuss the future of glyphosate-based products in the U.S. residential market, as the overwhelming majority of claimants in the Roundup™ litigation allege that they used Roundup™ Lawn and Garden products.”
In a brief order that addresses what the judge called only “the most glaring flaws” of the deal, Chhabria turned aside the complicated agreement, the second time he’s shot it down, Bloomberg reported Thursday. The rejected settlement is part of a broader $11.6 billion agreement to resolve Roundup lawsuits in the U.S. from about 125,000 consumers and farmers.
The biotech industry’s claim that genetically modified (GM) foods are safe is shattered in this groundbreaking lecture. Safety assessments on GM crops are not competent to identify the health problems, and industry research is rigged to avoid finding problems.
This lecture is for anyone wanting to understand GM technology, to learn how to protect themselves, or to share their concerns with others. It is presented in the clear, accessible style that made Jeffrey Smith’s Seeds of Deception the world’s best-selling book on genetically engineered foods.
The leading consumer advocate promoting healthier non-GMO choices, Jeffrey Smith’s meticulous research documents how biotech companies continue to mislead legislators and safety officials to put the health of society at risk and the environment in peril. His work expertly summarizes why the safety assessments conducted by the FDA and regulators worldwide teeter on a foundation of outdated science and false assumptions, and why genetically engineered foods must urgently become our nation’s top food safety priority.
This petition is from Organic NZ. Councils NZ wide are spraying the probable carcinogen (IARC) glyphosate. For further info on this widely used toxic herbicide see our glyphosate pages here (not the sub tabs also for videos etc.) EWR ________________________________________________________________________
The Soil and Health Association are calling for councils to stop spraying glyphosate to keep New Zealand families safe.
‘The public increasingly understand that it is no longer acceptable to be exposed to glyphosate-based herbicides,’ says Soil & Health spokesperson Jodie Bruning,
We are working with US based Non-Toxic Neighbourhoods who have had significant success helping councils transition affordably to non-toxic urban management.
The importance of glyphosate science
Public health scientists think it is bizarre that the findings of the most prestigious cancer agency in the world were rejected by New Zealand’s Environmental Protection Authority (the EPA).
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined that glyphosate probably causes cancer in humans. The IARC also found that glyphosate (and it’s commercial formulations) definitely causes cancer in laboratory animals – placing our pets at risk too.
In 2016 the EPA produced what scientists consider to be a flawed cancer review to discredit the findings of the EPA’s own cancer authority. New Zealand professors and scientists remain ‘mystified’ and have spoken repeatedly (here and here and here) about the EPA’s frozen stance on glyphosate. An Official Information [ENQ-35127-N5J6C7]request has found that the EPA has never conducted a formal risk assessment of glyphosate or the commercial formulation.
Chemical companies are paying out for the damage caused
Following the IARC decision, cases in the U.S. have awarded the claimants damages against Monsanto (since 2018, owned by Bayer). The court cases uncovered evidence that showed how Monsanto took action to limit and distort public knowledge. Punitive damages were awarded for ‘reprehensible’ conduct. The jury trials are now under appeal with Bayer claiming the verdict of regulators across the world upholds Bayer’s stance. Unfortunately, as scientists have illustrated (in Europe and the USA), regulatory agencies relied on ghostwritten industry studies and ignored data that the IARC considered important.
In June 2020 Bayer proposed a settlement of USD$8.8-10.9 billion to settle over 125,000 U.S. lawsuits to resolve Roundup litigation. Bayer has framed the complex settlement proposal as an end to ‘uncertainty’. The proposal contained no admission that glyphosate-based herbicides caused the cancer claimed by cancer sufferers, many former farmers, who see the proposal as a slap in the face. The settlement proposal may restrict future claimants from a jury trial. New Zealand doesn’t face the same court cases here because the ACC covers such cases as accidents.
Why isn’t New Zealand taking action?
