Tag Archives: glyphosate

Guts and Grains

Posted on by

The Hidden Harvest: Unveiling the Truth About Grains in Our Food System

Analysis by Ashley Armstrong
  • July 30, 2024
truth about grains in our food system

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • “Non-GMO” labeling does not mean chemical-free farming. These crops may still be treated with pesticides and herbicides. Many nonorganic grains are heavily sprayed with toxic pesticides like glyphosate just before harvest, a practice called desiccation
  • A recent study found glyphosate in 44 out of 46 organic and nonorganic gluten-free products tested, with some at alarmingly high levels
  • Glyphosate exposure can disrupt gut health by killing beneficial bacteria and promoting the growth of harmful bacteria. Consuming organic food has been linked to reduced cancer risk, according to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine
  • The EPA’s acceptable daily intake for glyphosate is 7,000 times higher than European standards, raising concerns about regulatory oversight
  • Supporting organic and regenerative farming practices through consumer choices can help drive positive change in the food system

In an era where health consciousness is at an all-time high, many of us have become increasingly vigilant about the food we consume. We scrutinize labels, opt for organic produce when possible, and make concerted efforts to avoid processed foods. However, there’s a critical aspect of our food system that often flies under the radar … the production and processing of grains.

While many of us strive to make healthier choices, financial constraints often limit our ability to consistently purchase organic produce. (Check out the Environmental Working Group (EWG) “Clean 15,” the 15 produce items that had the lowest levels of pesticide residues, here).

However, when it comes to grains and grain legumes (wheat, oats, chickpeas, and more), the stakes are significantly higher. This overlooked component of our diet may be harboring more dangers than we realize, particularly when it comes to the use of pesticides and herbicides.

Unbeknownst to many consumers, numerous grains are heavily sprayed with toxic pesticides just before harvest, making the sourcing of organic grains, or at least knowing their origin, crucial for our health.

The Non-GMO Misconception

It’s important to note that organic agriculture isn’t without its flaws. While it generally involves fewer synthetic chemicals, some are still permitted. Moreover, organic farming often relies on tillage, a practice that involves mechanically manipulating the soil through plowing or cultivation. This process can be detrimental to soil health, degrading its structure, increasing erosion, and disrupting vital microbial populations.

A common misconception, however, is that “Non-GMO” labeling equates to chemical-free farming. In reality, this label merely indicates that the crops haven’t been genetically modified. It says nothing about the use of pesticides or herbicides during the growing process. This misunderstanding often leads consumers to believe they’re making a healthier choice when, in fact, they may still be exposing themselves to harmful chemicals.

While many people are aware that glyphosate and other toxic herbicides are used to control weeds, fewer realize that these chemicals are also employed as drying agents in some nonorganic farming operations — leading to higher levels of glyphosate in nonorganic products made from oats, wheat and other grains.1

This practice, known as desiccation, involves spraying crops with glyphosate 1 to 2 weeks before harvest to accelerate the drying process, allowing farmers to harvest sooner.2 It’s like giving crops a chemical spa day, except instead of coming out relaxed and rejuvenated, it comes out dead and potentially carcinogenic. Fancy!

The use of glyphosate as a pre-harvest desiccant has seen a dramatic increase in recent years. For example, even though wheat is not a GMO crop, glyphosate use on wheat has skyrocketed by 400% in the past two decades.3 This trend isn’t limited to wheat; it extends to a wide range of grains and legumes, including barley, oats, corn, soy, chickpeas, and more.

The practice of using glyphosate for crop desiccation can be traced back to Scotland in the 1980s. According to Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., farmers there struggled with uneven drying of wheat and barley crops. To solve this problem, they began using glyphosate to kill the crops shortly before harvest, accelerating the drying process.

And thus, the practice of spraying glyphosate on crops before harvest was born, soon spreading to other regions and crops. The use of glyphosate as a pre-harvest desiccant leaves chemical residues that are then processed into our food, significantly increasing our dietary exposure.4 While this practice isn’t universal, it’s particularly common in regions with short growing seasons and wetter harvests.

The Alarming Findings

Recent studies have revealed shocking levels of glyphosate in various grain products.5 The EWG conducted tests on popular breakfast cereals and snacks, finding significant amounts of glyphosate in many samples. The highest level was detected in Quaker Oatmeal Squares Honey Nut, which contained 2,837 parts per billion (ppb) of glyphosate — nearly 18 times the EWG’s benchmark.

Even more concerning, a study from March of this year6 tested 46 samples of organic and nonorganic gluten-free products for glyphosate and other pesticides.

The results were alarming: 44 out of 46 samples tested positive for glyphosate. The highest level was found in Banza Chickpea Pasta, at a staggering 2,693 parts per million (ppm), the highest amount ever recorded in human food by the lab conducting the study! (Also, some of the foods labeled as gluten-free in this study were found to contain gluten.)

banza

While glyphosate has been the focus of much research and public concern, it’s not the only chemical we should be worried about. The same study from March of this year that found high levels of glyphosate also identified 2,4-D, a component of Agent Orange, as the most prevalent pesticide in the samples. Products like King Arthur’s Gluten Free Flour and Milton’s Sea Salt Crackers were found to have the highest levels of pesticides.

Decimation of Our Guts

The health consequences of glyphosate exposure are becoming increasingly clear, with one of the most significant concerns being its impact on our gut microbiome.7

The suffix “-cide” in “herbicide” (and other similar terms like pesticide, fungicide, etc.) comes from the Latin word “caedere,” which means “to kill” or “to cut down.” Therefore, in the context of herbicide, “cide” indicates that the substance is designed to kill.

Glyphosate is designed to kill weeds and microorganisms in the soil, but our digestive systems contain trillions of microorganisms! Studies have shown that glyphosate can hinder the growth of beneficial gut bacteria while promoting the growth of pathogenic bacteria, leading to dysbiosis.8

“Glyphosate residues on food could cause dysbiosis, given that opportunistic pathogens are more resistant to glyphosate compared to commensal bacteria.”9

The Human Microbiome Project found that 732 out of 941 bacteria species in our gut have at least one copy of the gene that glyphosate targets. This means that 55% of our gut bacteria are sensitive to glyphosate, 38% are resistant, and 7% are unclassified.10 The potential for glyphosate to disrupt our gut health is, therefore, significant and concerning!

Regulatory Shortcomings

But don’t worry, folks. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has got our backs. They’ve set the acceptable daily intake of glyphosate in our drinking water at a level that’s only … checks notes … 7,000 times higher than the European standard. Because nothing says “We care about public health” quite like allowing a generous helping of herbicide.

For food, the EPA in the United States has set the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for glyphosate at 1.75 mg/kg body weight/day, which is significantly higher than the standards in Europe (0.5 mg/kg) and Canada (0.3 mg/kg).11 Even more alarming is that these standards only consider direct glyphosate toxicity, completely overlooking its potential impact on gut health.

Adding to the complexity of the issue is what researchers call the “cocktail effect.” While glyphosate is the active ingredient in many herbicides, crops are often treated with a mixture of agrochemicals. The synergistic effects of these chemical combinations are largely unknown and unstudied, particularly concerning their impact on the gut microbiome. This gap in our understanding poses significant risks to human health!

Another often-overlooked aspect of pesticide exposure is the cumulative effect. Even if individual foods contain “safe” levels of pesticides relative to the EPAs standards, regular consumption of multiple foods with residues can lead to a significant total exposure over time. This cumulative effect is rarely considered in regulatory decisions or public health guidelines.

“While glyphosate is the active ingredient, food crops are desiccated with GBH, which contain compounds in addition to glyphosate. Complicating matters further is the fact that most GBH are proprietary and their ingredients and the relative percentages are unknown.

