The NZ authorities do not practice the precautionary principle with the spreading of 1080 poison. In fact they are now legally allowed to drop it into your waterways without the previously required consents, even though the manufacturer’s warning says take care not to drop it into the waterways. Whilst they continue to claim it is harmless, there is much independent research that says otherwise. (See 1080science for further independent info). In light of that, in my opinion it is safer to follow the precautionary principle, that is, proceed as if there were a possible risk to your health rather than assume there is none. Since 1080 is a known teratogen I believe it is particularly important for pregnant mothers or even those who think they may be or who could be pregnant, to distance themselves from an area where 1080 is being distributed, particularly aerially because of the drift of the dust over long distances. I believe these are the concerns being raised here, and particularly also with regard to warning tourists of the risks of drinking the water, who may not be able to read the signs (if there indeed are any). Finally, of particular concern is the topography of Milford Sound. When it rains as per the above image, “all of the steep landscape can be considered a streambed”. EWR.
Re: Response to email on 31st July 2019 from John McCutcheon (MSI) to the community andstakeholders, regarding the impending 1080 drop into the public water supply water catchment area of Milford Sound
The key issue:
DOC has issued its intentions to drop a VTA (1080) between Aug 1st and Dec 2019 in the Cleddau/Milford Sound area, including the Bowen River valley, which is the water catchment for the public water supply of Milford Sound.
How might this affect the public water supply and its consumers in the Milford Sound area?
It won’t, if the drop is aborted in the Bowen River valley water catchment area.
However, if the drop in the catchment area goes ahead, I believe that – on reading the information and links below, both DOC & Milford Sound Infrastructure (MSI –the local public water supply company) should act in good faith, and with the prudent exercise of ethical responsibility, to make sure that an alternate water supply is arranged during and after the 1080 drop. Also, adequatesignage should be supplied about the drop –which seems to be the responsibility of Workplace NZ.
Why?
The alternative supply should be offered until testing is carried out and levels of 1080 found to be below the government standard for tests (set at 2 parts per billion, though under 3.5 parts per billion is deemed safe by the EPA.) Note: No human trials have been carried out to know if this level is indeed correct)
Failing the delivery of an alternate water supply, responsibility lies with us – the end operators and consumers, along with WorkSafe NZ – to place signs at all water outlets where human consumption could reasonably be expected to take place. For example, all tourist vessels, port and airport facilities, and all lodgings should have 1080 danger signs erected where water (including tea or coffee) is to be offered during and after aerial operations in the Bowen River catchment area, until post-drop test results are available.
I have now received an email (dated 1 Aug 2019) from Renee Cubitt (Health Protection Officer Public Health South, Southern DHB) where she states:
“… Mitigation measures are discussed between the water supplier and the applicant andmonitoring includes testing the water before consumption. Water samples tested for 1080 toxin residue in New Zealand are tested to a very low level of detection. Alternative suppliesare arranged before results are cleared(highlight added). In our view the risk to those consuming drinking water is extremely low – and most likely nil.”
But as recognised in this statement, some risk – however small – exists, so an alternative water supply should be offered.
What regulates these requests to drop 1080 and relevant mitigation of risk?
The Ministry of Health is responsible for ensuring that the provisions of the HSNO Act are complied with where it is necessary to protect public health. The Public Health Unit (PHU) is empowered by the Ministry of Health to approve permission and attach conditions to interested parties applying a VTA (Vertebrate Toxic Agent) in a public place. This applies especially to drops into (or near) a public water supply. Public Health South (PHS) processes and approves permissions for VTA use in the Fiordland area, in so doing, sets minimum standards for the intended dispersal area in the Milford Sound public water supply catchment area.
Permission is required because VTAs (of which 1080 is one) are toxic to humans through acute poisoning and chronic exposure. 1080 is considered a hazardous substance, for good reason. (See link to 1080 effects at p7.)
The PHU have issued a Model Permission Statement (see p32 onwards) with examples – one of which focuses on a VTA to be dropped into a public water supply. (Case study 2 at p63.)
Some things that stand out for me with the model PHU permissions:
Full disclosure to users is expected, with signs and warnings – which would logically be placed at the point of possible consumption. (See conditions 19 & 20 p47 of VTA permission guide.)
An alternate water supply should be offered, if requested, until testing has been completed. (See Case example – Condition 25 p68 note ii and conditions 25 – 32 of VTA permission guide.)