Ignoring the calls of scientists, New Zealand councils refer to the New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority (NZ EPA) to claim that glyphosate is a ‘low toxicity herbicide’. The hazard rating given by the NZ EPA provides a legal rationale that it is safe enough to spray in public places. This is wrong!
It is evident from operations in Auckland and Christchurch that councils and contractors need to make a lot of changes in order to shift away from glyphosate dependency – like any addiction – shifting to a new mindset isn’t always easy. Much of the management and contract negotiation are out of the public eye – so it is difficult for the public to understand what is going on. Councils don’t appear to be undertaking properly accountable trials with new technologies and recording and documenting trial methods, how they cope with and reduce over time the weed seed banks, and making this information public. We know non-toxic alternatives and management regimes can never neatly replace toxic chemical use. Shift away from addiction requires a change in mindset and operations.
We also understand that councils struggle to adopt the precautionary principle. This would help deal with uncertainty (which is always present). Councils may not be comfortable weighing the risk to families, and particularly babies and children, with the risk of complaints from irate rate-payers or staff worried about the stress on physical assets. These are value-based decisions, and are an important part of making any decision to protect health or the environment.
SIGN THE PETITION AT THE ORGANIC NZ PAGE, LINK BELOW:
After the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) labeled glyphosate a “probable human carcinogen,” Monsanto engaged in a covert operation to slam the findings from every avenue — and they recruited a number of partners to help them save face.
Recently released documents provided by US Right To Know (USRTK) show that the biotech firm enlisted over a dozen “industry partner” groups in their plan to denounce the IARC findings and keep Roundup in the public’s good graces. An internal document dated February 2015 describes a detailed plan, in which 20 Monsanto employees were given goals to “neutralize impact of decision,” engage in “regulator outreach,” “ensure MON POV ” and “lead voice in ‘who is IARC’ plus 2B outrage.”
Monsanto conspires with “industry partners”
In the five-page document, Monsanto lists four tiers of “industry partners” to be used in their “preparedness and engagement plan” for the IARC’s carcinogen rating for glyphosate. The plan, of course, was put in place nearly a month before the IARC publicly released their finding that glyphosate probably causes cancer — which raises substantial suspicions that the biotech giant knew what IARC was going to find.
Kiwis love this product. They spray it everywhere, on their sections, garden edges, berms, parks, schools, their gardens even ready for new planting. And farmers, it’s whole fields since the Ag text books recommend it. Even though it’s produced large tumours in lab rats (independent research). Please read our Glyphosate pages on all of the above. You will be surprised. Farmers were told it was ‘safe as houses’ virtually.
Monsanto’s controversial past combines some of the most toxic products ever sold with misleading reports, pressure tactics, collusion, and attempted corruption. They now race to genetically engineer (and patent) the world’s food supply, which profoundly threatens our health, environment, and economy. Combining secret documents with first-hand accounts by victims, scientists, and politicians, this widely praised film exposes why Monsanto has become the world’s poster child for malignant corporate influence in government and technology.
NOTE: the header image of the tumorous rats is from Professor Seralini’s research. You can read about that and/or watch the video of his findings on our Glyphosate pages. And/or visit naturalnews’ coverage of the topic here. You will also find if you google this that it is debunked on those debunking sites, as most valuable info the powers that be would prefer you didn’t know about is. If you find that too conspiratorial ask yourself why ever if GMOs are so safe, do THEY NOT WANT THEM LABELED? Consider also, why do these people who recommend GMOs not eat them themselves? Food for thought (no pun intended).
See also our Glyphosate and GMO pages at the main menu
Monsanto and their biotech buddies would have you believe that they are super-heroes, set on saving hungry children from starvation wearing a dazzling fake-green cape. In fact, in a recent attack on activists, Monsanto’s CEO Hugh Grant said that because critics “can afford” organic food, we don’t care about the plight of those who can’t afford it. “There is this strange kind of reverse elitism: If I’m going to do this, then everything else shouldn’t exist,” said Grant. “There is space in the supermarket shelf for all of us.”
