Curious Cook: Glyphosate, the free stuff we do not really want

Despite the highly plausible health risks regarding alcohol, I still like drinking good wines. What I am less keen on is the extra stuff I am also ingesting with the wines, like a chemical called glyphosate.

March 24, 2019 Food, Food News

By CHRIS CHAN

A recent documentary on French TV highlighted that every wine they tested had detectable levels of glyphosate, a component of the herbicides commonly used at vineyards and most commercial crop farms.

Glyphosate was also found in varying quantities in the urine of every person they tested, so it appears that exposure to this ubiquitous compound is part of modern living for many millions of people. Therefore, this chemical is what this article will investigate.

One reason why glyphosate (also known as n-phosphonomethylglycine) is so ubiquitous is because the Monsanto patents expired in 2000 and now the compound is produced around the world by several other manufacturers. Since its introduction in 1974, it is estimated over nine billion kilograms of glyphosate has been sprayed on farmlands worldwide.

Should we worry?
A little research into how glyphosate works as a herbicide finds that the compound inhibits the shikimic acid pathway in plants. If you want to know more, glyphosate specifically obstructs the enzyme, 5-enolpyruvoylshikimate 3-phosphate synthetase, which is indirectly required by plants for the biosynthesis of essential aromatic amino acids such as phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan.

The shikimic pathway is found only in plants, fungi and bacteria. Therefore, in theory, glyphosate is highly unlikely to be toxic to mammals, insects, birds, fish, etc.

Two opinions
At this point, it is worth noting two different, but important, opinions about glyphosate. One is the assessment by the influential IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organisation) that glyphosate is a Group 2A risk – this means the IARC classified it as “probably carcinogenic to humans”.

Most fruits and vegetables have traces of glyphosate. Photo: Karen Cropper/Flickr

This is the same group of risk as for red and industrially-processed meats which contain nitrites or nitrates. For more information, please read my article Processed meats: WHO says it’s bad on Star2.com.

The other opinion is shared by the highly-respected European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency of the USA (EPA). Discounting the EPA for the moment, the EFSA report was particularly interesting as it specifically addressed the earlier findings of the IARC during a new assessment and still came out with the conclusion glyphosate is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans”.

To complicate matters, on 11 August 2018, a US court awarded damages of US$289 million (RM1.17 billion) against Monsanto for allegedly causing a man to develop terminal non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma due to the use of Roundup products which contain glyphosate. So, what is the reality?

The research
It turns out that everybody is a little bit right. The informative EFSA report provided an interesting clue in a paragraph which states, “Regarding carcinogenicity, the EFSA assessment focused on the pesticide active substance and considered in a weight of evidence all available information.”

In short, the EFSA report (and the EPA assessment) was based on testing only the compound glyphosate while the IARC status was based on products and formulations that contain glyphosate.

Toxicity
According to a University of Caen study in 2018, the ancillary chemicals added to glyphosate formulations make a huge difference to the toxicity of such products. A range of herbicides containing glyphosate were analysed, along with the surfactants, diluents and other chemicals added to enhance the efficiency of glyphosate.

Traces of glyphosate are found in most vineyards. Photo: Nat Welch/Flickr

This was not as easy as it sounds as US and EU packaging do not list additives in full if the producer deems them as “inert” substances, and there is little regulatory clout to demand proof of the “inert” nature of such additives.

But it is clear such additives have a very significant impact. Tests with glyphosate alone and formulations containing glyphosate (FCG) elicited wildly different responses – in test human cells, glyphosate alone generally had no effect but most of the FCGs were established to be highly toxic, killing human cells within 90 minutes.

This is a sobering finding, and one group of problematic additives identified is polyoxyethylenamines (POEA) derived from petroleum. But POEA is not the only contaminant found in FCGs – nonylphenol polyethoxylates (NPEOs), poisonous metals such as arsenic, chromium, nickel and lead are also often found in FCGs. When applied persistently, these chemicals and metals remain in the ground, can contaminate future crops and also leach into groundwater causing further damage via pollution.

Oddly, the study also very surprisingly found that glyphosate is very much less toxic for plants than the additives in FCGs. After numerous tests, the study stated plainly glyphosate is usually the least effective herbicide chemical in the tested FCGs and that the bulk of herbicidal effects were due to the additives in FCGs, and not glyphosate itself.

French farmers
The Caen study might tie in with another multi-institute French study in 2010 which researched the link between Parkinson’s Disease (PD) with persistent occupational exposure to chemicals such as herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, rodenticides, crop treatments, etc.

