Roundup ‘Weedkiller’ Feeds Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria, Study Finds

The nightmarish toxicological profile of Roundup herbicide (glyphosate) continues to emerge within the peer-reviewed research, this time revealing its role in supporting the growth of a pathogenic bacteria of great medical significance.

A concerning new study published in the Brazilian Journal of Microbiology titled, “Influence of glyphosate in planktonic and biofilm growth of Pseudomonas aeruginosa,” indicates that the world’s most widely used herbicide Roundup (glyphosate) may be contributing to the enhanced growth of the pathogenic bacteria P. aeruginosa in our environment.

The Brazilian team responsible for the study expressed concern over the “virtual nonexistence” of research evaluating glyphosate herbicide-pathogenic microbiota interactions, and conducted a series of microbial experiments to fill this data gap.  They noted:

“Glyphosate is probably the herbicide most discharged into the environment. Due to its extensive use in the protection of crops, it is inevitable that it will reach surface and deep waters (Pournaras et al., 2007), especially after rainfalls.”

P. aeruginosa is commonly found in watercourses and reservoirs in both oxygen (aerobic) and non-oxygen preferring forms (anaerobic), and can be a source of waterborne infection.

The results of the new study indicate that when exposed to varying concentrations of both glyphosate (a common contaminant found in GM agricultural runoff) and oxygen, both the aerobic the anaerobic and biofilm forming strains of this bacteria can thrive:

“Aerobic planktonic growth was superior to anaerobic one. This points to the possibility of P. aeruginosa, although a facultative organism (Davies et al., 1989; Yoon et al., 2002), has its growth significantly favored by the presence of molecular oxygen. Continuous bacterial exposure to low concentrations of glyphosate leads to increased rates of aerobic growth, which is somehow in agreement with previously published findings (Fitzgibbon and Braymer, 1988). By the contrary, in conditions of inaccessibility of molecular oxygen, the bacterium started to grow better in a concentration-dependent manner. It is possible that this phenomenon results from the use of the molecule as a source of phosphorus, as previously reported for the genus Pseudomonas (Peñaloza-Vazquez et al., 1995; Moore et al., 1983; Talbot et al., 1984). Glyphosate could also serve as a carbon source, which would be processed by both aerobic and anaerobic metabolisms (Rueppel et al., 1977), with increased rates in presence of oxygen. To support such theory, it has been found that different bacterial genera may promote catalysis of glyphosate using C-P lyases (van Eerd et al., 2003). Once broken up this connection, Pseudomonas spp. can produce glycine (Kishore and Jacob, 1987), which can also enhance growth.”

The researchers also focused on the ability of glyphosate to support the growth of so-called biofilms, a closely adhering colony of bacteria embedded in a self-produced matrix of a “slimy” extracellular polymeric substance (EPS), revealing:

“Our results revealed that the xenobiotic tends to favor the formation of biofilms of P. aeruginosa, especially those anaerobic and that such increase seems to be concentration-dependent.”

This finding has significant medical implications, as P. aeruginosa biofilm colonies are far more virulent and exhibit the kind of antibiotic resistance found in serious infections in humans, such as skin infections and pulmonary complications associated with fatal conditions such as cystic fibrosis.[1]

The study concluded:

“The results from this study point to the fact that the indiscriminate use of agricultural formulations containing glyphosate may result in an increase in growth rates of planktonic and biofilm phenotypes of P. aeruginosa in watercourses or reservoirs.”

As Roundup – now a ubiquitous agrochemical contaminant found in our rain, air and water — continues to accumulate in larger amounts in the environment, concern grows that it may be upsetting the natural microbial balance upon which our own microbial health depends on.

Previously, we have looked at the way that Roundup herbicide is altering the microbial biodiversity of our environment by destroying soil microbes that have indispensable importance in the production of food. Research also now exists showing this agrochemical can shift the gut bacteria of animals towards pathogenic strains of bacteria, including the deadly botulism-associated Clostridium botulinum strain.  Also, a new study raises concern that as a water pollutant glyphosate may be contributing to the decline of the coral reefs, underscoring how profoundly this environmental contaminant may be affecting the future health of our planet as a whole.

