1

12 Reasons Why Even Low Levels of Glyphosate Are Unsafe

By Zen Honeycutt | Children’s Health Defense

A California jury on Friday found Monsanto liable in a lawsuit filed by a man who alleged the company’s glyphosate-based weedkillers, including Roundup, caused him cancer and ordered the company to pay $289 million in damages. (Photo: London Permaculture/cc/flickr)

Proponents of GMOs and Glyphosate-based herbicides and staunch believers in the EPA have long argued that low levels of glyphosate exposure are safe for humans. Even our own EPA tells us that Americans can consume 17 times more glyphosate in our drinking water than European residents. The EWG asserts that 160 ppb of glyphosate found in breakfast cereal is safe for a child to consume due to their own safety assessments, and yet renowned scientists and health advocates have long stated that no level is safe.  Confusion amongst consumers and the media is rampant.

Glyphosate is the declared active chemical ingredient in Roundup and Ranger Pro, which are both manufactured by Monsanto, the original manufacturer of Agent Orange and DDT. There are 750 brands of glyphosate-based herbicides.Glyphosate based herbicides are the most widely used in the world and residues of glyphosate have been found in tap water, children’s urine, breast milk, chips, snacks, beer, wine, cereals, eggs, oatmeal, wheat products, and most conventional foods tested.

The detection of glyphosate in these foods has set off alarms of concern in households and food manufacturers’ offices around the world. Lawsuits have sprung up against companies that make food products that claim to be “100% Natural” and yet contain glyphosate residues. These lawsuits have been successful. Debates, using the argument that “the dose makes the poison,” have been pushed by media. Speculation is that these media outlets are funded by advertisers that make or sell these chemicals or have sister companies that do, and threatening their profits would be unwise for all involved – except the consumers.

It is time to set the record straight

Here are 12 reasons why there is no safe level of glyphosate herbicide residue in our food or beverages.

  1. Babies, toddlers, and young children have kidneys and livers which are underdeveloped and do not have the ability to detox toxins the way adults doTheir bodies are less capable of eliminating toxins and therefore are particularly susceptible. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has stated that children, especially, should avoid pesticides because, “prenatal and early childhood exposure to pesticides is associated with pediatric cancers, decreased cognitive function and behavioral problems.”
  2. Glyphosate does not wash, dry or cook off, and has been shown to bioaccumulate in the bone marrow, tendons and muscle tissue. Bioaccumulation of low levels over time will result in levels which we cannot predict or determine; therefore there is no scientific basis to state that the low levels are not dangerous, as they can accumulate to high levels in an unforeseeable amount of time.
  3. “There is no current reliable way to determine the incidence of pesticide exposure and illness in US children.” -AAP  Children are exposed through food, air, contact with grass and pets. How much they are being exposed to daily from all these possibilities is simply not something that we have been able to determine. Therefore no one is capable of assessing what levels are safe from any one modality of exposure because an additional low level from other modalities could add up to a high level of exposure.
    1. Ultra-low levels of glyphosate herbicides have been proven to cause non-alcoholic liver disease in a long term animal study by Michael Antoniou, Giles Eric Seralini et al.  The levels the rats were exposed to, per kg of body weight, were far lower than what is allowed in our food supply. According to the Mayo Clinic 100 million, or 1 out of 3 Americans now have liver disease. These diagnoses are in some as young as 8 years old.
    2. Ultra-low levels of glyphosate have been shown to be  endocrine and hormone disrupting. Changes to hormones can lead to birth defects, miscarriage, autoimmune disease, cancer, mental and chronic illness.
    3. The  EPA Allowable Daily Intake Levels (ADIs) of glyphosate exposure were set for a 175-pound man, not a pregnant mother, infant, or child.
    4. Glyphosate alone has been shown to be chronically toxic causing organ and cell damage. Glyphosate herbicides final formulations, have been shown to be acutely toxic, causing immediate damage at low levels.
    5. The detection of glyphosate at low levels could mean the presence of the other toxic ingredients in glyphosate herbicides on our food. Until studies are done, one must practice the Precautionary Principle. The label on glyphosate herbicides does not specify the pesticide class or “other”/“inert” ingredients that may have significant acute toxicity and can account for up to 54% of the product.
    6. Regarding the label and low-level exposure: “Chronic toxicity information is not included, and labels are predominantly available in English. There is significant use of illegal pesticides(especially in immigrant communities), off-label use, and overuse, underscoring the importance of education, monitoring, and enforcement.” – AAP. Exposure to low levels of glyphosate herbicides can occur through pregnant wives or children hugging the father who is a pesticide applicator.  The chronic health impacts such as rashes which can, years later, result in non-Hodgkin lymphoma, are often ignored, especially by low income or non-English speaking users dependent on their pesticide application occupation for survival.
    7. The EPA has admitted to not having any long-term animal studies with blood analysis on the final formulation of any glyphosate herbicides.  The EPA cannot state that the final formulation is safe.
    8. For approval of pesticides and herbicides, the EPA only requires safety studies, by the manufacturer who benefits from the sales, on the one declared active chemical ingredient—in this case glyphosate. Glyphosate is never used alone.