The study covered 237,917 French farming workers in 2007, and found that for all age groups investigated, the incidence of PD was roughly double that of the general French population. However, as stated, the study does not only cover herbicides, and indeed the research only confirms there may be serious dangers involved with farm chemicals in general, at least in relation to PD.

Regarding cancers, the evidence is less conclusive. Large scale studies like the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) in the USA and the French Agriculture & Cancer (AGRICAN) study found that mortality rates from most cancers were not abnormal compared to the general public. Some deviations applied to multiple myeloma, lip and prostate cancers, and even so, they do not affect the overall death rates of farm workers.

This may be due to the “healthy worker” effect as farm workers are more physically active which tends to make them healthier than average. The favourable effects of such healthier lifestyles may conceal, mask or counter the negative effects of exposure to farm chemicals. As such, the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research warned against making “simplistic” assumptions from the data.

Analysis of the AGRICAN data also suggested an increased risk of PD, especially with users of dithiocarbamate-based fungicides, rotenone and the herbicides diquat and paraquat. Curiously, glyphosate was not amongst the compounds analysed for some (unknown) reason.

Consumers
Farmers are constantly and often heavily exposed to pesticides, but so too are consumers who are exposed to these chemicals via residues on fruit, vegetables and meat. There is not much good that comes from ingesting pesticides (such as insecticides) because in sufficiently high doses they are almost always seriously toxic to humans.

Even everyday breakfast meals like cereal have glyphosate. Photo: Ben Siedelman/Flickr

However, we are discussing glyphosate today and the weight of evidence suggests it is not onerously toxic to humans by any scientific measure. It may affect the shikimic acid pathway in human gut bacteria and kill some of them, but this also happens when ingesting many other compounds, such as artificial sweeteners or simply unbalanced quantities of junk food.

The warning
So it appears the main and very real dangers of glyphosate lie within the chemical additives in FCGs. In this respect, it may be suggested consumers are being starved of data they need to make an informed choice about foods treated with glyphosate and other compounds.

At present, glyphosate is found in foods ranging from breakfast cereals through to fruits, vegetables and many meats. While probably not toxic by itself, the presence of glyphosate may be a warning indicator of the likely toxic compounds that accompany it.

https://www.star2.com/food/2019/03/24/curious-cook-glyphosate-free-stuff-not-really-want/

Can going organic reduce cancer risk?

To reduce your risk of cancer, you know you should quit smoking, exercise regularly, wear sunscreen and take advantage of screening tests.

October 29, 2018 Food, Health, Nutrition, Wellness

By AGENCY

A recent study suggests consuming organic food, as opposed to conventional food, may help reduce risk of some types of cancer. — TNS

New research suggests another item might be added to this list: Choose organic foods over conventional ones.

A study of nearly 70,000 French adults who were tracked for an average of 4.5 years found that those who ate the most organic foods were less likely to develop certain kinds of cancer than the people who ate the least.

Because of the way the study was conducted, it is impossible to say that the organic foods people ate were the reason why they had fewer cases of cancer.

But the results are significant enough to warrant follow-up studies, the researchers wrote.

“Further research is required to identify which specific factors are responsible for potential protective effects of organic food consumption on cancer risk,” they wrote in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine.

The researchers have an idea about what factors those may be: pesticides.

At least three of them – glyphosate, malathion and diazinon – probably cause cancer, and others may be carcinogenic as well, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

“Organic products are less likely to contain pesticide residues than conventional foods,” they wrote.

That’s because the rules farmers must follow in order to use the organic label generally prohibit the use of synthetic pesticides (although pesticides based on natural compounds like hydrogen peroxide and soaps are allowed).

Previous studies have found that pesticide residue is more prevalent on conventionally grown produce than on its organic counterparts.

For instance, a report out in 2018 from the European Food Safety Authority found residue from one or more pesticides on 44% of the conventionally produced food samples that were tested.

Meanwhile, 6.5% of the organic food samples tested had detectable pesticide residues.

And there’s evidence that those pesticides are metabolised in the body. The urine of people who eat few (if any) organic foods contains higher concentrations of chemicals derived from pesticides than the urine of people who eat organic food regularly.

In the United States, more than nine out of 10 people have measurable amounts of pesticides in their urine or their blood, and these concentrations are known to fall when people switch from conventionally produced foods to organic ones.

Consuming fewer pesticide-related chemicals certainly seems like a good idea. But whether that’s associated with an actual health benefit is unclear.