I see the above two points as meeting a legal and moral duty to protect tourists (and locals) from potentially drinking contaminated water.
It should be noted that, according to the opening segment of condition 30 (p57) of the VTApermission guide:
Mitigation shall be mutually agreed in writing between the applicant and water supply managers and involve either or both of the following [emphasis added]:
No 1080 shall be applied within 200 m of the water supply intakes. For flowing surface watercourses, the 200 m exclusion shall be extended to 400 m upstream of the point of intake. (p57)
If an interim water supply is available, the affected water supply shall be temporarily disconnected until such time as water testing finds no VTA contamination above 50 percent of the Ministry’s PMAV*, in accordance with the requirements of the Drinking-water Standards of New Zealand. (p57)
The first point above is modified (example given in condition (30 pg57) by:
In steep areas, the exclusion area may need to be increased to avoid bait falling in to the waterway [emphasis added].
Local conditions affecting the toxicity of any drop in this area
Let’s be honest, the whole Milford Sound area has extremely steep gradients.
Bowen River valley and public water supply catchment area (see red circled area)
Figure 1: (Map clipped 4 July 2019 from the onlineDOC map.)
Fiordland is a unique area in terms of its topography and rainfall. The Bowen River catchment valley is rather like a giant granite bath, with very little top soil, and average rainfall of 7000mm per annum.
During rainfall, all of the steep landscape can be considered a streambed.
Figure 2: Milford steep gradient waterways during heavy rain in Milford Sound (Photo: Sacha Stevenson)Contrasting the 2D nature of the 2017 GPS flight path map for the 1080 drop in this area with the reality of the length of the Bowen River and its many, many feeder streams (via a camping map) also gives perspective to the special nature of this landscape and its potential for major 1080 runoff into the waters feeding our drinking water supply.
Figure 3: Flight path for 2017 drop (from EPA Report) Figure 4: Topography (from Camping Map)
This unique topography, together with winter temperatures, ice and snow melt, will likely increase the risk of 1080 arriving at the intake area intact, and at the same time and breaking down much more slowly. According to TBFree: “How 1080 Breaks Down in Soil and Water”:
“Biodegradation of 1080 is faster in warmer conditions (20degC), but still occurs at 5degC. Atcooler temperatures rates of degradation are slower…..”
Imagine the perfect storm: A huge rain soon after the drop and all the aerially dispersed 1080 pellets wash straight into the streams and make their way to the public water supply intake around the same time. This poison then, being a deadly toxin at single digit parts per billion, arrives to be consumed by a pregnant woman, above the levels that the mother and child can metabolize safely.
Is it possible that 1080 might get to the intake before it breaks down? Considering the nature of the topography here, the winter temperatures and the international exposure of our iconic location, ALL options of mitigating risks should be enacted.
The 2017 DOC report (at p6) reported a positive 1080 test at 1ppb for the Bowen River (ie a fairly small risk). However, as discussed above, different conditions (eg heavy rain around the time of the drop) may adversely affect that risk level.
“Urgent samples for 24-hour turnaround testing may be sent unfrozen to the testinglaboratory, but they must be chilled to 4°C and placed on ice as soon as possible after collection.”
Looking closer at Landcare’s testing regime (at 4.0): “Results will be available no later than 9.30 a.m.
on the following day.” This means, at a minimum, no water should be drunk in Milford for 24hrs.
The precautionary principle
The HSNO Act (at s7) is predicated on a precautionary approach, especially where there is uncertainty about the effects of a course of action, which there must be in this case.
“The specific characteristics and risk profile of each VTA operation is different, depending onthe VTA being used, the terrain and factors such as public use patterns and/or proximity to dwellings and water supplies. The Model Permit Conditions may need to be modified in order to adequately manage the level of the risk to public health.[From page iii, emphasis added]
“The Model Permit Conditions are intended as astarting point. They should not be applied as ageneralised standard ‘set’ of conditions. They provide a framework that officers can adjust in order to meet local needs. However, officers need to ensure that they fully consider the various risks and characteristics of each specific proposed VTA operation in order to determine the appropriate Model Permit Conditions to be used and how such conditions might need to be modified to adequately manage the public health risks posed by that particular operation.” [From page 2, emphasis added]
Guidelines are not the law. They are a mechanism for giving effect to the law – and to its precautionary approach.
