Category Archives: Glyphosate

Glyphosate and Roundup: All Roads Lead to Cancer – New Study

From GM Watch via Sustainable Pulse

(Note: article is from Feb 2022)

New findings add to other observations linking glyphosate and Roundup to cancer. Report: Claire Robinson

Glyphosate and Roundup lead to changes in gene regulatory microRNAs (miRNAs or miRs) linked with cancer, newly published data show. The analysis, of a type known as small RNA profiling, was conducted in liver tissue from rats exposed to glyphosate and Roundup MON 52276, an EU-approved formulation, over 90 days.

In the new results, Roundup MON 52276 was found to reduce the levels of miR-22 and miR-17, whereas glyphosate decreased the level of miR-30 and increased the amount of miR-10. These changes in miRNAs are important because they are known to alter the expression of crucial cell growth regulator genes, which can lead to the development of cancer.

A gene function that is central to multiple cellular processes, p53, is a particular target of these miRNAs. The miRNA changes can lead to alterations in p53 gene expression, as has been found in multiple types of cancer in humans.

The link between the changes in miRNAs and p53 gene expression is consistent with the findings within the same study showing gene expression changes in Roundup- and glyphosate-exposed rats. The gene expression changes strongly imply a p53 pathway DNA damage response. DNA damage is a major risk factor for cancer development.

Furthermore, increases in miR-10 have been found in other studies to be associated with leukemia, a blood cancer. The increase in mir-10 caused by glyphosate exposure in the experimental animals may provide one mechanism by which users of Roundup have succumbed to another blood cancer, known as non-Hodgkin lymphoma. These results could strengthen the legal cases of the cancer sufferers in the US who are suing Bayer/Monsanto because they believe that exposure to Roundup caused their disease. Three such cases have already been decided in favour of the plaintiffs.

Study lead Dr Michael Antoniou of King’s College London said, “The new data showing changes in miRNA patterns add yet more evidence to the cancer-causing potential of glyphosate and Roundup. What is more, our results show that it is not just Roundup, which is a mixture of glyphosate with various additives, that has carcinogenic potential, but also glyphosate alone.”

Previously reported findings

The new data confirm and build on previously reported findings that were published as a pre-print in April 2021, which GMWatch reported on. The study with the additional findings has now passed peer review and is published in the prestigious journal, Toxicological Sciences.

The pre-print version of the study had reported that glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup activate mechanisms involved in cancer development, including DNA damage – and these effects occur at doses assumed by regulators to have no adverse effects. The data suggest that the DNA damage was caused by oxidative stress, a destructive imbalance in the body that can cause a long list of diseases. Oxidative stress is the likely cause of the damage seen to the liver, leading to an inflammatory (immune type) response, which in turn can cause DNA damage.

Crucially, the study found that the isolated active ingredient of Roundup – glyphosate – damaged DNA. This finding, according to the EU’s pesticide law, should result in a ban on glyphosate and all its formulations.

All these findings are carried over into the peer-reviewed version of the study.

How the study was done

The study builds on the findings of a previous one by the same authors. In the previous study, the researchers had compared the effects in rats of MON 52276 with those of its “active ingredient”, glyphosate, tested alone. The findings showed that glyphosate and Roundup herbicide, given at doses that regulators say are safe, resulted in the animals suffering gut microbiome disturbances and oxidative stress, with indications that the liver was affected and possibly damaged.

In the current followup study, the researchers analysed the liver tissue from the same rats to see if damage had indeed occurred.  

The researchers carried out some of the standard tests that regulators require the pesticide industry to conduct to gain market authorisation for their products – namely blood biochemistry and kidney and liver histopathology (microscopic examination of tissue).

They also carried out in-depth tests (molecular profiling) that are not demanded by regulators or typically carried out by the industry. One type of test looked for adverse effects at a profound molecular level of biological functioning through analysis of gene expression (transcriptomics) and epigenetics (DNA methylation) in the liver and kidneys. Another type of test, using specialised genetically engineered cell lines, was intended to highlight changes in function linked with cancer formation.

In addition, the researchers carried out tests that can detect direct damage to DNA.

Roundup causes fatty liver disease – confirmed

The standard tests, histopathology and blood biochemistry analysis, found adverse effects from the Roundup treatment, namely a dose-dependent and statistically significant increase in fatty liver disease and liver cell death.

The finding of fatty liver disease from exposure to the MON 52276 formulation of Roundup confirmed the same researchers’ previous observation that an ultra-low dose of another Roundup formulation, Roundup Grand Travaux Plus, administered to the same strain of Sprague-Dawley rats over a 2-year period, caused non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

An increase in liver and kidney lesions was also detected in animals treated with glyphosate, although this did not reach statistical significance. However, the authors commented that an experiment of longer duration using more animals may have resulted in statistical significance.

Non-standard tests most revealing

Worryingly for public health, it was the non-standard molecular profiling tests that are not required by pesticide regulators that were most revealing.

First, Roundup was found to alter the expression of 96 genes in the liver specifically linked to DNA damage and oxidative stress, as well as disruption of circadian rhythms or “body clocks”. The most affected genes in liver also had their expression similarly altered in kidneys. Crucially, a core set of genes whose expression was altered by Roundup was similarly changed in the glyphosate-treated animals. This strongly suggests that the key changes in gene function reflective of oxidative stress and DNA damage was due to glyphosate and not the additional substances (adjuvants) present in the Roundup formulation.

Second, direct DNA damage to the liver was found to increase with glyphosate exposure.

These findings potentially constitute a bombshell that could end the authorisation of glyphosate in the EU. That’s because the EU pesticide regulation (1107/2009) has what’s known as hazard-based cut-off criteria. This means that if a pesticide active ingredient is shown to cause a certain type of harm to health at whatever dose, it must be banned. One of the named types of harm is damage to DNA. The discovery that glyphosate alone damages DNA in a living animal should, if regulators follow the law, result in a ban on the chemical.

Third, both glyphosate and Roundup were found to cause epigenetic changes known as DNA methylation. Epigenetics describes layers of molecular structures associated with DNA that control the underlying function of genes. The defining feature of epigenetic changes is that they can alter how genes work but do not involve changes to the actual DNA sequence. These types of changes were found at over 5,000 genomic sites for glyphosate and over 4,000 for Roundup. This is a concern because such alterations are typically found at high frequency in cancer tissues.

All findings lead to same conclusion

The researchers performed further laboratory tests in mouse cell lines, which are designed to highlight effects that can lead to cancer formation. Glyphosate and three Roundup formulations were assessed in these tester cell lines. It was found that two formulations of Roundup herbicide, but not glyphosate, activated oxidative stress and misfolded protein responses, both clear markers of carcinogenicity.

Commenting on the totality of the data, Dr Antoniou said, “No matter what molecular measurements we undertook, they all led to the same conclusion: that is, both glyphosate and Roundup are potential carcinogens.”

Other studies, including the industry ones submitted to support regulatory approval of glyphosate, have also found that glyphosate causes cancer in experimental animals. Based on studies in animals and humans, as well as mechanistic data, in 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.

Other implications of the new study

1. Ending animal testing is not yet feasible

Interestingly, in the new study, glyphosate was shown to damage DNA in living animals but not in the cell culture system. This shows that in vitro lab tests using isolated cells  cannot fully substitute for evaluations in a living animal because certain effects will be missed. This is because animals (including humans) are whole organisms whose complexity cannot be replicated in a flask, petri dish, or test tube. While many people (GMWatch included) would like to see an end to animal testing, as long as pesticides and other chemicals are allowed to be released into the environment, such a move would put public health at risk.

2. Roundup is more toxic than glyphosate

In summary, in general Roundup was found to be more toxic than glyphosate, confirming and building on previous observations. However, taken together, the results from the various assays conducted show that both glyphosate and Roundup herbicides activate mechanisms involved in cancer development, causing gene expression changes reflecting oxidative stress and DNA damage. Also, glyphosate alone was clearly able to induce DNA damage.

These findings directly challenge the global regulatory practice of only assessing the isolated declared active ingredient (glyphosate) and not the complete commercial formulations (Roundup) as sold and used.

The study further highlights the power of in-depth molecular profiling “omics” methods to detect changes that are missed by relying solely on conventional biochemical and histopathological measurements conducted in standardised industry tests on pesticide active ingredients. The study paves the way for future investigations by identifying gene expression changes and altered DNA methylation sites, which can serve as biomarkers and potential predictors of negative health outcomes resulting from exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides.

3. Results could allow survey of human population for glyphosate herbicide exposure

Commenting on the implications of the results for human exposure monitoring, study lead Dr Michael Antoniou said, “The biomarkers we identified (such as the miRNA and gene expression changes) can be tested for in people, but we don’t know if this particular pattern of biomarkers is unique to glyphosate-based herbicide exposure. Thus the biomarkers would need to be correlated with a history of exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and measurements of glyphosate in urine.

“If high levels of glyphosate were found in the urine, and this correlated with the biomarkers identified in the new study and the person’s history of glyphosate herbicide exposure, this would indicate that exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides might be responsible for any health effects that are both indicated by our findings and found in the person. These findings should be tested first by investigations of herbicide applicators, as their exposure can be high and details of the particular herbicides used are often recorded, which would enable clearer results to be obtained.”

4. “Safe” and “no effect” doses were shown to be harmful

In the 90-day rat feeding study, different groups of animals were fed three different doses of glyphosate and the glyphosate-equivalent dose of Roundup MON 52276. The lowest dose was the concentration that regulators assume to be safe to ingest on a daily basis over a lifetime (the EU acceptable daily intake or ADI: 0.5 mg per kg of bodyweight per day). The middle dose was the dose that EU regulators concluded had no observable adverse effect (the “no observable adverse effect” level or NOAEL) in industry-sponsored rat feeding studies (50 mg per kg of bodyweight per day). The highest dose was 175 mg, the dose that US regulators concluded had no observable adverse effect.

Adverse effects were found from Roundup exposure at all dose levels in a dose-dependent fashion. These findings show that the glyphosate ADI for the EU – and that of the USA, which is even higher – is not safe to ingest. Likewise, it shows that the EU and US regulators were only able to conclude that glyphosate had “no observable adverse effect” at the levels mentioned above because the tests that they require industry to carry out are insufficiently sensitive.

