MARCH 20, 2015
LONDON, UK (AP)
Roundup (containing about 41% glyphosate), one of the
world's most popular weed-killers — and the most widely used kind in the U.S. —
has been labeled a probable carcinogen by the International Agency for Research
on Cancer.
The decision was made by IARC, the France-based cancer
research arm of the World Health Organization, which considered the status of
five insect and weed killers including glyphosate, which is used globally in
industrial farming.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which makes its
own determinations, said it would consider the French agency's evaluation.
The French agency has four levels of risks for possible
cancer-causing agents:
known carcinogens, probable or possible carcinogens, not
classifiable and probably not carcinogenic. Glyphosate now falls in the second
level of concern.
The new classification is aimed mainly at industrial use of
glyphosate. Its use by home gardeners is not considered a risk. Glyphosate is in the same category of risk as
things like anabolic steroids and shift work. The decision was published online
Thursday in the journal, Lancet Oncology.
According to the French agency, glyphosate is used in more
than 750 different herbicide products and its use has been detected in the air
during spraying, in water and in food. Experts said there was "limited
evidence" in humans that the herbicide can cause non-Hodgkins lymphoma and
there is convincing evidence that glyphosate can also cause other forms of
cancer in rats and mice. IARC's panel said glyphosate has been found in the
blood and urine of agricultural workers, showing the chemical has been absorbed
by the body.
Monsanto, which produces the glyphosate-containing
herbicide, Roundup, strongly disagreed with the decision. "All labeled
uses of glyphosate are safe for human health," said Phil Miller, a
Monsanto spokesman, in a statement.
The EPA's 2012 assessment of glyphosate concluded that it
met the statutory safety standards and that the chemical could "continue
to be used without unreasonable risks to people or the environment."
The French agency's experts said the cancer risks of the
weed killer were mostly from occupational exposure, i.e., the workers that use these chemicals are the ones who get the higher dose into their bodies and the most likely to get sick.
"I don't think home use is the issue," said Kate
Guyton of IARC. "It's agricultural use that will have the biggest impact.
For the moment, it's just something for people to be conscious of."
The determination is sure to alarm the agro-chemical industry
and particularly Monsanto, the agribusiness giant that is the leading producer
of glyphosate.
Worldwide annual sales of the chemical are estimated at $6
billion annually. The company put out its own statement Friday: "All
labeled uses of glyphosate are safe for human health," said Monsanto's
Phil Miller, global head of regulatory and government affairs.
“We don’t know how IARC could reach a conclusion that is
such a dramatic departure from the conclusion reached by all regulatory
agencies around the globe,” said Miller. Monsanto requested an urgent meeting
with the World Health Organization to clarify the scientific basis of the
ruling.
A summary of the agency's findings were published in the
British journal Lancet Oncology on Friday.
Basically, whatever chemical humans have produced or any
naturally-occurring compound that has been concentrated by humans could be dangerous
to your health. The key to remember is
the dose of a certain chemical is what makes it benign or dangerous: low dose most likely has no adverse effect;
higher dose may have adverse effects. As was indicated above, the workers who use the chemicals on a regular basis are the ones who receive the higher dosage and, therefore, are the ones who have a higher probability of getting sick.
//------------------------------------------------------//
Roundup and Glyphosate Toxicity Have Been Grossly
Underestimated
July 30, 2013
By Dr. Mercola
The true toxicity of glyphosate—the active ingredient in
Monsanto’s broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup—is becoming increasingly clear as
study after study is published demonstrating its devastating effects. In June,
groundbreaking research was published detailing a newfound mechanism
of harm for Roundup.
This was immediately followed by tests showing that people
in 18 countries across Europe have glyphosate in their bodies,1 while yet another study revealed that the
chemical has estrogenic properties and drives breast cancer proliferation in
the parts-per-trillion range.2
This finding might help explain why rats fed Monsanto’s
maize developed massive breast tumors in the first-ever lifetime
feeding study published last year. Other recently published studies
demonstrate glyphosate’s toxicity to cell lines, aquatic life, food animals,
and humans.
Glyphosate Toxicity Underestimated, Study Concludes
One such study, published in the journal Ecotoxicology,3 found that glyphosate is toxic to water
fleas (Daphnia magna) at minuscule levels that are well within the levels
expected to be found in the environment.
According to regulators, glyphosate is thought to be
practically nontoxic to aquatic invertebrates. The water flea is a widely
accepted model for environmental toxicity, so this study throws serious doubt
on glyphosate’s classification as environmentally safe. According to the study:
“To test the acute effects of both glyphosate and a
commercial formulation of Roundup (hereafter Roundup), we conducted a series of
exposure experiments with different clones and age-classes of D. magna....
Roundup showed slightly lower acute toxicity than glyphosate IPA alone...