So a team from Inserm, the French equivalent of the US National Institutes of Health, went looking for data.

In an ideal world, they would recruit thousands of volunteers and randomly divide them into two groups: one that follows an organic diet and one that doesn’t.

They would monitor these volunteers to make sure they were keeping to their assigned diets and observe the other things they do that could influence their cancer risk.

Then, after many years, they would count up the number of cancers diagnosed in each of the groups and see if there was a difference that could be explained only by the amount of organic food they ate.

But this is not an ideal world, so the researchers had to make do with the data that were available.

They focused on people who joined a large, ongoing health and nutrition study starting in 2009.

They were questioned about 16 categories of foods – including fruits, vegetables, eggs and wine – and how often they ate organic versions of them.

Once a year, they provided health updates, including whether they had been diagnosed with cancer.

By the end of 2016, there were 68,946 French adults who met all of these criteria and were included in the analysis. Their average age when they joined the study was 44, and 78% of them were women.

Between 2009 and 2016, cancer was diagnosed in 1,340 of the volunteers.

The most common type was breast cancer (459 cases), followed by prostate cancer (180 cases), skin cancer (135 cases), colorectal cancer (99 cases), non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (47 cases) and other types of lymphomas (15 cases).

The study authors ranked the volunteers according to how frequently they ate organic foods and divided them into four equally sized groups.

This revealed that the people who ate organic food most often had higher incomes, more education and higher-status jobs.

They were also more likely to exercise, to have quit smoking, and to eat higher amounts of healthful foods such as fruits and vegetables.

All of these things are associated with a lower risk of cancer.

After they took these and other demographic factors into account, they found that the people who ate organic food most frequently were 25% less likely to develop any kind of cancer than the people who ate organic food the least.

The overall effect of choosing lots of organic foods was similar in magnitude to having a family history of cancer.

When they considered each type of cancer separately, they found that only three had a statistically significant association with organic food consumption.

One of them was postmenopausal breast cancer: The women who ate organic foods most often were 34% less likely to receive this diagnosis than women who ate organic foods the least. (There were hints of reduced risk for premenopausal breast cancers as well, but the difference was smaller and could have been due to chance.)

Another was non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: The most frequent eaters of organic foods were 86% less likely to get this form of cancer than their counterparts on the other end of the spectrum. The difference between the two groups was just barely big enough to be statistically significant.

The last category was all lymphomas: People who ate organic food most often were 76% less likely to get cancers of the lymph system than people who ate organic foods the least.

Some of these findings were in line with past studies, and some were not.

In particular, the French researchers compared their results with data from the Million Women Study in Britain.

In the study, participants who ate organic food regularly had a 21% lower risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma than participants who didn’t eat organic food at all.

However, there was no reduction in overall cancer risk, and the risk of breast cancer was slightly higher among women who ate organic food routinely than it was for women who didn’t eat it at all.

“It now seems important to evaluate chronic effects of low-dose pesticide residue exposure from the diet,” the French researchers concluded.

A team from the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health noted several strengths of the new report in a commentary that was also published recently.

Glyphosate, malathion and diazinon have all been associated with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, so the researchers may be on to something, the Harvard authors wrote.

They also praised the study for including tens of thousands of people and following them prospectively instead of retrospectively.

But there are also several shortcomings that limit the strength of the study’s results, they added. For instance, no attempt was made to confirm people’s claims about the amount of organic food they ate.

The French researchers also assumed that the more organic foods a person ate, the lower their exposure to pesticide residue would be. This may be true, but there is no data to back it up.

“At the current stage of research, the relationship between organic food consumption and cancer risk is still unclear,” the Harvard researchers wrote.

What’s “urgently” needed is a more detailed study that would address some of the problems in the French report, according to the commentary.

“If future studies provide more solid evidence supporting the consumption of organic foods for cancer prevention, measures to lower costs and ensure equitable access to organic products will be crucial,” the Harvard authors wrote.

In the meantime, “concerns over pesticide risks should not discourage intake of conventional fruits and vegetables”, they advised.

“The benefits of consuming conventionally grown produce are likely to outweigh the possible risks from pesticide exposure.” – Los Angeles Times/Tribune News Service

https://www.star2.com/health/2018/10/29/organic-reduce-cancer-risk/

Roundup Gave Us Cancer

More than 800 people now believe Monsanto's Roundup contributed to their development of cancer, and it's likely thousands more lawsuits may be filed soon. Meanwhile, this ubiquitous toxic herbicide continues to be sprayed onto US farm fields with no restriction.