As the public continues to rally behind the non-GMO movement, expending the bulk of its political efforts on labeling GMO-containing foods, it is important to also focus on the clear and present danger of Roundup herbicide, which a growing number of groups support banning entirely. When we understand the true extent of harm represented by this agrochemical (and which research now links to over 50 adverse health effects), then the argument that GM foods and non-GM (e.g. organic) foods are ‘substantial equivalent‘ is immediately disproved.  GM foods are universally contaminated with glyphosate and AMPA (a glyphosate metabolite) residue and owing to the fact that infinitesimal (parts-per-trillion) concentrations of glyphosate may have endocrine disrupting/carcinogenic properties present regulations on glyphosate are not protecting the public or environment at large from its known risks. (Learn more by reading: ‘EPA to the Public: Let Them Eat Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Cake’).

To get more involved follow the Global GMO Free Coalition.

---

References

[1] Antibiotic Susceptibilities of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Isolates Derived from Patients with Cystic Fibrosis under Aerobic, Anaerobic, and Biofilm Conditions J. Clin. Microbiol. October 2005 vol. 43 no. 10 5085-5090

© April 19, 2018 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.

The post Roundup ‘Weedkiller’ Feeds Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria, Study Finds 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.

GMO Awareness

The battle to take back our food and farming system from Monsanto was never going to be easy—or quickly won.

That said, consumer awareness—and consumer demand—is chipping away at Monsanto’s GMO empire.

In this interview with Dr. Joe Mercola, for Mercola.com’s “GMO Awareness Week,” OCA’s Ronnie Cummins outlines some of the ways we are winning, and how OCA plans to keep up the pressure on Big Biotech, including:

• Providing funding to the U.S. Right to Know organization (USRTK) which, while independent from OCA, has done a masterful job of creating media coverage about the dangers of Roundup residues and pesticides in general.


• Educating consumers about the fact that GMOs are really just delivery systems for pesticides (i.e., their primary cause for being is to increase pesticide sales), and that the only way to avoid dangerous pesticide residues and GMOs is to buy organic food, both when shopping for your daily groceries and when eating out.


• Ramping up independent lab testing of nonorganic products claiming to be “all-natural,” “natural,” “eco-friendly,” “free-range,” “grass fed,” and so on. “There’s a huge fraud going on in the marketplace,” Cummins explains.

With glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller, now being detected in the urine of 70-80 percent of Americans and 90 percent of water samples, anyone concerned about their long-term health can’t afford to ignore the potential impact of using poisons to grow our food.

Watch the interview with Ronnie Cummins

The post GMO Awareness 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.

‘Expensive’ Food

Two new studies call attention—yet again—to the link between pesticides and health problems—and how widespread those health issues are.

The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems and The Global Alliance for the Future of Food published a 120-page report that says, among other things, that the industrial food system is mostly to blame for our “staggering” healthcare costs.

And a new study in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine found that women who consume fruits and vegetables with high amounts of pesticide residue are less likely to conceive—and if they do, more likely to miscarry.

The Rodale Institute pulled these numbers, representing the healthcare-related costs of our industrial food system, from the IPES-Food report:

• $760 billion yearly cost of obesity (global estimate for 2025)


• $673 billion yearly cost of diabetes (global number for 2012)


• $3.5 trillion global cost of malnutrition


• $557 billion cost of endocrine disruptor exposure (the U.S. and the EU)

Not on the list? The cost—financial, physical and emotional—of infertility treatments.

More from the IPES-Food report:

. . . many of the most severe health impacts trace back to some of the core industrial food and farming practices, e.g., chemical-intensive agriculture; intensive livestock production; and the mass production and mass marketing of ultra-processed foods.

The next time someone tells you organic food is “too expensive,” um . . .