This ambiguity poses a significant challenge for researchers as they do not know what they’re working with, the amount present and the synergistic effects of these chemicals when combined. Additionally, crops are often treated with a proverbial ‘cocktail’ of agrochemicals, including other herbicides, in addition to glyphosate and GBH.

The cytotoxic effects of glyphosate appear to increase when combined with other herbicides, including Paraquat … This synergistic phenomenon suggests that relatively low glyphosate residues within our food supply could have serious consequences when combined with other commonly used agrochemicals.”12

As awareness of glyphosate’s potential harm grows, some farmers are turning to alternative chemicals like Dicamba. However, this shift doesn’t necessarily represent an improvement in terms of health or environmental impact. It merely replaces one potentially harmful chemical with another, perpetuating a cycle of chemical dependency in agriculture.

It’s crucial to understand that the widespread use of toxic chemicals in farming is not the fault of individual farmers, but rather a result of the broken agricultural system shaped by government policies and industry influences over decades. Farmers often find themselves caught in a challenging situation, pressured by economic realities, market demands, and agricultural policies that have long favored high-yield, chemically intensive farming practices.

The current system, largely shaped by government subsidies, research funding priorities, and regulatory frameworks, has created an environment where conventional, chemical-dependent farming is often the most economically viable option for many farmers.

Additionally, years of specialized education and industry messaging (and propaganda) have reinforced these practices, making it difficult for farmers to transition to alternative methods without significant support and systemic change. Many farmers are simply trying to survive in a system that wasn’t designed with long-term environmental and health consequences in mind.

The Way Forward

The prevalence of glyphosate in our food system is alarming, with the chemical even being detected in women’s breast milk,13 indicating its ability to bio-accumulate in the human body.

But we can reduce our exposure significantly by paying attention to where our food comes from (ESPECIALLY when it comes to grains). And the research now supports that reducing consumption of foods high in glyphosate can lead to significant health improvements.

A review conducted by the University of Washington found that agricultural workers who used glyphosate extensively were 41% more likely to develop Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma during their lifetime compared to those who used it infrequently or not at all.14

Furthermore, a major study published in JAMA Internal Medicine revealed a significant reduction in cancer risk for individuals who consumed a diet rich in organic food.15

Conclusion

While sourcing organic produce isn’t always feasible, it’s crucial for consumers to be more aware of where their grains (wheat, oats, corn, rice, barley, chickpeas, etc.) or grain by-products (bread, baked-goods, cereal, crackers, etc.) come from. Just as many people advocate knowing your meat’s origin, the same principle should apply to grains and cereal crops.

It’s important to further emphasize that simply eliminating soy or wheat from one’s diet and choosing “gluten-free” doesn’t guarantee the elimination of glyphosate exposure, as many other nonorganic crops are desiccated before harvest.

For example, if you were regularly buying the Banza Chickpea pasta because you thought it was a healthier gluten-free option, you were unknowingly significantly increasing your glyphosate exposure.

Now, I know we’ve covered a lot of ground here, and you might be feeling a bit overwhelmed. You might even be eyeing your morning toast with suspicion, wondering if it’s plotting against you!

But remember, knowledge is power! And in this case, it’s the power to make better choices about what you put in your body. This will not be a “top-down” effort, as the government does not put public health first.

Instead, change will be from the “bottom-up” through consumer demand. Since public health is secondary to corporate interests, it is on us as consumers to educate ourselves about these issues, ask questions, and make informed choices about the foods we consume.

Organic is the better option relative to non-GMO for grains. However, the ideal solution would be sourcing from regenerative farms, although these can be harder to find.

Regenerative grain production involves minimal or zero chemical use and instead focuses on building soil health to produce healthy crops. This approach not only reduces chemical exposure but also improves soil health since tillage is not employed.

Supporting organic and regenerative farming practices and demanding transparency in food production from farmers, cooperatives, and food companies are crucial steps towards a healthier food system. It really is on us!

In the end, the question isn’t always just about what we eat, but about how our food is produced. By paying attention to these often-overlooked aspects of our food system, we can take control of our health and contribute to a more sustainable future for agriculture.

You can make a difference by supporting organic and regenerative farmers. Think of it as voting with your fork (or spoon). Every time you choose an organic grain product, you’re essentially voting against the chemical-based conventional farming system.

from:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/07/30/truth-about-grains-in-our-food-system.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20240730_HL2&foDate=true&mid=DM1608961&rid=85574406

and Now, Farming is Illegal?

Posted on by

UN Announces Plan to Ban Most Farming and Meat, Triggering Shortages and Starvation

May 24, 2024 Alex Jones and John WIlliams

The United Nations’ World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros declared that farming accounts for 30% of greenhouse gas emissions and that the world needs to shift to plant-based diets. He said that that 130 countries have signed the COPD 28 Declaration on Climate and Health to implement bad policies. UN globalists consider beneficial carbon dioxide toxic and now say that methane is also toxic, and they are targeting rice farming for destruction. Half the world gets 60% of their calories and nutrition from rice.

The UN claims that starvation was caused from the COVID pandemic, but the cause was the lockdowns. There has been a 40% average increase in global mortality following the COVID shots. The UN should be rejected rather than trusted.

Link for video:    https://www.bitchute.com/video/OZjffE5INfJf/

Alex Jones said that when populations in the third world spend half of its money on food and energy, there is civil unrest; when 60% or more is spent on food and energy, the country is set for destruction. Most of the world is now spending more than 50% off its income on food and energy. He said that our food is soaked in glyphosate and that most breast cancer is caused by this herbicide poison. US mayors are selling out the American public by endorsing UN programs. Dr. Peter McCullough says authorities are doing mass PCR testing on animals and that the Bird Flu is an artificial crisis used for mass culling of poultry that will lead to food shortages. He said it will drive fear going into US elections.

.

John Williams explains how the UN WHO policies will affect the availability and cost of meat in the US. Ranchers are being pushed out of business and meat will become scarce, which will lead to skyrocketing prices. Some people will turn to “plant-based meat” that will cost a fraction of the price of meat. He explained that the business model for plant-based food as restaurants across the US are closing. New treaties are being introduced to change food production. Food quality is likely to drop in the US.

The Verge:      https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/29/24054325/food-sustainable-agriculture-diet-benefits-report

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2024/05/un-announces-plan-to-ban-most-farming-and-meat-triggering-shortages-and-starvation/

Tackling Systemic Glyphosate

Posted on by

MIT Researcher Explains How Chlorine Dioxide/ MMS Destroys the Toxicity of Glyphosate Poison

May 31, 2023 Kerri Rivera and Stephanie Seneff on Ugetube 

Dr. Stephanie Seneff, who holds a PhD in computer science and electrical engineering and is a senior research scientist at MIT, says that Chlorine Dioxide (CD), also known as MMS, destroys the toxicity of glyphosate, a weed killer that was patented by Monsanto and marketed as RoundUp Ready. Glyphosate is ubiquitous in the US and is also sprayed on many crops after harvest. It is potentially linked to diseases that include cancer, endocrine disruption, reduced reproduction and more. 

Notice: This article is not intended as medical advice as we are reporting on the findings of Stephanie Seneff and Kerri Rivera.

.

 

  • Save

Link for video:    https://ugetube.com/watch/kerri-rivera-and-dr-seneff-chlorine-dioxide-destroys-glyphosate_zjWqqQYeod1euCg.html

.

Summary by JW WIlliams

Kerri Rivera, a mother an autistic child, a doctor of homeopathy, and author of Healing the Symptoms Known As Autism, has been successful in helping parents reverse autism in children. She interviewed Stephanie Seneff, who holds a doctoral degree (PhD) in computer science and electrical engineering and is a a senior research scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL).

