By Dr. Mercola
In late March of this year,
glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's bestselling weed
killer Roundup, was reclassified as a "probable carcinogen" by the
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of
the World Health Organization (WHO).
Glyphosate is most heavily applied on genetically engineered (GE)
corn, soybeans, and
sugar beets, but it's also commonly used to
desiccate conventional (non-GMO but non-organic) wheat and
protect other conventional crops from weeds.
California to Put Cancer Warning on Roundup
In response to the IARC's determination, British and German
retailers have started removing Roundup from its lineup of weed
killers sold to the general public. France has also announced plans
to restrict its sale at garden centers.1
The IARC is one of the research agencies from which the
California agency of environmental hazards gets its data to declare
carcinogens under Prop 65 and, as predicted, environment officials
have now issued a notice of intent to put a cancer warning on
Roundup.2
Glyphosate cannot be washed off and can remain stable in foods
for over a year.3
But what many don't appreciate is that Roundup is actually far more
toxic because of its surfactants that synergistically increase
glyphosate's toxicity.
GE crops are much more heavily contaminated with glyphosate than
conventional crops by nature of their design, and this fact alone
blows a massive hole in GMO safety claims.
Considering that, plus the fact that the US Department of
Agriculture (USDA) does not test foods for glyphosate residues due
to the high cost of doing so,4
a Prop 65 label would probably be appropriate for most non-organic
processed foods as well — those with genetically engineered (GE)
ingredients in particular.
Time will tell if California will ever take it that far, as that
would truly be the death knell for Monsanto and other chemical
technology companies, but it's definitely something to consider when
you're buying your groceries.
Evidence Abounds Showing Glyphosate Is 'Definitely' Carcinogenic
While the IARC stopped short of a stronger cancer classification
for glyphosate there's ample evidence showing it is quite
"definitely" carcinogenic.5
Dr. Anthony Samsel even claims to have uncovered evidence showing
Monsanto has known
glyphosate promotes cancer since 1981. That's 34 years!
Feigning ignorance as usual, Monsanto has called for a retraction
of the IARC's findings — a demand that is likely to be unmet,
according to Aaron Blair, a scientist emeritus at the National
Cancer Institute who chaired the IARC Working Group.
Blair has publicly defended the group's classification of
glyphosate, saying it is "appropriately based on current
science."
For a review of the published studies6
questioning the safety of glyphosate in terms of its effects on
human and animal health, check out this
compilation by Dr. Alex Vasquez, containing 220 pages worth of
research.
Another illuminating and heavily referenced 80-page report7
worth reading through at your leisure is "Banishing
Glyphosate", authored by Drs. Eva Sirinathsinghji and Mae-Wan
Ho, with cooperation from six other researchers, including Dr. Don
Huber and
Dr. Nancy Swanson.
Recent follow-up research8,9
by Gilles-Éric Séralini — whose initial
lifetime feeding study revealed massive tumor growth and early
death — shows that long-term exposure to even ultra-low
amounts of Roundup may cause tumors, along with liver and kidney
damage in rats.
In this study, the dose used was "environmentally relevant in
terms of human, domesticated animals and wildlife levels of
exposure," prompting the authors to suggest Roundup may have
significant health implications.
Did You Know? EPA Raised Allowable Glyphosate Limits in Food Two
Years Ago
Some of the studies implicating glyphosate as a serious hazard to
animals and humans go back several years, yet in July 2013, right in
the midst of mounting questions about glyphosate's safety, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) raised the allowable
limits of glyphosate10,11
in both food and feed crops.
Allowable levels in oilseed crops such as flax, soybean, and
canola were doubled, from 20 ppm to 40 ppm — just 10 ppm below the
level at which Roundup may cause cell death, according to research12
published in 2011.
Permissible glyphosate levels in many other foods were raised to
15 to 25 times previous levels. Root and tuber vegetables, with the
exception of sugar, got one of the largest boosts, with allowable
residue limits being raised from 0.2 ppm to 6.0 ppm. The level for
sweet potatoes was raised to 3 ppm.