Milford Sound – a major tourist attraction
Milford Sound is one of NZ’s iconic tourist locations. We have somewhere between 500 to 5,000 guests per day visiting the Fiord, hosted by various companies across the different seasons. The large majority of tourists are foreign nationals, many of whom don’t speak or read English very well.
Until at least the 24th July 2019, Milford Sound Infrastructure acknowledged they hadn’t been notified of the impending drop. Since the community was notified by MSI on the 31st July, we can assume we now have at least 2 months until the scheduled drop begins, as per the guidelines:
The notice must be given sufficiently prior to, but within two months of, the proposed application of the VTA (PHU VTA Permission – condition 27 Notification)
I understand that some of the companies here are planning to make bottled water available for their staff, but none of them (as far as I know) are planning to offer bottled water to the tourists, or even to put notices up in the terminal or on the vessels to warn them of the 1080 drop – so they can at least make an informed choice as to whether they will consume the potentially contaminated water or not.
I believe in ‘free will’ and I can understand some people believe the Government/DOC scientists when they say the water will be safe to drink.
However, around 3% of 1080 tests in water have come back positive for 1080 over the years, with at least 4 positive tests in drinking water, albeit in low concentrations. (See TBFree, p3.)
Knowing that 1080 is teratogenic (may cause birth defects) and with my partner being pregnant, I wouldn’t wish her to have any exposure whatsoever to 1080. I assume no foreign national in her position would wish to be exposed to that risk either. (See MOH Guidelines p7 re known 1080 effects.)
I am disappointed that neither DOC, MSI Milford Sound Infrastructure, or MST Milford SoundTourism NZ (the port operational company that operate the terminal and dock facilities) are planning to at least inform the tourists that the water they may drink in the terminal and on board the vessels may potentially have a birth defect causing agent in it.
It is probably true that signs will likely be erected along the road into Milford, as we have seen done in various locations around NZ. But it is wrong to conclude that because those signs are at rest areas etc, that foreigners will equate that with the drinking water supply inthe terminal and on the vesselsetc, as being also potentially contaminated. One must remember that many visitors can’t read English for a start, plus many come from areas where it is obvious that one doesn’t drink from any tap water.
Is it obvious here?
I would expect the duty of care and a minimum standard would mean that we’d firstly err on the side of caution. I would also assume that foreign governments would want us to set the minimum standard bar rather high when it comes to looking after the health and welfare of their citizens. As we would hope they do for our citizens when they’re abroad.
We know that the US and China for example, among others, take the safety of their citizens travelling overseas very seriously.
Do we need reminding that there is no antidote to 1080 poisoning?
It really seems easy to avoid the vast majority of the risks in this case. Just don’t drop 1080 in the water catchment area: meaning no 1080 to be aerially dropped in the Bowen River valley area of Milford Sound.
If DOC is so determined to go-ahead with the poison drop in the catchment area, then full disclosure to tourists should be made and an alternate drinking water supply offered (as per the model PHU statement example of 1080 in a public water supply).
It’s embarrassing that we call our country ‘Open and Inclusive’ ‘Clean Green’ etc and yet treat foreigners with this sort of disrespect.
I would like to add, I have no issue with the normal supply and delivery of water in Milford Sound. As long as I’ve worked here, MSI and MST have both operated with professionalism and worked to fix any issues with the greatest of haste.
A final point
If the aerial drop in the Bowen River catchment area is aborted, there would be no risk to the public water supply.
If you are concerned, please speak up and send your concerns to DOC and MSI.
A must watch also is Poisoning Paradise, the doco made by the GrafBoys (banned from screening on NZ TV, yet a 4x international award winner). Their website is tv-wild.com. Their doco is a very comprehensive overview with the independent science to illustrate the question marks that remain over the use of this poison. There are links also on our 1080 resources page to most of the groups, pages, sites etc that will provide you with further information.
Check out the 1080 pages at the main menu, particularly the sub tab, ‘suspected 1080 poisoning cases’. Finally, remember what the retired MD Charlie Baycroft said recently …‘if you die from 1080 poisoning, nobody will know because the Ministry of Health is bullying NZ Doctors into not testing for 1080′. EWR
“Safe as a cup of tea…salt and vinegar chips…..disappears….dissolves…etc.”
These are the words of pro-1080 spin by those with vested interests or those whose money depends on their bureaucratic jobs, and all are unscientific lies.
