How Roundup Damages Your
Mitochondria and Makes You Sick
February 02, 2016
Story at-a-glance
−
Your mitochondria are your cellular powerhouses and
are also responsible for cellular signaling and
facilitating appropriate cell death
Glyphosate prevents the uptake of manganese — a
mineral crucial for the protection of your
mitochondria against oxidative damage. Diabetes and
chronic fatigue are but two potential outcomes of
mitochondrial damage
Campbell Soup has announced it will label its GMO
products, and will NOT raise prices as a result of
the new label — thereby decimating the main argument
against GMO labeling
By Dr. Mercola
In the featured video, Jeffrey Smith interviews Dr. Alex
Vasquez, M.D., Ph.D., author of about 100 papers and 15
scientific books, and Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., a Senior Research
Scientist at MIT and author of about 200 papers, about the
impact of glyphosate — the active ingredient in Roundup — on
your mitochondria.
As noted by Jeffrey, this is a very important topic, as
mitochondrial dysfunction is an underlying foundational element
of most diseases.
Why the Health of Your Mitochondria Matters
As explained by Vasquez, in addition to producing most of
your body’s energy in the form of ATP, your mitochondria also
participate in many other processes, such as cellular signaling.
According to Vasquez, the data is “impressively clear” that
those with
type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome and high blood pressure
have dysfunctional mitochondria.
Your mitochondria also play an important role in
inflammation, and control apoptosis (cell death). These two
roles make your mitochondria a player in diseases such as
cancer, for example, as damaged cells fail to receive the
message to self-destruct, and therefore continue their malignant
growth.
Vasquez — who is an expert on inflammation — divides
inflammation into three different forms, which exist on a
continuum and overlap each other:
Metabolic inflammation (conditions such as hypertension
and diabetes)
Allergic inflammation
Autoimmune inflammation
Chronic, low-level inflammation, which tends to underlie most
chronic health conditions, he describes as “metabolic
disturbance with cellular injury.” While mitochondrial
dysfunction is involved in virtually ALL disease, the following
bears mentioning, as they’re among the most common:
So how does glyphosate affect your mitochondria? Seneff
speaks to this issue, noting that manganese appears to be
involved. Glyphosate chelates manganese (plus many other
minerals), which makes the plants deficient. In turn the animals
or humans who eat the plants do not get enough either.
It’s worth explaining the chelation process a bit further. As
Smith notes, glyphosate binds very strongly to micro minerals,
and doesn’t let them go.
So even if there’s manganese in the plant you eat, your body
cannot access and use it, because the glyphosate molecule holds
it trapped within itself. Likewise the plant is prevented from
taking up the mineral, even if it’s in the soil.
Your mitochondria require manganese to break down superoxide
dismutase (SOD) and turn it into hydrogen peroxide, which is far
less toxic, and eventually water. This is a very important
process, as it protects your mitochondria from oxidative damage.
Without manganese, this protection is lost.
Roundup Formulation Also Interferes With Energy Production
Roundup has also been found to interfere with ATP production
by affecting your mitochondrial membranes. In this case, it’s
actually the so-called “inert” solvents in Roundup that pose the
greatest threat.
However, when you add the solvents and glyphosate together,
the solvent makes the membrane more permeable, allowing the
glyphosate to enter. Without the solvent, the damage may not be
as great.
It’s worth repeating what Vasquez notes, which is that the
research data is overwhelmingly consistent and clear on all of
these points.
So the fact that there is even public debate about whether
glyphosate or Roundup causes mitochondrial harm (and therefore
harms health) means that people simply are not aware of the
scientific literature.
Because from that perspective, there’s nothing to debate.
According to both Seneff and Vasquez, the scientific literature
is abundant, easily attainable online, clear, and very
consistent.
If you don’t know where to start, here’s a review of some of
the
published research questioning the safety of glyphosate in
terms of its effects on human and animal health, compiled by
Alex Vasquez (containing 220 pages worth of research).
Another illuminating and heavily referenced 80-page report is
"Banishing
Glyphosate," authored by Eva Sirinathsinghji, Ph.D. and
Mae-Wan Ho, Ph.D. with cooperation from six other researchers,
including Don Huber and Nancy Swanson.