May 30, 2017

Story at-a-glance

• More than 800 people with cancer are suing Monsanto, the maker of Roundup, over claims the glyphosate-based herbicide caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
• Decades ago, Monsanto was able to persuade the EPA to change the classification of glyphosate from a Class C Carcinogen (suggestive carcinogenic potential) to Class E, which means there is evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans
• New research revealed a strong connection between large-scale Monarch butterfly deaths and glyphosate application

By Dr. Mercola

More than 800 people with cancer are suing Monsanto, the maker of Roundup, over claims the glyphosate-based herbicide made them ill — and Monsanto did little to warn the public, despite knowing cancer risks existed.1 In 2015, glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, was determined to be a "probable carcinogen" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is the research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), rather than taking immediate steps to protect Americans from this probable cancer-causing agent, decided to reassess its position on the chemical and, after doing so, released a paper in October 2015 stating that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.2

In April 2016, the EPA posted the report online, briefly, before pulling it and claiming it was not yet final and posted by mistake. The paper was signed by Jess Rowland (among other EPA officials), who at the time was the EPA's deputy division director of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and chair of the Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC).

EPA Official Helped Stop a U.S. Investigation Into Glyphosate

Email correspondence showed Rowland helped stop a glyphosate investigation by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, on Monsanto's behalf.

In an email, Monsanto regulatory affairs manager Dan Jenkins recounts a conversation he'd had with Rowland, in which Rowland said, "If I can kill this I should get a medal,”3 referring to the ATSDR investigation, which did not end up occurring. Jenkins also noted that Rowland was planning to retire in a few months and "could be useful as we move forward with ongoing glyphosate defense."4 And it gets even worse. According to The New York Times:5

“Court records show that Monsanto was tipped off to the determination by a deputy division director at the E.P.A., Jess Rowland, months beforehand. That led the company to prepare a public relations assault on the finding well in advance of its publication.”

The court records also show that in making the decision that glyphosate does not cause cancer, the EPA used two studies that had been ghostwritten by Monsanto’s toxicology manager but were published using names of academic researchers.6 Timothy Litzenburg's law firm represents more than 500 people with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma who are suing Monsanto. He told CNN he expects the number of lawsuits to keep rising:7

"It would not surprise me in the least if there are 2,000 to 3,000 cases by the end of the year … This is the most-used herbicide in the world ... from the largest farm operations to backyard gardens. It's ubiquitous."

Thirty-Year Glyphosate Cancer Cover-Up Revealed

Monsanto has used the EPA’s supposedly-not-final report in court hearings to suggest glyphosate is safe, but the plaintiffs’ attorneys asked for documents detailing Monsanto’s interactions with Rowland to be released. In March 2017, a judge unsealed the documents, which revealed disturbing information.

According to Sustainable Pulse, Monsanto was able to persuade the EPA to change the classification of glyphosate from a Class C Carcinogen (suggestive carcinogenic potential) to Class E, which means there is evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans.8 The change occurred while Monsanto was creating Roundup Ready genetically engineered (GE) crops.

The news outlet also uncovered 1991 EPA documents detailing a Monsanto-funded study that found it may cause cancer. They reported, “[The study] was ‘reviewed’ again until it mysteriously showed no carcinogenic potential.” What’s more, the late Dr. George Levinskas, Monsanto’s former director of environmental assessment and toxicology, was reported involved in covering up the cancer risks of both PCBs in the ‘70s and, later, glyphosate in the ‘80s:9

“He wrote an internal company letter in 1985 stating the following: ‘Senior management at the EPA is reviewing a proposal to classify glyphosate as a class C ‘possible human carcinogen’ because of kidney adenomas in male mice. Dr. Marvin Kuschner will review kidney sections and present his evaluation of them to the EPA in an effort to persuade the agency that the observed tumors are not related to glyphosate.’”

California Labels Glyphosate as a Chemical Known to Cause Cancer

Meanwhile, while the federal EPA is allowing glyphosate usage to continue unchecked, California's Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced in 2015 that they intended to list glyphosate as a chemical known to cause cancer under Proposition 65, which requires consumer products with potential cancer-causing ingredients to bear warning labels.

Monsanto then filed formal comments with OEHHA saying the plan to list glyphosate as a carcinogen should be withdrawn. When they didn’t give in, Monsanto took it a step further and filed a lawsuit against OEHHA in January 2016 to stop the glyphosate/cancer classification. OEHHA filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and a Fresno, California superior court judge ruled on their behalf in February 2017.

