Some cynics write off citizen action including petitions and sign-carrying protestors. They don’t believe such small efforts can make any big difference. But the more than 600,000 people of Dutch city Rotterdam disagree. Their efforts, which began with a petition, have led to a “green initiative” in their city including the banning of Roundup, Monsanto’s flagship product.
The petition campaign was called “Non-toxic Sidewalks for Our Children.” With support from that country’s Green Party, concerned citizens were able to make a significant change for their city and their future.
As we know, Roundup (glyphosate) is a dangerous pesticide that is used all over the world. Though its maker, Monsanto, would have you believe there’s nothing to be afraid of, research says differently. As a matter of fact, glyphosate has been connected to numerous health problems including respiratory distress, cellular damage, and even cancer. Check out this article which outlines just 7 nasty effects of pesticides.
“It is bad stuff and I’m glad we’re giving it up,” says Emile Cammeraat, Green party leader in the council. “The producer Monsanto also provides genetically engineered seeds, Monsanto’s own plants are the only thing RoundUp doesn’t kill. In such a business district as you want to be, no Roundup is simply necessary, as there are organic alternatives.” (Translated by Fritz Kreiss)
Global consumers are getting wise to the dangers of Roundup and the GMO seeds designed to resist it. They don’t want Monsanto and other GMO-seed giants taking over the global food supply and have started grassroots resistance movements around the world. The problem lies in getting enough people to take actual action against the seed giants and local, state, and federal lawmakers who support them in one way or another.
Collectively, the people of Rotterdam were able to make their voices heard, essentially eliminating glyphosate from their local environment. There’s no reason similar cities in other areas of the world couldn’t do the very same thing.
Comically, the U.S. government has recently decided to increase the allowable amount of glyphosate in U.S. food crops, just as another place bans the substance. The new rule allowing for even greater use of this damaging ingredient would take existing limits on glyphosate and dwarf them with new, higher ones. These limits would truly only work to benefit the interests of one, and it’s not the American people, but Monsanto – the giant corporation who is making millions off of genetically modified crops and the destruction of agriculture and human health.
In addition to the Roundup ban, Rotterdam’s green initiative will provide new parks and play areas, and even get the city involved in planting fruit trees. There will be more flowers and environments to support bees and wildlife, and more places for the urbanites to take in nature without fear of contamination by Monsanto’s evil poster child
A new study looking at pigs that eat genetically engineered (GE) versus non-GE feed suggests we could be overlooking health problems associated with using the unnatural gene technology in crops that livestock and people eat, according to some consumer experts and scientists.
In the new study published in the Journal of Organic Systems, Australian and U.S. researchers found pigs fed genetically engineered feed were much more likely to suffer from severe stomach inflammation and heavier uteri, a condition that could signal endometrial cancer, endometriosis, abnormal thickening, or gynecological polyps, all things that could affect fertility.
“Clearly, issues are raised in this pig study that need to be followed up, especially since in the U.S., we don’t require safety assessments before [GE crops] come onto the market,” says Michael Hansen, PhD, chief scientist at Consumers Union.
The GE feed used in the study included ingredients like corn, which is genetically engineered to produce pesticides within the plant or to withstand heavy sprayings of glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup. Some corn is genetically manipulated to produce pesticides internally and also withstand chemical spraying. Researchers also used GE soy developed for glyphosate dousing, another go-to ingredient for livestock feed (and processed people foods.)
Read More: 7 Things You Need to Know about GMOs
Long-term feeding studies like the recent pig study—they fed pigs on this diet about 5 months under real-world conditions until slaughter—are also rare. In America, the FDA doesn’t require studies investigating potential health impacts of GE ingredients to humans before genetically engineered crops can enter the market, and seed companies who own patents on GE technology must approve researchers’ requests to study their seeds, something critics say greatly stifles research.
“If the company decides they don’t like your research, then it doesn’t get approved. That’s not the way you do science,” Hansen says. “Imagine where we’d be if we let the tobacco industry decide which studies could have been done on tobacco and its safety.”
This rare feeding study found the uterus weight of GE-fed pigs was 25 percent higher than non-GE-fed pigs; GE-fed pigs also showed severe stomach inflammation at a rate of 2.6 times that of non-GE-fed pigs. It’s important to note, though, that even pigs on the non-GE diet experienced moderate stomach inflammation, a side-effect scientists say needs to be studied further.