Study supports plaintiffs in Roundup-cancer litigation

Summarising the implications of the study for the Roundup-cancer litigation in the US, Dr Antoniou said, “Our results are the first to simultaneously show glyphosate and Roundup toxicity in a whole mammalian animal model system and provide a mechanism – oxidative stress – by which DNA damage has been observed in other systems, such as mammalian tissue culture cells.

“These findings show that glyphosate and Roundup score positive in various tests of carcinogenicity – transcriptome/epigenome/miRNA changes, oxidative stress, protein misfolding, and DNA damage – in a living animal (rat) that is accepted as a surrogate for human health effects. In my view, this strengthens the argument that exposure to Roundup herbicides can lead to the type of cancer suffered by the plaintiffs in many of the court cases – non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”

SOURCE

https://www.gmwatch.org/en/106-news/latest-news/19980-glyphosate-and-roundup-all-roads-lead-to-cancer

FOR FURTHER ARTICLES ON THE LINK BETWEEN GLYPHOSATE & CANCER:

https://sustainablepulse.com/?s=cancer

Photo: GM Watch

Glyphosate & Roundup: Poison In Our Daily Bread – Why is it Showing up in Non-GMO & Organic Foods? (Podcast)

by Sustainable Pulse

It’s not surprising that glyphosate, the so-called active ingredient in Bayer-Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller, is found in foods made with glyphosate-tolerant GMO crops like corn, soy and canola. But why is glyphosate herbicide showing up in non-GMO and organic foods too?

In the first episode of Fork the System, GMO/Toxin Free USA staffer Nomi Carmona hosts a conversation with Henry Rowlands, founder of The Detox Project and Sustainable Pulse, about the results of the most comprehensive glyphosate testing of food products ever conducted in the United States. The Detox Project’s most recent report, The Poison in Our Daily Bread, shines a light on the true levels of cancer-causing glyphosate contamination in essential foods, like whole grain and whole wheat breads, sold by some of the top grocery stores in the country, including Whole Foods Market, Amazon, Walmart, and Target.

What more can we do to avoid carcinogenic glyphosate in our food? As consumers and as activists, what can we do to help beat back the rising glyphosate contamination of our food supply? Listen to Fork the System episode 1 to find out…

EU Commission’s Secret Policy Scenarios Show Full GMO Deregulation on the Cards

by Sustainable Pulse

The European Commission is secretly considering the full deregulation of certain types of genetically modified (GM) crops – yet it has not admitted as much publicly. Under such policy scenarios, deregulation could mean scrapping safety checks, traceability, and labelling for GMOs that are claimed to be able to arise naturally – and removing GMO labelling for GM products declared “sustainable”, GMWatch reported on Thursday.

Source: GMWatch

The Commission’s detailed policy plans for 2030-35 are revealed for the first time in a targeted survey, which we’ve published in the public interest after it was only sent to certain stakeholders. The survey is being run by consultants to the Commission. These plans are the basis for the impact assessment that will accompany the Commission’s proposal to change the GMO regulations, planned for spring 2023.

In response to the targeted survey, the Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament has written a letter to the Commission complaining that its “policy scenarios have not been made public but only released to a select group of individuals” via the survey. The letter continues, “We consider that this is not the appropriate way to ensure participants to the consultation have access to all relevant information to make an informed answer and call on you to publish this survey without delay.”

What has the Commission said publicly?

The Commission has announced a new legal framework for plants obtained by “targeted mutagenesis” (by which it seems to mean gene editing of the SDN-1 and SDN-2 types) and cisgenesis (genetic engineering in which genes are artificially transferred between organisms that could otherwise be conventionally bred). The Commission has said it wants to set up a separate regulatory regime for these GM crops, excluding them from existing EU rules for GMOs. It also wants to promote supposedly “sustainable” GM crops – those that it believes can contribute to the EU’s Green Deal objectives.

So far, little has been known about this new framework. The Commission has only set out certain “policy elements” in a so-called Inception Impact Assessment, published in September 2021:
* Risk assessment and approval requirements “proportionate to the risk involved”
* A sustainability analysis
* “Appropriate traceability and labelling provisions”
* Mechanisms to be able to rapidly adjust elements of the legislation.

These “policy elements” are not further explained in the Commission’s public consultation, which closes on 22 July (GMWatch has submitted its response).

In line with earlier announcements, the consultation talks about legislation for GM “plants produced by targeted mutagenesis or cisgenesis”. It assumes, without evidence, and ignoring a large pile of evidence showing extensive DNA damage caused by gene editing, that some such GM plants “could have been produced through conventional plant breeding or classical mutagenesis” (questions 3 and 12). “Classical mutagenesis” means the decades-old techniques of radiation- or chemical-induced mutagenesis breeding. The Commission also assumes, again without evidence, that some such GM plants could have “traits contributing to sustainability” (question 7).

The Commission has always rejected the term “deregulation”. It has said it is going to introduce an “appropriate” and fit-for-purpose regulatory framework for certain GM crops derived from new GM techniques, which it calls “new genomic techniques”. It has also said it will not compromise on consumer and environmental safety.

However, the detailed policy scenarios show another picture – that full deregulation of some GM crops is a realistic option.

What are the Commission’s plans?

The Commission’s consultants targeted survey describes seven policy scenarios considered by the Commission – which are not mentioned in the public consultation. These scenarios are important because they form the basis for the upcoming regulatory impact assessment, which compares different policy scenarios with each other and against a baseline scenario (i.e. no policy action).

The seven policy scenarios, A1 to C2, reveal that the Commission is considering scrapping all GMO regulatory requirements for GM crops that “could also be obtained naturally or by conventional breeding”.

The scenarios show that:
* The Commission wants to distinguish two new categories of GM plants: GM crops that “could also be obtained naturally or by conventional breeding” and GM crops that have “desirable sustainability impacts”.
* For GM crops that the Commission claims could be obtained naturally or by conventional breeding, the Commission is considering scrapping all GMO regulatory requirements (scenarios A2, B3). This includes the requirements for
– pre-market safety assessment
– product traceability across the supply chain
– GMO detection method supplied by the developer of the GMO in question
– GMO labelling.

These GM crops would essentially be regulated like non-GM crops, disregarding any risks to public health and the environment, the need of non-GM producers to rule out GM contamination, and the public’s right to know what is in their food.

Commission proposes the “Bayer option”

Commission scenarios A2 and B3 are exactly what Bayer has publicly asked for. In its response to the Commission’s public consultation, Bayer said it wants a screening step in the regulation to decide whether any GMO regulatory steps at all are needed. Bayer said there should be a “first step… assessing whether the changes in the DNA… are similar to the ones that could have been obtained through conventional breeding methods or spontaneous mutation”. According to Bayer, “products with similar safety profiles” should “then be subjected to the same marketing specific regulations” – in other words, there would be no GMO regulation for GMOs that are claimed to have similar changes to what could have happened naturally.

UK Bill

Not coincidentally, this is exactly the same deregulatory scenario that is currently being pursued by the UK Conservative government, in the form of the draft “Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill” that is currently working its way through Parliament. Because the UK is no longer in the EU, the UK government can pass this England-based law unilaterally, aligning England with the USA’s weak standards on GMO regulation. The EU Commission clearly wants the EU to follow England in this “race to the bottom”.

“Sustainable” GMOs

The Commission is also considering the option to scrap the requirement for a GMO label for supposedly “sustainable” GM crops. It also considers lowering the risk assessment requirements for all GM crops engineered with “targeted mutagenesis and cisgenesis” (A1). Again, this information has not been presented publicly and is not available to anyone answering the public consultation.

All GM crops must be subject to existing GMO rules

The Greens state in their letter to the Commission, ”As Greens/EFA group, we oppose the introduction of separate legislation for products of new genetic modification (GM) techniques such as targeted mutagenesis (i.e. SDN-1, SDN-2 and ODM [oligo directed mutagenesis]) and cisgenesis. We believe that all genetically modified (GM) crops must be subject to the existing GMO legislation with its requirements for risk assessment, traceability and clear labelling.

”Indeed, the European Court of Justice clarified in 2018 that new GM techniques cannot be excluded from the scope of EU GMO legislation unless they have conventionally been used in a number of applications and have a long safety record. Since this is not the case for gene editing techniques, such as CRISPR, these techniques should be regulated under the EU GMO legislation, in order not to undermine the EU’s Precautionary Principle. As Greens/EFA, we fully support the Court’s ruling.”

The Greens make three demands for all GMOs: That they are subjected to a full and robust risk assessment; that no market access should be permitted without traceability and a detection method; and that there should be clear GMO labelling on the final product so that consumers have the choice of whether to buy it.

All these principles are in place under the current GMO legislation – which the Commission is secretly planning to dismantle.

The Greens rightly conclude: “The sustainability of our food system is not a matter of individual products. A plant trait in isolation, without considering the agricultural context in which the plant is grown, is insufficient to draw any meaningful conclusion. Until today, conventional breeding has consistently outstripped genetic engineering techniques (old and new) in producing crops tolerant to stresses such as drought, floods, pests, and diseases.* Claims that GM plants will contribute to improved EU food systems are not supported by current evidence. The European Union should not weaken its GMO regulations to accommodate empty promises of ‘sustainable’ GM plants.”

Commission proposals spell “disaster” for Non-GMO sector

Commenting on the revelations in the targeted survey, Heike Moldenhauer, Secretary General of the Non-GMO industry association ENGA, said: “The deregulation proposals put forward by the Commission aim to remove the labelling of New GMOs. Should a new legal framework abolish traceability and labelling, then New GMOs will effectively become invisible and the Non-GMO sector would run the risk of unknowingly and unintentionally selling New GMO products. In this new world of unregulated GMOs, untested and invisible GMOs will find their way on to European fields, supermarket shelves and on to the plates of consumers – irreversibly.

“Consumers’ right to know what is in their food, via clear labelling, is a key social and political achievement, guaranteed through the currently legally-binding GMO label. To abolish this or replace it with a sustainable label, and therefore making New GMOs invisible, would be an unjustifiable step backwards and would encourage distrust: Why do New GMOs have to be invisible to gain market acceptance?

“For the Non-GMO food sector this move to deregulate and abolish labelling would spell disaster! It effectively removes the sector’s selling point, meaning massive financial setbacks, if not the end of its business entirely.”