“Why are we having a public debate on this when the data is
so clear?,” Vasquez asks. A good question indeed, and the answer
is that the industry has done a great job of confusing and
misleading people about the actual content and strength of the
available science.
Court Finds Fraud and Defamation Was Used to Discredit GMO Study
The case of Gilles-Eric Séralini is a perfect example of how
the chemical technology industry tries to keep you in the dark —
by whatever means necessary, moral, legal or not. His first-ever
lifetime feeding study published in 2012 revealed numerous
shocking problems in rats fed GMO corn, including massive tumors
and early death.
Rats given glyphosate in their drinking water also developed
tumors. The following year, the publisher
retracted the study saying it “did not meet scientific
standards,” even though a long and careful investigation found
no errors or misrepresentation of data.
Interestingly enough, in the time between the publication of
the study and its retraction, the journal had created a new
position — Associate Editor for Biotechnology; a position that
was filled by a former Monsanto employee.
Séralini not only republished the study in another journal,
he also took legal action, and at the end of last year, he won
two court cases against some of those who tried to destroy his
career and reputation. In the first case, Marianne magazine and
a journalist by the name of Jean-Claude Jaillette — who accused
Séralini of “scientific fraud in which the methodology served to
reinforce pre-determined results” — were found guilty of public
defamation.
In a second case, Marc Fellous, former chairman of the
Biomolecular Engineering Commission of France, was indicted for
forgery and the use of forgery in a libel trial.
“The Biomolecular Engineering Commission has
authorized many GM crops for consumption. The details of the
case have not yet been publicly released but a source close
to the case told GMWatch that Fellous had used or copied the
signature of a scientist without his agreement to argue that
Séralini and his co-researchers were wrong in their
reassessment of Monsanto studies.”
Recent follow-up research2,3
by Séralini 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.
Concerns Over Glyphosate Have Turned Out to Be Valid
In recent years, concerns over the health effects of
glyphosate have become quite pronounced, and last year the
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division
of the World Health Organization (WHO), reclassified
glyphosate as a Class 2A “probable carcinogen.”4,
5,6
Monsanto recently filed a lawsuit against California’s Office
of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment to keep glyphosate
from being added to its list of known carcinogens,7
which require products to carry a special cancer warning.
Other research8,9,10,11
suggests the Roundup formulation boosts
antibiotic resistance by turning on a specific set of genes
in the bacterium. This primes it to become more readily
resistant to antibiotics. Despite these and other concerns, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not test foods for
glyphosate residues, as the chemical was assumed safe.
The chemical also wasn’t supposed to accumulate in the human
body, but this too has been shown to be a false assumption.12
When Will USDA Test Food for Glyphosate Residues?
Last summer the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
announced U.S. regulators may start testing for glyphosate
residues on food in the near future.13,14,15
However, the latest annual pesticide residue report still did
not include glyphosate. Even if they did, current allowable
limits may be set too far high to protect your health, so unless
that’s revised as well, you may be lulled into a false sense of
security. The EPA actually raised the
allowable limits for glyphosate in food in 2013.
Limits for root and tuber vegetables (with the exception of
sugar) were raised from 0.2 parts per million (ppm) to 6.0 ppm.
Meanwhile, researchers have documented malformations in frog and
chicken embryos starting at 2.03 ppm of glyphosate.16
The allowable limit in oilseed crops (except for canola and
soy) was raised to 40 ppm, which is 100,000 times the amount
needed to induce cancer in breast cells.17
To address the lack of testing, the Organic Consumers
Association (OCA) joined forces with the Feed the World Project
last year, launching the world’s first glyphosate testing of
urine, water, and breast milk for the general public.18,19,20,21
Roundup Ready Alfalfa Goes Wild — As Predicted
In related news, a recent USDA study22
shows that
genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa — approved in late 2011
— has already gone wild, and is quickly spreading across the
Western states. At the time of its approval, conventional
alfalfa farmers were concerned that their conventional alfalfa
would be contaminated through cross-pollination. Now their fears
have turned into reality, and contamination has already cost
them millions of dollars in lost revenue.
