MIT Researcher: Glyphosate Herbicide will Cause Half of All Children to Have Autism by 2025

By Alliance For Natural Health | 

Why? Evidence points to glyphosate toxicity from the overuse of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide on our food.

For over three decades, Stephanie Seneff, PhD, has researched biology and technology, over the years publishing over 170 scholarly peer-reviewed articles. In recent years she has concentrated on the relationship between nutrition and health, tackling such topics as Alzheimer’s, autism, and cardiovascular diseases, as well as the impact of nutritional deficiencies and environmental toxins on human health.

At a [recent] conference, in a special panel discussion about GMOs, she took the audience by surprise when she declared, “At today’s rate, by 2025, one in two children will be autistic.” She noted that the side effects of autism closely mimic those of glyphosate toxicity, and presented data showing a remarkably consistent correlation between the use of Roundup on crops (and the creation of Roundup-ready GMO crop seeds) with rising rates of autism. Children with autism have biomarkers indicative of excessive glyphosate, including zinc and iron deficiency, low serum sulfate, seizures, and mitochondrial disorder.

A fellow panelist reported that after Dr. Seneff’s presentation, “All of the 70 or so people in attendance were squirming, likely because they now had serious misgivings about serving their kids, or themselves, anything with corn or soy, which are nearly all genetically modified and thus tainted with Roundup and its glyphosate.”

Dr. Seneff noted the ubiquity of glyphosate’s use. Because it is used on corn and soy, all soft drinks and candies sweetened with corn syrup and all chips and cereals that contain soy fillers have small amounts of glyphosate in them, as do our beef and poultry since cattle and chicken are fed GMO corn or soy. Wheat is often sprayed with Roundup just prior to being harvested, which means that all non-organic bread and wheat products would also be sources of glyphosate toxicity. The amount of glyphosate in each product may not be large, but the cumulative effect (especially with as much processed food as Americans eat) could be devastating. A recent study shows that pregnant women living near farms where pesticides are applied have a 60% increased risk of children having an autism spectrum disorder.

Other toxic substances may also be autism-inducing. You may recall our story on the CDC whistleblower who revealed the government’s deliberate concealment of the link between the MMR vaccine (for measles, mumps, and rubella) and a sharply increased risk of autism, particularly in African American boys. Other studies now show a link between children’s exposure to pesticides and autism. Children who live in homes with vinyl floors, which can emit phthalate chemicals, are more likely to have autism. Children whose mothers smoked were also twice as likely to have autism. Research now acknowledges that environmental contaminants such as PCBs, PBDEs, and mercury can alter brain neuron functioning even before a child is born.

This month, the USDA released a study finding that although there were detectable levels of pesticide residue in more than half of food tested by the agency, 99% of samples taken were found to be within levels the government deems safe, and 40% were found to have no detectable trace of pesticides at all. The USDA added, however, that due to “cost concerns,” it did not test for residues of glyphosate. Let’s repeat that: they never tested for the active ingredient in the most widely used herbicide in the world. “Cost concerns”? How absurd—unless they mean it will cost them too much in terms of the special relationship between the USDA and Monsanto. You may recall the revolving door between Monsanto and the federal government, with agency officials becoming high-paying executives—and vice versa! Money, power, prestige: it’s all there. Monsanto and the USDA love to scratch each others’ backs. Clearly this omission was purposeful.

In addition, as we have previously reported, the number of adverse reactions from vaccines can be correlated as well with autism, though Seneff says it doesn’t correlate quite as closely as with Roundup. The same correlations between applications of glyphosate and autism show up in deaths from senility.

Of course, autism is a complex problem with many potential causes. Dr. Seneff’s data, however, is particularly important considering how close the correlation is—and because it is coming from a scientist with impeccable credentials. Earlier this year, she spoke at the Autism One conference and presented many of the same facts; that presentation is available on YouTube.

Monsanto claims that Roundup is harmless to humans. Bacteria, fungi, algae, parasites, and plants use a seven-step metabolic route known as the shikimate pathway for the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids; glyphosate inhibits this pathway, causing the plant to die, which is why it’s so effective as an herbicide. Monsanto says humans don’t have this shikimate pathway, so it’s perfectly safe.

Dr. Seneff points out, however, that our gut bacteria do have this pathway, and that’s crucial because these bacteria supply our body with crucial amino acids. Roundup thus kills beneficial gut bacteria, allowing pathogens to grow; interferes with the synthesis of amino acids including methionine, which leads to shortages in critical neurotransmitters and folate; chelates (removes) important minerals like iron, cobalt and manganese; and much more.

Even worse, she notes, additional chemicals in Roundup are untested because they’re classified as“inert,” yet according to a 2014 study in BioMed Research International, these chemicals are capable of amplifying the toxic effects of Roundup hundreds of times over.

Glyphosate is present in unusually high quantities in the breast milk of American mothers, at anywhere from 760 to 1,600 times the allowable limits in European drinking water. Urine testing shows Americans have ten times the glyphosate accumulation as Europeans.

“In my view, the situation is almost beyond repair,” Dr. Seneff said after her presentation. “We need to do something drastic.”

Read the Full Article Here.

See Also:

Study: Reducing Herbicide Glyphosate in Diet Reduces Autism Symptoms

The post MIT Researcher: Glyphosate Herbicide will Cause Half of All Children to Have Autism by 2025 appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

MIT Researcher: Glyphosate Herbicide will Cause Half of All Children to Have Autism by 2025

By Alliance For Natural Health | 

Why? Evidence points to glyphosate toxicity from the overuse of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide on our food.

For over three decades, Stephanie Seneff, PhD, has researched biology and technology, over the years publishing over 170 scholarly peer-reviewed articles. In recent years she has concentrated on the relationship between nutrition and health, tackling such topics as Alzheimer’s, autism, and cardiovascular diseases, as well as the impact of nutritional deficiencies and environmental toxins on human health.