At the time, Beyond Pesticides criticized the EPA's decision,
saying:
"Given that alternative methods of growing food and
managing weeds are available, like those that exist in organic
agriculture, it is unreasonable for EPA to increase human
exposures to Roundup."
All such complaints and concerns fell on deaf ears, and
Monsanto's well-oiled PR machine maintained glyphosate's extensive
safety record. Fast forward a mere two years, and glyphosate will
now carry a cancer warning label in California...
EPA Should Reassess Its Decision on Glyphosate Tolerance Levels...
It's important to remember that the allowable levels of
glyphosate were recently significantly raised, because IF the US
government does implement glyphosate testing for food, as indicated
by the EPA back in April,13
then we'll probably still be assured that levels are "within safe
limits," as we were back in December 2014 after the USDA tested a
number of foods for glyphosate.14
But in light of glyphosate now being recognized as carcinogenic,
it would seem prudent for the EPA to reassess its tolerance levels
in food- especially when you consider that the vast majority of all
processed foods are made with GE ingredients that are more heavily
contaminated.
Just how much glyphosate is the average individual getting, if
they're eating a primarily processed non-organic food diet every
single day of the week?
Samsel and Seneff's groundbreaking research published in June
2013 — a mere month before the EPA raised allowable levels —
suggests glyphosate may actually be the most important factor
in the development of a wide variety of chronic diseases,
specifically because your gut bacteria are a key component of
glyphosate's mechanism of harm.
Another study15
published the following year investigated the effect of glyphosate
on Americans' health, noting that glyphosate interferes with many
metabolic processes in both plants and animals. The researchers also
pointed out that previous studies show glyphosate "damages DNA and
is a driver of mutations that lead to cancer."
Transgenic Bt Products Are Not Working Out Very Well Either
While Roundup Ready and other similar crops are designed to
withstand heavy doses of herbicides, Bt plants are equipped with a
gene from the soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt),
which produces
Bt toxin — a pesticide that breaks open the stomach of certain
insects and kills them. Bt plants are engineered to produce this
pesticide internally.
One of the selling points and touted benefits of GE crops like Bt
cotton and Bt corn is reduced pesticide usage, as the plant itself
will kill any bug that chews on it. There are three important points
I want to make about such claims.
- For starters, just like exaggerated herbicide use has led to
the rapid development of resistant superweeds, so have Bt plants
led to the emergence of resistant pests. According to The
Times of India,16
farmers in Punjab and Haryana are seeing significant losses of
their Bt cotton crops to the whitefly. To address the problem,
increasing amounts of pesticides have been applied.
This isn't necessarily a new problem. According to the
article, in 2002 farmers applied so much pesticide to fend off
the whiteflies that soil and groundwater is thought to have been
affected, and many now blame the exaggerated use of pesticides
on the clustering of cancer cases being detected among those
living in India's cotton belt.
- Secondly, research17
has shown that Bt crops, just like topical pesticides and
herbicides, alters and destroys soil microbiology. According to
the authors:
"Our data showed that the cultivation of Bt maize
significantly increased the saturated to unsaturated lipid
ratios in soils which appeared to negatively affect
microbial activity."
The Biggest Bt Fraud of All
Third, but really most egregious of all, the Bt toxin produced in
these Bt crops are NOT included as part of the total human pesticide
exposure. This despite the fact that Bt plants are actually
registered with the EPA as a pesticide18
(which helps explain why Bt plants damage the soil just like topical
pesticides and herbicides do...)
This is a gross misrepresentation and outright fraudulent
propaganda. How can they claim reductions in pesticide exposure as a
result of Bt plants when every single cell of the plant contains it?
And how can they not include the plants in the pesticide usage data
when the plant itself is registered as a pesticide? The failure to
count the toxin inside the plant, and only counting the pesticides
applied topically, is a significant loophole that makes Bt plants
appear to provide a benefit that in reality simply isn't true.
In fact, the reality is even worse than that. Topically applied
Bt toxin biodegrades in sunlight and can also be washed off. The Bt
toxin in these GE plants, on the other hand, does not degrade, nor
can it in any way be removed or cleaned off the food because it's
integrated into every cell of the plant. Moreover, the
plant-produced version of the poison is thousands of times more
concentrated than the topical spray, so in reality, Bt
pesticide exposure has risen exponentially — no matter what the
pesticide usage data says.