SOURCE

https://sustainablepulse.com/2022/07/27/eu-commissions-secret-policy-scenarios-show-full-gmo-deregulation-on-the-cards/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=glyphosate_gmos_and_pesticides_weekly_global_news_bulletin&utm_term=2022-08-05

Photo: Sustainable Pulse

Glyphosate Crosses Blood-Brain Barrier and Exposure Correlates with Alzheimer’s Symptoms – New Study

by Sustainable Pulse

In a new study, Arizona State University (ASU) and the Translational Genomics Research Institute (TGEN) have explored the effects of glyphosate exposure on the brains of mice. The research demonstrates, for the first time, that glyphosate successfully crosses the blood-brain barrier and infiltrates the brain. Once there, it acts to enhance levels of a critical factor known as TNF-α.

TNF-α is a molecule with two faces. This pro-inflammatory cytokine performs vital functions in the neuroimmune system, acting to enhance the immune response and protect the brain. When levels of TNF-α are dysregulated, however, a host of diseases linked with neuroinflammation can result. Among these is Alzheimer’s disease.

Neurodegenerative illnesses, such as Alzheimer’s disease, are among the most perplexing in medical science. The underlying causes of such diseases range from genetic factors and overall cardiovascular health to dietary influences and lifestyle choices. Various environmental contaminants have also been implicated as possible players in the development or advancement of neurodegenerative disease. Among these is a broad-spectrum herbicide known as glyphosate. Glyphosate is the most used pesticide in the world.

This latest study further demonstrates in cell culture studies that glyphosate exposure appears to increase the production of soluble beta amyloid (Aβ) and reduce the viability of neurons. The accumulation of soluble beta amyloid, the sticky protein responsible for the formation of soluble beta amyloid plaques, is one of the central diagnostic hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease.

Further evidence suggestive of potential hazards to neurological health were observed when the researchers examined changes in gene expression via RNA sequencing in the brains of mice following glyphosate exposure.

Glyphosate Box

Glyphosate Residue Free Certification for Food Brands – Click Here

Test Your Food and Water at Home for Glyphosate – Click Here

Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Our Your Long-Term Exposure

These RNA transcripts hinted at disruptions in the expression of genes related to neurodegenerative disease, including dysregulation of a class of brain cells responsible for producing the myelin sheath critical for proper neuronal communication. These cells, known as oligodendrocytes, are affected by elevated levels of TNF-α.

“We find increases in TNF-α in the brain, following glyphosate exposure,” said Dr. Ramon Velazquez, the senior author of the paper. “While we examined (Alzheimer’s disease) pathology, this might have implications for many neurodegenerative diseases, given that neuroinflammation is seen in a variety of brain disorders.”

An enigmatic disease; a path of destruction

A hundred years have passed since the first diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. Despite vast investments in research and drug development, the affliction remains without effective treatment. A suite of therapies, developed over many decades at extravagant cost, have one by one failed to alleviate the symptoms of the disease.

Alzheimer’s disease is the most common form of dementia. The progression of the disease usually begins with mild memory loss. As the disease develops, increasing confusion and a breakdown in communication abilities often result, as the affliction attacks brain pathways involved in memory, language and thought.

Some 5.8 million Americans are living with Alzheimer’s disease, as of 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Unlike heart disease or cancer, the death toll for Alzheimer’s disease is on a frightening upward trajectory. By 2040, costs of the disease are projected to rise dramatically to between $379 billion and more than $500 billion annually. The staggering toll of the illness is currently projected to nearly triple to 14 million people by 2050.

The onset of symptoms typically occurs after age 60, and the risk to individuals doubles every five years after age 65. Although genetics are believed to play a role in some cases of Alzheimer’s disease and a family history of the disorder is considered a significant risk factor, environmental factors are believed to play a significant role in the disease.

Researchers are trying to learn how genetic correlates may subtly interact with environmental and other factors to decrease or enhance the likelihood of developing the affliction. Some recent research suggests that lifestyle changes, including proper physical activity, nutritious food, limited alcohol consumption and not smoking may help prevent or slow cognitive decline, noting that brain and cardiovascular health are closely linked.

Glyphosate toxic effects

This new study examines the neurological effects of glyphosate, the most ubiquitous herbicide. Each year, around 250 million pounds of glyphosate are applied to agricultural crops in the U.S. alone. Although the chemical is regarded as generally safe to humans by the Environmental Protection Agency and the European Food Safety Authority, researchers are taking a second look.

Little is known about possible long-term effects from prolonged exposure to glyphosate. One issue of considerable concern is that glyphosate can cross the blood-brain barrier, a layer of endothelial cells preventing dissolved substances in the circulating bloodstream from readily passing into the extracellular fluid of the central nervous system, where the brain’s neurons reside.

Potential risks to brain health posed by glyphosate should be critically evaluated, particularly for those consistently exposed to the herbicide.

“The Alzheimer’s connection is that there’s a much higher prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease in agricultural communities that are using this chemical,” paper co-author Joanna Winstone said. “We’re trying to establish a more molecular-science based link between the two.”

The study exposed mice to high doses of glyphosate, then detected elevated levels of TNF-α in their brains. The researchers then exposed extracted mouse neurons in petri dishes to the same levels of glyphosate detected in the brains of mice, observing elevated amyloid beta and cell death in cortical neurons. Dysregulated oligodendrocyte RNA transcripts, which could indicate disruption of myelination, were detected in brain tissue.

Taken together, the results demonstrate a correlation between glyphosate exposure and classic symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease, though the authors stress that much more work will be required before a causative link can be established.

Nevertheless, the widespread use of the chemical and the disturbing correlation highlighted in the study underscore the need for intensified investigation. Among the pressing questions to be answered: How does prolonged, low-dose exposure to glyphosate affect the brain; does glyphosate act synergistically with other chemicals present in common herbicides; and can glyphosate be detected post-mortem in patients who died of Alzheimer’s disease?

On the horizon, new drugs designed to reduce TNF-α in the brain are being explored, offering renewed hope for those with Alzheimer’s disease as well as other neurodegenerative ailments.

SOURCE

https://sustainablepulse.com/2022/08/05/glyphosate-crosses-blood-brain-barrier-and-exposure-correlates-with-alzheimers-symptoms-new-asu-study/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=glyphosate_gmos_and_pesticides_weekly_global_news_bulletin&utm_term=2022-08-05

Photo: pixabay.com

How Bayer/Monsanto has been systematically undercutting science & making large investments to build propaganda that attacks non-GMO activists & organizations (IRT)

From Institute for Responsible Technology

Bayer versus the planet.

CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

Bayer has been in the news recently (rightfully so) for – you guessed it – poisoning the planet. We have stood against Bayer/Monsanto for twenty years and it’s high time they stand accountable for their planetary injustice.

This week you may have seen that the CDC released a report which stated 80% of urine samples taken from Americans contained glyphosate, “Roundup”.

What you likely didn’t hear is that Bayer/Monsanto has been systematically undercutting science and making large investments to build propaganda that attacks organizations like IRT, GM Watch, NonGMO Project, and other non-GMO activists.

In a 2019 Huff Post article, Bayer stated they, “no longer provided support for the Genetic Literacy Project” – a misinformation website designed to produce content devaluing other scientific studies which are not pro-GMO.

The article (again dated in 2019) points out how Bayer leveraged its many resources to suppress evidence of the health and environmental damage caused by glyphosate and challenged the World Health Organization’s determination that it’s probably “cancer-causing.”

During the Monsanto trials, a secret company email targeted our founder Jeffrey Smith. The subject line was “Whack-a-Mole,” an internal Monsanto joke about how they attack those who expose the true dangers of their products. They even had a large budget-item called “Let Nothing Go,” funding used to suppress all evidence that GMOs, glyphosate, and Gene Editing cause dangerous side effects. Jeffrey’s extensive reporting over two decades was one of their familiar targets.

Their lies and attacks continue. The latest is pretending that gene edited GMOs are safe. And they’ve paid all sorts of organizations and scientists to repeat the lie. Tragically, numerous governments have been tricked, and now allow gene edited GMOs to be introduced into our food supply and environment without any safety checks or even notifying regulators This poses an unprecedented threat to each of us, and future generations. The time to act is now.

TAKE ACTION HERE

SOURCE:

IRT Newsletter:

https://archive.aweber.com/newsletter/awlist6265886/MTUxNzY0NTM=/bayer-versus-the-planet.htm

Photo: hpgruesen @ pixabay.com

CDC finds glyphosate in 80% of US urine samples—as reported by 0% of “our free press”

Headlined by The Guardian and the Irish Times, and also grimly noted by some journals here and there , this should-be-big news is apparently NOT “fit to print,” or post, or broadcast by the US press

Mark Crispin Miller

This silence, shocking though it is, should come as no surprise, from a “free press” that’s been meticulously, militantly blacking out the toll of those “vaccines”—as well as (let us not forget) the many real vaccines that have been killing/sickening/crippling us for decades; countless other toxic pharmaceuticals; the additives in most of what we eat, and those in nearly all the products that we use to clean our homes and selves, and most cosmetics.

In short: We’re being poisoned on a mammoth scale, and evidently not by accident, or through incompetence—since, if that were the case, the press would not be blacking all such information out.

Now, if this news re: glyphosate has been reported by a major corporate outlet (or a even major “alternative” outlet), please note it in the comments. My search was, necessarily, a quick one, since we’re short-handed here (and overwhelmed by each week’s news of “sudden deaths”).

(VIDEO LINK BELOW)

Glyphosate increases risk of cancer; CDC study raises alarm in US | World English News | WION

News from Underground by Mark Crispin Miller is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Photo: pixabay.com

Contamination of U.S. Food Supply Worsens as 50% of Foods Tested Contained Cancer-Causing Glyphosate Herbicide

It is sprayed world wide and they don’t it appears, intend letting up. See our Glyphosate pages (main menu) for further info on glyphosate and the Roundup and other brands (check labels) that contain it. A known ‘probable carcinogen’. EWR


The Poison in Our Daily Bread

by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

The Detox Project recently published their latest results from the most comprehensive glyphosate testing of food products ever conducted in the U.S., showing that the contamination of the U.S. food supply with the cancer-causing herbicide glyphosate is becoming significantly worse since their first report published 5 years ago.

In our first report nearly five years ago, we found alarming levels of glyphosate residues in 29 bestselling foods from major food companies in the continental United States, as increases in the spraying of more toxic pesticides was skyrocketing across rural America.