Even Monsanto’s website is on the defense, with page after page attempting to justify what the biotech industry is doing to our food supply. It must be true if even leading “philanthropists” (and I use this term loosely) like Bill and Melinda Gates are behind the distribution of Monsanto crops across the globe. Right?
Actually, it’s all about the public’s perception. The push for acceptance of GMO foods has, thus far, been all about which team has the most money. Monsanto and their ilk can afford more television ads and more PR than anti-GMO activists can. Because the biotech companies, Big Food, and Big Agri can pay to spread their message, many people are convinced by their pure propaganda that GMOs are a necessary evil if the Third World is to avoid millions of slow, agonizing deaths by starvation. Because biotech is able to afford to blanket the media with their perspective, their view point is accepted as the correct one because that is the only perspective that many people ever hear.
But just because they shout the loudest, that doesn’t make it true.
How we address these misconceptions can mean the difference between swaying people to examine these claims more closely or causing them to stick their fingers in their ears and sing, “lalalalala…” to block us out. Here are some of the most common myths that Monsanto and friends would like you to believe about the wonderful world of GMOs.
Myth #1: No one has ever proven that GMOs are harmful to people.
Monsanto mouthpieces have been quoted time, time, and time again stating the untruth that genetically modified organisms have never been proven to harm people. It seems that they believe, like Joseph Goebbels, the uncontested King of Propaganda, that if you repeat a lie often enough, and with enough conviction, that it becomes the accepted truth.
The reality: Just a few of the results of a GMO diet (based on peer-reviewed studies) are: grotesque tumors, premature death, organ failure, gastric lesions, liver damage, kidney damage, severe allergic reactions, a viral gene that disrupts human functions…you can read more HERE.
Myth #2: GMO crops are the only way to solve world hunger.
The most common pro-GMO argument that you will hear these days is that genetically modified crops are the only way to feed the world’s burgeoning population. Without them, proponents claim that hunger will claim the lives of millions over the next decade. In the gospel of biotech, GMOs are the answer to world hunger. If you protest against GMO technology, you are cast as a cold-hearted elitist and the deaths of all of those suffering children in ***** (pick-a-3rd-world-country) rest firmly on your doorstep.
NZ used to be GE free until 2000 when GM corn was planted in several locations throughout NZ. Helen Clarke then PM found out about it and ordered them pulled up … (corn gate it was known as) then through corporate persuasion presumably she caved. The crops were left til full term and harvest and who knows how many of our own crops were contaminated? They then raised the percentage bar of acceptance in our country. By increments is how these people work. For a full exposé read Nicky Hager’s ‘Seeds of Distrust’. (See also Foreword & Chapter 1).
Rats from Professor Seralini’s experiment that were fed GM Corn for two years. Monsanto, when they first released Roundup tested glyphosate on rats for the required 90 days only, not long enough for tumours to grow … still think it’s safe? WHO after briefly deciding it was a ‘probable carcinogen’ has now backtracked, like our PM in 2000, & deemed glyphosate is safe
When you’re done watching the video below, check out our Glyphosate pages for local info on that chemical in your (not) GE free NZ’s favourite farming and garden herbicide Roundup. It is an integral part of the whole GMO package. The stuff is slathered over everything everywhere here in NZ like there is no tomorrow… roadsides, berms, parks, gardens, you name it. And no warning signs posted either. It’s now been deemed safe (again) after a short foray into official recognition of the health risks courtesy of WHO saying it was ‘probably carcinogenic’. However, the tumours on the rats in the ground breaking study by Professor Séralini are evidence enough for me to decline. The video of that experiment is on our Glyphosate page. And by the way, because Monsanto are telling us it is safe to eat, they’re not required to label it in many places. It is already in our food chain because it’s fed to animals and is in many processed foods. Soy and corn that is not labeled organic is likely GM. Here is a short video that tells you the top 12 foods to avoid if you want to avoid GMOs.