The better words to think of are “soluble, solute, solvent, and solution.” A universal solvent is water, and if 1080 toxin is the solute, the number of parts per million or trillion the toxin will be diluted to will depend on a number of factors.
For example:
A bait lying in a pond of water in the bush will be a significant solute in a small body of solvent and the solution would be highly toxic.
A bait resting in a fast flowing bouldery river bed will be leaching its toxin but the solute does not disappear. The atom and molecules remain.
Temperature is the other factor (other than the solute/solvent equation) that is considered. We do know with 1080 that micro-organisms can break down 1080 over time, but only in higher temperatures and with high dilution.
In the meantime even 1080 toxin in parts per trillion can affect reproductive and mitochondrial health. 1080 is a synthetic poison that is a teratogen (i.e. an agent or factor which causes malformation of an embryo). It is also deceptively colourless and odourless. 1080 anywhere near water especially
where there are colder temperatures, (most of NZ) or not enough water (the solvent) to adequately dilute the toxin, (the solute) is simply dangerous.
(This was written and sent to me by a Facebook friend who is a high school teacher. I think it sums it up well).
Search for related articles about water & 1080 by using the categories drop down box at the left of the page.
If you are new to the 1080 poisoning program, here is a good article to start with …
A must watch also is Poisoning Paradise, the doco made by the GrafBoys (banned from screening on NZ TV, yet a 4x international award winner). Their website is tv-wild.com. Their doco is a very comprehensive overview with the independent science to illustrate the question marks that remain over the use of this poison. There are links also on our 1080 resources page to most of the groups, pages, sites etc that will provide you with further information.
Check out the 1080 pages at the main menu, particularly the sub tab, ‘suspected 1080 poisoning cases’. Finally, remember what the retired MD Charlie Baycroft said recently …‘if you die from 1080 poisoning, nobody will know because the Ministry of Health is bullying NZ Doctors into not testing for 1080′.
Remember, this is a Class 1A Ecotoxin with no research studies done on 1080’s impact on the unborn, and this dust is known to drift with the wind. The late Dr Scanlon raised concerns about these risks. The drop in question is near the Luggate community & an ag-pilot of 6,000 hrs flight time has just sounded a warning regarding the dangers of the current winds influencing that drift onto the small township. This is not rocket science and yet OSPRI who promised to consult, have failed to do so. Remember also what Dr Charles Baycroft said about 1080 poisoning? If you are poisoned nobody will know because the MOH are bullying Doctors NOT TO TEST FOR 1080! Please visit our page, Suspected 1080 Poisoning Cases for further information on that topic. EWR
OSPRI REFUSE TO CONSULT WITH LUGGATE COMMUNITY OVER AERIAL 1080 DROP
By Carol Sawyer
As a result of the public meeting the Luggate 1080 Action Group held in the Luggate Hotel, 21 May, 2019, a letter was sent by Cherilyn Walthew ( on behalf of the Group ) to OSPRI’s Programme Manager, Eric Chagnon, asking for OSPRI’s attendance at a public meeting to fulfil their obligations with regard to community consultation, and containing a list of questions generated from the wider community at that community meeting at the Luggate Hotel,( see attachments) That original letter is at bottom.
Here is the response received today from ???? ( Team OSPRI), and Cherilyn Walthgew’s reply to that, also today:
From: Community Relations Southern South Island <CR_SSI@ospri.co.nz> Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 8:13 AM Subject: RE: Urgent. Outstanding questions regarding the proposed Luggate 1080 drop, 2019
Dear Cherilyn,
Thankyou for the invitation, however, OSPRI considers that all statutory obligations for the operation concerned have been met.
Your questions will be responded to as soon as possible within the required timeframe.
It is interesting that in refusing our invitation to come and meet the community for consultation to answer the pre-identified questions we have already sent you, you have now morphed from Eric Chagnon to a “faceless identity”.
The community of Luggate does not consider that you have met your statutory obligations around “public consultation” and given you assured them this would happen, it is not unreasonable to request that you uphold this commitment. Especially as this drop is to occur in what could be considered a highly populated “remote and inaccessible” area.
We are aware that in most circumstances, the residents of “remote and inaccessible” areas generally don’t “speak” however, in this case, the residents include quite a large number of people who reside in an area that has a 1km boundary from the poison operation.