Using pigs in the experiment serves two purposes. According to Hansen, commercial pig farmers are trying to figure out what’s causing emerging health problems in pigs. The physiology of pigs is the closest to human physiology of vertebrate animals, too. “The findings here are of particular significance for potential impacts on human health,” explains Warren Porter, PhD, professor of zoology and environmental toxicology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
The study stirred up more questions, too. Researchers didn’t examine the large and small intestines, but Porter says future research should focus on those organs to evaluate the gut microflora of animals fed GE versus non-GE feeds. Gut bacteria levels can have very important impacts on immune function and should ultimately be evaluated in long-term feeding studies before the government releases these crops into the food chain, Porter says.
A 2012 study published in the journal Current Microbiology raises gut and immune system concerns, too. In that study, German researchers found glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, kills off beneficial bacteria, allowing more resistant, pathogenic germs to colonize in the gut. Warren notes that on Wisconsin dairy farms, the lifespan of organically fed cows is often up to three times longer than the lifespan of GE-fed cows, with the literature suggesting another link to GE-foods and immune system problems.
“It is important to remember that if immune function is being affected by GMO crops, it is also highly likely that endocrine and neurological functions are also being impacted because those three systems interact with each other in multiple, intricate ways,” Porter says. Hormonal changes in the endocrine system could also affect developmental processes of fetuses in pregnant females, he adds. Hormones are extremely sensitive to even tiny doses of chemicals, meaning there could be very broad impacts of feeding GE ingredients on fetal development, Warren adds.
“The public should be aware of the multiple connections between organ systems in normal bodily function when considering consumption of GMO foods,” Porter says. “These intricate interconnections between gut function, immune health, and the health of the rest of the body also elevates the need for labeling of GMO foods for human consumption and for domestic animal production.”
To avoid GMOs in your diet, eat organic, Non-GMO Project Verified, and 100-percent grass-fed foods. If you don’t want to wait for the federal government to make GMO labeling mandatory, consider starting at the state level. In June 2013, both Connecticut and Maine passed GMO labeling laws.
Are some Americans being poisoned from food contamination of a heavily used herbicide?
A recent peer-reviewed study of the herbicide Roundup appearing in the scientific journal Entropy indicates that this may be so.
The chemical in question is glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup. The study reveals that measurable amounts of glyphosate have been found in food sold to the public. And, according to the study, this chemical has serious detrimental effects to the human body.
Serious Side Effects
“Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body,” say study authors Stephanie Seneff, of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Anthony Samsel.
According to the study, Glyphosate impairs the CYP (Cytochrome P450) pathway, a gene pathway vital to forming and breaking down molecules in cells, as well as enzyme functions that regulate some hormones and blood pressure. The abstract of the study states serious side effects: “Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.”
Roundup works in conjunction with is Monsanto’s biotech crops, which are genetically engineered to be immune to the herbicide. Roundup is used on millions of acres of food crops, which include corn, sugarbeets, and canola.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, glyphosate is the most popular herbicide in the country. It is widely used in lawn care, gardens, and golf courses all over the country.
Monsanto Refutes the Science
Monsanto denies all of these claims, and insists its product is safe. Monsanto’s Executive Vice President of Sustainability says “We are very confident in the long track record that glyphosate has. It has been very, very extensively studied.”
Review Not Coming Until 2015
As far as oversight is concerned, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is continuing a standard review of glyphosate, and will determine whether use of said chemical should be restricted…in 2015.
The Huffington Post, Entropy Abstract, Medical Daily
Did you see the latest indictment of Monsanto making the rounds? It’s a “peer-reviewed” paper in the journal Entropy, co-authored by Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff, blaming glyphosate, the compound in the herbicide Roundup, for virtually all the ills that can befall us.
But here’s the thing — they made it up. Or, all but. They say, “We explain the documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease, and we show that glyphosate is a ‘textbook example’ of exogenous semiotic entropy: the disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins.” Exogenous semiotic entropy! That sounds serious. Google it, though, and you find that those three words occur together in only place. This paper. They made it up. At first, I thought the whole thing was one of those jargon-laden academic hoaxes but, alas, it isn’t.