[Read more here]

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield, Massachusetts and New England (USA) & “virtually” the world. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.

 




Widely Used Pesticides Pose Bigger Threat Than DDT: Watchdog

Andrea Germanos | Commondreams

"The steps taken today to protect pollinators will determine the state of our biodiversity and food security for years to come," report from provincial environmental watchdog states.  (Photo: Fitz Crittle/flickr/cc)

“The steps taken today to protect pollinators will determine the state of our biodiversity and food security for years to come,” report from provincial environmental watchdog states. (Photo: Fitz Crittle/flickr/cc)

A class of widely used pesticides called neonicotinoids poses a bigger ecological threat than DDT, an environmental watchdog has warned.

Environmental Commissioner of Ontario Gord Miller issued the cautionary words Tuesday while speaking to press about his just-released annual report, which includes a section on the “Plight of Pollinators.”

Explaining the problems with neonicotinoids, also known as neonics, the report states: “Troubling questions are being raised about the broader environmental effects of these pesticides. Only a small portion of the active substance is taken up by plants in seed-treated crops, and the rest enters the environment. This is of concern because neonicotinoids are not only persistent in soil and water, but are also water soluble and highly mobile within ecosystems.”

Ontario, where use of neonics is extensive, has been experiencing higher than normal overwintering normal losses of bees, and increasing evidence has linked the pesticides to lethal and non-lethal harm to the pollinators. Facing economic hardship from these losses, beekeepers in the province sought last month to bring a class action suit against makers of neonics.

Bees “really are the canary in the coal mine,” Miller said.

“The impacts of neonicotinoids clearly are more wide-scale in the ecosystem. They are affecting the wild bees, other insects. They’re getting into the wild plants, they’re getting into the aquatic systems, and they’re affecting the food supply to our insect-eating birds.”

“We know that the impacts are extending into the ecosystem,” he said, “We don’t know at this time know the full magnitude.”

“I’m very concerned,” he said.

In terms of its pollution, Miller said that there’s never been anything like this before. The science before him, he said, “suggests to me as an ecologist that this is the biggest threat to the structure and ecological integrity of the ecosystem that I have encountered in my life—bigger than DDT.”

He said he sees no science to indicate neonics’ ability to increase crop yield; conversely, he said his report documents cases of farming without their use where production has increased.

Though his report does not call for a moratorium on neonics, he said he would be “glad to hear it” if the government put one in place.

“The Ontario government needs to take swift action and commit dedicated resources in order to avert a potential ecological and economic crisis,” the report states. “The steps taken today to protect pollinators will determine the state of our biodiversity and food security for years to come.”

The Ontario Beekeepers’ Association responded to the report saying, “Although we would have liked a more specific call to action, we are pleased that the Commissioner recognizes the need for ‘swift action.'”

More from Commondreams