These same people have raised serious health concerns with you, ranging from dust drift from the toxic class 1a ecotoxin monosodium fluoroacetate (1080) to E.coli contamination of water tributaries, that run through the village, as a result of rotting carcasses.
I feel that I really need to point out the obvious here, you have not met your obligations for public consultation as you committed to do so in 2017 for any future operation. Given your past history of nearly poisoning people outright, this is a shameful stance.
Pregnant women and those with health concerns have no wish to be guinea pigs in your experiments with this toxic poison. In the name of human decency, were you at least planning to publicly inform people when this drop is commencing so that pregnant women and mothers will have an opportunity to protect both existing and unborn children?
I will now be petitioning all relevant parties who have issued consents, for them to suspend the consents until these serious concerns can be responded to, and consulted on, in conjunction with the community.
I have included the question file for those parties who are cc’d in on this email and may not have seen these at this time.
This is very disappointing behaviour from your organisation and troubling from one that is looking for community support, yet fails to engage in any meaningful or genuine manner.
In the meantime, we will look to progress a public meeting without you.
Yours sincerely
Cherilyn Walthew
******************************************
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 2:00 PM Cherilyn Walthew wrote:
Dear Eric,
It is with alarm that I read of OSPRI’s intentions, in the Wanaka Sun, to start dropping poison around the settlement of Luggate as of the 1st June, 2019.
To date, OSPRI have not fronted for genuine consultation with the Public as was promised back in 2017 by one of your predecessors.
There are still a number of questions that the community would like you to answer prior to the commencement of your poisoning operation and given that you and your Organization appear reluctant to come and discuss this, we would like to take this opportunity, on the 1 year anniversary of your organization walking out of the last promised community consultation, to invite you to a genuine consultation event.
We are aware that your staff have made claims of being “ambushed” in the past with our questions and there have been other claims that you were concerned for the health and safety of your staff. These are very destressing claims and I can assure you there is absolutely no threat to your staff from our community however, we will also look to invite a number of other people to attend the consultation meeting including MPs, local councilors, DoC representatives, Police etc. to ensure that you feel fully comfortable in your environment.
In addition, we are including a copy of the questions that have been raised by the community in advance of our requested meeting so, that you can prepare yourselves appropriately.
We are aware that the 1080 discussion has been subject to many claims of “mis-information”, particularly around these aerial operations. Therefore, in good faith, we will appoint an independent “fact-checker” to adjudicate on the answers.
We are happy to take on the administration of arranging the meeting and co-ordinate the additional guest list if you would let us know a date that will suit you and the relevant staff members you require to attend. We will be happy to try and accommodate any date after the 11th of June. I realise this is after the date you had indicated commencement for this operation however, had you come to us earlier, we may have been in a position to arrange things a bit quicker.
In view of the lack of facilities in Luggate, our suggested venues would be either the Hawea Flat Community Hall which we can secure for free and is available on either Monday evenings or Thursday evenings after 7pm. Or, we are checking dates that the Lake Wanaka Centre is available and will forward you some dates as soon as possible. The Lake Wanaka Centre will have an associated charge and we would expect you to incur this cost as part of your community consultation budget, if this is the preferred venue.
There has been some reluctance in the past by your Organization, and associated parties, to answer these same questions however, it is a matter of public urgency that you do so, before irreparable damage is caused by your actions, as was nearly the case in 2017 with the residential water supplies.
This list of questions has been generated by the wider community at a gathering in Luggate on the 21st of May. This was coordinated by a local volunteers and is a community initiative under the collective name Luggate 1080 Action Group.
Before commencing the poison operation, we formally ask that in the spirit of human decency, you answer these questions first.
Given the urgency of this subject, please respond with your intentions by close of business on Tuesday, 4th of June so, that may continue with arranging the necessary details and ensure invites are put out to the relevant parties.
Yours sincerely and on behalf of people representing
A must watch also is Poisoning Paradise, the doco made by the GrafBoys (banned from screening on NZ TV, yet a 4x international award winner). Their website is tv-wild.com. Their doco is a very comprehensive overview with the independent science to illustrate the question marks that remain over the use of this poison. There are links also on our 1080 resources page to most of the groups, pages, sites etc that will provide you with further information.
This is a venue for pointing to the independent science you won’t read in mainstream. It is not a forum to host for and against debate, you will have to find another venue to do that. Social media is a good option. And we neither advocate nor condone violence.