Slog through their argument (and, please, if you take this seriously, read the paper!), and you find it boils down to two things. Glyphosate, they claim, 1) inhibits CYP enzymes, which are active in lots of metabolic processes, and 2) disrupts gut bacteria, which are susceptible to its mechanism (disrupting the shikimate pathway), even though humans are not. Therefore, any condition that involves metabolic processes or gut bacteria must be affected by glyphosate exposure. QED!
Here’s the list of ills they blame, at least in part, on Roundup: inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, Alzheimer’s, autism, anorexia, dementia, depression, Parkinson’s, reproductive issues, liver diseases and cancer.
The evidence for these mechanisms, and their impact on human health, is all but nonexistent. The authors base their claim about CYP enzymes on two studies, one of liver cells and one of placental cells, which report endocrine disruptions when those cells are exposed to glyphosate. Neither study is CYP-specific (The effect of pesticides on CYP enzymes, by contrast, has been studied specifically.) As for the gut bacteria, there appears to be no research at all on glyphosate’s effect on them.
Samsel and Seneff didn’t conduct any studies. They don’t seem interested in the levels at which humans are actually exposed to glyphosate. They simply speculated that, if anyone, anywhere, found that glyphosate could do anything in any organism, that thing must also be happening in humans everywhere. I’d like to meet the “peers” who “reviewed” this.
After reading the paper, I had to wonder — who are Samsel and Seneff? Seneff is a Senior Research Scientist in the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab at MIT. Her advanced degrees are in electrical engineering. She describes herself as having “recently become interested in the effect of drugs and diet on health and nutrition.” Samsel describes himself as an “Independent Scientist and Consultant,” and, for the last 37 years, has run Anthony Samsel Environmental and Public Health Services, which does “Charitable community investigations of industrial polluters.” I think it’s fair to say they probably went into this with a point of view.
There’s real danger in bad science like this. Industrial agriculture has created a lot of environmental problems. We have to find ways to reform our food system, but shoddy research only helps Monsanto. If we base our objections on papers like this one, we won’t — and we shouldn’t — be taken seriously.
The top selling herbicide on the market has been shown to kill human cells in independent studies. While this particular herbicide, with the main ingredient glyphosate has been deemed safe for use, only the main ingredient is being tested; neglecting the other ingredients which make up the compound.
Listed on the ingredients label of a pesticide or herbicide is the active ingredient, in this case, glyphosate, as well as inert ingredients – the inactive ingredients, or those which don’t kill weeds or pests. Some of the inert ingredients may not be specifically labeled or it will say “other ingredients” to protect trade secrets. The inert ingredients are concerning some scientists because lab studies have shown that an inert ingredient – polyethoxylated tallowamine (POEA) – commonly mixed with glyphosate, have been shown to kill embryonic, placental, and umbilical cord cells. In fact, it is more harmful to these human cells than the glyphosate itself, and even at levels far more diluted than what is used on the average farm or garden.
This is concerning because Americans use this product very liberally. To be specific, around 100 million pounds of the herbicide are applied to American farms and lawns every year. Perhaps the reason for its popularity is the idea that it is safe. Both the EPA and the Department of Agriculture recognize POEA as an inert ingredient and state that there is strong evidence it doesn’t cause cancer, and they can find no risk factors concerning. In fact, this ingredient, which is derived from animal fat, can be used in USDA certified organic products. However, these findings strongly contradict what a French study claims.
According to the French study, the tested formulas which included glyphosate and POEA, together and separately, all killed umbilical cord, placental, and embryonic cells. The scientists also hypothesized that this can cause problems during pregnancy not only because of the cell damage but it can interfere with hormone production as well. This is a far cry from what is considered so safe and nontoxic that it can go into USDA organic certified ingredients.
In 2009, Argentina petitioned for a ban on glyphosate after research came out showing the severe health and environmental effects suffered in areas sprayed with glyphosate. Birth defects, stillbirths, miscarriages, infertility and cancer were all pressing problems emerging in sprayed areas; lab studies confirmed these issues with deformities showing up in frog and chicken embryos. Furthermore, acute environmental effects included dead crops and livestock as well as waterways polluted with dead fish.
A Swedish study, conducted in 1999 showed a strong link between exposure to glyphosate and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma– a form of cancer.
Either the FDA‘s definition of safe differs greatly from others’ definitions, or the FDA is siding with large corporations by allowing such a toxic compound to come to market.