This means new labels will be appearing in California that include a cancer warning on Roundup and other glyphosate-containing weed killers, including Ortho Groundclear, KleenUp, Aquamaster, Sharpshooter, StartUp,Touchdown, Total Traxion, Vector and Vantage Plus Max II and others. Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity and a former cancer researcher, told the Press Banner:

“When it comes to Roundup, California has become a national leader in flagging the very real danger posed by this vastly over-used pesticide … The state based its decision on the findings of the world’s most reliable, transparent and science-based assessment of glyphosate.”10

Scotts Pushes Cancer Chemical

Many people believe Scotts Miracle-Gro is owned by Monsanto. This isn’t true, but the two companies do have a close link. Scotts is the exclusive marketer of Roundup and generates about $154 million in total sales from the herbicide.11 With Monsanto’s reputation quickly tanking, however, The Motley Fool pointed out, “it's clear the Scotts Miracle-Gro name is getting besmirched by its association, and that … is tough to put a price tag on.”

While Monsanto brought in more than $3.5 billion from herbicide (primarily Roundup) sales in 2016, this pales in comparison to the $10 billion generated by Monsanto’s seed and genomics sector. Monsanto profits not only off the sales of Roundup but also, and more so, off the sale of the GE Roundup Ready seeds to go with it.

Scotts, on the other hand, enjoys no such double-dipping, but still paid Monsanto $300 million in 2015 to gain the rights to sell Roundup in China, Latin America and other markets.12 Another blow to their joint reputation occurred in 2003 when, with the permission of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Monsanto and Scotts performed a field trial of experimental GE grass which, like Roundup Ready crops, is impervious to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.

The grass, a type of GE creeping bentgrass that was being designed specifically for use on golf courses, turned out to be extremely hardy, so much so that the test plot was shut down and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns that the grass could negatively affect endangered species in Oregon. But by then it was too late.

The grass had already spread beyond the test plot, including into a nearby national grassland preserve. More than a decade later, the invasive GE grass is still a problem in Oregon. This certainly didn’t help Scotts’ reputation, and some, including The Motley Fool, have suggested the company should simply stop selling Roundup:13

“It's hard to quantify exactly how many sales Scotts Miracle-Gro foregoes because of this partnership, and it is possible Roundup sales actually outweigh those lost, but there is still harm to the brand reputation, which seems like a preventable forced error. It might be one the lawn-care specialist would be better off not committing simply by not having Roundup in its portfolio.”

Roundup May Be Killing Butterflies

Numbers of Monarch butterflies have decreased by 90 percent since 1996. As usage of glyphosate has skyrocketed, milkweed, which is the only plant on which the adult monarch will lay its eggs, has plummeted.

In 2013, it was estimated that just 1 percent of the common milkweed present in 1999 remained in corn and soybean fields and, tragically, while milkweed is not harmed by many herbicides, it is easily killed by glyphosate.14 A 2017 study published in the journal Ecography further noted a strong connection between large-scale Monarch deaths and glyphosate application.15,16 Sarah Saunders, Michigan State University integrative biologist and lead study author said in a press release:17

“Our study provides the first empirical evidence of a negative association between glyphosate application and local abundance of adult monarch butterflies during 1994 [to] 2003, the initial phase of large-scale herbicide adoption in the Midwest."

2,4-D Is Another Toxic Agricultural Chemical

2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) is one of the ingredients in Agent Orange, which was used to defoliate battle fields in the jungles of Vietnam, with horrendous consequences to the health of those exposed.

It’s also a common ingredient in “weed and feed” lawn care products, because it kills weeds without harming grass, fruits or vegetables, the latter of which makes it very popular among farmers. It’s also very popular among backyard gardeners, however, and this population may spread it on even heavier than farmers do on their crops. As reported by KCET news:18

“In several studies, 2,4-D was the most common herbicide found in suburban areas, and other studies have detected the herbicide in two-thirds of interior air samples taken from households. The herbicide breaks down in around a month in rich, moist soils but can linger indefinitely in other settings, for instance as a constituent of household dust.

An Ohio study found 2,4-D in 98 percent of the homes tested, though just one of the homeowners reported having used the herbicide in recent weeks.”

This is concerning because, like glyphosate, IARC ruled 2,4-D a possible human carcinogen in 2015, and there is concern it may increase the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and soft-tissue cancer known as sarcoma. Further, it’s an endocrine-disrupting chemical that may negatively affect thyroid hormones and brain development.