In this new report, we disclose the glyphosate residue testing results of 83 foods found in major Big Box, grocery and natural  food stores purchased in Des Moines, Iowa, including Walmart, Whole Foods, Target, Natural Grocers, and Hy-Vee and foods bought online through Amazon.

Incredibly, more than half the foods tested, a total of 45 foods out of 86 products, contained alarming levels of glyphosate,  ranging from 12 parts per billion (ppb) in “sprouted wholegrain bread”6 from Whole Foods to as high 889 ppb in Walmart’s brand chickpeas,7 to 1,040 ppb in Whole Food’s 365 Brand Whole Wheat Sandwich Bread, to the highest level detected of  1,150 ppb in Hy-Vee’s 100% Whole Wheat Bread.

While none of these foods are genetically engineered, they still contain ingredients that are at a high risk of glyphosate  contamination. There is no GMO wheat or chickpeas on the market in North America. For the past two decades, farmers in  the U.S. and Canada have regularly sprayed Monsanto’s (now Bayer) Roundup on wheat, oats, barley and dry bean crops as a ‘pre-harvest drying agent’ to get the harvested crop to market faster.

READ AT THE LINK

https://healthimpactnews.com/2022/contamination-of-u-s-food-supply-worsens-as-50-of-foods-tested-contained-cancer-causing-glyphosate-herbicide/

Photo: healthimpactnews.com

Roundup for Breakfast: In New Tests, Weed Killer Found in All Kids’ Cereals Sampled

Findings Released as Major Scientific Study Shows Eating Organic Lowers Cancer Risk

WASHINGTON – A second round of tests commissioned by the Environmental Working Group found the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer in every sample of popular oat-based cereal and other oat-based food marketed to children. These test results fly in the face of claims by two companies, Quaker and General Mills, which have said there is no reason for concern. This is because, they say, their products meet the legal standards.

Yet almost all of the samples tested by EWG had residues of glyphosate at levels higher than what EWG scientists consider protective of children’s health with an adequate margin of safety. The EWG findings of a chemical identified as probably carcinogenic by the World Health Organization come on the heels of a major study published in JAMA Internal Medicine that found a significant reduction in cancer risk for individuals who ate a lot of organic food.

READ MORE

https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/roundup-breakfast-part-2-new-tests-weed-killer-found-all-kids-cereals

Photo: pixabay.com

Bayer Confirms End of Sale of Glyphosate-Based Herbicides for US Lawn & Garden Market

The New Dark Age

29 July 2021 — Sustainable Pulse

Bayer have announced that they will no longer sell glyphosate-based herbicides to U.S. gardeners as of 2023, following the costly litigation battle over their cancer causing weedkiller Roundup.

Read More

View original post

Other items of interest

Thanks to contributors for these headlines:

Kim Hampson

Fluoridation On Trial: RFK, Jr.’s Conversation With Attorney Michael Connett

Reiner Fuellmich – Full Length Interview in Berlin – Planet Lockdown – 153 News – Because Censorship Kills

Japanese glyphosate scare highlights lack of regulation in New Zealand – Organic NZ magazine

Bayer Fails to Overturn European Ban on Bee-Harming Pesticides – Organic NZ magazine

Warren Woodward

Movie: Sally Pacholok USA 2015 (87mins HD) Feisty ER Nurse takes on the medical establishment when she uncovers an epidemic of misdiagnosis.

Sue McCully

STUDY ON THE ELECTROMAGNETISM OF VACCINATED PERSONS IN LUXEMBOURG (PDF)

Bombshell Study shows “Virus” is Identical to Normal Cell Structures: Appearances Can Be Deceiving – Viral-like Inclusions in COVID-19 Negative Renal Biopsies by Electron Microscopy

“Independent MP Derek Sloan holds a news conference on Parliament Hill to raise concerns about the alleged censorship of doctors and scientists as well as medical information related to vaccines. The Ontario MP has been critical of lockdowns that have been in place due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and also sponsored a petition questioning the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. He is joined by a trio of trio of doctors and scientists.”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=vUrp5PlnBwQ&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3i7xGctVro2H4AfIbbiqza7Zh0HxCac2jJncDOxLnCCcUemtihE9hzoRQ

Bayer Set to Rethink Selling of Glyphosate to US Gardeners after Loss of $2 Billion Future Cancer Claims Deal

A topic still of great concern that’s slipped by the wayside, overshadowed by the plandemic ….

From sustainablepulse.com

Bayer’s share price crashed over 4% on Thursday after Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California threw out their attempted $ 2 Bilion deal to settle future cancer claims against their top selling glyphosate-based herbicide, Roundup.

Bayer reacted by stating Thursday: “While the Company will remain in the residential lawn and garden market, it will immediately engage with partners to discuss the future of glyphosate-based products in the U.S. residential market, as the overwhelming majority of claimants in the Roundup™ litigation allege that they used Roundup™ Lawn and Garden products.”

In a brief order that addresses what the judge called only “the most glaring flaws” of the deal, Chhabria turned aside the complicated agreement, the second time he’s shot it down, Bloomberg reported Thursday. The rejected settlement is part of a broader $11.6 billion agreement to resolve Roundup lawsuits in the U.S. from about 125,000 consumers and farmers.

READ MORE

https://sustainablepulse.com/2021/05/27/bayer-set-to-rethink-selling-of-glyphosate-to-us-gardeners-after-loss-of-2-billion-future-cancer-claims-deal/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=glyphosate_gmos_and_pesticides_weekly_global_news_bulletin&utm_term=2021-05-28#.YLHR2N2xUdU

Studies That Show Dangers Of GMOs And What Their Makers Do To Hide Them From You | Jeffrey Smith | The Real Truth About Health (video)

Read article plus video at the link:

From theplantstrongclub.org

The biotech industry’s claim that genetically modified (GM) foods are safe is shattered in this groundbreaking lecture. Safety assessments on GM crops are not competent to identify the health problems, and industry research is rigged to avoid finding problems.

This lecture is for anyone wanting to understand GM technology, to learn how to protect themselves, or to share their concerns with others. It is presented in the clear, accessible style that made Jeffrey Smith’s Seeds of Deception the world’s best-selling book on genetically engineered foods.

The leading consumer advocate promoting healthier non-GMO choices, Jeffrey Smith’s meticulous research documents how biotech companies continue to mislead legislators and safety officials to put the health of society at risk and the environment in peril. His work expertly summarizes why the safety assessments conducted by the FDA and regulators worldwide teeter on a foundation of outdated science and false assumptions, and why genetically engineered foods must urgently become our nation’s top food safety priority.

READ MORE

https://theplantstrongclub.org/2021/04/17/studies-that-show-dangers-of-gmos-and-what-their-makers-do-to-hide-them-from-you-jeffrey-smith-the-real-truth-about-health/

RELATED:

GLYPHOSATE

Other headlines this week

Miscellaneous sources re the Adverse Reactions:

FRIGHTENING! – 7th update on Adverse Reactions to Covid Vaccines released by UK Government

A collection of menstrual side effects noted

British government now reports 524 deaths following COVID vaccination

Dr Mercola

Pressure Mounts to Ban My New Book From Amazon

Drugmakers Promise Investors a Hike in COVID Vaccine Prices Soon

Increasing Levels of Glyphosate Being Found in Manatees

via Kim Hampson

The Coronavirus Strain Is Patented by the – www.HNewsWire.com

Texas Doctor Exposes Dangers of COVID-19 Vaccine (bitchute.com) 

Biological Male Crowned Miss Silver State USA – News Punch

Gender Heretics.org – Resisting the New Orthodoxy

Report: Sports Cheat Philosophy Professor Lives With A Pedophile – Gender Heretics.org

Canal Road tree protesters in court facing trespassing charges | New Zealand Geographic (nzgeo.com)

Image by Michael Bußmann from Pixabay

Keep NZ families environmentally safe: please Sign a petition to stop councils spraying glyphosate

This petition is from Organic NZ. Councils NZ wide are spraying the probable carcinogen (IARC) glyphosate. For further info on this widely used toxic herbicide see our glyphosate pages here (not the sub tabs also for videos etc.) EWR
________________________________________________________________________

organicnz.org.nz

Soil & Health launches glyphosate campaign

posted in: Campaigns, Glyphosate |

The Soil and Health Association are calling for councils to stop spraying glyphosate to keep New Zealand families safe.

‘The public increasingly understand that it is no longer acceptable to be exposed to glyphosate-based herbicides,’ says Soil & Health spokesperson Jodie Bruning,

We are working with US based Non-Toxic Neighbourhoods who have had significant success helping councils transition affordably to non-toxic urban management.

The importance of glyphosate science

Public health scientists think it is bizarre that the findings of the most prestigious cancer agency in the world were rejected by New Zealand’s Environmental Protection Authority (the EPA).

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined that glyphosate probably causes cancer in humans. The IARC also found that glyphosate (and it’s commercial formulations) definitely causes cancer in laboratory animals – placing our pets at risk too.

 In 2016 the EPA produced what scientists consider to be a flawed cancer review to discredit the findings of the EPA’s own cancer authority.  New Zealand professors and scientists remain ‘mystified’ and have spoken repeatedly (here and here and here) about the EPA’s frozen stance on glyphosate. An Official Information [ENQ-35127-N5J6C7]request has found that the EPA has never conducted a formal risk assessment of glyphosate or the commercial formulation.

Glyphosate is not just a cancer risk. Scientific studies show that glyphosate-based herbicides, including Roundup, may not only probably cause cancer but cause oxidative stress and disrupt endocrine system function which can set the stage for disease and delays.

Chemical companies are paying out for the damage caused

Following the IARC decision, cases in the U.S. have awarded the claimants damages against Monsanto (since 2018, owned by Bayer). The court cases uncovered evidence that showed how Monsanto took action to limit and distort public knowledge. Punitive damages were awarded for ‘reprehensible’ conduct. The jury trials are now under appeal with Bayer claiming the verdict of regulators across the world upholds Bayer’s stance. Unfortunately, as scientists have illustrated (in Europe and the USA), regulatory agencies relied on ghostwritten industry studies and ignored data that the IARC considered important.

In June 2020 Bayer proposed a settlement of USD$8.8-10.9 billion to settle over 125,000 U.S. lawsuits to resolve Roundup litigation. Bayer has framed the complex settlement proposal as an end to ‘uncertainty’. The proposal contained no admission that glyphosate-based herbicides caused the cancer claimed by cancer sufferers, many former farmers, who see the proposal as a slap in the face. The settlement proposal may restrict future claimants from a jury trial. New Zealand doesn’t face the same court cases here because the ACC covers such cases as accidents.