At a [recent] conference, in a special panel discussion about GMOs, she took the audience by surprise when she declared, “At today’s rate, by 2025, one in two children will be autistic.” She noted that the side effects of autism closely mimic those of glyphosate toxicity, and presented data showing a remarkably consistent correlation between the use of Roundup on crops (and the creation of Roundup-ready GMO crop seeds) with rising rates of autism. Children with autism have biomarkers indicative of excessive glyphosate, including zinc and iron deficiency, low serum sulfate, seizures, and mitochondrial disorder.

A fellow panelist reported that after Dr. Seneff’s presentation, “All of the 70 or so people in attendance were squirming, likely because they now had serious misgivings about serving their kids, or themselves, anything with corn or soy, which are nearly all genetically modified and thus tainted with Roundup and its glyphosate.”

Dr. Seneff noted the ubiquity of glyphosate’s use. Because it is used on corn and soy, all soft drinks and candies sweetened with corn syrup and all chips and cereals that contain soy fillers have small amounts of glyphosate in them, as do our beef and poultry since cattle and chicken are fed GMO corn or soy. Wheat is often sprayed with Roundup just prior to being harvested, which means that all non-organic bread and wheat products would also be sources of glyphosate toxicity. The amount of glyphosate in each product may not be large, but the cumulative effect (especially with as much processed food as Americans eat) could be devastating. A recent study shows that pregnant women living near farms where pesticides are applied have a 60% increased risk of children having an autism spectrum disorder.

Other toxic substances may also be autism-inducing. You may recall our story on the CDC whistleblower who revealed the government’s deliberate concealment of the link between the MMR vaccine (for measles, mumps, and rubella) and a sharply increased risk of autism, particularly in African American boys. Other studies now show a link between children’s exposure to pesticides and autism. Children who live in homes with vinyl floors, which can emit phthalate chemicals, are more likely to have autism. Children whose mothers smoked were also twice as likely to have autism. Research now acknowledges that environmental contaminants such as PCBs, PBDEs, and mercury can alter brain neuron functioning even before a child is born.

This month, the USDA released a study finding that although there were detectable levels of pesticide residue in more than half of food tested by the agency, 99% of samples taken were found to be within levels the government deems safe, and 40% were found to have no detectable trace of pesticides at all. The USDA added, however, that due to “cost concerns,” it did not test for residues of glyphosate. Let’s repeat that: they never tested for the active ingredient in the most widely used herbicide in the world. “Cost concerns”? How absurd—unless they mean it will cost them too much in terms of the special relationship between the USDA and Monsanto. You may recall the revolving door between Monsanto and the federal government, with agency officials becoming high-paying executives—and vice versa! Money, power, prestige: it’s all there. Monsanto and the USDA love to scratch each others’ backs. Clearly this omission was purposeful.

In addition, as we have previously reported, the number of adverse reactions from vaccines can be correlated as well with autism, though Seneff says it doesn’t correlate quite as closely as with Roundup. The same correlations between applications of glyphosate and autism show up in deaths from senility.

Of course, autism is a complex problem with many potential causes. Dr. Seneff’s data, however, is particularly important considering how close the correlation is—and because it is coming from a scientist with impeccable credentials. Earlier this year, she spoke at the Autism One conference and presented many of the same facts; that presentation is available on YouTube.

Monsanto claims that Roundup is harmless to humans. Bacteria, fungi, algae, parasites, and plants use a seven-step metabolic route known as the shikimate pathway for the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids; glyphosate inhibits this pathway, causing the plant to die, which is why it’s so effective as an herbicide. Monsanto says humans don’t have this shikimate pathway, so it’s perfectly safe.

Dr. Seneff points out, however, that our gut bacteria do have this pathway, and that’s crucial because these bacteria supply our body with crucial amino acids. Roundup thus kills beneficial gut bacteria, allowing pathogens to grow; interferes with the synthesis of amino acids including methionine, which leads to shortages in critical neurotransmitters and folate; chelates (removes) important minerals like iron, cobalt and manganese; and much more.

Even worse, she notes, additional chemicals in Roundup are untested because they’re classified as“inert,” yet according to a 2014 study in BioMed Research International, these chemicals are capable of amplifying the toxic effects of Roundup hundreds of times over.

Glyphosate is present in unusually high quantities in the breast milk of American mothers, at anywhere from 760 to 1,600 times the allowable limits in European drinking water. Urine testing shows Americans have ten times the glyphosate accumulation as Europeans.

“In my view, the situation is almost beyond repair,” Dr. Seneff said after her presentation. “We need to do something drastic.”

Read the Full Article Here.

See Also:

Study: Reducing Herbicide Glyphosate in Diet Reduces Autism Symptoms

The post MIT Researcher: Glyphosate Herbicide will Cause Half of All Children to Have Autism by 2025 appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Must-See TEDx Talk. Syngenta Weedkiller

Everything changed for Dr. Tyrone Hayes when in 1998, the largest chemical company in the world asked him to use his expertise to try and understand if its top-selling product interfered with the hormones of frogs.

The company: Syngenta. The product: weedkiller atrazine.

Hayes, an American biologist and professor of Integrative Biology at University of California, Berkeley, discussed in his nearly 16-minute TEDxBerkeley talk the results of exposing African clawed frogs in his lab to atrazine. He presented an image up on the big screen of frog testes, showing a considerable difference between the controlled and exposed groups, and said:

“The controlled testes, if you look under the microscope, is full of sperm soldiers ready to go. The atrazine-treated testes, the testicular tubules are filled with cellular debris.”

Hayes explained how after exposure to atrazine, frogs that were genetic males became completely functioning reproductive females. In another frog species, he showed the gonads with “eggs that are bursting through the surface of the male’s testes.”

Yikes.