THIS DUCK SHOT TODAY (5/5/19) IN NORTHERN SOUTHLAND APPEARS TO HAVE EATEN POISON
By Carol Sawyer
“This photo was sent to me today by a concerned duckshoooter. He shot it today in Northern Southland and discovered the green paste in its digestive tract when he was cleaning it. This is a bisection of its entrails at the tail end.”
[Note: please see this previous post on the dangers of eating duck. Our wild food sources have become endangered with the liberal & frequent spreading of poisons into our environment. A precautionary approach is advisable.]
(Facebook have called it “violent or graphic content… it is a duck prepared for someone’s dinner, for goodness sake!)
It may be 1080, Pindone, or Brodifacoum. We don’t know.
This photo was sent to me today by a concerned duckshoooter. He shot it today in Northern Southland and discovered the green paste in its digestive tract when he was cleaning it. This is a bisection of its entrails at the tail end.
A lot of discussion has ensued behind the scenes. Ducks can have greenish poo, for sure, but that is more a khaki brown/green colour. None of us have ever seen any duck poo this colour (and I used to have about 300 wild ducks arrive in duckshooting season to join the home mob, so am VERY familiar with their ‘deposits’).
Birds can apparently live for quite a while after ingesting 1080 poison and longer with Pindone or Brodifacoum presumably.
During duckshooting season, particularly in this first weekend of the season, they are dispersing widely and flying longer distances to find safe places, too.
A lethally poisoned duck may well survive for many, many hours flying time.
In an article on vertebrate pesticides in ‘Veterinary Toxicology for Australia and New Zealand, 2017’, Rosalind Dalefield BVSc PhD DABVT DABT, states “Birds have survived up to 10 days after dosing with sodium fluoroacetate”. ( 1080 ).
(In the ERMA Review it is stated ““[weka and pukeko] time to death 4-18 [hours]” & “[time to death for blackbirds dosed with 1080] 10.8-30.5 hours”).
“Aquaculture promotes itself as a sustainable solution to overfishing. But in reality, fish farms actually cause more problems than they solve. There’s really little difference, in terms of environmental pollution, between land-based feedlots and water-based ones.”
From Dr Mercola
Nicolas Daniel’s documentary “Fillet-Oh-Fish” takes a critical look at the fish industry, featuring exclusive footage from fish farms and factories across the globe. Many still have a rather romanticized view of fishing, but when it comes to large-scale food production, the picture is actually rather grim.
Today’s fisheries are faced with a range of severe problems, from overfishing to chemical pollution and genetic mutation from toxic exposures. As noted by the producers of the film, “through intensive farming and global pollution, the flesh of the fish we eat has turned into a deadly chemical cocktail.” [1]
Despite that, the fish business is booming, in part due to efforts to keep the dirty underbelly of modern fisheries from public sight.
Aquaculture promotes itself as a sustainable solution to overfishing. But in reality, fish farms actually cause more problems than they solve. There’s really little difference, in terms of environmental pollution, between land-based feedlots and water-based ones.
Farmed Salmon — One of the Most Toxic Foods in the World?
The film starts off in Norway, looking at the chemicals used in fish farms. Kurt Oddekalv is a respected Norwegian environmental activist, and he believes salmon farming is a disaster both for the environment and for human health.
Below the salmon farms dotted across the Norwegian fjords, there’s a layer of waste some 15 meters high, teeming with bacteria, drugs, and pesticides. In short, the entire sea floor has been destroyed, and since the farms are located in open water, the pollution from these farms is in no way contained.
These are not NZ brands, however, bear in mind how well established in most countries the lie about the safety of glyphosate is. On that note it is also sprayed everywhere in NZ, in fact NZ has a love affair with it. Recommended in NZ ag text books to spray fields then plow under (have heard the local farmers boast about its safety). It is sprayed on roadside ditches where the water flows, in school grounds, parks and reserves, everywhere you like to look, with the usual stalwarts staunchly vouching for its safety, most I’ve found stopping their ears to any warnings or suggestions about caution as to its safety. I’ve also heard it’s sprayed into the ground around orange trees (for export) so it goes into the root system. That said, organic is best given the authorities still think it’s all safe as houses.
From althealthworks.com
As far as healthy drinks go, few are more popular in the United States than a glass of orange juice with breakfast. The average American consumes about 2.7 gallons of “OJ” per year, and about 2/3 of limited-service restaurants offer it as a beverage choice.
