NEW INFORMATION ON THE HERBICIDE GLYPHOSATE (ROUNDUP ETC)
This week the Internet has been a buzz with new revelations about glyphosate the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup.
I have spoken out against this chemical for many years after I found my use of the weed killer on the property caused skin problems on my dogs according to the medical professional that diagnosed the condition.
I also must admit that when I used the weed killer around my nursery, garden centre and home I would always feel a bit out of sorts for a couple of days.
This was likely from breathing in the fumes as I was not wearing a respirator believing at the time the propaganda from Monsanto that it was so safe you could drink it.
(That was found out to be so untrue when a Monsanto spokesman who made the statement was asked to do so on camera and refused saying do you think I am mad)
Over a number of years independent studies have shown all sorts of health issues in regards to glyphosate all of which are disputed by other scientists presumably in the pay of the manufacture.
Main Stream Media, (MSM) science journals, agriculture magazines appear to ignore the studies and will instead promote the safety of glyphosate.
I am of the opinion there are two types of science currently working; one I call true science which the studies are done by independent scientists and universities, peer reviewed and then largely dismissed by MSM
Then there is Paid For Science which will produce the required results that have been brought by the parties/companies who want to make money from their products.
As we now see in the USA how the CIA has controlled media outlets such as the Washington Post, New York Times and CNN to only make available the propaganda that the CIA want us to know about. The same corrupt system is used by chemical companies and the pharmaceutical industry.
It is the result of honest scientists, whistle blowers, Wikileaks and the alternative media that we get to find out what is really happening.
This time I think Monsanto will have a hard time talking their way out of what has been exposed in very reputable areas including the US Courts.
Here is extracts from one of the many sites with this story:
Last week, we learned that an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA In the USA) helped Monsanto block additional review of glyphosate's link to cancer.
News also broke that Monsanto employees helped ghostwrite scientific papers related to the herbicide’s impact on human health.
How do we know this? A federal judge in San Francisco unsealed documents revealing that Jess Rowland the EPA official charged with evaluating the cancer risk of glyphosate exposure was looking out for Monsanto’s interests instead of closely evaluating the herbicide’s health impacts.
From the beginning of the glyphosate review, Monsanto has been interfering with the process to prevent EPA from determining that the chemical is a carcinogen.
Through unsealed records of emails and phone calls, we see that corporate interference around the glyphosate review runs deep. EPA’s Rowland bragged to a Monsanto executive that he "deserved a medal" if he could kill another agency’s investigation into the chemical referring to the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), which announced in 2015 that it planned to publish a toxicological profile of glyphosate. Rowland’s communications with Monsanto staff were familiar and conspiratorial; one Monsanto official cautioned colleagues, “I doubt EPA and Jess can kill
this,” and warned them not to “get your hopes up.” Ultimately, ATSDR never published the review.
Additionally, Monsanto’s toxicology manager and his boss were ghostwriters for two reports that Rowland’s committee utilized to reach its initial conclusion in September 2016 that glyphosate wasn't carcinogenic.
The strategy of relying on Monsanto ghostwriters for certain sections was revealed in email documents about containing costs for the research. Monsanto is denying these ghostwriting allegations, and EPA officials have yet to make public comment.
Monsanto is feeling the heat when it comes to their flagship herbicide.
The primary ingredient in RoundUp, glyphosate, is under increasing scrutiny for its links to cancer.
While the EPA review is ongoing, California recently registered the chemical under “Prop 65,” meaning the state considers it a possible carcinogen.
And in 2015, the UN’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) deemed glyphosate “probably carcinogenic to humans” after reviewing independent, peer-reviewed studies.
More than one hundred new cancer lawsuits have been filed against Monsanto over the last week not only from farmers and farm workers, but from consumers and home gardeners as well.
From recent court action in California it would appear the glyphosate products could soon be required to be labeled 'probably carcinogenic' in California which should then see similar labeling of the same products here in NZ.
There is sufficient peer reviewed studies to show this is very likely the case which means it would be advisable for retailers in NZ to voluntarily place these warnings on the shelves where the products are sold to prevent litigation against the stores.