Read ‘Atrazine’s Dark Secrets Reemerge in Must-See TEDx Talk’

Watch the video

h/t: Organic Consumer’s Organization

The post Must-See TEDx Talk. Syngenta Weedkiller appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Study: Monsanto’s Roundup Damages Gut Microbiome

We’re only beginning to learn the importance of healthy gut bacteria to our overall health—and the relationship between healthy soil and the human microbiome.

Now a new study shows that Monsanto’s Roundup® weedkiller, which we already know damages healthy soil microbial activity, also damages the gut microbiome of rats.

The study, published by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini at the University of Caen, France, raises new alarms about glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the world despite mountains of research pointing to the weedkiller’s damaging impacts on human and environmental health.

According to an article published this month by Mercola.com, 70 to 80 percent of your immune function resides within your gastrointestinal tract, or “gut.” Poor gut health is associated with autism, behavioral disorders, diabetes, gene expression and obesity.

If, as this recent article in the Atlantic claims, “The microbial community in the ground is as important as the one in our guts,” then the new Séralini study doesn’t bode well for us humans—especially if we keep dousing the world’s soils with glyphosate, and consuming glyphosate-contaminated foods.

Read ‘Roundup Causes Major Changes in Gut Microbiome of Rats’

Read the full study

The post Study: Monsanto’s Roundup Damages Gut Microbiome appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Study: Monsanto’s Roundup Damages Gut Microbiome

We’re only beginning to learn the importance of healthy gut bacteria to our overall health—and the relationship between healthy soil and the human microbiome.

Now a new study shows that Monsanto’s Roundup® weedkiller, which we already know damages healthy soil microbial activity, also damages the gut microbiome of rats.

The study, published by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini at the University of Caen, France, raises new alarms about glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the world despite mountains of research pointing to the weedkiller’s damaging impacts on human and environmental health.

According to an article published this month by Mercola.com, 70 to 80 percent of your immune function resides within your gastrointestinal tract, or “gut.” Poor gut health is associated with autism, behavioral disorders, diabetes, gene expression and obesity.

If, as this recent article in the Atlantic claims, “The microbial community in the ground is as important as the one in our guts,” then the new Séralini study doesn’t bode well for us humans—especially if we keep dousing the world’s soils with glyphosate, and consuming glyphosate-contaminated foods.

Read ‘Roundup Causes Major Changes in Gut Microbiome of Rats’

Read the full study

The post Study: Monsanto’s Roundup Damages Gut Microbiome appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

How Monsanto Captured the EPA (and Twisted Science) to Keep Glyphosate on the Market

[image: inthesetimes.com | JEAN-LUC BONIFAY]

By VALERIE BROWN & ELIZABETH GROSSMAN, In These Times | 

Since 1973, Monsanto has cited dubious science, like tests on the uteri of male mice, and the EPA has let much of it slide.

In April 2014, a small grassroots group called Moms Across America announced that it had tested 10 breast milk samples for glyphosate, and found the chemical in three of them. Glyphosate is the world’s most widely used herbicide and the primary ingredient of Roundup. Although the levels of glyphosate found by Moms Across America were below the safety limits the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set for drinking water and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has set for food, the results caused a stir on social media.

The Moms Across America testing was not part of any formal scientific study, but Monsanto—the owner of the Roundup trademark and the premier glyphosate manufacturer—jumped to defend its most profitable pesticide based on a new study that found no glyphosate in breast milk. But this research, purported to be “independent,” was actually backed by the corporation itself.

“Anybody who finds out about this is not going to trust a chemical company over a mom, even if [that mom] is a stranger,” says Moms Across America founder Zen Honeycutt. “A mother’s only special interest is the well-being of her family and her community.” Honeycutt says she has been sharply criticized for the breast milk project because it was not a formal scientific study. But she says her intention was “to find out whether or not glyphosate was getting in our breast milk, and if it was, to have further scientific studies conducted and therefore to provoke a movement so that policies would be changed.”

Everyone is exposed to glyphosate: Residues of the herbicide are found in both fresh and processed foods, and in drinking water nationwide. More and more research suggests that glyphosate exposure can lead to numerous health issues, ranging from non-Hodgkin lymphoma and kidney damage to disruption of gut bacteria and improper hormone functioning.

The Moms Across America episode fits a pattern that has emerged since 1974, when the EPA first registered glyphosate for use: When questions have been raised about the chemical’s safety, Monsanto has ensured that the answers serve its financial interests, rather than scientific accuracy and transparency. Our two-year investigation found incontrovertible evidence that Monsanto has exerted deep influence over EPA decisions since glyphosate first came on the market—via Roundup—more than 40 years ago.

We have closely examined the publicly available archive of EPA documents from the earliest days of the agency’s consideration of glyphosate. Significant portions of the relevant documents have either been partially redacted or omitted entirely. But this archived material reveals that EPA staff scientists, who found much of the data submitted by Monsanto unacceptable, did place great weight upon a 1983 mouse study that showed glyphosate was carcinogenic.

READ FULL ARTICLE

The post How Monsanto Captured the EPA (and Twisted Science) to Keep Glyphosate on the Market appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Monsanto In Court Again As Powerful New Herbicide Accidently Kills 3.6 Million Acres Of Crops

Monsanto thought they had developed an amazing scheme to corner the Midwest farming market when they developed new genetically engineered seeds that were resistant to their new herbicide called dicamba.  The resistance of Monsanto"s new magical seed crops to dicamba meant that the herbicide could be sprayed liberally by farmers to eradicate weeds and boost yields.

Alas, as we pointed out last week (see: Meet Monsanto"s Other Herbicide Problem...), a small problem emerged when spray drifts from those liberal herbicide applications began to wipe out the crops of neighboring farmers who didn"t plant Monsanto"s dicamba-resistant seeds.

Now, as the Wall Street Journal points out today, after allegedly wiping out millions of acres of farm ground across the Midwest, Monsanto once again finds itself in a familiar spot: the courtroom. 