The world’s leading Scientists, Physicians, Attorneys, Politicians and Environmental Activists expose the corruption and dangers surrounding the widespread use of Genetically Modified Organisms in the new feature length documentary, “Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs”.
Senior Executive Producer / Writer / Director: Gary Null PhD
Executive Producer/Writer/Co-Director: Richard Polonetsky
Producers: Paola Bossola, Richard Gale, James Spruill, Patrick Thompson, Valerie Van Cleve
Editors: James Spruill, Patrick Thompson, Richie Williamson, Nick Palm
Music: Kevin MacLeod (Incompetech.com), Armando Guarnera
Graphics: Jay Graygor
A short (5 minute) video clip providing you with the quintessential info on genetically modified foods that we are already eating due to the failure of the authorities to label. They consider we don’t need to know. If it is so safe please ask yourself why it is they won’t label it? Remember also, the glyphosate that they spray on your GM food has been found by independent scientists to be carcinogenic. EnvirowatchRangitikei
http://gmo.mercola.com/?x_cid=youtube Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are detrimental to your overall health. Discover why these genetically modified foods are NOT safe to consume.
Stock feed is commonly comprised of GE soy & corn – NZ farmers can’t rule out the possibility it’s GE as it isn’t labeled
See here how murky our clean green image is now? Yet again we are consuming food that is not safe, with neither our knowledge nor our permission? They approved this secretly folks! How can we possibly trust these people who are charged with protecting our food supply? I posted a while back the alert that our stock is being fed GE feed. At least the business operators “couldn’t rule it out the feed wasn’t GE” as it included corn and soy, typically GE products. And the Greens have also made statements about GE feed here in NZ. If GE feed and hormone growth products are so safe why then are they being so underhanded about it all? Not rocket science is it? Vote with your wallet and don’t buy it. There aren’t a lot of options left to us as clearly they’re intent on steam rolling ahead with opening this Pandora’s box. To the peril of the public I might add.
Please share this info. Educate yourself.Search similar articles under ‘categories’ (top left of any page).
EnvirowatchRangitikei
Back in 2002 the Greens announced – “A new growth hormone made by GE bacteria has been secretly approved for use on NZ pigs, and there is no requirement to disclose its use on the label.
This growth hormone makes pigs grow by up to 20% more in the last month of their lives. The hormone Porcine Somatotropin (PST) is injected into the necks of pigs every day, for the last 30 days of their lives. Advice from the manufacturer is to inject pigs in the neck to prevent the meat being downgraded.
The hormone was approved by the Animal Remedies Board on 12 October 2001. A similar hormone for cows, bovine somatotropin, was refused approval by MAF last year because of concerns about European consumers refusing to buy hormone-treated milk and meat.
Australian officials had acknowledged there would likely be residues of the artificial hormone in pork from treated pigs.
As Sue Kedgley, spokesperson for the Green Party commented, this hormone was highly controversial and was not even approved by the FDA for use in America…”
I’m reblogging this article from 2014 to remind us all of the evidence. WHO some twelve months or so ago decided that glyphosate was probably a carcinogen. That got everybody frantically spreading the word however the probably has now given them a convenient little out for later in my opinion anyway… going by what has since happened, that being the major flip flop they’ve done. So … to recap, they (IARC) look at the myriad of independent research and decide on the probably carcinogenic scenario (yes rats fed very diluted glyphosate and GE corn for two years grew enormous tumours all over their bodies) then a year or so later do an about turn. Even if their current conclusions are correct they don’t inspire much trust in their processes to have done a major flip flop like that within a year. And remember, first up after the Séralini experiment Monsanto went into debunk mode by discrediting the Professor’s choice of rat as not being the correct type as in that particular rat is supposedly prone to tumours anyway. All the links to that info are on our Glyphosate pages (the independent research etc) and a brief google search will tell you that you can relax and start spraying everything with Roundup again because yes it’s perfectly safe. After all it is in the GM food you are eating that you don’t know about because it’s so safe they don’t need to label it for you. Please do yourself a favour and watch carefully Professor Séralini’s evidence, and/or read the transcript below. EnvirowatchRangitikei
The Séralini Experiment
Transcript: Pay close attention to what you are about to see. These images will be seen around the world. These rats have been fed with transgenic corn during their entire life cycle. The tumours they suffer from are enormous. The study that revealed the effect of these GMOs on the health of these rats has just been completed. It benefited from exceptional financial & technical means. We were able to witness the study in its entirety. It lasted for two years. Following years of doubt and controversies will we finally know the truth about GMOs? Would we then be faced with a health crisis of global proportions?