It may also be associated with birth defects, reduced fertility and neurological problems. Despite this, in 2014 the EPA approved the use of Enlist Duo — an herbicide manufactured by Dow Chemical that combines 2,4-D with Roundup, to be used on corn and soybeans genetically engineered to tolerate both 2,4-D and glyphosate.

“The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that by 2020, the use of 2,4-D on America's farms could rise between 100 percent and 600 percent now that it has been approved as part of Enlist Duo,” the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) stated, continuing:19

“According to [NRDC staff scientist Kristi] Pullen, ‘When you combine increased use with the potential for increased developmental, cancer, and other health impacts, you could create a perfect storm of hazard and exposure coming together.’”

Test Your Personal Glyphosate Levels

If you’d like to know your personal glyphosate levels, you can now find out, while also participating in a worldwide study on environmental glyphosate exposures. The Health Research Institute (HRI) in Iowa developed the glyphosate urine test kit, which will allow you to determine your own exposure to this toxic herbicide.

Ordering this kit automatically allows you to participate in the study and help HRI better understand the extent of glyphosate exposure and contamination. In a few weeks, you will receive your results, along with information on how your results compare with others and what to do to help reduce your exposure. We are providing these kits to you at no profit in order for you to participate in this environmental study.

In the meantime, eating organic as much as possible and investing in a good water filtration system for your home are among the best ways to lower your exposure to glyphosate and other pesticides.

In the case of glyphosate, it’s also wise to avoid crops like wheat and oats, which may be sprayed with glyphosate for drying purposes prior to harvest. As for the collusion between Monsanto and EPA, the lack of independence among regulators and promoters and distributors of health information has become of tremendous concern.

Due to a dramatic rise in scientific fraud and rampant conflict of interest, it's more important than ever to be able to gain access to the full set of data on research studies and identify potential conflicts of interest, as well as seek opinions from experts you know and trust, before making or taking a health recommendation.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/05/30/roundup-causes-cancer.aspx

Deadlier Than You've Been Told, Test Your Levels Before It's Too Late

While many continue to believe it's relatively benign, the latest studies are truly frightening - which is a serious concern when you consider lab tests have detected it in urine and breastmilk. Please don't ignore, test your personal levels today.

Poisoned Field: Glyphosate, the Underrated Risk?
December 24, 2016

Story at-a-glance

• The documentary “Poisoned Fields: Glyphosate, the Underrated Risk?” chronicles the risks of glyphosate to human health and the environment
• Researchers found severely restricted, damaged root growth among plants growing in fields treated with glyphosate for more than a decade
• Farmers also noted correlations between glyphosate in animal feed and rates of miscarriage, deformities in piglets and infertility among farm animals

---

By Dr. Mercola

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup, is an herbicide like no other, as more tons of it have been sprayed worldwide than any other herbicide before it.

Writing in Environmental Sciences Europe, scientists noted that in the U.S. and likely globally, "no pesticide has come remotely close to such intensive and widespread use."1

"Glyphosate will likely remain the most widely applied pesticide worldwide for years to come," they continued earlier this year, which is alarming as its environmental and public health risks become increasingly apparent.

Glyphosate is used in large quantities on genetically engineered (GE) glyphosate-tolerant crops (i.e., Roundup Ready varieties). Its use actually increased nearly 15-fold since such GE crops were introduced in 1996.2 Glyphosate is also a popular tool for desiccating (or accelerating the drying out) of crops like wheat and oats.

Unbeknownst to many, glyphosate is sprayed onto many crops shortly before harvest, which is why residues have been found in GE and non-GE foods alike. In the documentary above, "Poisoned Fields: Glyphosate, the Underrated Risk?" you can hear why this is so concerning.

While many farmers continue to believe the chemical is relatively benign and using it is safe for their crops and the environment, both the crop fields and the public are being poisoned as a result.

Glyphosate Damages Plant Root Systems, Soil

After farm fields are treated with glyphosate for years, you can see the physical damage that glyphosate causes. After two years, the fields are still green but after 11 years, the video shows drone footage of brown, burned out fields that the farmers reported as mysterious damage.

The fine roots of plants are responsible for taking in nutrients from the soil, but if they're damaged the plant cannot do so efficiently. Not surprisingly, researchers found severely restricted root growth, with far fewer fine roots, among plants growing in the fields treated with glyphosate for more than a decade.

Gunter Neumann, Ph.D., nutritional crop physiologist with the University of Hohenheim in Germany, explained:

"We conducted a state-financed residue analysis for glyphosate and other pesticides. For glyphosate, the data consistently showed that the levels of residue that were present [six] months after the application were as high as one would expect directly after the spring.