Read ‘Expert Panel Identifies Unacceptable Toll of Food and Farming Systems on Human Health’

Read ‘Unraveling the Food-Health Nexus’

Read ‘Study ties pesticides in food to reduced fertility in women

h/t: Organic Consumers Organization

The post ‘Expensive’ Food appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

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.

Over 3 Million Acres Damaged by ‘Chemical Arson’ as Plants Wither and Die From Chemical Burns (VIDEO)

 

The lawsuits against chemical technology giant Monsanto are multiplying fast these days. Not only is there a class-action lawsuit¹claiming the company’s best-selling herbicide Roundup caused Non-Hodgkin lymphoma in hundreds of plaintiffs^2,3 — the outcome of which might influence Bayer’s decision to acquire Monsanto or back out of the deal — farmers are also ganging together to sue Monsanto over crop damage caused by its latest dicamba-containing herbicide.

As feared by many critics, any crop that is not genetically engineered (GE) to be resistant to dicamba is severely damaged by even small amounts of the herbicide — be it food crops, gardens or trees; even other GE crops resistant to herbicides other than dicamba will shrivel and die in its presence. Monsanto promised the XtendiMax with VaporGrip formula is engineered to be less volatile and prone to drift, but real-life effects suggest otherwise.

Dicamba Is an Indiscriminate Plant Killer

In July, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture reported investigating two dozen complaints involving dicamba damage caused by drift.⁴ As of late September, 368 complaints had been filed in Illinois,⁵ and Iowa had received 258 reports — a “record number” — by early September.⁶

Farmers in Arkansas are reporting the same problem. In October 2016, a soybean farmer named Mike Wallace was shot to death in a dispute over dicamba damage caused by drift from a neighboring farm growing dicamba-resistant soy. The damage is so extensive, a number of states, including Arkansas, Missouri and Mississippi, imposed temporary bans on the use of dicamba-containing pesticides this past summer.⁷ As reported by Star Tribune:⁸

“Losses blamed on accidental chemical damage could climb into the tens of millions of dollars, if not higher, and may have a ripple effect on other products that rely on soybeans, including chicken. The number of complaints ‘far exceeds anything we’ve ever seen,’ Arkansas Plant Board Director Terry Walker recently told lawmakers.”

More Than 3 Million Acres Damaged by Next-Gen Herbicide

According to The New York Times, 25 million acres of dicamba-resistant soybeans and cotton were planted this year, and Monsanto has its sights set on expanding that to 40 million acres in 2018. Hailed as “the answer” to growing glyphosate resistance⁹ (thanks to its excessive use on Roundup Ready, i.e., glyphosate-resistant crops), dicamba-resistant plants have quickly turned into a nightmare for those who plant them, and their neighbors:¹⁰

“’I’m a fan of Monsanto. I’ve bought a lot of their products,’ said Brad Williams, a Missouri farmer. ‘I can’t wrap my mind around the fact that there would be some kind of evil nefarious plot to put a defective product out there intentionally.’

Yet he has been dismayed both by damage to his soybean crops, which were within a wide area of farmland harmed by dicamba, and by the impact even to trees on his property. Leaves, he said, were ‘so deformed you couldn’t even really identify the differences between them.’”

So far, more than 3 million acres have been damaged by dicamba.¹¹ Speaking with Ohio Valley Resource,¹² Kentucky soybean farmer Jacob Goodman compares dicamba drift to “chemical arson” — a reference to the fact that affected plants will curl and shrivel from the chemical burns. He also notes that drift from neighboring farms growing dicamba-resistant crops is making it exceptionally difficult for non-dicamba farms to plan their production.

“Not only can we not tell the amount of crop that we can get at the end of the year, but we can’t price the market ahead in advance and make contracts because we don’t want to over-book and not be able to deliver this fall, because we have to pay the difference.”