As noted by Eco Watch,23
the wild spread “exposes the failure of USDA’s "coexistence’
policy for GE and traditional crops.” There was never any doubt
in my and many other people’s mind that this would happen, yet
“I told you so” just doesn’t bring any satisfaction. When will
our government let facts and common sense speak for themselves?
Eco Watch also reports that:
“[T]he researchers also found clear evidence that the
Roundup Ready gene was being spread by bees, which are known
to cross-pollinate alfalfa populations separated by up to
several miles. Their results suggested that ‘transgenic
plants could spread transgenes to neighboring feral plants
and potentially to neighboring non-GE fields.’
While they did not test this latter possibility,
there is no doubt that non-GE alfalfa has in fact been
transgenically contaminated — not just once, but on many
occasions.”
Campbell’s Decimates Monsanto's Argument Against Labeling
The fact that GE crops are heavily contaminated with Roundup
is just one of many reasons to become aware of which foods
contain GMOs and which don’t. Remember, Roundup Ready crops are
designed to withstand the pesticide, and tolerance has forced
farmers to increase the amount of pesticide sprayed on the crop.
For this and other reasons, we need
GE foods to be clearly labeled.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), of which
Monsanto is a member, insists mandatory GMO labeling would
result in higher food prices. It’s completely illogical, yet
many have fallen for this stupid ruse. Now, Campbell Soup’s
decision to voluntarily label their GMO products will finally
decimate this argument and prove that added cost is a non-issue.
As reported by Alternet24
on January 15:
“[T]he first question we asked ... was, will you
charge more for these products after you label them? In an
email ... company spokesman Tom Hushen wrote, ‘To be clear,
there will be no price increase as a result of Vermont or
national GMO labeling for Campbell products.’
Will Campbell’s have to absorb extra costs associated
with labeling? Will profit margins on its GMO brands shrink?
No, says Carmen Bain, a sociology professor at Iowa State
University who studies GMO labeling. Bain told PoliticoPro’s
Jenny Hopkinson, ‘Campbell has determined that the cost of
labeling their products is negligible (and therefore won't
mean higher costs for consumers) and that it's probably
costlier for them not to get out in front of this thing.’”
What You Need to Know About GMOs
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are live organisms whose
genetic components have been artificially manipulated in a
laboratory setting through creating unstable combinations of plant,
animal, bacteria, and even viral genes that do not occur in nature
or through traditional crossbreeding methods.
GMO proponents claim that genetic engineering is “safe and
beneficial,” and that it advances the agricultural industry. They
also say that GMOs help ensure the global food supply and
sustainability. But is there any truth to these claims? I believe
not. For years, I've stated the belief that GMOs pose one of the
greatest threats to life on the planet. Genetic engineering is NOT
the safe and beneficial technology that it is touted to be.
The FDA cleared the way for GE (Genetically Engineered) Atlantic
salmon to be farmed for human consumption. Thanks to added language
in the federal spending bill, the product will require special
labelling so at least consumers will have the ability to identify
the GE salmon in stores. However, it’s imperative ALL GE foods be
labeled, which is currently still being denied.
The FDA is threatening the existence of our food supply. We have
to start taking action now. I urge you to share this article with
friends and family. If we act together, we can make a difference and
put an end to the absurdity.
QR Codes Are NOT an Adequate Substitute for Package Labels
The biotech industry is trying to push the QR code as an answer
for consumer concerns about GE foods. QR stands for Quick Response,
and the code can be scanned and read by smart phones and other QR
readers.
The code brings you to a product website that provides further
details about the product. The video below shows you why this is not
an ideal solution. There’s nothing forcing companies to declare GMOs
on their website. On the contrary, GE foods are allowed to be
promoted as “natural,” which further adds to the confusion.
These so-called "Smart Labels" hardly improve access to
information. Instead, by making finding the truth time consuming and
cumbersome, food makers can be assured that most Americans will
remain ignorant about the presence of GMOs in their products.
Besides, everyone has a right to know what's in the food.
You shouldn't have to own a smartphone to obtain this information.
Non-GMO Food Resources by Country
If you are searching for non-GMO foods here is a list of trusted
sites you can visit.