Paris, December 16th, 2011, Criigen offices, Committee for Research & Independent Information for Genetic Engineering…. Presentation of the results collected by Professor Seralini during his study focused on determining the potential harmfulness of the GMO corn Nk603 for humans and animals….
This is the longest most thorough study to have been carried out on a GMO and we’ve also carried out a joint study on the most used pesticide in the world, the Roundup which is a herbicide. It belongs to the main pesticide category. We spent over a year trying to obtain transgenic corn because no GMO manufacturers were willing to provide them. This is because Monsanto requires contracts to be signed stipulating that the seeds must not be used for testing and an arrangement must be made prior to the testing. We wanted our study to be independent.
Joel Spiroux Vendomois
Doctor specialized in Environmental Health
President of the CRIIGEN
This is the first time that a two year study has been conducted on GMOs and there lies the big difference. Furthermore, we tried to evaluate a maximum of biochemical & biological parameters with repeated blood tests, weighing of the specimens and urine tests. We studied the hepatic & urinary parameters as well as the blood parameters, all the parameters that can be studied. We also studied the hormonal parameters which has never been done in previous studies. This experiment is a world premiere.
Up until now the corn NK603, the very one selected for the study had only been tested over a three month period and that in a test environment entirely controlled by Monsanto, its manufacturer. Furthermore, concerning the Roundup, also manufactured by Monsanto & which is used for growing corn, only its active agent, Glyphosate had been assessed. But one needs to understand that the manufacturers in order to enable the agent to penetrate the plant cell successfully, use additives that are sometimes more harmful than the actual Glyphosate.
Gilles-Eric Seralini
Molecular biologist
University of Caen (France)
We have two clear objectives, firstly to conduct the studies exactly according to international requirements, but making sure we are very thorough when it comes to analyzing the results. Secondly we want to determine if there are secondary effects. The only way to do this is to carry out tests on animals, and then to examine all the blood parameters whilst paying close attention to their organs.
Commentator: At this stage it might prove useful to know exactly what GMOs are used for. It is a plant that has been developed either to produce its own insecticide or to be tolerant to a herbicide, thusenabling it to be exposed to massive doses of it without dying. One can understand how GMOs can be useful to farmers, for example they would be able to spray their entire field with Roundup, killing all the weeds in the process & never harming the genetically modified plant. On the other hand it is hard to see the benefits for the consumer who will effectively be ingesting substances coming from a plant that has absorbed the pesticides. That is why it is crucial to test not only the GMO, but also the GMO with its residue & the pesticide on its own.
Professor Seralini: This type of testing had never been done before because the corporations doing the test would do them on GMOs with the Roundup which meant that we had no idea what between the GMO & the Roundup caused the pathologies. Or they did them on GMOs without specifying that this was the case. So what we decided to do was to address the question, are we dealing with the effects of the GMO or the pesticide. During the last ten years of testing the national commissions did not envisage a pesticide effect.
Commentator: Therefore Europe does not even demand chronic or toxicity tests to be systematically carried out on animals, & when they are required, it is the manufacturers who decide the protocol to be used. For example, the Amflora potato was only tested on a group
of thirty rats, ten of which were being fed the GMO. The Monsanto corn was tested on 400 rats. Eighty of them were fed the transgenic plant, but only forty of them were then subjected to blood tests. Either way, none of these studies lasted longer than 90 days.