Arkansas farmer Kenneth Qualls told The New York Times, “’It’s really divided the farming community … Some of these people who got victimized by this product are probably going to go out of business because of it. They’ll have to put up their equipment for auction, and the people bidding on it will be the ones who put them out of business.”

Dicamba Makers May Face Largest Chemical Liability Lawsuit Ever

On September 10, 2017, Morgan & Morgan filed a class-action lawsuit¹³ against Monsanto, BASF and DuPont, the three largest manufacturers of dicamba-based herbicide formulations in the U.S.

The complaint alleges dicamba “is highly volatile and can travel considerable distances and cause injuries to plants several miles away,” and that dicamba makers “deceptively marketed their latest dicamba formulations as ‘low-volatility’ herbicides that would not be as prone to off-target movement.” In a statement, Morgan & Morgan attorney Rene Rocha said:

“This has been a major issue for American agriculture. Farmers across the country relied upon the defendants’ assurances that these new formulations of dicamba could be used safely and without harm to others. That simply isn’t true, and as a result thousands of farmers are staring down lean harvests and uncertain futures.”

The fact that dicamba is extremely potent and volatile (referring to its ability to turn into a gas) does not come as a surprise. The chemical has not been permitted to be used during growing season for this very reason. Older dicamba herbicides were only allowed to be used to kill weeds prior to planting — it could not be used on growing crops because it will kill everything.

Chemical Maker Forbid Independent Volatility Testing

Monsanto’s weed killer, XtendiMax with VaporGrip Technology^14,15 — which goes along with its Roundup Ready Xtend cotton and soybeans — is made with “chemical technology” said to make the dicamba less prone to vaporization and drift. However, the real-world effects clearly indicate there are serious flaws.

What’s more, Monsanto appears to have willfully prevented key testing of the herbicide. Normally, when a new pesticide is developed, the company will commission tests that are then shared with regulators. Samples of the chemical are also shared with universities for analysis and testing. Together, regulators and researchers then assess the product’s safety and effectiveness.

In this case, Monsanto actually forbid university researchers to test XtendiMax with VaporGrip for its vaporization and drift potential (volatility testing),^16,17 despite that being a crucial feature of the new herbicide. Monsanto has defended its decision to prevent testing calling it “unnecessary” because the company believes it to be “less volatile than a previous dicamba formula that researchers found could be used safely.”¹⁸

However, summary notes from an Arkansas legislature’s joint budget committee meeting suggest there might have been a different incentive to prevent testing. Notes from the meeting state that Monsanto employee Boyd Carey “is on record on August 8 stating that the University of Arkansas nor any other university was given the opportunity to test VaporGrip in fear that the results may jeopardize the federal label.”

Dicamba Formulation Is Nearly Impossible to Apply Safely

According to Monsanto’s chief technology officer Robert Fraley, XtendiMax with VaporGrip “will not move off target and damage anyone” as long as it’s applied according to label instructions. Mind you, those instructions are nine pages long, and include strict limitations on when and how you can apply it. For example, proper application requires the farmer to spray while wind speeds are between 3 and 10 miles per hour.

The reason for the bottom wind speed is that when air is very still, it can signal a temperature inversion,¹⁹ which acts much like a lid. Pollutants are easily trapped below the inversion, where they can build up. But since wind speeds vary from one hour to the next on any given day, proper application becomes nearly impossible. Some university scientists have also noted that even if you manage to comply with these stringent application rules, the volatility of dicamba may still be an issue.

According to Aaron Hager, associate professor of crop sciences at the University of Illinois,²⁰ soy is so sensitive to dicamba, all you need to destroy 1 acre of soybeans is an amount equal to the spray when you open a can of Coke! In light of that, it’s hard to see how farmers growing dicamba-resistant crops could possibly avoid damaging other farms, not to mention other plant life and nearby trees.

Indeed, according to extension weed specialist Larry Steckel, many farmers complain they “can’t keep dicamba in the field” no matter how hard they try to follow the application rules.²¹ He also notes that temperature inversions “occur most days in Tennessee during June and July,” which makes it next to impossible to avoid off-target damage.