Why isn’t New Zealand taking action?

Ignoring the calls of scientists, New Zealand councils refer to the New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority (NZ EPA) to claim that glyphosate is a ‘low toxicity herbicide’. The hazard rating given by the NZ EPA provides a legal rationale that it is safe enough to spray in public places. This is wrong!

It is evident from operations in Auckland and Christchurch that councils and contractors need to make a lot of changes in order to shift away from glyphosate dependency – like any addiction – shifting to a new mindset isn’t always easy. Much of the management and contract negotiation are out of the public eye – so it is difficult for the public to understand what is going on. Councils don’t appear to be undertaking properly accountable trials with new technologies and recording and documenting trial methods, how they cope with and reduce over time the weed seed banks, and making this information public. We know non-toxic alternatives and management regimes can never neatly replace toxic chemical use. Shift away from addiction requires a change in mindset and operations.

We also understand that councils struggle to adopt the precautionary principle. This would help deal with uncertainty (which is always present). Councils may not be comfortable weighing the risk to families, and particularly babies and children, with the risk of complaints from irate rate-payers or staff worried about the stress on physical assets. These are value-based decisions, and are an important part of making any decision to protect health or the environment.

SIGN THE PETITION AT THE ORGANIC NZ PAGE, LINK BELOW:

LINK: https://organicnz.org.nz/sign-the-glyphosate-petition-here/?fbclid=IwAR2vNmOE_as_evVdbr685aOSvQThIHtVPMfPJ41b-A_I_2ZPxcVyE2XklqE

Photo: organic.org.nz

Blueprint of Monsanto’s “black ops” public relations machine REVEALED: See the names of fake front groups and science hacks who took part

(Natural News) It’s no secret that companies like Monsanto do everything in their power to keep the true toxicity of their products under wraps. Big Food, Big Ag, Big Pharma and the like have all been accused of similar tactics across the board. But the lengths to which Monsanto has gone to keep the world from knowing the truth about glyphosate (the star ingredient in its flagship product, Roundup) is truly disturbing.

After the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) labeled glyphosate a “probable human carcinogen,” Monsanto engaged in a covert operation to slam the findings from every avenue — and they recruited a number of partners to help them save face.

Recently released documents provided by US Right To Know (USRTK) show that the biotech firm enlisted over a dozen “industry partner” groups in their plan to denounce the IARC findings and keep Roundup in the public’s good graces. An internal document dated February 2015 describes a detailed plan, in which 20 Monsanto employees were given goals to “neutralize impact of decision,” engage in “regulator outreach,” “ensure MON POV ” and “lead voice in ‘who is IARC’ plus 2B outrage.”

Monsanto conspires with “industry partners”

In the five-page document, Monsanto lists four tiers of “industry partners” to be used in their “preparedness and engagement plan” for the IARC’s carcinogen rating for glyphosate. The plan, of course, was put in place nearly a month before the IARC publicly released their finding that glyphosate probably causes cancer — which raises substantial suspicions that the biotech giant knew what IARC was going to find.

READ MORE

https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-06-12-blueprint-of-monsantos-black-ops-public-relations-machine-revealed-fake-front-groups-and-science-hacks.html

If you love spraying Roundup around your farm or property, you really should watch this documentary

Kiwis love this product. They spray it everywhere, on their sections, garden edges, berms, parks, schools, their gardens even ready for new planting. And farmers, it’s whole fields since the Ag text books recommend it. Even though it’s produced large tumours in lab rats (independent research). Please read our Glyphosate pages on all of the above. You will be surprised. Farmers were told it was ‘safe as houses’ virtually.

Published on Aug 2, 2015

Monsanto’s controversial past combines some of the most toxic products ever sold with misleading reports, pressure tactics, collusion, and attempted corruption. They now race to genetically engineer (and patent) the world’s food supply, which profoundly threatens our health, environment, and economy. Combining secret documents with first-hand accounts by victims, scientists, and politicians, this widely praised film exposes why Monsanto has become the world’s poster child for malignant corporate influence in government and technology.

The effects of GMOs on your health (the research & what foods they are in)

Published on Dec 18, 2012

The effects of Genetically Modified Organisms which can be found in the food we consume. Learn more at http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_gmo…
NOTE: the header image of the tumorous rats is from Professor Seralini’s research. You can read about that and/or watch the video of his findings on our Glyphosate pages. And/or visit naturalnews’ coverage of the topic here. You will also find if you google this that it is debunked on those debunking sites, as most valuable info the powers that be would prefer you didn’t know about is. If you find that too conspiratorial ask yourself why ever if GMOs are so safe, do THEY NOT WANT THEM LABELED? Consider also, why do these people who recommend GMOs not eat them themselves? Food for thought (no pun intended).
See also our Glyphosate and GMO pages at the main menu
EnvirowatchRangitikei

The 10 GMO Myths That Monsanto Wants You To Believe

From activistpost.com

Monsanto and their biotech buddies would have you believe that they are super-heroes, set on saving hungry children from starvation wearing a dazzling fake-green cape. In fact, in a recent attack on activists, Monsanto’s CEO Hugh Grant said that because critics “can afford” organic food, we don’t care about the plight of those who can’t afford it. “There is this strange kind of reverse elitism: If I’m going to do this, then everything else shouldn’t exist,” said Grant. “There is space in the supermarket shelf for all of us.”

Even Monsanto’s website is on the defense, with page after page attempting to justify what the biotech industry is doing to our food supply. It must be true if even leading “philanthropists” (and I use this term loosely) like Bill and Melinda Gates are behind the distribution of Monsanto crops across the globe. Right?

Actually, it’s all about the public’s perception. The push for acceptance of GMO foods has, thus far, been all about which team has the most money. Monsanto and their ilk can afford more television ads and more PR than anti-GMO activists can. Because the biotech companies, Big Food, and Big Agri can pay to spread their message, many people are convinced by their pure propaganda that GMOs are a necessary evil if the Third World is to avoid millions of slow, agonizing deaths by starvation. Because biotech is able to afford to blanket the media with their perspective, their view point is accepted as the correct one because that is the only perspective that many people ever hear.

But just because they shout the loudest, that doesn’t make it true.

How we address these misconceptions can mean the difference between swaying people to examine these claims more closely or causing them to stick their fingers in their ears and sing, “lalalalala…” to block us out. Here are some of the most common myths that Monsanto and friends would like you to believe about the wonderful world of GMOs.

Myth #1: No one has ever proven that GMOs are harmful to people.

Monsanto mouthpieces have been quoted time, time, and time again stating the untruth that genetically modified organisms have never been proven to harm people. It seems that they believe, like Joseph Goebbels, the uncontested King of Propaganda, that if you repeat a lie often enough, and with enough conviction, that it becomes the accepted truth.

The reality: Just a few of the results of a GMO diet (based on peer-reviewed studies) are: grotesque tumors, premature death, organ failure, gastric lesions, liver damage, kidney damage, severe allergic reactions, a viral gene that disrupts human functions…you can read more HERE.

Myth #2: GMO crops are the only way to solve world hunger.

The most common pro-GMO argument that you will hear these days is that genetically modified crops are the only way to feed the world’s burgeoning population. Without them, proponents claim that hunger will claim the lives of millions over the next decade. In the gospel of biotech, GMOs are the answer to world hunger. If you protest against GMO technology, you are cast as a cold-hearted elitist and the deaths of all of those suffering children in ***** (pick-a-3rd-world-country) rest firmly on your doorstep.

READ MORE

https://www.activistpost.com/2013/07/the-10-gmo-myths-that-monsanto-wants.html

Seeds of Death Doco – Unveiling the Lies – a Must Watch if You Still Think Genetically Modified Food is Healthy

NZ used to be GE free until 2000 when GM corn was planted in several locations throughout NZ. Helen Clarke then PM found out about it and ordered them pulled up … (corn gate it was known as) then through corporate persuasion presumably she caved. The crops were left til full term and harvest and who knows how many of our own crops were contaminated? They then raised the percentage bar of acceptance in our country. By increments is how these people work. For a full exposé read Nicky Hager’s ‘Seeds of Distrust’.  (See also Foreword & Chapter 1).

rat-tumor-monsanto-gmo-cancer-study-3-wide2
Rats from Professor Seralini’s experiment that were fed GM Corn for two years. Monsanto, when they first released Roundup tested glyphosate on rats for the required 90 days only, not long enough for tumours to grow … still think it’s safe? WHO after briefly deciding it was a ‘probable carcinogen’ has now backtracked, like our PM in 2000, & deemed glyphosate is safe

When you’re done watching the video below, check out our Glyphosate pages for local info on that chemical in your (not) GE free NZ’s favourite farming and garden herbicide Roundup. It is an integral part of the whole GMO package. The stuff is slathered over everything everywhere here in NZ like there is no tomorrow… roadsides, berms, parks, gardens, you name it. And no warning signs posted either.  It’s now been deemed safe (again) after a short foray into official recognition of the health risks courtesy of WHO saying it was ‘probably carcinogenic’. However, the tumours on the rats in the ground breaking study by Professor Séralini are evidence enough for me to decline. The video of that experiment is on our Glyphosate page. And by the way, because Monsanto are telling us it is safe to eat, they’re not required to label it in many places. It is already in our food chain because it’s fed to animals and is in many processed foods. Soy and corn that is not labeled organic is likely GM. Here is a short video that tells you the top 12 foods to avoid if you want to avoid GMOs.

EnvirowatchRangitikei

Published on May 23, 2013

Visit http://prn.fm/

The world’s leading Scientists, Physicians, Attorneys, Politicians and Environmental Activists expose the corruption and dangers surrounding the widespread use of Genetically Modified Organisms in the new feature length documentary, “Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs”.

Senior Executive Producer / Writer / Director: Gary Null PhD
Executive Producer/Writer/Co-Director: Richard Polonetsky
Producers: Paola Bossola, Richard Gale, James Spruill, Patrick Thompson, Valerie Van Cleve
Editors: James Spruill, Patrick Thompson, Richie Williamson, Nick Palm
Music: Kevin MacLeod (Incompetech.com), Armando Guarnera
Graphics: Jay Graygor


The Alarming Truths About Genetically Modified Foods

A short (5 minute) video clip providing you with the quintessential info on genetically modified foods that we are already eating due to the failure of the authorities to label. They consider we don’t need to know. If it is so safe please ask yourself why it is they won’t label it? Remember also, the glyphosate that they spray on your GM food has been found by independent scientists to be carcinogenic.  EnvirowatchRangitikei

Mercola

Published on Jul 22, 2014

http://gmo.mercola.com/?x_cid=youtube Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are detrimental to your overall health. Discover why these genetically modified foods are NOT safe to consume.