Glyphosate is a poison that is used as a weed killer; it was patented by Monsanto and called RoundUp Ready for use on patented GMO crops. It is also sprayed on many crops after harvest as a desiccant. Glyphosate has been potentially linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, thyroid problems, adverse effects on reproduction, fatty liver disease and negative effects on gut microbiome.

Stephanie Seneff said that she believes glyphosate substitutes for glycine in protein synthesis, which she said explains the increase in so many diseases, including autism and Alzheimer’s Disease.

Dr. Seneff stated that MMS neutralizes glyphosate toxicity. She said that MMS provides chlorine and and also provides super oxide that is needed to produce sulfate.

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2023/05/mit-researcher-explains-how-chlorine-dioxide-mms-destroys-the-toxicity-of-glyphosate-poison/

Meat Matters

Posted on by

Fake Meat Dangers With Dr. Joseph Mercola

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • I spoke with “Tea Time,” a program by Children’s Health Defense, about the dangers of fake meat products to help raise awareness about this latest assault on human health
  • Fake food — including lab-grown meat, animal-free dairy and plant-based meat — is the globalists’ latest attempt to control the food supply
  • The globalists are trying to replace animal husbandry with lab-grown meat, which will allow private companies to effectively control the human population
  • The idea that animals must be removed from agriculture to save the planet is flawed; animals are an integral, and necessary, part of the restorative process
  • Fake meat is an ultraprocessed mixture of chemicals, GE ingredients, pesticides and toxic linoleic acid that will promote chronic disease

At face value, fake meat sounds like the perfect solution to end world hunger, protect animal welfare and save the planet from environmental destruction. Even a brief look below the surface reveals a much more nefarious reality, however.

To help raise awareness about this latest assault on human health, I recently spoke with host Polly Tommey on “Tea Time,” a program by Children’s Health Defense, about the dangers of fake meat products.1

Fake Meat Is All About Controlling the Food Supply

Fake food — including lab-grown meat, animal-free dairy and plant-based meat — is the globalists’ latest attempt to control the food supply. Former U.S. Secretary of State and national security adviser Henry Kissinger once said, “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control people.”2 Controlling people is their whole agenda.

The globalists have long held a monopoly on the grain industry with their patented genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the early 2010s, not many people knew about GMOs. In 2011, we started to educate the public about their dangers, as they posed a major threat to public health and the environment.

In 2012, a ballot initiative was launched in California to require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods and food ingredients. The initiative was narrowly defeated due to massive donations from multinational corporations, but we won in the long term because awareness of GMOs in the food supply significantly increased. Now, most health-conscious people avoid GE/GMOs.

A similar trend is now occurring with fake food. The globalists are trying to replace animal husbandry with lab-grown meat, which will allow private companies to effectively control the entire food supply.

Fake Meat Is Even Worse Than CAFOs

Many people are aware of the pitfalls of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) — unnatural diets of GMO grains, crowded conditions, inhumane treatment, excessive pollution and rampant spread of disease. CAFOs are bad — but the new fake food era is going to be even worse.

With their patented fake meat products, the globalists will have unprecedented control over people’s health.3 It sounds noble to try to provide for the entire world’s population using animal-free methods, but it’s a deception.

Will Harris is a regenerative farming pioneer who runs White Oak Pastures in Bluffton, Georgia. He produces high-quality grass fed products, including beef and other animal products, in a way that’s good for consumers, the environment and the financial health of his business. While the globalists are spinning the idea that animal foods are destroying the planet, when raised regeneratively the way Harris does, this is far from the truth.

It’s the fake foods that will ultimately jeopardize the environment. “We are sequestering 3.5 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent for every pound of grass fed beef we sell. Ironically, the same environmental engineers did an analysis on Impossible Burgers,” Harris said on “The Joe Rogan Experience.” “They’re emitting 3.5 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent.”4

gra

Regenerative Farming Beats Fake Foods

Impossible Foods, along with Beyond Meat, is a major player in the fake meat marketplace. It claimed to have a better carbon footprint than live animal farms and hired Quantis, a group of scientists and strategists, to prove its point. According to the executive summary, its product reduced environmental impact between 87% and 96% in the categories studied, including land occupation and water consumption.5

This, however, compares fake meat to meat from CAFOs, which are notoriously destructive to the environment and nothing like Harris’ farm. Harris commissioned the same analysis by Quantis for White Oaks and published a 33-page study showing comparisons of White Oaks Pastures’ emissions against conventional beef production.6

While the manufactured fake meat reduced its carbon footprint up to 96% in some categories, White Oaks had a net total emission in the negative numbers as compared to CAFO-produced meat.

Further, grass fed beef from White Oak Pastures had a carbon footprint that was 111% lower than a typical U.S. CAFO, and its regenerative system effectively captured soil carbon, which offset the majority of emissions related to beef production.7

“The WOP [White Oak Pastures] system effectively captures soil carbon, offsetting a majority of the emissions related to beef production,” the report stated. “In the best case, the WOP beef production may have a net positive effect on climate. The results show great potential.”8

So, the idea that animals must be removed from agriculture to save the planet is entirely flawed. In fact, animals are an integral, and necessary, part of the restorative process.

What Is Fake Meat?

Fake meat is marketed as a health food, but it’s nothing more than a highly ultraprocessed mixture of chemicals. Impossible Foods, for instance, uses genetic engineering to insert the DNA from soy plants into yeast, creating GE yeast with the gene for soy leghemoglobin.9

Impossible Foods refers to this compound as “heme,” but technically plants produce non-heme iron, and this is GE yeast-derived soy leghemoglobin.10 Heme iron only occurs in meat and seafood. Impossible Foods’ GE heme is used in their fake meat burgers as a color additive that makes the product appear to “bleed” like real meat.

The health effects of GE heme are unknown, but this didn’t stop the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from approving soy leghemoglobin in 2019. The Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a lawsuit challenging the approval, which they called “unusually rapid”11 and risky for public health.

In their lawsuit, CFS points out that soy leghemoglobin is produced using synthetic biology, or “genetic engineering on steroids,” which does not shuffle DNA pieces between species but instead constructs new biological parts, devices and systems that do not exist in the natural world:12

The reason why Impossible Foods turned to synthetic biology to produce GE soy leghemoglobin is because it couldn’t extract enough of the substance directly from soybean roots to produce its fake meat products on an industrial, mass-produced scale. The FDA GRAS for soy leghemoglobin is 526 pages long, if that gives you any idea of the industrialized complexity of this so-called GRAS “health” food.13

Beyond Meat is similarly industrially processed. Beyond Burger patties contain 22 ingredients. Among them are expeller-pressed canola oil, pea protein isolate, cellulose from bamboo, modified food starch and methylcellulose14 — hardly “health” foods. To morph these ingredients into a patty that resembles meat require further processing.

It’s revealing, too, that while truly natural foods cannot be patented, Impossible Foods holds at least 14 patents, with about 100 more pending.15

Impossible Foods’ Fake Meat Is Loaded With Glyphosate, LA

Considering that many ingredients in fake meat products are made from GE soy,16 it’s not surprising that they’re also contaminated with the herbicide glyphosate. Consumer advocacy group Moms Across America (MAA) commissioned Health Research Institute Labs (HRI Labs), an independent laboratory that tests both micronutrients and toxins found in food, to determine how much glyphosate is in the Impossible Burger and its competitor, the Beyond Burger.