According to Ohio Valley Resource, there also appears to be a correlation between dicamba damage and areas located by rivers and in floodplains. Ohio farmer Jacob Goodman suspects “It’s something about the chemistry and the temperature inversions that happen in river bottoms that is causing this chemical to freely roam.”

Dicamba Maker Blames Farmer Ineptitude

Not surprisingly, Monsanto blames damage resulting from XtendiMax on farmer misapplication. Monsanto’s vice president for global strategy told The New York Times,²² “New technologies take some time to learn. Thus far, what we’ve seen in the field, the vast majority, more than three-quarters of them, has been due to not following the label.”

The question is, can the instructions actually be followed in real life? According to Bob Hartzler, an agronomy professor and weed specialist at Iowa State University, “The restriction on these labels is unlike anything that’s ever been seen before.”²³ The class-action lawsuit filed by Morgan & Morgan claims the label instructions are “unrealistic,” and that the restrictions on wind speed disallow timely application of the weed killer.

As noted by a Missouri farmer, “You have to be a meteorologist to get it exactly right.”²⁴ While some farmers admit to having difficulty following the label instructions, due to their complexity,²⁵ other farmers rebuke Monsanto’s attempts to shift blame. As Arkansas farmer Qualls said, “We may be rural hicks, but we’re not stupid. We know how to apply chemicals. They are going to blame it on the farmer to reduce their liability.”

What’s more, because dicamba-resistant GE crops allow the chemical to be applied much later in the growing season, when temperatures and humidity levels are higher, it’s far more susceptible to volatility, meaning it turns into a gas. As a gas, it can no longer be controlled and spreads wherever the wind blows.

While Monsanto claims XtendiMax is 90 percent less volatile than old versions,²⁶ without rigorous volatility testing, one has to question the accuracy of such claims. As noted by The New York Times, “While Monsanto and BASF modified the new versions of the herbicide they are selling, they have not entirely solved the problem. So much dicamba is being used that even a small percentage of drift can cause widespread damage.”

Bizarre Conflict of Interest Claims Emerge

A task force is now recommending the Arkansas State Plant Board ban use of all dicamba formulations on crops after April 15 in the 2018 growing season. Monsanto challenged the ban in September, claiming the decision was “tainted by the involvement” of University of Arkansas weed scientists Ford Baldwin and Jason Norsworthy.

According to Monsanto, the scientists’ ties to Bayer and its competing weed technology makes them less than objective in their critique of dicamba.²⁷ The irony of the accusation has not gone unnoticed. As noted by The New York Times,²⁸ “Considering that Bayer is acquiring Monsanto, it was an awkward step,” adding that “Bayer called the men ‘pre-eminent weed scientists.’” It remains to be seen if Monsanto’s accusations will backfire, rendering their position even more tenuous.

September 9, Mark Cochran, vice president of the University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture, issued a statement defending the university’s scientists.²⁹ According to Cochran, Monsanto’s petition to the Arkansas Plant Board is “an attack on the whole profession, scientists whose careful work is meant to be of benefit to everyone.” As a result of the allegations, Cochran vowed “to publish all data relevant to our dicamba work over the last few years.”

Farmers Caught Between a Rock and a Hard Place

The problem many farmers now face is whether to hop on the bandwagon and start growing dicamba-resistant crops just to avoid having their harvest destroyed by other growers — thus rewarding Monsanto for its ill-conceived product and poor conduct. According to previous estimates, the approval of dicamba-resistant cotton and soy is expected to increase dicamba sales from less than 1 million pounds to more than 25 million pounds annually.³⁰

If growers start switching to dicamba-resistant seed just to protect themselves from drift damage, that number might go even higher. As noted by Missouri farmer Michael Kemp,³¹ “If you don’t buy Xtend [seeds], you’re going to be hurt. You’re going to have to buy their product because their chemical is drifting around.”