However, in chronic toxicity tests spanning the whole life-cycle, Roundup was
more toxic.
...Significant reduction of juvenile size was observed even
in the lowest test concentrations of 0.05 mg a.i./l, for both glyphosate and
Roundup. At 0.45 mg a.i./l, growth, fecundity and abortion rate was affected,
but only in animals exposed to Roundup.
At 1.35 and 4.05 mg a.i./l of both glyphosate and Roundup,
significant negative effects were seen on most tested parameters, including
mortality. D. magna was adversely affected by a near 100% abortion rate of eggs
and embryonic stages at 1.35 mg a.i./l of Roundup.
The results indicate that aquatic invertebrate ecology can
be adversely affected by relevant ambient concentrations of this major
herbicide. We conclude that glyphosate and Roundup toxicity to aquatic
invertebrates have been underestimated and that current European Commission and
US EPA toxicity classification of these chemicals need to be revised.”
Herbicide Formulations Far More Toxic Than Glyphosate Alone
An article published on Greenmedinfo.com4 last year reviewed several interesting
studies relating to the profound toxicity of Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup:
“Back in Feb. of 2012, the journal Archives of Toxicology5 published a shocking study showing that
Roundup is toxic to human DNA even when diluted to concentrations 450-fold
lower than used in agricultural applications.
This effect could not have been anticipated from the known
toxicological effects of glyphosate alone. The likely explanation is that the surfactant
polyoxyethyleneamine within Roundup dramatically enhances the absorption of
glyphosate into exposed human cells and tissue,” Sayer Ji writes.
“If this is true, it speaks to a fundamental problem
associated with toxicological risk assessments of agrichemicals (and novel
manmade chemicals in general), namely, these assessments do not take into
account the reality of synergistic toxicologies, i.e. the amplification of harm
associated with multiple chemical exposures occurring simultaneously.”
'Inert' Ingredients Does NOT Mean They Are Inactive...
Similarly, another study published that year in the journal Toxicology6, 7 revealed that inert ingredients such as
solvents, preservatives, surfactants and other added substances are anything but
“inactive.” They in fact contribute to toxicity in a synergistic manner, and
ethoxylated adjuvants in glyphosate-based herbicides were found to be
"active principles of human cell toxicity."
(On a side note, an “ethoxylated” compound is a chemical
that has been produced using the carcinogen ethylene oxide.8 The ethoxylation process also produces
the carcinogenic byproduct 1,4-dioxane.
It’s also worth noting here that the term “inert ingredient” does NOT actually
mean that it is biologically or toxicologically harmless! When you see “inert”
or “inactive ingredients” listed on the label of a pesticide or herbicide, it
only means that those ingredients will not harm pests or weeds. This is how
federal law classifies “inert” pesticide ingredients.)9
The study found that liver, embryonic and placental cell
lines exposed to various herbicide formulations for 24 hours at doses as low as
1 part per million (ppm), had adverse effects.10 According to the authors:11
“Here we demonstrate that all formulations are more toxic
than glyphosate, and we separated experimentally three groups of formulations
differentially toxic according to their concentrations in ethoxylated
adjuvants. Among them, POE-15 clearly appears to be the most toxic principle
against human cells, even if others are not excluded. It begins to be active
with negative dose-dependent effects on cellular respiration and membrane
integrity between 1 and 3ppm, at environmental/occupational doses. We
demonstrate in addition that POE-15 induces necrosis when its first
micellization process occurs, by contrast to glyphosate which is known to
promote endocrine disrupting effects after entering cells.
Altogether, these results challenge the establishment of
guidance values such as the acceptable daily intake of glyphosate, when these
are mostly based on a long term in vivo test of glyphosate alone. Since
pesticides are always used with adjuvants that could change their toxicity, the
necessity to assess their whole formulations as mixtures becomes obvious. This
challenges the concept of active principle of pesticides for non-target species.”
[Emphasis mine]
Perhaps most disturbing of all, the researchers claim that
cell damage and even cell death can occur at the residual levels found on
Roundup-treated crops, as well as lawns and gardens where Roundup is applied
for weed control. They also suspect that:12
“Roundup might cause pregnancy problems by interfering with
hormone production, possibly leading to abnormal fetal development, low birth
weights or miscarriages.”
Birth Malformation Skyrocketing in Agricultural Centers of
Argentina
Indeed, miscarriages, fertility problems and abnormal fetal
development are all problems that are skyrocketing in Argentina,
where many are exposed to massive spraying of herbicides. More than 18 million
hectares in Argentina are covered by genetically engineered soy, on which more
than 300 million liters of pesticides are sprayed. In the village of Malvinas
Argentinas, which is surrounded by soy plantations, the rate of miscarriage is
100 times the national average, courtesy of glyphosate.