Adding insult to injury, Monsanto and the EPA swore that the Bt
toxin produced inside the plant would still be completely safe as it
would be destroyed in the human digestive system. Alas, this turned
out to be false when, in 2011, doctors at Sherbrooke University
Hospital in Quebec found Bt-toxin in the blood of 93 percent of
pregnant women tested, 80 percent of umbilical blood in their
babies, and 67 percent of non-pregnant women.19
Clearly, it is not destroyed inside your body; it
bioaccumulates in your body, and research20
suggests it may produce a wide variety of immune responses,
including elevated IgE and IgG antibodies, typically associated with
allergies and infections, and an increase in cytokines, associated
with allergic and inflammatory responses.
Another study21
published in 2011 found that Bt toxins affect human cells, both in
isolation and in combination with glyphosate-based herbicides,
including Roundup. Pesticidal crystal proteins Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac,
two subspecies of the Bt toxin, were tested on cells from the
embryonic kidney cell line 293, looking at specific biomarkers
indicating cell death.
Concentrations ranged from 10 parts per billion (ppb) up to 100
parts per million (ppm). Cry1Ab caused cell death starting at 100
ppm. Roundup alone was found to cause necrosis (cell death resulting
from acute injury) and apoptosis (cellular "suicide" or
self-destruction) starting at 50 ppm, which the researchers noted is
"far below agricultural dilutions." According to the authors:
"In these results, we argue that modified Bt toxins are
not inert on nontarget human cells, and that they can present
combined side effects with other residues of pesticides specific
to GM plants."
Labeling GMOs Is Necessary to Protect Public Health
The food industry has spent $51.6 million on a series of efforts
to defeat GMO labeling laws,22
including lobbing for
HR 1599, which would bar states from implementing their own GMO
labeling laws. As of July 21, Monsanto alone had spent $2.5 million
lobbying Congress.23
In a similar vein, in 2013 and 2014, agribusinesses, agricultural
organizations, and trade associations spent more than $11 million
lobbying for an early version of S1500,24
which eliminates the need for permits to discharge pesticides into
rivers, lakes, streams, and other bodies of water regulated under
the Clean Water Act.
International trade agreements also threaten to restrict
transparency about food — how it's produced, and where it comes
from. Why are these industries spending so much money and going to
such great lengths to eliminate transparency about toxic exposures
and potentially harmful substances in our food supply? Could it be
because they realize how bad the situation really is? And that if
public knowledge grows by even just a little bit, they won't be able
to continue running business as usual?
Anyone who has taken the time to look at the available
information will see that the situation is unsustainable and nearing
a breaking point. The human body can only withstand so many toxic
assaults before it falters, and we're already seeing young adults,
and even children, exhibiting health problems you wouldn't
ordinarily expect until well into adulthood. We need to turn this
situation around. At present, the most urgent action item is to
press our US Senators to reject HR 1599, so that efforts to
label
GE foods can move forward.
We Only Have a Limited Time to Set Our Senators Straight
Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan) introduced a bill that would preempt
states' rights to enact GMO labeling laws. It would specifically
prohibit Congress or individual states from requiring mandatory
labeling of GMO foods or ingredients. It would also allow food
manufacturers to use the word "natural" on products that contain
GMOs.
Unfortunately, the bill has been passed in the House and now
heads to the Senate. There needs to be an extra push to put an end
to the absurdity. It's imperative you contact your senators today
urging them to not support HR 1599. Tell them this bill is an attack
on consumer rights and states' rights, and you expect your elected
officials to protect you.
You can find your senators' contact information by clicking the
button below, or by calling the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.
To set up an in-person meeting with your senators, contact their
district office.
It's really imperative to concentrate our efforts on our senators
right now, and to inform them accurately. They're being deceived by
industry lobbyists, and this is our last chance to preserve our
right to know what is in our food.
© Copyright 1997-2015 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/09/22/glyphosate-pesticide-food-safety.aspx