The total result of glyphosate and AMPA, the main metabolite of glyphosate, in the burgers was 11.3 parts per billion (ppb) in the Impossible Burger and 1 ppb in the Beyond Burger.17

When the concerning results were revealed, Impossible Foods engaged in a smear campaign to try and discredit MAA, labeling the group of moms “an anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, anti-science, fundamentalist group that cynically peddles a toxic brew of medical misinformation and completely unregulated, untested, potentially toxic quack ‘supplements’ …”18

The glyphosate in fake meat is one issue. The excess amounts of omega-6 fat in the form of linoleic acid (LA) are another. In my opinion, this metabolic poison is the primary contributor to rising rates of chronic disease. It’s important to realize that fake meat alternatives do not contain healthy animal fats. All the fat comes from industrial seed oils like soy and canola oil, which are top sources of LA.

Eliminating ultraprocessed foods from your diet is essential to keeping your LA intake low, and this includes fake meat.

‘Precision Fermentation’ Isn’t Natural Either

Fake food companies want you to believe their products are natural because they’re made with components of plants, even though nothing like them exists in nature. Precision fermentation is another term used by the biotech industry to piggyback off the popularity of truly health-promoting natural fermentation.

Precision fermentation, however, is nothing like its natural counterpart. What is perhaps most disturbing about the use of precision fermentation is that companies are allowed to claim that it’s natural.

Metabolic engineering is a major subset of precision fermentation, which involves methods such as next-generation sequencing, high-throughput library screening, molecular cloning and multiomics “to optimize microbial strains, metabolic pathways, product yields, and bioprocess scale-up.”19 It sounds just like something down on the farm, doesn’t it?

Whether it’s called precision fermentation, gene editing, GMO or something else, don’t fall for the hype that it’s good for you or the planet.

Where Should You Get Your Meat?

If fake meat isn’t healthy, and CAFO meat isn’t a good choice either, a reasonable question is where can you find meat that’s beneficial for your health and the planet? The answer is to get to know a farmer in your area. Visit the farm and view how the animals are being raised.

Get to know the resources available to you within your local community. The community will naturally validate the vendors who are raising food the right way. If you can’t find a local farm for ruminant animals like cows, buffalo or lamb, look for certified organic options at your local grocery store. However, it’s best to stay local and find a source of real, whole food near you.

As much as you can, plant a garden for vegetables, grow fruit trees and even raise chickens if it’s allowed in your area. For the food you can’t source on your own, lean on your community to fill in the gaps.

Just as was the case with GMOs, raising awareness about the dangers of fake meat is also important, especially in this early and aggressively expanding phase. Tell your social circle that to save the planet and support your health, it’s necessary to skip all the fake meat alternatives and opt for real food instead.

When you shop for food, know your farmer and look for regenerative, biodynamic and/or grass fed farming methods, which are what we need to support a healthy, autonomous population.

from:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/03/12/fake-meat-dangers.aspx

Time to Honor the Soil

Posted on by

Toxic Corporations Are Destroying the Planet’s Soil

Colin Todhunter

Anewly published analysis in the journal Frontiers in Environmental Science argues that a toxic soup of insecticides, herbicides and fungicides is causing havoc beneath fields covered in corn, soybeans, wheat and other monoculture crops. The research is the most comprehensive review ever conducted on how pesticides affect soil health.

The study is discussed by two of the report’s authors, Nathan Donley and Tari Gunstone, in a recent article appearing on the Scientific American website.

The authors state that the findings should bring about immediate changes in how regulatory agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assess the risks posed by the nearly 850 pesticide ingredients approved for use in the USA.

Conducted by the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth and the University of Maryland, the research looked at almost 400 published studies that together had carried out more than 2800 experiments on how pesticides affect soil organisms. The review encompassed 275 unique species or types of soil organisms and 284 different pesticides or pesticide mixtures.

Pesticides were found to harm organisms that are critical to maintaining healthy soils in over 70 per cent of cases. But Donley and Gunstone say this type of harm is not considered in the EPA’s safety reviews, which ignore pesticide harm to earthworms, springtails, beetles and thousands of other subterranean species.

The EPA uses a single test species to estimate risk to all soil organisms, the European honeybee, which spends its entire life above ground in artificial boxes. But 50-100 per cent of all pesticides end up in soil.

The researchers conclude that the ongoing escalation of pesticide-intensive agriculture and pollution are major driving factors in the decline of soil organisms. By carrying out wholly inadequate reviews, the regulatory system serves to protect the pesticide industry.

The study comes in the wake of other recent findings that indicate high levels of the weedkiller chemical glyphosate and its toxic breakdown product AMPA have been found in topsoil samples from no-till fields in Brazil.

Writing on the GMWatch website, Claire Robinson and Jonathan Matthews note that, despite this, the agrochemical companies seeking the renewal of the authorisation of glyphosate by the European Union in 2022 are saying that one of the greatest benefits of glyphosate is its ability to foster healthier soils by reducing the need for tillage (or ploughing).

This in itself is misleading because farmers are resorting to ploughing given increasing weed resistance to glyphosate and organic agriculture also incorporates no till methods. At the same time, proponents of glyphosate conveniently ignore or deny its toxicity to soils, water, humans and wildlife.

With that in mind, it is noteworthy that GMWatch also refers to another recent study which says that glyphosate is responsible for a five per cent increase in infant mortality in Brazil.

The new study, ‘Pesticides in a case study on no-tillage farming systems and surrounding forest patches in Brazil’ in the journal Scientific Reports, leads the researchers to conclude that glyphosate-contaminated soil can adversely impact food quality and human health and ecological processes for ecosystem services maintenance. They argue that glyphosate and AMPA presence in soil may promote toxicity to key species for biodiversity conservation, which are fundamental for maintaining functioning ecological systems.

These studies reiterate the need to shift away from increasingly discredited ‘green revolution’ ideology and practices. This chemical-intensive model has helped the drive towards greater monocropping and has resulted in less diverse diets and less nutritious foods. Its long-term impact has led to soil degradation and mineral imbalances, which in turn have adversely affected human health.

If we turn to India, for instance, that country is losing 5334 million tonnes of soil every year due to soil erosion and degradation, much of which is attributed to the indiscreet and excessive use of synthetic agrochemicals. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research reports that soil is becoming deficient in nutrients and fertility.

India is not unique in this respect. Maria-Helena Semedo of the Food and Agriculture Organization stated back in 2014 that if current rates of degradation continue all of the world’s topsoil could be gone within 60 years. She noted that about a third of the world’s soil had already been degraded. There is general agreement that chemical-heavy farming techniques are a major cause.

It can take 500 years to generate an inch of soil yet just a few generations to destroy. When you drench soil with proprietary synthetic agrochemicals as part of a model of chemical-dependent farming, you harm essential micro-organisms and end up feeding soil a limited doughnut diet of toxic inputs.

Armed with their multi-billion-dollar money-spinning synthetic biocides, this is what the agrochemical companies have been doing for decades. In their arrogance, these companies claim to have knowledge that they do not possess and then attempt to get the public and co-opted agencies and politicians to bow before the altar of corporate ‘science’ and its bought-and-paid-for scientific priesthood.

The damaging impacts of their products on health and the environment have been widely reported for decades, starting with Rachel Carson’s ground-breaking 1962 book Silent Spring.

These latest studies underscore the need to shift towards organic farming and agroecology and invest in indigenous models of agriculture – as has been consistently advocated by various high-level international agencies, not least the United Nations, and numerous official reports.

from:   https://off-guardian.org/2021/06/23/toxic-corporations-are-destroying-the-planets-soil/

Glyphosate – Safe?? Really???

Posted on by

Benicia man dying of cancer testifies in weed-killer suit against Monsanto

Photo of Bob Egelko
Bob Egelko

Dewayne Johnson (center), former groundskeeper for the Benicia Unified School District, leaves Department 504 with his wife Araceli Johnson (right) behind attorney Brent Wisner (left) at Superior Court of California during the Monsanto trial on Monday, July 23, 2018 in San Francisco, Calif.