Professor Seralini: What is represented by this figure is that certain groups of rats, male and female, have ingested GMO corn. GMO with Roundup residue and Roundup on its own. Every time we go up a level a rat dies. The limit is ten due to the number of rats that constitute a group. The dotted line represents the females in the group who die but have a completely normal diet. Only two animals die spontaneously after 550 days. On the other hand, every female that has been fed on the GMO, GMO with Roundup or Roundup diet has died more frequently than the other rats. Some will challenge
the relevance of such results but what is undeniable is in the group that has been exposed to the GMOs there is a 600% increase or six times more deaths compared to the control group. As far as medicine or biology is concerned there is no need for further testing. An important fact is that all the studies carried out on the rats are done over a three month period. It so happens that none of the effects are visible until the fourth month. This is fundamental in understanding that studies conducted over a three month period are useless. This conclusion is easily understandable. It could be said that their only use is to soothe their consciences.
Commentator: Every rat out of the 200 that were tested was dissected by Professor Seralini’s team. They did this to discover
exactly what had affected their organs. The purpose behind this was to identify the way each diet, GMO, GMO & Roundup & Roundup on its own had acted on the metabolism of each animal. Focusing on the development rate of the tumours, that, and this comes as no surprise, only start to manifest themselves after the initial three month period.
Professor Seralini: This figure represents a number of palpable tumours contracted by the animal during the experiment. Here we can see the rats subjected to GMOs compared to those with a regular diet. As you can see, very few males contracted tumours. This is due to them being more resistant to the testing process. What these figures show are the for the large tumours, each step up
represents a large tumour which can measure 17 millimeters by 17 millimeters. For a rat these measurements are colossal. It would equate to a tumour of this size if seen on a human being. It is enormous. After having studied these tumours it can be said that 94% of them take effect in the mammary glands which would equate to breast cancer in a woman. We are faced with renal tumours for the males but not only. Some males also suffer from mammary tumours. This points towards a hormonal effect that isn’t affected by the dosage. Sixty percent of breast cancer cases are caused by hormonal deficiencies.
Commentator: Professor Seralini’s study holds one last surprise for us, and this is a major one. Up until now, one could have thought that the main cause of death for the tested rats was coming from the
pesticide added to the corn. But what the study highlighted, and this for the first time ever, is the fact that the transgenesis itself could have killed the rats. What this means is that just by interfering with the genome of the plant in order to modify it, we are faced with repercussions that no one could have anticipated. This is enough to make us reconsider all the scientific precepts that have led to the creation of GMOs.
Professor Seralini: Roundup had never been tested separately. Whilst conducting cellular studies we saw that the cells of the liver, embryos, placenta, kidneys and the umbilical cord died much faster and so we could deduce that there was a toxic effect on the organism. What can be said is that there is an increase in deaths due to GMOs and Roundup. The biggest surprise came when we realized
that GMOs without any Roundup residue were responsible for an increase in the death rate of females and of some males. This could be the result of the GMO gene that has been badly assimilated by the plant and that has therefore resulted in a negative effect, or due to a secondary metabolical effect.
Joel Spiroux Vendomois: What that means is that we are dealing with a GMO in particular. The modification of a cereal or GMO corn, with regard to the genes inserted into the corn, to make it a GMO corn can make it result in different effects. It’s not because a certain GMO has a particular effect that other GMOs will have an effect, but some have even more of an impact. What is alarming is that this
is the GMO that is being eaten by the Americans but, also the GMO that has been proved for importation by European agencies including the French ones and that obviously contaminates our food.
Commentator: Nowadays, only two types of GMOs are being produced in a few European countries. One is corn and the other potato. But what about the 27 million tons of transgenic soya that are being unloaded each year in European ports. This soya is used to feed our cattle, but it also makes its way into a number of our foodstuffs.