Your “GE-Free” NZ Govt secretly approved the use of a GE-bacteria pig growth hormone in 2001 & it’s NOT labeled!

soy-beans-968986_1920
Stock feed is commonly comprised of GE soy & corn – NZ farmers can’t rule out the possibility it’s GE as it isn’t labeled

See here how murky our clean green image is now?  Yet again we are consuming food that is not safe, with neither our knowledge nor our permission? They approved this secretly folks! How can we possibly trust these people who are charged with protecting our food supply? I posted a while back the alert that our stock is being fed GE feed. At least the business operators “couldn’t rule it out the feed wasn’t GE” as it included corn and soy, typically GE products. And the Greens have also made statements about GE feed here in NZ. If GE feed and hormone growth products are so safe why then are they being so underhanded about it all? Not rocket science is it? Vote with your wallet and don’t buy it. There aren’t a lot of options left to us as clearly they’re intent on steam rolling ahead with opening this Pandora’s box. To the peril of the public I might add.

Please share this info. Educate yourself. Search similar articles under ‘categories’ (top left of any page).

EnvirowatchRangitikei


test-214185_1280.jpg
Back in 2002 the Greens announced – “A new growth hormone made by GE bacteria has been secretly approved for use on NZ pigs, and there is no requirement to disclose its use on the label.

This growth hormone makes pigs grow by up to 20% more in the last month of their lives. The hormone Porcine Somatotropin (PST) is injected into the necks of pigs every day, for the last 30 days of their lives. Advice from the manufacturer is to inject pigs in the neck to prevent the meat being downgraded.

The hormone was approved by the Animal Remedies Board on 12 October 2001. A similar hormone for cows, bovine somatotropin, was refused approval by MAF last year because of concerns about European consumers refusing to buy hormone-treated milk and meat.

Australian officials had acknowledged there would likely be residues of the artificial hormone in pork from treated pigs.

As Sue Kedgley, spokesperson for the Green Party commented, this hormone was highly controversial and was not even approved by the FDA for use in America…”

Read More:  http://www.safefood.org.nz/news11.php


If you’re unconvinced GE food is bad for you watch this short clip interviewing Jeffrey Smith, expert on GMOs

 

Revisiting The Séralini Experiment – For Those Who Trust in WHO’s Flip Flop


I’m reblogging this article from 2014 to remind us all of the evidence. WHO some twelve months or so ago decided that glyphosate was probably a carcinogen. That got everybody frantically spreading the word however the probably has now given them a convenient little out for later in my opinion anyway… going by what has since happened, that being the major flip flop they’ve done. So … to recap, they (IARC)  look at the myriad of independent research and decide on the probably carcinogenic scenario (yes rats fed very diluted glyphosate and GE corn for two years grew enormous tumours all over their bodies) then a year or so later do an about turn. Even if their current conclusions are correct they don’t inspire much trust in their processes to have done a major flip flop like that within a year. And remember, first up after the Séralini experiment Monsanto went into debunk mode by discrediting the Professor’s choice of rat as not being the correct type as in that particular rat is supposedly prone to tumours anyway. All the links to that info are on our Glyphosate pages (the independent research etc) and a brief google search will tell you that you can relax and start spraying everything with Roundup again because yes it’s perfectly safe. After all it is in the GM food you are eating that you don’t know about because it’s so safe they don’t need to label it for you. Please do yourself a favour and watch carefully Professor Séralini’s evidence, and/or read the transcript below.  EnvirowatchRangitikei


The Séralini Experiment

 Transcript:     Pay close attention to what you are about to see. These images will be seen around the world. These rats have been fed with transgenic corn during their entire life cycle. The tumours they suffer from are enormous. The study that revealed the effect of these GMOs on the health of these rats has just been completed. It benefited from exceptional financial & technical means. We were able to witness the study in its entirety. It lasted for two years. Following years of doubt and controversies will we finally know the truth about GMOs? Would we then be faced with a health crisis of global proportions?

Paris, December 16th, 2011, Criigen offices, Committee for Research & Independent Information for Genetic Engineering…. Presentation of the results collected by Professor Seralini during his study focused on determining the potential harmfulness of the GMO corn Nk603 for humans and animals….

This is the longest most thorough study to have been carried out on a GMO and we’ve also carried out a joint study on the most used pesticide in the world, the Roundup which is a herbicide. It belongs to the main pesticide category. We spent over a year trying to obtain transgenic corn because no GMO manufacturers were willing to provide them. This is because Monsanto requires contracts to be signed stipulating that the seeds must not be used for testing and an arrangement must be made prior to the testing. We wanted our study to be independent.

Joel Spiroux Vendomois

Doctor specialized in Environmental Health

President of the CRIIGEN

This is the first time that a two year study has been conducted on GMOs and there lies the big difference. Furthermore, we tried to evaluate a maximum of biochemical & biological parameters with repeated blood tests, weighing of the specimens and urine tests. We studied the hepatic & urinary parameters as well as the blood parameters, all the parameters that can be studied. We also studied the hormonal parameters which has never been done in previous studies. This experiment is a world premiere.

Up until now the corn NK603, the very one selected for the study had only been tested over a three month period and that in a test environment entirely controlled by Monsanto, its manufacturer. Furthermore, concerning the Roundup, also manufactured by Monsanto & which is used for growing corn, only its active agent, Glyphosate had been assessed. But one needs to understand that the manufacturers in order to enable the agent to penetrate the plant cell successfully, use additives that are sometimes more harmful than the actual Glyphosate.

Gilles-Eric Seralini

Molecular biologist

University of Caen (France)

We have two clear objectives, firstly to conduct the studies exactly according to international requirements, but making sure we are very thorough when it comes to analyzing the results. Secondly we want to determine if there are secondary effects. The only way to do this is to carry out tests on animals, and then to examine all the blood parameters whilst paying close attention to their organs.

Commentator: At this stage it might prove useful to know exactly what GMOs are used for. It is a plant that has been developed either to produce its own insecticide or to be tolerant to a herbicide, thusenabling it to be exposed to massive doses of it without dying. One can understand how GMOs can be useful to farmers, for example they would be able to spray their entire field with Roundup, killing all the weeds in the process & never harming the genetically modified plant. On the other hand it is hard to see the benefits for the consumer who will effectively be ingesting substances coming from a plant that has absorbed the pesticides. That is why it is crucial to test not only the GMO, but also the GMO with its residue & the pesticide on its own.

Professor Seralini: This type of testing had never been done before because the corporations doing the test would do them on GMOs with the Roundup which meant that we had no idea what between the GMO & the Roundup caused the pathologies. Or they did them on GMOs without specifying that this was the case. So what we decided to do was to address the question, are we dealing with the effects of the GMO or the pesticide. During the last ten years of testing the national commissions did not envisage a pesticide effect.

Commentator: Therefore Europe does not even demand chronic or toxicity tests to be systematically carried out on animals, & when they are required, it is the manufacturers who decide the protocol to be used. For example, the Amflora potato was only tested on a group

of thirty rats, ten of which were being fed the GMO. The Monsanto corn was tested on 400 rats. Eighty of them were fed the transgenic plant, but only forty of them were then subjected to blood tests. Either way, none of these studies lasted longer than 90 days.

Professor Seralini: What is represented by this figure is that certain groups of rats, male and female, have ingested GMO corn. GMO with Roundup residue and Roundup on its own. Every time we go up a level a rat dies. The limit is ten due to the number of rats that constitute a group. The dotted line represents the females in the group who die but have a completely normal diet. Only two animals die spontaneously after 550 days. On the other hand, every female that has been fed on the GMO, GMO with Roundup or Roundup diet has died more frequently than the other rats. Some will challenge

the relevance of such results but what is undeniable is in the group that has been exposed to the GMOs there is a 600% increase or six times more deaths compared to the control group. As far as medicine or biology is concerned there is no need for further testing. An important fact is that all the studies carried out on the rats are done over a three month period. It so happens that none of the effects are visible until the fourth month. This is fundamental in understanding that studies conducted over a three month period are useless. This conclusion is easily understandable. It could be said that their only use is to soothe their consciences.

Commentator: Every rat out of the 200 that were tested was dissected by Professor Seralini’s team. They did this to discover

exactly what had affected their organs. The purpose behind this was to identify the way each diet, GMO, GMO & Roundup & Roundup on its own had acted on the metabolism of each animal. Focusing on the development rate of the tumours, that, and this comes as no surprise, only start to manifest themselves after the initial three month period.

Professor Seralini: This figure represents a number of palpable tumours contracted by the animal during the experiment. Here we can see the rats subjected to GMOs compared to those with a regular diet. As you can see, very few males contracted tumours. This is due to them being more resistant to the testing process. What these figures show are the for the large tumours, each step up

represents a large tumour which can measure 17 millimeters by 17 millimeters. For a rat these measurements are colossal. It would equate to a tumour of this size if seen on a human being. It is enormous. After having studied these tumours it can be said that 94% of them take effect in the mammary glands which would equate to breast cancer in a woman. We are faced with renal tumours for the males but not only. Some males also suffer from mammary tumours. This points towards a hormonal effect that isn’t affected by the dosage. Sixty percent of breast cancer cases are caused by hormonal deficiencies.

Commentator:  Professor Seralini’s study holds one last surprise for us, and this is a major one. Up until now, one could have thought that the main cause of death for the tested rats was coming from the

pesticide added to the corn. But what the study highlighted, and this for the first time ever, is the fact that the transgenesis itself could have killed the rats. What this means is that just by interfering with the genome of the plant in order to modify it, we are faced with repercussions that no one could have anticipated. This is enough to make us reconsider all the scientific precepts that have led to the creation of GMOs.

Professor Seralini:  Roundup had never been tested separately. Whilst conducting cellular studies we saw that the cells of the liver, embryos, placenta, kidneys and the umbilical cord died much faster and so we could deduce that there was a toxic effect on the organism. What can be said is that there is an increase in deaths due to GMOs and Roundup. The biggest surprise came when we realized

that GMOs without any Roundup residue were responsible for an increase in the death rate of females and of some males. This could be the result of the GMO gene that has been badly assimilated by the plant and that has therefore resulted in a negative effect, or due to a secondary metabolical effect.