Photo: Lea Suzuki / The Chronicle

A former school groundskeeper, diagnosed with terminal cancer, told a San Francisco jury Monday that he called a Monsanto Co. hotline twice — once before his diagnosis, once after — and asked whether the herbicide he was spraying on the job, the most widely used weed killer in the world, could cause harm to humans.

Both times, Dewayne “Lee” Johnson said, the person at the other end of the line listened to his account of being accidentally doused with the herbicide glyphosate, and said someone would call him back. No one ever did.

“I would never have sprayed the product around school grounds or around people if I thought it would cause them harm,” Johnson told a Superior Court jury hearing his suit against Monsanto. “They deserve better.”

Johnson, 46, of Vallejo, was a groundskeeper and pest-control manager for the Benicia Unified School District from 2012 until May 2016. He was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in October 2014 and with what his lawyers described as a more aggressive form of the cancer in March 2015.

Even after the latter diagnosis, Johnson said he continued to spray Monsanto’s product, a high-concentration brand of glyphosate called Ranger Pro, until he became convinced that it was dangerous and refused to use it in his final months on the job.

His damage suit, now into its third week, is the first of about 4,000 nationwide to go to trial against Monsanto, now a subsidiary of Bayer. The company markets glyphosate, the world’s leading herbicide, as Roundup, and in higher concentrations, as Ranger Pro. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.

Monsanto disputes the assessment, noting that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has never classified glyphosate as a carcinogen or restricted its use. The company’s lawyers also said Johnson’s primary treating physicians have not determined the cause of his cancer.

Earlier Monday, his wife and a physician described Johnson’s deteriorating condition, although he did not appear frail on the witness stand, speaking calmly in a deep, resonant voice. But jurors saw photos of the painful welts and lesions — on his legs, arms, face, and even his eyelids — that have arisen while he undergoes radiation treatment and chemotherapy. Johnson is scheduled for another round of chemotherapy next month and said he would next turn to a bone-marrow transplant.

He has self-published two books and is working on a third — “about people and how they’re judged by their faces” — and hopes he’ll get to finish it. He tries to shield the couple’s two sons, aged 13 and 10, from his bouts of depression and tears, and said that despite a grim prognosis, “I’ll keep fighting till my last breath.”

Araceli Johnson, his wife of 13 years and a nurse practitioner, said she now works 14 hours a day at two jobs to support them. “My world shut down” when her husband told her he had cancer, she told the jury.

Attorney Brent Wisner answers questions from the media at Superior Court of California on Monday, July 23, 2018, in San Francisco, Calif.

Photo: Lea Suzuki / The Chronicle

Johnson started working for the Benicia schools as a delivery driver but then applied to become the district’s first pest-control manager and passed a licensing exam. “I liked the job a lot,” he said, recalling how some students gave him a poster for ridding their school of a skunk.

He said the district told him to use the Ranger Pro form of glyphosate because Roundup wasn’t strong enough to remove all the weeds from hillsides on district-owned property. A supervisor told him the product was safe as long as he wore long-sleeved shirts, pants, shoes and socks.

In addition, Johnson said, he wore a sturdy jacket, rubber gloves, goggles and a face mask while he mixed the herbicide with water in 50-gallon drums and sprayed it 20 to 30 times a year for two to three hours a day, mostly during summer months. But he said he couldn’t fully protect his face from wind-blown spray. And twice, he said, he got drenched with herbicide, once when a spray hose became detached from a truck that was hauling it, and another time when the chemical somehow leaked onto his back. He said he had no access to a shower until much later in the day.

It was after the first exposure, Johnson said, that he started noticing rashes on his skin and called the company hotline.

“I had this uncontrollable situation on my skin, which used to be as perfect as this table,” he said, pointing to the brown witness stand. “It was a very scary, confusing time.”

During cross-examination, Monsanto lawyer Sandra Edwards asked Johnson about his past statement to his doctors that he had first developed a skin rash in the autumn of 2013, before he was accidentally doused with glyphosate. The company has contended that the sequence of events suggests other causes for Johnson’s illness.

“It’s hard to remember all that way back,” said Johnson, whose wife testified that her husband has sometimes suffered memory lapses since his diagnosis. That appeared to be on display early in his testimony Monday, when he said he had stopped working for the school district about five years ago, then was shown a document noting that he had worked there until May 2016.

Jurors also heard from Dr. Ope Ofodile, a dermatologist who coordinated Johnson’s medical treatment at Kaiser Health Care in Vallejo from 2014 through mid-2016. She said she saw him more than 25 times, removed one of his lesions, administered radiation, and wrote a letter in 2015 asking the school board not to expose Johnson to airborne chemicals.

“He was not responding (to treatment). He was heading in the wrong direction,” she said. But “he was very much motivated to get better.”

Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: begelko@sfchronicle.com

from:    https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Benicia-man-dying-of-cancer-testifies-in-Roundup-13098953.php

GMO’s, Health, Survival

Posted on by

THE PERIL ON YOUR PLATE: FILM EXPLORES THE HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS OF GENETIC ENGINEERING AND CHEMICAL AGRICULTURE

June 27, 2018

After being told by her doctor that genetically engineered (GE) food and pesticides could be responsible for her son’s food allergies, Ekaterina Yakovleva set out to investigate. Her quest for answers was captured by the Russian Times in the featured film, “The Peril on Your Plate: Genetic Engineering and Chemical Agriculture.”

The film shows Yakovleva and her team traveling the world to meet “the people who lift the lid on the perils of GMOs and the chemicals used in the industry,” as well as proponents of GMOs who argue that genetic engineering is a “high-tech” solution to feeding the world’s growing population. Advocates for genetic engineering tell Yakovleva that the technology is beneficial to farmers in that it increases resistance to pests and disease, as well as produces higher yields. But Yakovleva isn’t convinced.

She learns nothing could be further from the truth after witnessing the devastation caused by mass farmer suicides in India as a result of the failure of Monsanto’s Bt cotton. Yakovleva visits the U.K. where she meets Lady Margaret, Countess of Mar, a member of the House of Lords and a former farmer who suffered from chemical use, and then to the U.S. where she meets with Zen Honeycutt of Moms Across America about the link between GMOs, pesticides and chronic disease in humans.

What Is Genetic Engineering?

In order to better understand genetic engineering and its impact on human health, Yakovleva starts to research the technique and how it’s used. She learns that genetic engineering enables DNA to be transferred not only between different kinds of plants, but even between different kingdoms, meaning scientists can take DNA from an insect or animal and insert it into the genome of a plant.

Many GMO proponents claim that genetic engineering is just an extension of natural breeding methods, and just as safe. Nothing could be further from the truth — on both counts. Genetic engineering is radically different from conventional breeding techniques used to improve a crop. For starters, it’s a laboratory-based technique allowing scientists to create a food that could never be created by nature.

Claire Robinson, editor of GM Watch and coauthor of the book, “GMO Myths and Truths: A Citizen’s Guide to the Evidence on the Safety and Efficacy of Genetically Modified Foods and Crops,” says:

US Leads World in GM Crop Production

Yakovleva learns that an estimated 190 million hectares (469.5 acres) of GE crops1 — an area three times the size of France — are cultivated in 28 countries worldwide.2 The U.S. leads the world in GM crop production, growing about 40 percent,3 while Brazil grows 27 percent and Argentina 13 percent. Canada and India each grow 6 percent.4 GE crops currently in production include squash/pumpkin, alfalfa, sugar beet, potato, papaya, rapeseed oil, corn, soy and cotton.