When properly made (especially fresh-squeezed and organic), orange juice can be extraordinarily healthy for a wide variety of reasons.
It’s rich in vitamin C, fiber, and contains antioxidants that help protect and nourish the skin among many other benefits.
But if you drink orange juice in the United States, you may be getting far more than you bargained for — a surprisingly high dose of one of the most controversial chemicals in the world, one that happens to be linked to cancer, and also serves as the main ingredient in Monsanto’s flagship herbicide.
And unfortunately for the many thousands of people who drink them every day, the most popular brands in the United States are among those most affected.
Lab Tests Reveal Glyphosate in Orange Juice Samples
The grassroots non-profit Moms Across America has made a remarkable impact in the world of food activism, helping to expose the Monsanto Company’s link to the American Pediatrics Association (they’ve since been given the boot) and keeping its members up-to-date on how to protect their families from toxic chemicals in the food supply.
Recently, the organization made waves with an announcement that caught the attention of orange juice drinkers everywhere: samples of five major U.S. brands tested positive in lab results for glyphosate.
How 3M and DuPont made billions by exposing the entire world to a toxic chemical which causes cancer and birth defects and is now found in the blood of 99.7% of Americans.
Agrichemicals and antibiotics in combination increase the evolution of antibiotic resistance
Bacteria may develop antibiotic resistance up to 100,000 times faster when they’re exposed to certain herbicides in the environment, particularly widely used herbicides like glyphosate (Roundup) and dicamba (Kamba)
It’s believed that other chemicals in the environment may also increase resistance in microbes, much like herbicides; however, regulatory agencies don’t regulate or test them for such effects — even among the 3,000 top-volume chemicals produced annually
Reducing the use of antibiotics may not be enough to stop this looming public health disaster — unless the use of herbicides and other chemicals that affect antibiotic resistance is also curbed
Antibiotic resistance is often pegged as a problem caused by the overuse of antibiotics — and this is a driving factor — but research suggests it may actually be only one piece to the puzzle. Environmental factors may be accelerating the rise of antibiotic resistance as well, particularly widely used herbicides like glyphosate (Roundup) and dicamba (Kamba).
Research from University of Canterbury researchers revealed that agrichemicals and antibiotics in combination increase the evolution of antibiotic resistance. In fact, bacteria may develop antibiotic resistance up to 100,000 times faster when they’re exposed to certain herbicides in the environment.1
“The combination of chemicals to which bacteria are exposed in the modern environment should be addressed alongside antibiotic use if we are to preserve antibiotics in the long term,” study author Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury, said in a news release.2
‘Like Trying to Put Out a Fire of Antibiotic Resistance With Gasoline’
The study found cases when exposure to herbicides made the antibiotics more toxic while at the same time increasing the antibiotic resistance. Heinemann explained why this is an alarming finding:
“We are inclined to think that when a drug or other chemical makes antibiotics more potent, that should be a good thing. But it also makes the antibiotic more effective at promoting resistance when the antibiotic is at lower concentrations, as we more often find in the environment … Such combinations can be like trying to put out the raging fire of antibiotic resistance with gasoline.”
The results suggest that herbicides enhance the ability of antibiotics to become antibiotic resistant and that such resistance may be acquired at rates much faster than those predicted in laboratory conditions. Previously, research by Heinemann and colleagues found that commonly used herbicides promote antibiotic resistance by priming pathogens to more readily become resistant to antibiotics.3
This includes Roundup (the actual formulation of Roundup, not just its active ingredient glyphosate in isolation), which was shown to increase the antibiotic-resistant prowess of E. coli and salmonella, along with dicamba and 2,4-D. Rodale News reported:4
“The way Roundup causes this effect is likely by causing the bacteria to turn on a set of genes that are normally off, [study author] Heinemann says. ‘These genes are for ‘pumps’ or ‘porins,’ proteins that pump out toxic compounds or reduce the rate at which they get inside of the bacteria …’
Once these genes are turned on by the herbicide, then the bacteria can also resist antibiotics. If bacteria were to encounter only the antibiotic, they would instead have been killed. In a sense, the herbicide is ‘immunizing’ the bacteria to the antibiotic … This change occurs at levels commonly used on farm field crops, lawns, gardens and parks.”
![Milford_Sound_vertical_water_ways[1]](https://envirowatchrangitikei.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/milford_sound_vertical_water_ways1.jpg?w=474)
pilot