According to Dr. Medardo Vasquez, a neonatal specialist at
the Children’s Hospital in Cordoba, featured in the documentary film People
and Power — Argentina: The Bad Seeds:
“I see new-born infants, many of whom are malformed. I have
to tell parents that their children are dying because of these agricultural
methods. In some areas in Argentina the primary cause of death for children
less than one year old is malformations.”
But even if you don’t live in an agricultural area where you
might be exposed to Roundup directly, you’re still getting it through your diet
if you’re eating non-organic foods. A report given to MomsAcrossAmerica13 by an employee of De Dell Seed Company
(Canada's only non-GM corn seed company) shows that GM corn contains as much as
13 ppm of glyphosate, compared to zero in non-GM corn.
The EPA standard for glyphosate in American water supplies
is 0.7 ppm. In Europe, the maximum allowable level in water is 0.2 ppm. Organ
damage in animals has occurred at levels as low as 0.1 ppm, and in the study on
cell lines discussed above, liver, embryonic and placental cell lines were
adversely affected at doses as low as 1 ppm. The fact that genetically modified
corn can contain as much as 13 ppm of glyphosate has staggering implications
for Americans who eat an average of 193 pounds of genetically engineered foods
each year!14
Glyphosate Predisposes Cattle to Botulism
A German study15 published earlier this year looked at
glyphosate’s role in the rise of toxic botulism in cattle. This used to be
extremely rare, but the incidence has become increasingly common over the past
10-15 years. Normal intestinal microflora is essential for keeping Clostridium
botulinum and other pathogens in check, and researchers are now finding that
the beneficial gut bacteria in both animals and humans is very sensitive to
residual glyphosate levels. This has been discussed previously by both Dr.
Don Huber and Dr.
Stephanie Seneff.
In this study, the researchers explain that certain
intestinal bacteria produce bacteriocines that are specifically directed
against C. botulinum, as well as other dangerous pathogens. According to the
authors, lactic acid producing bacteria that help defend against Clostridium
pathogens are destroyed by glyphosate, suggesting that the rise in C. botulinum
associated diseases may be due to glyphosate-tainted animal feed.
The Overlooked Component of Toxicity in Humans
As for its effects on humans, the Samsel - Seneff study
published in June suggests that glyphosate may actually be the most important
factor in the development of a wide variety of chronic diseases, specifically
because your gut bacteria are a key component of glyphosate’s mechanism of
harm. Monsanto has steadfastly claimed that Roundup is harmless to animals and
humans because the mechanism of action it uses (which allows it to kill weeds),
called the shikimate pathway, is absent in all animals. However, the shikimate
pathway IS present in bacteria, and that’s the key to understanding how it
causes such widespread systemic harm in both humans and animals.
The bacteria in your body outnumber your cells by 10 to 1.
For every cell in your body, you have 10 microbes of various kinds, and all of
them have the shikimate pathway, so they will all respond to the presence of
glyphosate!
Glyphosate causes extreme disruption of the microbe’s
function and lifecycle. What’s worse, glyphosate preferentially affects beneficial
bacteria, allowing pathogens to overgrow and take over. At that point, your
body also has to contend with the toxins produced by the pathogens. Once the
chronic inflammation sets in, you’re well on your way toward chronic and
potentially debilitating disease...
The answer, of course, is to avoid processed foods of all
kinds, as they’re virtually guaranteed to contain genetically engineered
ingredients, and center your diet around whole, organic foods as toxic
pesticides are not permitted in organic farming. Supporting GMO labeling is also important if you value
your health, and that of your family and friends, in order to be able to make
informed shopping decisions.
Help Support GMO Labeling
The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—Monsanto’s Evil
Twin—is pulling out all the stops to keep you in the dark about what’s in your
food. For nearly two decades, Monsanto and corporate agribusiness have exercised
near-dictatorial control over American agriculture.
Finally public opinion around the biotech industry's
contamination of our food supply and destruction of our environment has reached
the tipping point. We're fighting back.
The insanity has gone far enough, which is why I encourage
you to boycott every single product owned by members of the GMA, including
natural and organic brands. More than 80 percent of our support comes from
individual consumers like you, who understand that real change comes from the
grassroots.
Thankfully, we have organizations like the Organic Consumers
Association (OCA) to fight back against these corporate giants. So please,
fight for your right to know what’s in your food and help support the GMO
labeling movement by making a donation today.
Together, Let's Help OCA Get The Funding They Deserve
Let’s Help OCA get the funding it deserves. I have found
very few organizations who are as effective and efficient as OCA. It’s a public
interest organization dedicated to promoting health justice and sustainability.
A central focus of the OCA is building a healthy, equitable, and sustainable
system of food production and consumption.
Please make a donation to help OCA fight for GMO labeling.