This, truly, would be a worst-case scenario, possibly endangering our environment as a whole. It would also pose extreme financial risks to farmers. If dicamba-resistant soybeans start monopolizing the market, makers will be able to charge whatever price they see fit for the seeds and chemicals.

Naturally, such a monopoly would also pose serious health risks to consumers, whose food choices would become more limited. Dicamba has been linked to a number of health risks, including Non-Hodgkin lymphoma,³² developmental and reproductive problems.

How to Reduce Your Exposure to Toxic Pesticides

There’s no doubt the dicamba problem needs to be addressed, and fast. Farmers will not be able to survive several seasons’ worth of crop destruction. I also worry about its impact on our environment at large. What if it starts to destroy forests and protected lands? There’s also no doubt in my mind that dicamba-resistant GE crops might cause serious health problems when consumed, and since the U.S. does not label GE foods, this really raises the stakes for those who are unaware of these issues.

What we need is more regenerative agriculture, and the most effective way for you to support that is by buying locally grown organic or biodynamic foods. If you live in the U.S., the following organizations can help you locate farm-fresh foods:

American Grassfed Association The goal of the American Grassfed Association is to promote the grass fed industry through government relations, research, concept marketing and public education. Their website also allows you to search for AGA approved producers certified according to strict standards that include being raised on a diet of 100 percent forage; raised on pasture and never confined to a feedlot; never treated with antibiotics or hormones; born and raised on American family farms.

EatWild.com EatWild.com provides lists of farmers known to produce raw dairy products as well as grass fed beef and other farm-fresh produce (although not all are certified organic). Here you can also find information about local farmers markets, as well as local stores and restaurants that sell grass fed products.

Weston A. Price Foundation Weston A. Price has local chapters in most states, and many of them are connected with buying clubs in which you can easily purchase organic foods, including grass fed raw dairy products like milk and butter.

Grassfed Exchange The Grassfed Exchange has a listing of producers selling organic and grass fed meats across the U.S.

Local Harvest This website will help you find farmers markets, family farms and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass fed meats and many other goodies.

Farmers Markets A national listing of farmers markets.

Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, hotels and online outlets in the United States and Canada.

Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.

FoodRoutes The FoodRoutes “Find Good Food” map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSAs and markets near you.

The Cornucopia Institute The Cornucopia Institute maintains web-based tools rating all certified organic brands of eggs, dairy products and other commodities, based on their ethical sourcing and authentic farming practices separating CAFO “organic” production from authentic organic practices.

RealMilk.com If you’re still unsure of where to find raw milk, check out Raw-Milk-Facts.com and RealMilk.com. They can tell you what the status is for legality in your state, and provide a listing of raw dairy farms in your area. The Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund33 also provides a state-by-state review of raw milk laws.34 California residents can also find raw milk retailers using the store locator available at www.OrganicPastures.com.

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

One More Reason to get Rid of Glyphosate

Date: August 13, 2017

(image: Getty)

We can probably all agree that Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller and its key ingredient, glyphosate, in our food and in our drinking water, poses a risk to our health—especially in light of the latest revelations about how Monsanto has conspired to deceive us on just how toxic Roundup is.

But a topic that gets less attention, is how damaging widespread use of Roundup is to soil. And lest we need a reminder civilizations “rise and fall” depending on the quality of their soil.

Last month, Beyond Pesticides reported on a review of studies what Roundup and glyphosate do to the quality of soil.

The review, by Robert J. Kremer, PhD, of the University of Missouri School of Natural Resources, cites concerns that include: reduction of nutrient availability for plants and organisms; disruption to organism diversity, especially in the areas around plant roots; reductions of beneficial soil bacteria; increases in plant root pathogens; disturbed earthworm activity; reduced nitrogen fixing at plant roots; and compromised growth and reproduction in some soil and aquatic organisms.

Just one more reason, as if we needed it, to rid the world of Roundup.

Read the full study: ‘Soil and Environmental Health after Twenty Years of Intensive Use of Glyphosate’

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.