Monsanto’s new version of the herbicide called dicamba is part of a more than $1 billion investment that pairs it with new genetically engineered seeds that are resistant to the spray. But some farmers say their nonresistant crops suffered after neighbors’ dicamba drifted onto their land.

 

The agricultural giant in October sued the Arkansas State Plant Board following the board’s decision to bar Monsanto’s new herbicide and propose tougher restrictions on similar weed killers ahead of the 2018 growing season. Monsanto claims its herbicide is being held to an unfair standard.

 

Arkansas has been a flashpoint in the dispute: About 900,000 acres of crops were reported damaged there, more than in any other state.

 

About 300 farmers, crop scientists and other attendees gathered in Little Rock on Wednesday for a hearing on Arkansas’s proposed stiffer dicamba controls, which Monsanto and some farmers are fighting. The proposed restrictions are subject to the approval of a subcommittee of state legislators.

As we pointed out previously, the EPA has reported that farmers in 25 states submitted more than 2,700 claims to state agricultural agencies that neighbors’ dicamba spraying shriveled 3.6 million acres of soybeans. The herbicide is also blamed for damaging other crops, such as cantaloupe and pumpkins.

The massive crop damage prompted Arkansas’s Plant Board to propose the idea of prohibiting dicamba use from mid-April through the end of October to safeguard growing plants. The state has also refused to approve Monsanto’s dicamba product for use in Arkansas, saying it needs further analysis by University of Arkansas researchers.

Of course, delays didn"t sit well with Monsanto which stands to make some $350 million a year in dicamba and related seed sales according to Jonas Oxgaard, an analyst with Bernstein who described the products as "their big moneymaker."

Meanwhile, farmers are exploring their own legal options with some joining a class-action lawsuit against Monsanto and BASF, seeking compensation for damaged crops.

For farmers, “it’s highly emotional,” said Doug Goehring, North Dakota’s agriculture commissioner.

 

Tom Burnham, who farms 11,000 acres near Blytheville, Ark., said he hired a lawyer to advise him on how to handle a neighbor whose errant dicamba spraying, Mr. Burnham said, reduced some fields’ harvest by 5% to 20%. Mr. Burnham said he didn’t expect to make money on any lawsuit he may file. “I’m doing it just to make a point.”

Seems like it may be time for Monsanto execs to start pulling some strings at the EPA again...

Glyphosate: Persistently Toxic

For decades, Monsanto has claimed that the glyphosate in its Roundup herbicide breaks down so quickly that we shouldn’t worry about the chemical’s impact on soils. Independent scientists (i.e., scientists not funded by the chemical industry) have disagreed.

Now, a new study by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre and two Dutch laboratories confirms:

Contrary to manufacturers’ claims, glyphosate persists in soils, not only affecting soil fertility and crop quality, but also posing risks to human and environmental health.

According to the study, 45 percent of Europe’s topsoil contains glyphosate residues. The study was conducted in six crop systems in 11 EU member states on soils in different geographical and climatic conditions.

According to 2015 figures, 440 million acres of farmland are planted in GMO crops, worldwide.

Given that the quality and health of soil is directly related to the quality of our own health, isn’t it time to get glyphosate out of our soils?

Full study here

Learn more

The post Glyphosate: Persistently Toxic appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Monsanto Manipulated Data, New Documents Reveal Details (VIDEO)

By: Ring of Fire Radio | 

Ring of Fire’s Sam Seder and Farron Cousins recently released documents that show Monsanto Executives were colluding with EPA officials to manipulate scientific data.

Transcript of the above video:

Sam: So, Farron, before we talk about the really blockbuster news from this week regarding Monsanto, let’s go back and talk about the history of the EPA and Monsanto’s Roundup, which of course is known as a glyphosate, which is the active ingredient in Roundup. Just give us some background so that people understand where we are as of this week with the release of these documents, what that means. But just give us some background on Roundup.

Farron: Well, basically, in 1985, Roundup had been on the market for several years. 1985 the EPA, after studying it for many, many years, decided they were going to classify it as a possible human carcinogen. And then after six years, six years ago they had said, “Yeah, okay, possible human carcinogen.”

In 1991, they decided to, I guess, take a second look at Monsanto’s request and for some reason looked at the exact same science, the exact same studies, that showed that there was a connection between exposure to glyphosate and non-Hodgkins lymphoma. They looked at the exact same science. Nothing had changed, and they said, “Okay, we’re going to take away this possible human carcinogen designation, and now you’re free to go, Mr. Monsanto.”

Here’s the kicker on this. That happened just about six months before GMOs produced by Monsanto hit the market. And those GMOs, people need to understand, were basically created so that Monsanto could sell the seeds that were resistant to Roundup, then sell Roundup by the barrel for them to go dump on all of the crops. The crops wouldn’t be hurt. It’s going to kill all the weeds. Less tillage, less work for you, if you buy our seeds and our poison. They have quite literally and figuratively at this point made a killing off of everything Roundup and Roundup-Ready related since that initial decision change in 1991.

Sam: Roundup-Ready is the term that we basically use when we’re talking about an agricultural product that is designed to be resistant to Roundup, as opposed to, I guess, theoretically the weeds around it. Now, so, every 15 years, federal law … And it’s at least 15 years … The longest period of time a pesticide or an herbicide can go without being reviewed again is 15 years, and they really pushed it to the limit, didn’t they? The EPA just started looking at it again, I guess, last year.

Farron: They did, and here’s the thing that’s happened since then. We have seen study after study. We’ve had the World Health Organization come out and designate this as a probable human carcinogen. The IARC Agency has come out basically said the same thing. Independent studies from universities, from independent scientists, they’re all coming to virtually the same conclusion, and that is that there is a higher instance of specific cancers like non-Hodgkins lymphoma along with a whole host of other diseases that are related directly, according to these studies, to exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup.