Monsanto, soon to forgo its name and merge with Bayer, controls a vast majority of GE crops including 80 percent of GE corn and 93 percent of GE soy in the U.S. The first GE crop to hit the market was tobacco. It was genetically modified in 1983 to be resistant to an antibiotic.5 It was later altered for other reasons, including to remove a gene that turns nicotine into a carcinogen in tobacco leaves,6and to increase the amount of nicotine in cigarettes.7

The first genetically engineered food crop was the Flavr Savr tomato, produced by Calgene, a California-based company later bought by Monsanto. The tomato was genetically modified to stay riper longer by inhibiting a gene responsible for producing a protein that makes a tomato soften.8 Calgene is reported to have been transparent in its marketing of the tomato, clearly labeling the product and adding an 800 number for people with questions. Monsanto later removed the Flavr Savr tomato from store shelves.

A Growing List of Countries Say No to GMOs

The film highlights regions that are completely GMO-free, including Romania, which stopped cultivating GE crops despite being the first country in geographical Europe to introduce them.9 Portugal and Spain have reduced the amount of areas under GE crop cultivation,10while a number have enacted a total ban including France, Germany, Austria, Poland, Greece, Switzerland, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Russia forbids GE crop cultivation,11 but does not prevent GMOs from entering the country’s food chain, according to the film. Yakovleva travels to the Agrarian University in Moscow to meet GMO proponent Arkady Zlochevsky, chairman of the Russian Grain Union. She confronts him about the human health effects of eating GE foods.

“There is absolutely no risk to the human body associated with eating GM foods compared to traditional equivalents, not a single one,” he says, adding that GMOs are “high-tech” and have “significant advantages.” He even went so far as to say that glyphosate, the key active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller, is safer than 100 percent manure.

Glyphosate Doubles as Herbicide and Suicide Poison in India

Unconvinced, Yakovleva travels to India where glyphosate doubles as a lethal human poison. The Punjab region, formally known as the bread basket of India, is now known for colossal suicides among farmers, particularly young farmers between the ages of 20 and 35.

Yakovleva meets with families of farmers who committed suicide. She learns that thousands of farmers have taken their own lives after agriculture corporations granted them loans they could never repay to purchase seeds and pesticides that ultimately failed to provide the profits that were promised.

Inderjit Singh Jaijee, chairman of Punjab’s Baba Nanak Educational Society, says farmers who commit suicide often take drugs, drink alcohol or even take a swig of glyphosate to muster up the courage to go through with it. Singh Jaijee, who is on a mission to raise awareness about the serious issue of suicides in Punjab, says that young farmers are more susceptible because they don’t yet have the experience older people do to survive.

Thousands of Indian Farmers Commit Suicide Over Faulty GE Crops

The amount of suicides in the Punjab region is so massive that some people are making a profit removing dead bodies from a local canal. Ashu Malik, an underwater diver, uses surveillance cameras to monitor the canal for floating bodies. If a body is not claimed, it’s placed back into the water, he says. Ending up in the canal as a result of suicide is so common in this region that families built a house on the canal’s shoreline for them to stay in while they search for their loved ones who are missing.

The exact number of suicides occurring annually in the Punjab region remains unknown. One estimation found the annual suicide rate to be about 2,200. However, Singh Jaijee’s research estimates it to be closer to 4,000 suicides per year, while farmer organizations estimate up to 6,000. Shocked by what’s become a normality for agricultural communities in India, Yakovleva interviews agricultural scientist Kiran Kumar Vissa to learn more about Monsanto’s Bt cotton, the crop responsible for placing so many farmers into debt.

Monsanto’s Bt cotton was marketed as a solution to the challenges faced by cotton farmers, many of whom were in crisis; however, it ended up causing farmers more problems. There are many places where Bt cotton is not suitable for cultivation, including dry, nonirrigated areas, explains Vissa. The packaging says that Bt cotton is suitable for both irrigated and nonirrigated conditions, but it’s not true, says Vissa, adding, that it’s deceptive to farmers.

Big Ag Uses Images of Rich, American Farmers to Sell GMOs Abroad

Next, Yakovleva meets with renowned scholar and environmental activist Vandana Shiva, who blames the mass suicides solely on the corporations that sell the seeds and chemicals. Monsanto spends huge amounts of money on advertising. Between the fiscal years 2011 to 2017, Monsanto spent more than $500 million on advertising worldwide.12

Shiva explains that seed and chemical agents show farmers in India images of American farmers with big tractors and promise them that if they just take this seed, which they can pay for later, they will be rich. But what they don’t tell the farmer is that they can’t save the seed and that it might fail because the seeds aren’t meant for dry, nonirrigated areas, says Shiva.

So, the farmer takes it on credit, not having a good understanding of the costs involved, and the seed fails, Vandana explains, adding that in two years’ time the agents who sold the seed and pesticide return and repossess the farmer’s land because he could not pay his loan. Shiva tells Yakovleva that she has personally spoken to widows whose farmer husbands committed suicide and when she asked what their debt was, they showed her packages of Monsanto’s Bt cotton seed.

Are Farmers Risking Their Health by Using Chemicals?

Yakovleva’s investigation proceeds to the U.K. where she meets with Lady Margaret, Countess of Mar, a member of the House of Lords and a former farmer who suffered from chemical use.

While serving organic tea and pudding, Lady Margaret says she had to give up farming after she was exposed to harmful chemicals while dipping sheep. The sheep dip contained organophosphates, the same class of chemicals to which glyphosate belongs. The chemicals are used as both flame retardants and pesticides. According to National Geographic:

Within weeks of being exposed, Lady Margaret says she began to suffer from intense fatigue and neurological problems. She even felt suicidal. At one point, she was forced to rely on an oxygen tank for up to 16 hours a day. Lady Margaret was ill for three years before doctors diagnosed her with organophosphate poisoning.

Most of Americans Have Glyphosate in Their Bodies

Humans are increasingly testing positive for residues of glyphosate.14 In tests conducted by a University of California San Francisco lab, 93 percent of the participants tested positive for glyphosate residues.15 In the European Union, when 48 members of Parliament volunteered for glyphosate testing, everyone one of them tested positive.16 Humans are exposed to glyphosate via the food they eat, the air they breathe, the water they drink and the lawns, gardens, parks and other environments they frequent.

What impact is this having on human health? To find out, Yakovleva and her team head to the U.S. to meet with Honeycutt, who blames chemicals in our food for the rise in chronic disease. A number of chronic diseases have been linked to pesticides, including autism, cancer, food allergies, endocrine disruption, diabetes and Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease.17

One in 4 females over the age of 30 now has a gluten intolerance, says Honeycutt; however, she believes it’s not gluten that’s the problem, but the glyphosate that’s applied to wheat as a drying agent prior to harvest.

“It’s destroying their gut lining. They can’t process it and then the body acknowledges it as a gluten intolerance,” says Honeycutt, adding that food today not only has more chemicals, but is also less nutritious. Chemical-intensive agriculture has depleted our soils of essential nutrients and has drawn out vitamins and minerals that make our food healthy, she adds.

Long-Term Safety Studies Are Sorely Lacking

Yakovleva and her team reached out to Monsanto regarding the public health concerns tied to its Roundup weed killer, but the company refused to comment, instead directing them to its website which, of course, states that all of their products are safe and environmentally friendly. The deceptive GMO talking points Yakovleva received from the seed and chemical industry failed to convince her that GE crops are safe for human consumption, as there’s no real evidence to support this claim.

While few in number, longer-term animal feeding studies have been published over the past several years showing there’s definite cause for concern. Liver and kidney toxicity and immune reactions tend to be the most prevalent. Digestive system, inflammation and fertility problems have also been seen. A major part of the problem is that safety studies conducted for regulatory purposes to gain market approval for a GE product are too short to show the damage that could occur from life-long consumption of the GE food.