Professor Seralini: What we want to achieve with this study is a moratorium. The situation is serious enough, and we’re not going to eat anything and everything. We imported without knowing what was being imported. And the United States have produced crops without knowing what they were producing. There needs to be more studies of this kind, and GMO manufacturers need to conduct them before commercializing their products.
Commentator: A moratorium on growing GMOs has been approved by most European countries. Now that we know the results of the study conducted by Professor Seralini, could it be time to extend this moratorium to all the GMO used in many of our foods. To establish an undeniable scientific truth, one needs teams, time and means. Some will say that it takes too much time and that this is too expensive. But had we taken this precaution, could we not have avoided recent sanitary scandals? Will GMOs be responsible yet again for a calamitous scenario? And while we are waiting for scientific certainties, evidently, this is a risk we cannot afford to take.
For further Info visit our Glyphosate pages … and don’t forget to share 🙂
For millions of kids across the country Kellogg’s Froot Loops have been a staple part of their morning diet.
But are Kellogg’s Froot Loops really safe, and should parents strongly consider boycotting them until the company finally listens to activists and removes all the unnecessary junk?
It’s common knowledge that the sugary breakfast cereal is anything but healthy, especially in the morning when kids are still adjusting and heading out for a long day, but a new lab analysis is showing just how bad the cereal really is for kids.
Glyphosate Also Discovered
The active ingredient in Roundup, the Monsanto product sprayed liberally by famers of GMO crops, was also tested in Froot Loops and found at a level of .12 ppm, or .12 mg/kg according to GMO Free USA’s tests.
What’s in a Froot Loop? Harmful Chemicals, GMOs and More
The website and advocacy group GMO Free USA has gained popularity nationwide for taking on and refuting GMO myths through social media awareness and education, and lately they’ve begun branching out by conducting lab tests on popular foods.
The lab tests are important because GMO labeling is still a right not offered to United States consumers as it is in 60+ countries around the world.
In order to test the Froot Loops for harmful chemicals as well as GMO material, a lab sample was submitted of Froot Loops to a certified lab in 2014.
It found that a full 100% of the corn in Froot Loops was GMO, through a quantitative PCR test by DNA analysis that found sequences that are known to be present in insecticide producing Bt and Roundup Ready corn.
In addition, sequences known to be present in Roundup Ready soy (which is engineered so that it can be doused in Monsanto’s herbicide of the same name) was present as well.
(NaturalNews) Do you think gluten-free foods are always healthy and wholesome? Think again: many of them are highly processed junk foods loaded with GMOs and MSG.
I’ve just posted a new video exposing the gluten-free fraud by reviewing a few off-the-shelf gluten-free products. As the video reveals, some of the products are made with hidden forms of MSG and genetically modified ingredients. But others are truly wholesome or even labeled Non-GMO Project Verified.
The lesson here is simple: Just because some food product claims to be “gluten-free” doesn’t mean it’s good for you. In fact, many gluten-free products are no healthier than processed junk foods. You’d be far better off eating organic wheat products with gluten than consuming processed gluten-free junk food loaded with GMOs, glyphosate, pesticides and MSG.
Gluten may not even be your problem in the first place… it’s probably glyphosate
On the topic of glyphosate, by the way, it is my belief that many people who mistakenly think they’re allergic to gluten are actually being poisoned by the glyphosate pesticide that’s commonly sprayed on wheat harvests as a drying agent.
Non-organic wheat is almost universally contaminated with glyphosate, a cancer-causing weed killer chemical that permeates the wheat berries and persists in wheat flour. If you are eating non-organic breads, pastries, sandwich buns or even bagels, you’re eating glyphosate.
See our Food Additives (under Chemicals) and Glyphosate pages for more info & links, &/or search categories for further related articles (at left of any page).
Please like our FB page &/or follow our blog, and do spread the word on all the untruths we have been told!
Environmental Health Watch NZ 
You must be logged in to post a comment.