So, finally, the EPA once again came back and said, “Okay, I guess we’re a little past due on this issue, so we’re going to look at it again,” and that’s one of the reasons why Monsanto has once again found itself in the headlines. Not because the EPA is reviewing it, but because of what they’re trying to do with the EPA while they’re reviewing this particular herbicide.

Sam: Okay. So, last December, literally the last month of the last year that the government was required to review this product, and people have to understand that an extraordinary amount of our soy in this country, of our corn in this country … I don’t have the figures off the top of my head. You may know it, but it’s well over 70% of each of those are Roundup-Ready products. The corn, the soy. There’s others, but the amount of Roundup that is used in this country is extraordinary. But, nevertheless, the EPA takes the longest amount of time possible before they review, and then what do they do? They empanel an outside committee?

Farron: Yeah, and that’s one of the things that’s really frightening about what’s happening with the FDA as it currently stands is that they do rely a lot on outside committees. We bring in outside panels of experts, of scientists, and now more and more, and this is happening with Monsanto right now … They’re bringing in industry insiders. Allegedly chemical experts that all have ties back to the industry, and Monsanto has been doing everything possible to stack the deck. They’re trying to put their own people into these EPA advisory panels. People that they’ve paid. People that have been consultants for Monsanto, working on their own in-house studies. People that they’ve had rewrite studies in a more flattering light to show that glyphosate is not necessarily carcinogenic, or that the effects aren’t as bad as people think. These are the same people Monsanto is actively working with to get them placed into these EPA panels, or at the very least, from what we know, have them in that EPA panel’s ear telling them, “Well, look at this study. Look at our own studies that show that this thing is not harmful.”

They have a very captive audience there with the EPA right now, and especially with Scott Pruitt at the head of it who wants to replace scientists with industry insiders. Things are looking incredibly like they’re going to go in Monsanto’s favor, unfortunately, with what we have in this country right now.

Sam: All right. And so we should say I think there were 15 experts on this panel, and eight of them early on really expressed a concern about the EPA’s view of glyphosate as being so benign. I guess EPA came out with a report on the peer review, which was about a month or two ago. Maybe in March. Basically, where are we at with that?

Farron: Right now with that peer reviewed paper, the results of that are kind of in question because what we’re finding out at the moment is that Monsanto has been actively working, and I guess for lack of a better word, colluding with the EPA to downplay the negative health effects of glyphosate. Recently, in fact, this past week on Tuesday morning, a massive document dump took place as a result of the ongoing litigation against Monsanto where 75 different documents came out, released to the public, showing the different communications between Monsanto employees and scientists. Some of them with people who had connections at the EPA, connections to scientists, showing that they were working to downplay studies. You had employees of Monsanto in some of these communications telling their superiors, “I’m not comfortable with this. I’m not comfortable with downplaying these results or bastardizing this particular science.”

So, right now with what is happening at the EPA, I hate to sound like such a skeptic at this point, but we can’t necessarily trust it because Monsanto’s own documents show they have been infiltrating, I guess, and influencing them for several years at this point. This is not something that’s unique to the Trump administration. This is something that’s been going on for a very long time.

Sam: All right, Farron, we’re going to take a quick break. When we come back, I want to hear more about this because these documents that have been released … They’re unprecedented, the release of these documents. And like you said, they show what is know as regulatory capture and the implications of it are that literally hundreds if not thousands of people may have contracted some form of cancer because of the EPA has basically been partners in hiding information that Monsanto may have known the damages that Roundup could cause.

We’ve got to take a quick break. We’ll be right back with more. I’m Sam Seder. This is Ring of Fire Radio.

Create your own review

Average rating:  

 0 reviews

Guess Who Edited the “Independent” Reviews That Say Monsanto’s Round-Up Is NOT Carcinogenic?

New reviews have shown that Monsanto’s Round-Up is not carcinogenic. The weed killer is perfectly safe, despite the World Health Organizations proclamation in 2015 that glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Round-Up, was “probably” carcinogenic.

This proclamation was met with outrage from Monsanto and a series of “independent” reviews that all agreed that the World Health Organization was wrong.

Of course, Monsanto secretly edited the studies.

Dozens of internal emails that the company probably wished had vanished into the cyber-ether have recently been released in a court hearing by plaintiffs suing Monsanto:

Dozens of internal Monsanto emails, released on Aug. 1 by plaintiffs’ lawyers who are suing the company, reveal how Monsanto worked with an outside consulting firm to induce the scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology to publish a purported “independent” review of Roundup’s health effects that appears to be anything but. The review, published along with four subpapers in a September 2016 special supplement, was aimed at rebutting the 2015 assessment by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. That finding by the cancer-research arm of the World Health Organization led California last month to list glyphosate as a known human carcinogen. It has also spurred more than 1,000 lawsuits in state and federal courts by plaintiffs who claim they contracted non-Hodgkin lymphoma from Roundup exposure. (source)

In the emails, we discover that Monsanto funded a review by Intertek Group Plc’s consulting unit, entitled “An Independent Review of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate.” One must wonder how independent a review so-funded could be and how much we can trust the claims that Monsanto’s Round-Up is not carcinogenic.

According to Monsanto, very independent. Their Declaration of Interest statement said:

The Expert Panelists were engaged by, and acted as consultants to, Intertek, and were not directly contacted by the Monsanto Company. Neither any Monsanto company employees nor any attorneys reviewed any of the Expert Panel’s manuscripts prior to submission to the journal.” (source)

But just like in the Clinton campaign, those darned emails came back to haunt them like the Ghost of Cancer Victims Past. Bloomberg reports:

The correspondence shows the company’s chief of regulatory science, William Heydens, and other Monsanto scientists were heavily involved in organizing, reviewing, and editing drafts submitted by the outside experts. At one point, Heydens even vetoed explicit requests by some of the panelists to tone down what one of them wrote was the review’s “inflammatory” criticisms of IARC.