Two meters [6.56 feet] over, where the fields were treated for a shorter time, all levels were below the detection limits."

The damage happened slowly, and as such wouldn't have been noticed if the glyphosate-treated fields weren't in such close proximity. Farmers increased fertilizer applications on the damaged fields in the hopes of saving the crops, but it didn't help.

One farmer, who was forced to speak anonymously for fear of retaliation for speaking negatively about glyphosate, found plant viruses increased when he sprayed the chemical.

"On some fields it caused a total yield loss," he said. This was only observed in the areas treated with glyphosate for long periods (longer than two or three years). Neumann noted that advances in molecular biological methods have allowed researchers to detect other types of damage on the crops, including:

• Hormonal disturbances
• Negative effects on physiological processes, including a downregulated stress response
• Genes involved in water intake became less active

Glyphosate is said to work by inhibiting only a single enzyme to kill unwanted plants, but Neumann proved that glyphosate also changes plant genes involved in root growth, water intake and stress resistance.

Glyphosate in Feed Sickens Farm Animals

The documentary also highlights the harm glyphosate exerts on farm animals consuming glyphosate-treated feed. One German pig farmer noticed pigs giving birth to fewer piglets and an increase in stillborn and deformed piglets, which he said increase with the level of glyphosate in the feed.

With glyphosate at levels of 1.30 parts per million (ppm) in the feed, 1 out of 529 piglets were born deformed. At 2.26 ppm, 1 out of 240 piglets were born deformed, a linear increase. Higher doses of glyphosate in the feed were clearly associated with a higher number of deformities in the piglets.

When he switched to glyphosate-free feed, the problems declined. To be sure this wasn't a coincidence, he then switched the pigs back to the glyphosate-treated feed. He noticed the pigs seemed to eat less of the feed and had more diarrhea, which required him to use more antibiotics.

This is a side effect known before, as glyphosate may disrupt the balance of gut microbes in mammals (including humans). Anthony Samsel, Ph.D., research scientist and environmental consultant, and Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), explained:

"One likely effect of chronic low-dose oral exposure to glyphosate is a disruption of the balance among gut microbes towards an over-representation of pathogens. This leads to a chronic inflammatory state in the gut, as well as an impaired gut barrier and many other sequelae."

Does Glyphosate Cause Fertility Problems?

The documentary also includes a family dairy farmer in Germany who noticed his cows developed fertility problems after he began supplementing their diets with a concentrated feed that contained glyphosate residues.

It was impossible to purchase a concentrated feed that did not contain residues, and no manufacturer would guarantee the feed would be glyphosate-free.

He then switched to a locally produced feed and experienced dramatic results. Reproduction rates doubled from 30 percent to 60 percent when glyphosate was no longer part of the feed. Disturbingly, it's also been found that glyphosate may affect fertility in humans.

In 2014, a report from the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS) highlighted what appears to be the perfect storm for an "infertility time-bomb," courtesy of glyphosate.3Average sperm counts have dropped by nearly half in the last 50 years, even among men without fertility problems.

Further, ISIS noted, 20 percent of young European men have sperm counts below the World Health Organization (WHO) reference level of 20 m/ml, and 40 percent have levels below 40 m/ml, which is associated with prolonging the time to pregnancy. Meanwhile, rates of conditions that impact semen quality and fertility are also on the rise.

There are, of course, many potential explanations for these conditions, but, as ISIS noted, it has been proposed that an environmental toxicant, especially an endocrine-disrupting chemical such as glyphosate, may be involved.

In December 2013, meanwhile, a study revealed that Roundup exposure induced cell death in Sertoli cells in prepubertal rat testis.4 Sertoli cells are required for male sexual development, including maintaining the health of sperm cells. The exposure was a low dose (36 ppm), which is well within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) food safety levels.

Glyphosate Led to Tumors in Rats

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. Previous research on animals, including rats, has led to similar findings.

In 2012, the first-ever lifetime feeding study evaluating the health risks of glyphosate and GE foods found that rats fed a type of GE corn that is prevalent in the U.S. food supply for two years developed massive mammary tumors, kidney and liver damage, and other serious health problems. According to the authors:5

"The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11 [percent] in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1ppb in water), were studied [two] years in rats. In females, all treated groups died [two to three] times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in [three] male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone- and sex-dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable.

Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments.

In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5 [to] 5.5 times higher ... Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3 [to] 2.3 greater. Males presented [four] times more large palpable tumors than controls, which occurred up to 600 days earlier."