The companies that have herbicides with glyphosate in the ingredients would be well advised to put the warnings on the labels to protect themselves against classaction litigation by astute Lawyers.
Like the health issues that have come from lead, mercury, asbestos and tobacco many agriculture workers and home gardeners that have developed cancer and a number of other glyphosate health issues could well sue manufactures and retailers that have not provided adequate warnings.
Recent studies in NZ Universities also highlight more health concerns with glyphosate. I quote:
Recent research has revealed that the herbicide could indeed be a contributing factor to the “superbug” epidemic that is being seen around the world.
Scientists from the University of Canterbury in New Zealand have piloted new research that shows glyphosate is not just an herbicide, but a potential vector for antibiotic-resistant disease.
The study is the first of its kind. Professor Jack Heinemann, from the university, says that while herbicides may be tested for their ability to kill bacteria, they are not tested for what other effects they may have on microbes.
“We found that exposure to some very common herbicides can cause bacteria to change their response to antibiotics.
They often become antibiotic resistant, but we also saw increased susceptibility or no effect.
In most cases, we saw increased resistance even to important clinical antibiotics,” Heinemann commented.
The professor went on to explain that their results were so surprising that they enlisted another researcher from a different institution to conduct the same exact experiments in a different environment and without knowing exactly what she was adding to the bacteria, to help ensure the validity of their findings.
The research conducted at Massey University yielded the same results as that done by the University of Canterbury.
According to the researchers, the effects they uncovered would be relevant to people and animals who are exposed to pesticides used in similar concentrations to that of what was tested.
While the amounts used by the team were of greater concentration than what is currently supposed to be allowed in food as we all know, the amount of glyphosate residue in and on food often surpasses what is deemed “permissible.”
As antibiotic resistance continues to grow, the threat that glyphosate poses simply cannot be ignored.
The effects of herbicides like glyphosate can have on bacteria are very real especially given the chemical’s tendency to be intentionally misused by farmers as a desiccant.
(This is a common practice, to spray crops such as wheat pre-harvest which means bread and other flour products that are not organic grown have good amounts of glyphosate in them. I wonder if gluten intolerance is more to do with glyphosate sensitivity?)
Does glyphosate alter healthy bacteria in the gut, too?
Pathogenic bacteria are not the only microbes susceptible to the ill effects of glyphosate.
The bacteria that reside in the human gut can also be harmed by the toxic herbicide.
The very same shikamate pathway that glyphosate uses to target weeds and pathogenic bacteria species is the same pathway it would use to destroy the friendly and beneficial bacteria that inhabit the intestinal microbiome.
This, of course, would come with its own host of adverse health effects.
There is no reason to believe that if glyphosate is capable of killing or altering one type of bacteria, that it would not harm other bacteria via the same pathway.
Some research has already alluded to the potential for glyphosate to wreak havoc on the human digestive system.
Given that the microbiome is of great importance to overall human health, findings such as this are not surprising: if glyphosate is killing off intestinal bacteria, it stands to reason that may be the first point of disease.
Furthermore, some research has shown that glyphosate is capable of altering gut bacteria in other animals for example, in 2014 German scientists found that glyphosate negatively affected the gut bacteria of cows.
It seems that the more we learn about glyphosate, the more dangerous it becomes.
for your reference here is the Link to court documents mentioned earlier:
Problems ring me at 0800 466464 (Palmerston North 3570606)
Web site www.gardenews.co.nz
Phone 0800 466464
NZ farmers are so 'addicted' to this stuff they have a real blind spot on it. It's disgusting stuff. I'm going to sound pessimistic but as soon as this gets shuffled off the 'safe' list they'll have another to replace it with the ensuing 50 year drag it out period like we've seen with glyphosate. sooo corrupt.
I'm sure they are already on the shelves Danielle, masked under technologies that we haven't even heard of yet. Nano material is never tested for ... wondering ;)
No doubt Rose. Glyphosate when i looked is in most of the other herbicides on the New World shelf. All in easy reach of the kids too.