“An extensive revision of the summary article is necessary,” wrote that panelist, John Acquavella, an epidemiologist at Aarhus University in Denmark, in a February 2016 email attached to his suggested edits of the draft. Alarmed, Ashley Roberts, the coordinator of the glyphosate papers for Intertek, forwarded Acquavella’s note and edits to Heydens at Monsanto, with the warning: “Please take a look at the latest from the epi(demiology) group!!!!”

Heydens reedited Acquavella’s edits, arguing in six different notes in the draft’s margin that statements Acquavella had found inflammatory were not and should not be changed, despite the author’s requests. In the published article, Heydens’s edits prevailed. (source)

Ouch.

Monsanto has a history of skewing the science.

How can we believe anything from such a biased source? And it isn’t like this is the first time Monsanto has been busted for toying with the science.

Of course, Monsanto has a long history of rewriting science when it gets in the way of profits. Who can forget the Seralini study, in which rats fed nothing but Round-Up Ready corn developed massive and horrific tumors?  Then, once the study became common knowledge, Dr. Seralini was publicly shamed and vilified. His work was pulled from the journal in which it was published, Food and Chemical Toxicology. But the fact of which many people were unaware was that the new editor of the journal who pulled the review, Richard Goodman, was hired straight from the hallowed halls of Monsanto.

As well, Monsanto recently sullied scientific research with a contract barring certain testing from being performed. A new poison product that they’d like to introduce to the market is called XtendiMax. While they supplied samples of the product to research departments of the University of Arkansas, University of Missouri and the University of Illinois, the researchers were bound contractually NOT to test the volatility of the product. (“Volatility measures the product’s tendency to vaporize and drift across fields.” source)

I don’t believe for one second that Monsanto’s Round-Up is not carcinogenic.

The repeated infractions mean that you certainly can’t trust any pro-Monsanto studies, and in fact, does more to undermine any potential trust a person might have in any product birthed from that company. Any sensible person would likewise have to mistrust claims that Monsanto’s round up is not carcinogenic. They’ve even been caught hiring internet trolls to combat their negative image, unleashing them on blogs and websites that post the truth about their deadly products.

In fact, you have to wonder whether Monsanto is single-handedly responsible for the giant American Cancer Cluster that means every other person in the country will one day suffer from cancer, earning the cancer industry well over 124 billion dollars per year.

Oh – and you certainly can’t expect the EPA to stop them. After irrefutable evidence of toxicity and death from Round-Up, those guardians of the environment actually raised the allowable level of glyphosate on food crops.

Between their genetically modified crops that are designed to survive every-higher inundations of toxic weed killers and the widespread use of Round-up, they just may be the death of us all as they pretend to benevolently feed the world.

Guess Who Edited the “Independent” Reviews That Say Monsanto’s Round-Up Is NOT Carcinogenic?

New reviews have shown that Monsanto’s Round-Up is not carcinogenic. The weed killer is perfectly safe, despite the World Health Organizations proclamation in 2015 that glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Round-Up, was “probably” carcinogenic.

This proclamation was met with outrage from Monsanto and a series of “independent” reviews that all agreed that the World Health Organization was wrong.

Of course, Monsanto secretly edited the studies.

Dozens of internal emails that the company probably wished had vanished into the cyber-ether have recently been released in a court hearing by plaintiffs suing Monsanto:

Dozens of internal Monsanto emails, released on Aug. 1 by plaintiffs’ lawyers who are suing the company, reveal how Monsanto worked with an outside consulting firm to induce the scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology to publish a purported “independent” review of Roundup’s health effects that appears to be anything but. The review, published along with four subpapers in a September 2016 special supplement, was aimed at rebutting the 2015 assessment by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. That finding by the cancer-research arm of the World Health Organization led California last month to list glyphosate as a known human carcinogen. It has also spurred more than 1,000 lawsuits in state and federal courts by plaintiffs who claim they contracted non-Hodgkin lymphoma from Roundup exposure. (source)

In the emails, we discover that Monsanto funded a review by Intertek Group Plc’s consulting unit, entitled “An Independent Review of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate.” One must wonder how independent a review so-funded could be and how much we can trust the claims that Monsanto’s Round-Up is not carcinogenic.

According to Monsanto, very independent. Their Declaration of Interest statement said:

The Expert Panelists were engaged by, and acted as consultants to, Intertek, and were not directly contacted by the Monsanto Company. Neither any Monsanto company employees nor any attorneys reviewed any of the Expert Panel’s manuscripts prior to submission to the journal.” (source)

But just like in the Clinton campaign, those darned emails came back to haunt them like the Ghost of Cancer Victims Past. Bloomberg reports:

The correspondence shows the company’s chief of regulatory science, William Heydens, and other Monsanto scientists were heavily involved in organizing, reviewing, and editing drafts submitted by the outside experts. At one point, Heydens even vetoed explicit requests by some of the panelists to tone down what one of them wrote was the review’s “inflammatory” criticisms of IARC.

“An extensive revision of the summary article is necessary,” wrote that panelist, John Acquavella, an epidemiologist at Aarhus University in Denmark, in a February 2016 email attached to his suggested edits of the draft. Alarmed, Ashley Roberts, the coordinator of the glyphosate papers for Intertek, forwarded Acquavella’s note and edits to Heydens at Monsanto, with the warning: “Please take a look at the latest from the epi(demiology) group!!!!”

Heydens reedited Acquavella’s edits, arguing in six different notes in the draft’s margin that statements Acquavella had found inflammatory were not and should not be changed, despite the author’s requests. In the published article, Heydens’s edits prevailed. (source)

Ouch.

Monsanto has a history of skewing the science.

How can we believe anything from such a biased source? And it isn’t like this is the first time Monsanto has been busted for toying with the science.