Some independent studies looking at lifetime consumption of GMOs have found rather dramatic health effects, whereas the safety studies used to promote GE foods as safe have all been short-term. There seems to be an agreement among biotech scientists to not test GE foods longer than 90 days in rats, which is only about seven to nine years in human terms. That’s nothing when you consider the average human life span is somewhere in the 70s, and the current generation is fed GMO food from Day 1.

How to Protect Yourself From Toxic Agriculture

The biotech giants have deep pocketbooks and political influence and are fighting to maintain their position of dominance. At the end of the day, we must shatter Monsanto’s grip on the agricultural sector. There is no way to recall GMOs once they have been released into the environment. The stakes could not be higher. Will you continue supporting the corrupt, toxic and unsustainable food system that Monsanto and its industry allies are working so hard to protect?

For more and more people, the answer is no. Consumers are rejecting genetically engineered and pesticide-laden foods. Another positive trend is that there has been strong growth in the global organic and grass-fed sectors. This just proves one thing: We can make a difference if we steadily work toward the same goal.

One of the best things you can do is to buy your foods from a local farmer who runs a small business and uses diverse methods that promote regenerative agriculture. You can also join a community-supported agriculture (CSA) program, where you can buy a “share” of the vegetables produced by the farm, so that you get a regular supply of fresh food.

I believe that joining a CSA is a powerful investment not only in your own health, but in that of your local community and economy as well. In addition, you should also adopt preventive strategies that can help reduce the toxic chemical pollution that assaults your body. I recommend visiting these trustworthy sites for non-GMO food resources in your country as well:

Organic Food Directory (Australia) Eat Wild (Canada)
Organic Explorer (New Zealand) Eat Well Guide (United States and Canada)
Farm Match (United States) Local Harvest (United States)
Weston A. Price Foundation (United States) The Cornucopia Institute
Demeter USA American Grassfed Association

Monsanto and its allies want you to think that they control everything, but they are on the wrong side of history. It’s you, the informed and empowered, who hold the future in your hands. Let’s all work together to topple the biotech industry’s house of cards. Remember — it all starts with shopping smart and making the best food purchases for you and your family.

Biotech Companies Are Gaining Power by Taking Over the Government

to read the rest of the article, go to:    http://www.wakingtimes.com/2018/06/27/the-peril-on-your-plate-film-explores-the-human-health-effects-of-genetic-engineering-and-chemical-agriculture/

Roundup Threat to Coral Reefs

Posted on by

Roundup ‘Weed Killer’ Threatens Coral Reefs, Persists In Seawater

Thursday, January 30th 2014 at 11:15 am

Written By:

Sayer Ji, Founder

Roundup 'Weed Killer' Threatens Coral Reefs, Persists In Seawater

The coral reefs are dying and the seas are increasingly depleted of sea life. Could Roundup ‘weed killer’ be partially to blame?

A highly concerning new study published in the journal Marine Pollution Bulletin indicates that the world’s most popular herbicide glyphosate (aka Roundup), used primarily in GM agriculture, is particularly resistant to biodegradation in coral reef collected sea water, and could therefore be a major contributor to the decline of marine coral reef systems such as the Great Barrier Reef.

The Great Barrier Reef is the world’s biggest single structure made by living organisms, and is so massive it is visible from outer space.[i] Sadly, according to a study published in 2012 by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the reef has lost more than half its coral cover since 1985,[ii] which is believed to be caused by a combination of factors, including climate change induced acidification of the ocean, outbreaks of predator species and extensive pollution. Despite the established role of agrichemicals in harming sea life, glyphosate has yet to be included in marine monitoring programs for its impacts on the reef — this despite being used at a rate of 30,000,000 lbs annually in Australia.

In the new study titled, “Glyphosate persistence in seawater,” Australian marine researchers describe “increasing concern over the global loss of corals and seagrass and this has been particularly well documented for the World Heritage listed Great Barrier Reef (GBR),” pointing out that extensive agriculture activities impact water quality around reefs and seagrass beds, especially during the summer wet season from November to March, when rain-induced flooding delivers “runoff containing excess sediments, nutrients, and pesticides,” and with satellite imagery reveals their associated plumes travel up to 50 km offshore as far as the midshelf coral reefs.

In order to ascertain the potential impact of glyphosate, they quantified its biodegradation using “simulation” flask tests with native bacterial populations and coastal seawater from the Great Barrier Reef. They discovered that, “the half-life for glyphosate at 25°C in low-light was 47 days, extending to 267 days in the dark at 25°C and 315 days in the dark at 31°C, which is the longest persistence reported for this herbicide.”

When compared to previously reported half-life estimates for glyphosate biodegradation in soil and fresh waters, the sea water estimates are dramatically higher. Previous soil and water data described glyphosate’s biodegration half-life to be as rapid as 5 days for field soil and 49 days for bog and natural water.*  If the new sea water flask experiments accurately reflect real world conditions, glyphosate’s maximal 315 day half life in sea water would add up to 63 fold increased persistence to the chemical’s toxicological profile. The researchers also pointed out that flooding events which would bring glyphosate to sea would involve co-occurrence of massive quantities of sediment to which glyphosate readily binds, which would further prevent glyphosate’s biodegradation, potentially greatly enhancing its persistence and toxic effects.

Despite previous assurances by both the manufacturer (Monsanto) and regulatory bodies that glyphosate is safe to the environment and highly biodegradable, an increasingly alarming body of experimental data on glyphosate’s toxicity indicates that the chemical is extremely toxic, exhibiting potentially carcinogenic endocrine disrupting activity in the parts-per-trillion concentration range, as well as a laundry list of multiple modes of toxicity to animal life.  For direct access to the biomedical data on glyphoste’s toxicological profile, view our section on the topic: Glyphosate Toxicity.

*Note: accumulating evidence reveals that these original estimates are inaccurate and that glyphosate’s persistence in the soil, groundwater, and even air, is a far greater problem than officially acknowledged.

[i] Sarah Belfield (8 February 2002). “Great Barrier Reef: no buried treasure”

[ii] Eilperin, Juliet. “Great Barrier Reef has lost half its corals since 1985, new study says”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 1 October 2012.

from:    http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/roundup-weed-killer-threatens-coral-reefs-persists-seawater

Roundup as a Contraceptive?

Posted on by

Again, do your research:

Is It Time To Acknowledge Roundup Herbicide As A Contraceptive?

herbacide-contraceptive31st July 2013

By Sayer Ji

Contributing Writer for Wake Up World

How much longer will we deny the growing body of research linking Roundup to infertility before calling this chemical a contraceptive?

Following closely on the heels of the EPA’s decision to allow Roundup herbicide residues in your food at concentrations a million times higher than shown carcinogenic, a concerning new study published in the journal Free Radical Medicine & Biology implicates the herbicide, and its main ingredient glyphosate, in male infertility, at concentration ranges well within the EPA’s “safe level” for food.[1]

Performed by Brazilian researchers, the study found acute Roundup exposure at low doses (36ppm, 0.036g/L) for 30 minutes induced cell death in Sertoli cells in prepubertal rat testis.  Sertoli cells are known as “mother” or “nurse” cells within the testicles, as they are responsible for maintaining the health of sperm cells, and are required for normal male sexual development.

Roundup herbicide exposure was found to induce oxidative stress and to activate multiple-stress response pathways within affected cells, and was associated with an increase in intracellular calcium (Ca2+) concentration leading to Ca2+ overload, and cell death.