Joel Spiroux Vendomois:  What that means is that we are dealing with a GMO in particular. The modification of a cereal or GMO corn, with regard to the genes inserted into the corn, to make it a GMO corn can make it result in different effects. It’s not because a certain GMO has a particular effect that other GMOs will have an effect, but some have even more of an impact. What is alarming is that this

is the GMO that is being eaten by the Americans but, also the GMO that has been proved for importation by European agencies including the French ones and that obviously contaminates our food.

Commentator:  Nowadays, only two types of GMOs are being produced in a few European countries. One is corn and the other potato. But what about the 27 million tons of transgenic soya that are being unloaded each year in European ports. This soya is used to feed our cattle, but it also makes its way into a number of our foodstuffs.

Professor Seralini:  What we want to achieve with this study is a moratorium. The situation is serious enough, and we’re not going to eat anything and everything. We imported without knowing what was being imported. And the United States have produced crops without knowing what they were producing. There needs to be more studies of this kind, and GMO manufacturers need to conduct them before commercializing their products.

Commentator:  A moratorium on growing GMOs has been approved by most European countries. Now that we know the results of the study conducted by Professor Seralini, could it be time to extend this moratorium to all the GMO used in many of our foods. To establish an undeniable scientific truth, one needs teams, time and means. Some will say that it takes too much time and that this is too expensive. But had we taken this precaution, could we not have avoided recent sanitary scandals? Will GMOs be responsible yet again for a calamitous scenario? And while we are waiting for scientific certainties, evidently, this is a risk we cannot afford to take.

For further Info visit our Glyphosate pages  … and don’t forget to share 🙂

What’s in a Froot Loop? Harmful Chemicals, GMOs, Glyphosate & More

 

althealthworks.com

by

For millions of kids across the country Kellogg’s Froot Loops have been a staple part of their morning diet.

But are Kellogg’s Froot Loops really safe, and should parents strongly consider boycotting them until the company finally listens to activists and removes all the unnecessary junk?

It’s common knowledge that the sugary breakfast cereal is anything but healthy, especially in the morning when kids are still adjusting and heading out for a long day, but a new lab analysis is showing just how bad the cereal really is for kids.

Glyphosate Also Discovered

The active ingredient in Roundup, the Monsanto product sprayed liberally by famers of GMO crops, was also tested in Froot Loops and found at a level of .12 ppm, or .12 mg/kg according to GMO Free USA’s tests.

What’s in a Froot Loop? Harmful Chemicals, GMOs and More

The website and advocacy group GMO Free USA has gained popularity nationwide for taking on and refuting GMO myths through social media awareness and education, and lately they’ve begun branching out by conducting lab tests on popular foods.

The lab tests are important because GMO labeling is still a right not offered to United States consumers as it is in 60+ countries around the world.

In order to test the Froot Loops for harmful chemicals as well as GMO material, a lab sample was submitted of Froot Loops to a certified lab in 2014.

It found that a full 100% of the corn in Froot Loops was GMO, through a quantitative PCR test by DNA analysis that found sequences that are known to be present in insecticide producing Bt and Roundup Ready corn.

[See the original GMO Free USA article here]

In addition, sequences known to be present in Roundup Ready soy (which is engineered so that it can be doused in Monsanto’s herbicide of the same name) was present as well.

READ MORE

http://althealthworks.com/5037/kelloggs-fruit-loops-contain-gmos-harmful-chemicals-and-more-new-lab-analysis-finds/

Gluten-free food FRAUD exposed in new Health Ranger video: They’re loaded with MSG and GMO

(NaturalNews) Do you think gluten-free foods are always healthy and wholesome? Think again: many of them are highly processed junk foods loaded with GMOs and MSG.

I’ve just posted a new video exposing the gluten-free fraud by reviewing a few off-the-shelf gluten-free products. As the video reveals, some of the products are made with hidden forms of MSG and genetically modified ingredients. But others are truly wholesome or even labeled Non-GMO Project Verified.

The lesson here is simple: Just because some food product claims to be “gluten-free” doesn’t mean it’s good for you. In fact, many gluten-free products are no healthier than processed junk foods. You’d be far better off eating organic wheat products with gluten than consuming processed gluten-free junk food loaded with GMOs, glyphosate, pesticides and MSG.

Gluten may not even be your problem in the first place… it’s probably glyphosate

On the topic of glyphosate, by the way, it is my belief that many people who mistakenly think they’re allergic to gluten are actually being poisoned by the glyphosate pesticide that’s commonly sprayed on wheat harvests as a drying agent.

Non-organic wheat is almost universally contaminated with glyphosate, a cancer-causing weed killer chemical that permeates the wheat berries and persists in wheat flour. If you are eating non-organic breads, pastries, sandwich buns or even bagels, you’re eating glyphosate.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/054391_gluten-free_foods_GMO_hidden_MSG.html#ixzz4CCTbQ3bf


See our Food Additives (under Chemicals) and Glyphosate pages for more info & links, &/or search categories for further related articles (at left of any page).

Please like our FB page &/or follow our blog, and do spread the word on all the untruths we have been told!

 

EnvirowatchRangitikei

 

CARCINOGENIC GLYPHOSATE DISCOVERED IN 93% OF URINE SAMPLES | UCSF STUDY

From myeclinik.com

In 2015, the University of California – San Francisco started conducting a study about glyphosate in humans after it has been classified as carcinogenic by the United Nations.

The results, as published only last month, indicated that at least 93% of urine samples, tested in the early phase of the study, contain certain levels of carcinogenic glyphosate.

The question now is: are these field exposure levels of the chemical fall within the safe levels previously published?

Is there really a true level of safety when it comes to manmade chemicals?

The Results

Glyphosate was found in 93% of the 131 urine samples tested at an average level of 3.096 parts per billion (PPB). Children had the highest levels with an average of 3.586 PPB.

The regions with the highest levels were the West and the Midwest with an average of 3.053 PPB and 3.050 PPB respectively.

Glyphosate residues were not observed in any tap water samples during the early phase of the project, most likely due to phosphorus removal during water treatment.

READ MORE: http://myeclinik.com/glyphosate-discovered-in-93-of-urine-samples-ucsf-study/

Agenda 21 and the Shutdown of Democracy in Aotearoa

Increasingly we are hearing of these scenarios where democracy is shut down in our local District Councils. Time and again, people are dismayed at the fact their seeming representatives whom they elected at LG elections … are straying off onto their own agenda and refusing to listen to the voice of the people. This is a rot that has set in over recent years and seems to be getting more fascist by the day, witness this event at the Auckland Council over the spraying of glyphosate and other chemicals in public places. In the Rangitikei a few of us here have had the same quiet battle where any leaning towards non-chemical weed control is silenced, as regards policy at least. Currently we have less chemical control in town than we used to have however the DC remains adamant glyphosate is quite harmless. Another issue regarding larger than stated or consented leachate quantities being pumped into our WWTP that had come to light via the public, taken then by the Community Committee (the conduit between the public and the DC)  to the DC, and simply then not accepted by the DC. Subject closed in effect! (The Community Committee it appears discusses public toilets a lot and is simply an exercise in window dressing).

All that aside, what is happening to our DCs then?  They are right now looking very fascist. They have little resemblance to democracy and yet folks are still treating them as such. Expecting democratic results and finding they are everything but. They merely give the illusion of democracy. Since running this website I’ve had feedback from locals about having gone to Council over issues that concern them to little effect. They are really great at fobbing you off. It appears, and many of us didn’t know this, that you need to ask that your comments be noted. You cannot simply assume they will be. In much the same way as when I presented glyphosate research to the RDC and later learned I’d failed to ask if the Council would get back to me on the issue. Fortunately a member of the CC was seated beside me and told me the said info, and fortunately also, a Cr asked for the issue to be put on the agenda for next meeting. Had she not, the issue would have disappeared into the black hole forever. And I left wondering what they ever did with it. It would’ve been precisely NOTHING. The ever intriguing machinations of Local Government. Finally, keep in mind that your local DCs are in fact companies. This explains a whole lot. Companies are about profits not people.

Report by Hana Blackmore

On Friday 13 May 2016 legitimate debate was shut down by Auckland Council in a ruthless manoeuvre to keep concerns about carcinogenic chemical use in the city out of the public eye and off the agenda.

COUNCIL FRIDAY 13TH 3B_cropCouncil was finalising and voting through the 2016/17 Annual Plan budget.

Submissions from the public and Local Boards calling for the restoration of funding for non-chemical methods in parks, and the elimination of all use of the toxic herbicide glyphosate from public places had been ignored and omitted from the budget.

An amendment was raised with Mayor Len Brown the previous day to address this by two councillors, Wayne Walker and John Watson, but was not presented by Mayor Brown until the end of the budget deliberations.

Immediately, under a point of order, Member John Tamihere objected saying it was inappropriate and was being raised too late; Mayor Brown did not defend it; and the Chair, Cllr Penny Webster agreed it was out of order and rejected the amendment.

All this in spite of an impassioned plea by Cllr Watson for it to be heard and noting the attendance of members of the public who had sat through over six hours of  debate to hear and support this amendment.  Chair Webster shut Cllr Watson down as well as Cllr Walker who tried to clarify the situation and the reason it was appropriate to be heard.

Pleas to the Chair and Mayor Brown, were all to no avail.

COUNCIL FRIDAY 13TH 7_cropIn an act of defiance those of us still present refused to be silenced.  When Council resumed after a short adjournment to rubber stamp the budget, I pleaded with the Mayor to use his prerogative and hear the amendment. Read more:

https://weedmanagementadvisory.wordpress.com/a-long-bad-day-and-the-shutdown-of-democracy/

Be sure to check out our Local Government Watch pages. Sign up or follow to see more developments on the local government front. We are watching closely.