Of course, Monsanto has a long history of rewriting science when it gets in the way of profits. Who can forget the Seralini study, in which rats fed nothing but Round-Up Ready corn developed massive and horrific tumors?  Then, once the study became common knowledge, Dr. Seralini was publicly shamed and vilified. His work was pulled from the journal in which it was published, Food and Chemical Toxicology. But the fact of which many people were unaware was that the new editor of the journal who pulled the review, Richard Goodman, was hired straight from the hallowed halls of Monsanto.

As well, Monsanto recently sullied scientific research with a contract barring certain testing from being performed. A new poison product that they’d like to introduce to the market is called XtendiMax. While they supplied samples of the product to research departments of the University of Arkansas, University of Missouri and the University of Illinois, the researchers were bound contractually NOT to test the volatility of the product. (“Volatility measures the product’s tendency to vaporize and drift across fields.” source)

I don’t believe for one second that Monsanto’s Round-Up is not carcinogenic.

The repeated infractions mean that you certainly can’t trust any pro-Monsanto studies, and in fact, does more to undermine any potential trust a person might have in any product birthed from that company. Any sensible person would likewise have to mistrust claims that Monsanto’s round up is not carcinogenic. They’ve even been caught hiring internet trolls to combat their negative image, unleashing them on blogs and websites that post the truth about their deadly products.

In fact, you have to wonder whether Monsanto is single-handedly responsible for the giant American Cancer Cluster that means every other person in the country will one day suffer from cancer, earning the cancer industry well over 124 billion dollars per year.

Oh – and you certainly can’t expect the EPA to stop them. After irrefutable evidence of toxicity and death from Round-Up, those guardians of the environment actually raised the allowable level of glyphosate on food crops.

Between their genetically modified crops that are designed to survive every-higher inundations of toxic weed killers and the widespread use of Round-up, they just may be the death of us all as they pretend to benevolently feed the world.

Roundup Herbicide Linked To Parkinson’s-Related Brain Damage

Alarming research published in the journal Neurotoxicology and Teratology supports the emerging connection between glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide, and neurodegenerative conditions such as Parkinson’s disease and Parkinsonian disorders.

Published April, 2012, the study entitled “Glyphosate induced cell death through apoptotic and authophagic mechanisms,” investigated the potential brain-damaging effects of herbicides, which the authors stated “have been recognized as the main environmental factor associated with neurodegenerative disorders, such as Parkinson’s disease.”¹

They found that glyphosate inhibited the viability of differentiated test cells (PC12, adrenal medula derived), in both dose-and-time dependent manners. The researchers also found that “glyphosate induced cell death via authophagy pathways in addition to activating apoptotic pathways.”

Roundup herbicide is now a ubiquitous contaminant in our air, rain, groundwater, and food, making complete avoidance near impossible. A growing body of experimental evidence now indicates that it in addition to its neurotoxicity it also has the following.

Modes of Toxicity

• Carcinogen


• Endocrine Disruptor


• Genotoxic


• Biocide


• Cytotoxic


• Bioaccumulator


• Hepatotoxic


• Teratrogenic


• Clastogenic


• Oxidant


• Aquacidal


• Mutagenic


• Aromatase Disruptor


• Glutathione Down-regulator


• Malondialdehyde Up-regulator


• Necrotic


• Nephrotoxic

Once marketed as “safe as table salt” by Monsanto, the original patent holder and manufacturer of this glyphosate-based herbicide, evidence now indicates it is toxic to human DNA at concentrations diluted 450-fold lower than used in agricultural applications.

This study only adds to human case reports of glyphosate-poisoning  and/or occupational exposure where neurological damage was a direct consequence.  A 2011 case study published in the journal Parkinsonism Related Disorders, entitled “Parkinsonism after chronic occupational exposure to glyphosate,” reported the following incident:

Here we report a patient with parkinsonism following chronic occupational exposure to glyphosate. A previously healthy 44- year-old woman presented with rigidity, slowness and resting tremor in all four limbs with no impairment of short-term memory, after sustaining long term chemical exposure to glyphosate for 3 years as a worker in a chemical factory. The chemical plant produced a range of herbicides including: glyphosate, gibberellins, and dimethyl hydrogen phosphite; however, the patient worked exclusively in the glyphosate production division. She only wore basic protection such as gloves or a face mask for 50 h each week in the plant where glyphosate vapor was generated. She frequently felt weak. Two months before she came to our clinic, she had expe- rienced severe dizziness and blurred vision.

Another case study published in 2003 reported a case of parkinsonism subsequent to glyphosate exposure.

These case studies are also backed up by animal research. In the roundworm model of glyphosate exposure the chemical results in neurodegeneration directly associated with damage to the dopamine and GABA producing neurons. In the rat model, glyphosate exposure results in oxidative brain damage, particularly the substantia nigra, where the highest concentration of dopamine-producing cells reside, and which is the primary locus of neurological damage in Parkinson’s disease.

———-

Citation

¹ Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2012 Apr 4. Epub 2012 Apr 4. PMID: 22504123

© July 31, 2017 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

Judge Rules General Mills Can Label Nature Valley Granola Bars “Natural”

A California federal judge has ruled that General Mills may continue to label its Nature Valley granola bars as “natural,” despite tests which showed they contained traces of the chemical glyphosate, the main ingredient in the herbicide RoundUp and a multitude of other weedkillers. [1]

Judge Michael Davis dismissed a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit consumer groups Organic Consumers Association, Moms Across America, and Beyond Pesticides, which alleged General Mills was misleading buyers by claiming the granola bars were “Made with 100% natural whole grain oats.”

The groups said third-party laboratory testing detected 0.45 parts per million (ppm) of glyphosate in the granola bars, and believed oats were the culprit.

The case was thrown out by Davis last week, who noted in the dismissal order that the amount of glyphosate was permissible under law, even for certified organic foods.