Thirty minute incubation tests with glyphosate alone (36 ppm) also increased Ca2+ uptake, and both Roundup and glyphosate were observe to downregulate reduced glutathione levels. As glutathione is an antioxidant (electron donor) found within every cell in the human body, protecting it against oxidative stress, as well as maintaining a wide range of biochemical reactions such as DNA and protein synthesis and repair, amino acid transport, prostaglandin synthesis, amino acid and enzyme activation, a dysregulation of glutathione can result in a wide range of adverse effects.

The researchers noted

Glyphosate has been described as an endocrine disruptor affecting the male reproductive system; however, the molecular basis of its toxicity remains to be clarified. We could propose that Roundup® toxicity, implicating in Ca2+ overload, cell signaling misregulation, stress response of the endoplasmic reticulum and/or depleted antioxidant defenses could contribute to Sertoli cell disruption of spermatogenesis that could impact male fertility.

This study adds to a growing body of research implicating Roundup herbicide in male infertility:

  • A 2007 study published in the journal Reproductive Toxicology found that Roundup herbicide altered the structure of the testis and epididymal region (part of the tubular spermatic duct system), as well as the serum levels of testosterone and estradiol, in male ducks, leading the researchers to conclude that Roundup “…may cause disorder in the morphophysiology of the male genital system of animals.”[2]
  • A 2010 male rat study published in the Archives of Toxicology revealed prepubertal exposure to commercial formulation of the herbicide glyphosate alters testosterone levels and testicular morphology, leading researchers to describe the herbicide as “a potent endocrine disruptor.”[3]
  • A 2011 male rat study published in the Archives of Toxicology revealed maternal exposure to glyphosate disturbed the masculinization process and promoted behavioral changes and histological and endocrine problems in reproductive parameters.[4]
  • A 2011 study published in the journal Toxicology In Vitro found a glyphosate-based herbicide induced necrosis and apoptosis in mature rat testicular cells in vitro, and testosterone decrease at lower levels.[i] In the study, Roundup and glyphosate at concentrations as low as 1 part per million produced a testosterone decrease in sperm cells by 35%.
  • A more recent 2013 study in male rats published in the journal Ecotoxicology and Reproductive Safety found glyphosate (in combination with another pesticide) provoked severe oxidative stress in male testes, resulting in inhibited testosterone production and disrupted gonadotropin levels.[5]

Given the growing body of research clearly revealing Roundup’s toxicity to the germline of animal species, the argument can be made that this chemical has contraceptive properties and therefore genocidal consequences. By directly affecting the biologically immortal cells within the testes, whose DNA contains over 3 billion years worth of information essential for there being a future for our species as a whole, Roundup should be considered an instrument of mass destruction. At the very least, the precautionary principle should be applied, and any chemical that signals the potential to disrupt or destroy our species’ germline cells, should be banned unless the manufacturer can prove beyond a reasonable doubt its safety to exposed populations.

For additional research on the wide spectrum of adverse health effects now linked to glyphosate-based herbicide formulations such as Roundup, view our research articles on GMOs, as well as view and download our free biomedical PDF on glyphosate/Roundup research.

Article Resources

from:    http://wakeup-world.com/2013/07/31/is-it-time-to-acknowledge-roundup-herbicide-as-a-contraceptive/

EPA Raises Levels of Glyphosate in Food

Posted on by

EPA to American People: ‘Let Them Eat Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Cake’

EPA30th July 2013

By Sayer Ji

Contributing Writer for Wake Up World

The EPA, whose mission is to “to protect human health and the environment,” has approved Monsanto’s request to allow levels of glyphosate (Roundup) contamination in your food up to a million times higher than have been found carcinogenic.

If you haven’t already heard, it’s now official. Monsanto’s request to have the EPA raise allowable levels of its herbicide glyphosate in food you may soon be eating has been approved [see Final Rule]. Public commenting is also now closed, not that it was anything but a formality to begin with.

Here is the original registration application, lest detractors claim it was not Monsanto behind this bold move to legalize what an increasingly educated public considers a form of institutionalized mass poisoning:

1. EPA Registration Numbers: 524-421, 524-475, and 524-537. Docket ID Number:EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132. Applicant: Monsanto Company, 1300 I Street NW., Suite 450 East, Washington, DC 20005. Active ingredient: Glyphosate. Product Type:Herbicide. Proposed Uses: Add wiper applicator use over the top to carrot and sweet potato, add preharvest use to oilseed crop group 20, add the use Teff (forage and hay), and conversion of the following old crop groups to the following new crop groups: Vegetable, bulb, group 3 to vegetable, bulb, group 3-07; vegetable, fruiting, group 8 to vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10; fruit, citrus, group 10 to fruit, citrus, group 10-10; fruit, pome, group 11 to fruit, pome, group 11-10; and berry group 13 to berry and small fruit, group 13-07. Contact: Erik Kraft, (703) 308-9358, email address: kraft.erik@epa.gov. [emphasis added]

Notice above, the proposal includes “Add wiper applicator use over the top to carrot and sweet potato,” revealing that one reason why Monsanto wants tolerances on glyphosate raised is because this chemical will be applied directly not just to Roundup Ready plants but to non-GMO crops as well, virtually guaranteeing that unless you eat 100% USDA organic concentrations of grave concern will end up in your food and body.

How grave? The Food Poisoning Bulletin describes the new tolerances as follows:

Under the new regulation, forage and hay teff can contain up to 100 ppm (100,000 ppb) glyphosate; oilseed crops can contain up to 40 ppm (40,000 ppb) glyphosate, and root crops such as potatoes and beets can contain 6000 ppb glyphosate. Fruits can have concentrations from 200 ppb to 500 ppb glyphosate. These numbers are magnitudes higher than the levels some scientists believe are carcinogenic.[emphasis added]

Indeed, only last month, a new study found that glyphosate has ‘xenoestrogen‘ properties and stimulated breast cancer proliferation in the parts per trillion range – that would be six orders of magnitude lower levels than presently receiving the EPA’s Monsanto-friendly stamp of approval. So how does the EPA address the potential for carcinogenicity in section 3 of their Exposure Assessment? They state their position as follows:

EPA has concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

According to this ruthless logic, since the EPA designates itself a higher authority than the independent scientific evidence clearly signaling glyphosate’s carcinogenicity (view the toxicological data yourself here), it requires no safety testing. Let the exposed populations eat Roundup Ready cake and fester in an epidemic of cancers, as it turns a self-blinded eye to the problem.

The EPA has just made such a mockery of its own mission statement, which is “to protect human health and the environment,” that one wonders why they have not already declared themselves a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto.

The obvious reason why Monsanto and its ‘EPA cheerleading division’ successfully raised the tolerances of glyphosate in your food, is because the contamination is getting so bad they had no other choice. Either limits are raised, or Monsanto breaks the law (by contaminating our food and poisoning us beyond the “acceptable level of harm” already determined by the EPA) and the EPA is shown to be completely impotent to enforce anything resembling its mission statement.

But despite Monsanto’s latest apparent success, a growing grassroots movement comprised of millions of concerned citizens is defiantly expressing their own form of “glyphosate-resistance,” armed with a growing body of published toxicological data linking the glyphosate herbicide to over 30 health problems. This movement is mirrored poetically by the “super weeds” emerging throughout the Roundup Ready monocultured farmland of the world. In both cases, the center of real power is shifting away from Monsanto back to the people who are realizing that unless they retake back control over their food, they will be coerced and poisoned into a form of biological slavery the likes of which this world has never seen before, and if it manifests fully, will likely never recover from.

Learn more at our research page on GMOs: Health Guide: GMO Research

from:     http://wakeup-world.com/2013/07/30/epa-to-american-people-let-them-eat-monsantos-roundup-ready-cake/