EnvirowatchRangitikei

A Disturbing Prediction – By 2025 Half of All Newborns Will Have Autism

RANGITIKEI ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH WATCH
A disturbing prediction from statistics here. If you are a thinking person, you must do the research and see what has been happening here. Surely in an era of unsurpassed technology and expertise this should not be? Clearly you have an internet connection to be reading this, so research the topic particularly in relation to vaccinations. And keep an open mind. A researcher simply looks at all the facts and makes an informed decision, and there is plenty of information out there to sift through. Don’t just be lazy and accept the status quo. Believe me that’s no longer a safe way of proceeding through life. Here in this article the finger is pointed at, among other things,  glyphosate.
EnvirowatchRangitikei


116.JPG
The finger is pointed particularly at glyphosate … here it is sprayed on the Rangitikei’s Marton Primary School walkway right by the school, and no warnings of spraying given. The Rangitikei District Council is adamant that glyphosate is perfectly harmless.

by PAUL FASSA

This gloomy prediction was made at a GMO conference in December of 2014 by MIT senior scientist Stephanie Seneff, PhD. Originally a computer and artificial intelligence researcher, Seneff has shifted over the past several years to biology, with a focus on the impact of environmental toxins on our rapidly declining health.

Aluminum toxicity has been an issue with Dr. Senef, so vaccines are part of her equation to autism. But possibly just as much is the pervasive abundance of glyphosate. She and her research partner Anthony Samsel researched the relationship of glyphosate based herbicides (GBH) such as Roundup to the epidemic of many modern diseases, including Celiac, Alzheimer’s and autism.

Glyphosate is present in unusually high quantities in the breast milk of American mothers, way beyond the allowable levels of glyphosate in water. Urine testing shows Americans have ten times the glyphosate accumulation as Europeans.

 READ MORE:

http://www.realfarmacy.com/2025-half-newborns-will-autistic/

EU Parliament backs glyphosate restrictions

Greenpeace Press release – April 13, 2016

Brussels/Strasbourg – MEPs have backed restrictions on the use of glyphosate – the world’s most used weedkiller – and a shortening of its licence, amid rising health concerns.In a non-binding resolution, the European Parliament called for a ban on all uses of glyphosate-based herbicides in private and public green areas, including spraying in and around public parks, playgrounds and gardens. MEPs also called for restrictions on use in agricultural fields shortly before harvesting, and said a new glyphosate licence should be limited to seven instead of 15 years.

agriculture-89168_1280
Glyphosate is used widely in NZ, in public spaces, roadsides, playgrounds and parks and is recommended for pasture spraying in tertiary text books

The Parliament also called for full disclosure of the scientific evidence behind an assessment of glyphosate by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Environmental and transparency organisations have called for the full publication of this evidence, and criticised glyphosate producers for their reluctance to publish carcinogenicity studies evaluated by EFSA.

Greenpeace EU food policy director Franziska Achterberg said: MEPs are right to call for tough restrictions of glyphosate use, but these are not sufficient to protect people and the environment. The science shows that glyphosate is a threat for public health and must be banned outright. A ban in cities and gardens would not prevent large-scale contamination of food, water, soil and air.”

 

http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2016/EU-Parliament-backs-glyphosate-restrictions/

Study reveals almost all Germans contaminated with glyphosate – that ‘probable carcinogen’

Thanks to thecontrail.com for this link …

Glyphosate’s been dubbed the most toxic chemical we’ve ever had in our environment, by a US Tertiary level lecturer of 55 years experience in agriculture, Professor Emeritus of Plant Pathology (Dr Don Hubert). France has taken glyphosate’s creators Monsanto to Court and won on the claim they have lied about its safety, following Professor Seralini’s research that uncovered its carcinogenic properties. (‘Probably carcinogen’ are the operative words however if you see the tumours at the link on the rats Seralini used you’d probably want to refrain from using it, in the interests of safety). Nevertheless, in spite of all this evidence Kiwis (who also consume the highest amount of 1080 in the world and call themselves clean and green) still delight in slathering it far and wide on our roadsides, gardens, public parks and even schools (please sign our petition for the Rangitikei). We pride ourselves as being intelligent and forward thinking but in this department we are severely retarded, in my opinion anyway. So widely used now in fact, Glyphosate is even being found in breast milk these days, in urine and blood and more recently it was discovered in tampons. And need I remind us, cancer stats are now one in three. Potentially, one third of your family, friends, acquaintances, will be diagnosed with cancer. This is very credible. I can count nine in my own circle. Surely … is it really worth the risk of snubbing our noses at the evidence? Just because grandpa used it all his life and is still walking around. Many weren’t so lucky.

Check out the studies in Germany and what they’ve turned up…

EnvirowatchRangitikei


 

theecologist.org Nicole Sagener / EurActiv.de

farmer-880567_1280A new study shows that 99.6% of Germans are contaminated with the herbicide glyphosate, writes Nicole Sagener. The news comes as the EU puts off a crucial decision on whether to re-authorise the chemical, described by IARC as ‘probably carcinogenic’, until 2031.

“Meat eaters also displayed higher levels of glyphosate contamination than vegetarians or vegans. This finding may reflect the high levels of glyphosate found in the ‘Roundup-ready’ GMO soy and corn used in animal feeds.”

All but 0.4% of the German population have been contaminated by the controversial herbicide glyphosate, according to a study carried out by the Heinrich Böll Foundation.

The study analysed glyphosate residue in urine and concludes that 75% of the target group displayed levels that were five times higher than the legal limit of drinking water.

“A third of the population even showed levels that were between ten and 42 times higher than what is normally permissible.”

EU still to decide on glyphosate re-authorisation to 2031

Harald Ebner, a genetic engineering and bio-economic policy with the German Greens, warned that “now nearly every single one of us has been contaminated by plant poison, it is clear to me that no new authorisations for 2031 should be issued.”

READ MORE

Links between Glyphosate and a Multitude of Cancers that are “Reaching Epidemic Proportions” – plus other Monsanto/GMO/Glyphosate Updates

Links between Glyphosate and a Multitude of Cancers that are “Reaching Epidemic Proportions”

(globalresearch.com) The original sanctioning and testing of glyphosate for commercial use was seriously flawed: for example, see thisthisthis, and this which highlight the non-transparent, secretive and seriously compromised processes that smack of regulatory delinquency at best and outright fraud at worst in order to protect and benefit the interests of rich agribusiness.
Read more: http://www.globalresearch.ca/links-between-glyphosate-and-a-multitude-of-cancers-that-are-reaching-epidemic-proportions/5486711

 

Greenpeace: Chinese Farmers Are Illegally Growing GMO Corn

(ecowatch.com) A Greenpeace East Asia investigation into corn production in Liaoning Province, one of China’s major breadbaskets, has found that 93 percent of random field samples and 20 of 21 samples from grain markets and supermarkets in the area tested positive for illegal genetically engineered (GE) contamination.
Read More: http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/06/china-illegal-gmo-corn/?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=9b3f65e5cf-Top_News_1_7_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-9b3f65e5cf-86010973

 

Venezuela Bans GMO Crops, Passes One of World’s Most Progressive Seed Laws

(ecowatch.com) Venezuela approved a new law on Dec. 23, 2015, that imposes one of the world’s toughest regulations on genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The anti-GMO and anti-patenting seed law was approved by the National Assembly of Venezuela in its final session. Today, the new opposition coalition—the Roundtable of Democratic Unity—will take over.
Read More: http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/05/venezuela-bans-gmos/?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=102862baf1-Top_News_1_10_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-102862baf1-86010973

 

Monsanto and Gates Foundation Pressure Kenya to Lift Ban on GMOs

(ecowatch.com) Kenya is on the verge of reversing its ban on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The East African country—which has banned the import and planting of GMOs since 2012 due to health concerns—may soon allow the cultivation of GMO maize and cotton after being pushed for approval by pro-GMO organizations including Monsanto, the agribusiness giant and world’s largest seed company.

http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/07/kenya-gmo-ban/?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=9b3f65e5cf-Top_News_1_7_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-9b3f65e5cf-86010973

 

Monsanto Scraps $90 Million GM Corn Facility Plans Due to Declining Profits

(naturalsociety.com) After the recent press release from Monsanto announcing that the company will cut about 3600 jobs globally, more news of the biotech company’s failure rises to the surface.

Plans to construct a $90 million GM corn processing plant in Independence, Iowa have reportedly been scrapped due to a ‘struggling farm economy.’ [1]
Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-scrap-90-million-gm-corn-production-facility-67305/#ixzz3yDWf2KmK

 

Greenpeace Finds Illegal GMO Corn Crops in China

(naturalsociety.com) Greenpeace said in a report released last Wednesday that farmers in northeast China are illegally growing genetically modified corn. [1]

The environmental group led an 8-month investigation last year into what it describes as large-scale production of GMO corn in the northeastern province of Liaoning, a major breadbasket region. GMO strains of corn were found in 93% of field tests and in 20 of 21 samples from grain markets and supermarkets.
Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/illegal-gmo-corn-crops-china-greenpeace-67328/#ixzz3yE3ZzcOr
Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

 

Taiwan Bans GMOs in Schools, Mandates Strict Label Laws

(ecowatch.com) Another country is taking action on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Taiwan has banned schools across the nation from serving GMOs to students, citing health and safety concerns.

On Dec. 14, 2015, Taiwanese legislature passed amendments to the School Health Act to stamp out raw genetically modified ingredients as well as processed food containing GMOs.
Read More: http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/13/taiwan-ban-gmos-schools/?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=c31898d992-Top_News_1_13_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-c31898d992-86010973

Brazil Slaps Nestle, Pepsi, and Others for Hiding GMO Ingredients

(naturalsociety.com) Six major food manufacturers – including Nestle, PepsiCo, and Mexican baking company Grupo Bimbo – have been slapped with fines by the Brazilian Ministry of Justice, which alleges the companies failed to include labels indicating the use of genetically modified ingredients.

The fines range from $277,400 to just over $1 million, for an estimated total of $3 million.
Read more:http://naturalsociety.com/brazil-fine-nestle-pepsi-hiding-gmo-ingredients/#ixzz3yE4vylk9

 

Huge: Berkeley, CA Joins in Suing Monsanto for Toxic PCB Chemical Pollution

Through a unanimous vote by its City Council, the city of Berkeley, California has decided to hold Monsanto legally liable for polluting the land and water with PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls). [1]The council’s 6-0 vote means that Berkeley is joining Oakland, San Jose, San Diego and Spokane, Washington, in filing suits against Monsanto, the agricultural biotech company based in St. Louis, Missouri.
Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/berkeley-ca-suing-monsanto-toxic-pcb-chemical-pollution-30/#ixzz3yE5YGlGw

 

EnvirowatchRangitikei