The EPA’s tolerance level for cereal grains is 30 ppm, and food labeled “organic” can contain chemical pesticide residue of less than 5% of that amount.

Davis also said that even if the oats contain trace amounts of glyphosate, the groups had not alleged that the oats, themselves, were not natural.

He wrote:

“The packaging does not state that the product. as a whole, is ‘100% natural’.”

He added:

“It is implausible that a reasonable consumer would believe that a product labeled as having one ingredient — oats — that is ‘100% Natural’ could not contain a trace amount of glyphosate that is far below the amount permitted for organic products.

There is no dispute that the products were made with whole grain oats that, themselves, are ‘100% Natural’. Even if the glyphosate traces are present on the oats, there is no allegation that the oats, themselves, are not natural. The packaging does not state that the product, as a whole, is ‘100% Natural.’

It is not plausible that a representation that one ingredient in a product — in this case, oats — is ‘100% Natural’ means that the product as a whole does not contain traces of synthetic ingredients. Plaintiffs cannot claim a breach or misrepresentation based on a warranty that defendant never gave.” [2]

What is “Natural” Anyway?

In the fall of 2015, the FDA opened a public comment period for people to share their thoughts on what the word “natural” means, as it pertains to food products, because there is no set definition. Food companies commonly toss terms around like “natural,” “all-natural,” and “made with natural ingredients” but make no effort to specify what they mean.

General Mills has had legal problems pertaining to its Nature Valley bars in the past, including in 2014, when, as part of a settlement, it was required to remove the label “100% Natural” from more than 20 of its products because the bars contained high fructose corn syrup, maltodextrin, sodium bicarbonate (baking soda), and other synthetically-produced ingredients.

Other companies have faced similar legal action over claims that their products are natural, including Kellogg’s Kashi brand, and PepsiCo’s Naked Juices.

Sources:

[1] BakeryAndSnacks

[2] Food Business News

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream Found to Contain Traces of Glyphosate

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) announced July 25, 2017 that it had discovered traces of the RoundUp chemical glyphosate in 10 of 11 samples of Ben & Jerry’s ice creams. The levels were reportedly far below the limit set by the EPA. [1]

The discovery is a bit of an embarrassment to the ice-cream maker because it has billed itself as a non-GMO company since 2014. Thankfully, the levels found were quite low. [2]

In reality, that’s only sort of true. On its website, Ben & Jerry’s says it based its non-GMO standard on the “mandatory declaration requirements of European regulations and the GMO labeling law passed in [their] home state of Vermont.” Based on this standard, the company’s milk and egg suppliers may still use conventional (GMO) animal feeds. [1]

Rob Michalak, global director of social mission at Ben & Jerry’s says the environmentally-conscience company is working to ensure that all the ingredients in its supply chain come from non-GMO sources. None of its plant-based ingredients come from corn, soy, or other known genetically-modified crops. The company is also reportedly teasing out a cost-effective way for the dairy farms that supply its milk to use non-GMO feed.

Michalak said:

“We’re working to transition away from GMO, as far away as we can get. But then these tests come along, and we need to better understand where the glyphosate they’re finding is coming from. Maybe it’s from something that’s not even in our supply chain, and so we’re missing it.”

It’s possible that add-ins to the ice cream, such as peanut butter or cookie dough, are sprayed with glyphosate and may be the culprits. [3]

Ben & Jerry’s Chocolate Fudge Brownie showed the highest levels of glyphosate, with 1.74 parts per billion, and glyphosate’s byproduct aminomethylphosphonic acid registering 0.91 parts per billion.

To put things into perspective, a 75-pound child would need to eat 145,000 8-ounce servings each day of the ice cream to hit the limit set by the Environmental Protection Agency. An adult would have to eat 290,000 servings, said John Fagan, the chief executive of the Health Research Institute Laboratories, which did the testing for the Organic Consumers Association.

But despite the extremely low levels of glyphosate, the OCA thinks that any presence of glyphosate is misleading to buyers. [2]

The group said in a post on its website:

“It’s time for Ben & Jerry’s to announce it will immediately begin transitioning to 100 percent organic. Otherwise conscious consumers have no choice but to launch a national and, if necessary, international protest campaign and boycott.”

Furthermore, according to OCA, reports published by Regeneration Vermont reveal that Ben & Jerry’s suppliers—and Vermont and U.S. (non-organic) dairy farmers in general – “have gone backwards, rather than forward over the past 15 years in terms of environment sustainability, food safety, and nutrition and greenhouse gas pollution.”

OCA also says Ben & Jerry’s needs to stop labeling its ice cream as “natural.”

Promising years ago to go GMO-free by 2014, Ben & Jerry’s has made strides over the years to make its ice cream more natural, including dropping milk made with Monsanto’s RBST growth hormones. Perhaps the company doesn’t deserve this much heat at this point in time.

Sources:

[1] The New York Times

[2] Fox Business

[3] Business Insider

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Something to Celebrate

On July 7 (2017), California will add glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, to the state’s list of chemicals and substances known to cause cancer.

Before we dive into the weeds in terms of what the listing does and doesn’t mean, and may or may not lead to, let’s take a moment to recognize that this is a landmark decision in the ongoing battle against Monsanto’s flagship weedkiller.

Every activist who has engaged in this fight deserves to take a moment to bask in this victory.

It’s not everything we need, or everything we want—but California’s decision, upheld by the courts, represents a major step forward in a decades-long fight to expose the truth about Roundup and protect the public from its cancer-causing effects.

The full impact of the decision remains to be seen. How much glyphosate will need to be present before a product is required to carry a warning? How many foods will exceed the glyphosate residue limits set by California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)?

Will Monsanto find a way to keep those warnings off all labels? Including foods and weedkillers?

Time will tell. And activists will need to remain vigilant.

But today, it’s celebration time.

Read OCA’s blog post: ‘California to Warn Consumers About Monsanto’s Glyphosate—But How Much and How Soon?’