The findings were a nail in the coffin for the pesticide/biotech industry, but then the journal began to receive Letters to the Editor alleging fraud and calling upon the editors to retract the paper.

After what the journal described as a "thorough and time-consuming analysis" of the study, they said they found "no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data." All they could find "wrong" with the research was that it used a low number of animals, but they, quite outrageously, retracted this important paper nonetheless. Even the retraction statement admits that the results presented are "not incorrect" but rather may be "inconclusive."

How Glyphosate Is Destroying the Soil

Numerous studies have also shown that glyphosate is contributing not only to the huge increase in Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS), a serious plant disease, but also to an outbreak of some 40 different plant and crop diseases. It weakens plants, destroys soil and promotes disease in a number of ways, including:

• Acting as a chelator of vital nutrients, depriving plants of the nutrients necessary for healthy plant function
• Destroying beneficial soil organisms that suppress disease-causing organisms and help plants absorb nutrients
• Interfering with photosynthesis, reducing water use efficiency, shortening root systems and causing plants to release sugars, which changes soil pH
• Stunting and weakening plant growth

The herbicide doesn't destroy plants directly; instead, it creates a unique "perfect storm" of conditions that activates disease-causing organisms in the soil, while at the same time wiping out plant defenses against those diseases.

Glyphosate Detected in Urine and Breastmilk

Laboratory testing commissioned by the organizations Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse revealed that glyphosate is now showing up virtually everywhere.

The analysis revealed glyphosate in levels of 76 μg/L to 166 μg/L in women's breast milk. As reported by The Detox Project, this is 760 to 1,600 times higher than the EU-permitted level in drinking water (although it's lower than the U.S. maximum contaminant level for glyphosate, which is 700 μg/L.).6

This dose of glyphosate in breastfed babies' every meal is only the beginning. An in vitro study designed to simulate human exposures also found that glyphosate crosses the placental barrier. In the study, 15 percent of the administered glyphosate reached the fetal compartment.7

The documentary also features the director and founder of Moms Across America, who states they found glyphosate in her son's urine around the same time as the onset of symptoms of autism.

Seneff has also pointed out correlations between increased glyphosate use over recent years and skyrocketing autism rates.She identified two key problems in autism that are unrelated to the brain yet clearly associated with the condition — both of which are linked with glyphosate exposure:

• Gut dysbiosis (imbalances in gut bacteria, inflammation, leaky gut and food allergies such as gluten intolerance)
• Disrupted sulfur metabolism / sulfur and sulfate deficiency

Interestingly, certain microbes in your body actually break down glyphosate, which is a good thing. However, a byproduct of this action is ammonia, and children with autism tend to have significantly higher levels of ammonia in their blood than the general population.

Glyphosate Far More Restricted in Europe Than in the US

European Commission leaders met in March 2016 to vote on whether to renew a 15-year license for glyphosate, which was set to expire in June. The decision was tabled amid mounting opposition, as more than 180,000 Europeans signed a petition calling for glyphosate to be banned outright. Ultimately, more than 2 million signatures were collected against relicensing the chemical.

In June, however, the European Commission granted an 18-month extension to glyphosate while they continue the review. A ruling is expected by the end of 2017. In the meantime, new restrictions were announced in the interim, including a ban on a co-formulant (tallowamine), increased scrutiny of pre-harvest uses of glyphosate and efforts to minimize its use in public parks and playgrounds.

Unlike in the U.S., where glyphosate use is largely unrestricted, "seven EU states have extensive glyphosate prohibitions in place, two have restrictions and four countries have impending or potential bans," The Guardian reported.8

Test Your Personal Glyphosate Levels

If you'd like to know your personal glyphosate levels, you can now find out, while also participating in a worldwide study on environmental glyphosate exposures. The Health Research Institute (HRI) in Iowa developed the glyphosate urine test kit, which will allow you to determine your own exposure to this toxic herbicide.

Ordering this kit automatically allows you to participate in the study and help HRI better understand the extent of glyphosate exposure and contamination. In a few weeks, you will receive your results, along with information on how your results compare with others and what to do to help reduce your exposure. We are providing these kits to you at no profit in order for you to participate in this environmental study.

In the meantime, eating organic as much as possible and investing in a good water filtration system for your home are among the best ways to lower your exposure to glyphosate and other pesticides. In the case of glyphosate, it's also wise to avoid desiccated crops like wheat and oats.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/12/24/poisoned-field-glyphosate-underrated-risk.aspx