Welcome to the Afibber’s Forum
Our 18th Year Online!
Moderated by: Shannon Dickson


Afibbers Home Afibbers Forum General Health Forum
Afib Resources Afib Database Vitamin Shop


Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

science behind glyphosate

Posted by Larry 
science behind glyphosate
March 05, 2018 10:26PM
A federal court case that many on this forum might find interesting and care to follow.

[www.theguardian.com]
Re: science behind glyphosate
March 06, 2018 01:33PM
Thank you Larry for posting this introduction to an extremely important topic.

I recently read the well-documented book, Whitewash - The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer and the Corruption of Science by Carey Gillam, the leading investigative reporter on Monsanto for over a decade. After hearing her interview with Jeffrey Smith of Institute for Responsible Technology, I have been attempting to organize an introductory post on this very important topic… so I thank you for giving me this ‘nudge’ to complete it. Nancy from the Afibber’s forum and I have been sharing information on this and hopefully, she’ll join in and share her findings as well. If you like to be informed, Whitewash is a ‘must read.’ You won’t like what you read but you will become both enlightened and appalled

Separately, I’ll be posting in the Afib Forum studies connecting the glyphosate/Roundup exposure toxicity to findings that correlate to arrhythmias and will refer those readers to this thread for more detail. This topic has such far-reaching implications and while it’s difficult to rein in the abundance of material, it is definitely critically-important evidence of which we all need to be aware.

Carey Gillam was a guest speaker at Jeffrey Smith’s recent webinar series titled “Healing from GMOs (and Roundup®)” which provided information on “how you can protect yourself and your family from the harmful effects of genetically-modified foods and toxic pesticides based on brand new, leading-edge research.” Ms. Gillam’s interview title was: Monsanto’s Deception Revealed: Discover the Astonishing Cover-up of How Our Food Supply has been Poisoned

The focus included:
• How Monsanto was finally caught red-handed manipulating science and colluding with EPA officials
• How Roundup has now been linked to cancer and numerous other serious health conditions
• Why it’s critical for each of us to take charge of our health and not rely on government regulators to protect us

Also, it’s undoubtedly a given that there will be many attempts to discredit Carey Gillam’s findings … and based on what she’s uncovered, that’s understandable, given the way things work these days. However, I haven’t (yet) seen mention of any litigation regarding her abundant past journalism on the topic or claims stating her reference material is unsubstantiated.

To quote some of the eye-opening details would mean reproducing most of the book. While I’ve followed the GMO/ Roundup/glyphosate/pesticide exposure horror stories for several years, I hadn’t realized just how long ago and to the extent this travesty has been going on… including the exposure issues, environmental and the coverup/manipulation of science sanctioned by government agencies…. sadly, continuing to emphasize the power of money.

Ms. Gilliam exposes the practice of Monsanto and the chemical industry of permeating internet sources with testimonials, websites, blogs, industry sites and Twitter accounts, paid bloggers – providing a platform for Q & A info and statements that give false statements, spin and reassurance about the ‘safety’ of these chemicals to the unsuspecting public or those gullible enough to believe what’s stated because of the credentials. That’s Chapter 5 – “Under the Microscope. “ Chapter 6 titled “Spinning the Science” describes the methods Monsanto uses to put spin on the truth via online social media accounts such as Twitter.

“The glyphosate Twitter account was established in March 2015, the month IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) made its carcinogenic classification.” “PR experts inside and outside Monsanto have also sought out bloggers to post articles that support GMOs and glyphosate on different consumer and health websites, including the popular WebMD, where readers turn for information on a range of health and nutritional topics.” Page 128

Chapter 7 – A Poisoned Paradise - is an shocking account of what’s happened in beautiful Hawaii’s rich farm lands both with high levels of pesticides and the impact on the environment, farmers and people living in the area.

In case you are tempted to think this doesn’t affect you, here’s a quote about allowable pesticide levels which links to health issues based on individual tolerance levels:

“ The United States allows among the highest levels of glyphosate residues, critics say underscores the level of influence Monsanto has with regulators. They point to 201, when Monsanto asked for, and received, EPA approval to allow even higher tolerance levels than were already allowed on many foods.” (p. 60).

The entire book is eye-opening and worth quoting, but here are a couple that should stimulate your attention to read more:

“Chronic reference doses (of pesticide residues) are typically based on what animal studies show to be the lowest dose at which adverse health effects caused by a pesticide were seen. The EPA takes the human-equivalent amount of pesticide that harms animals and lowers it significantly in a formula designed to provide protection to human health. That acceptable dose is set at 1.75 milligrams of glyphosate per kilogram of a person’s body weight per day for Americans. The European Union, in contrast, says the acceptable intake is more than five-fold lower, or 0.3/mg/kg/day.”

The United states allows among the highest levels of glyphosate residues, which critics say underscores the level of influence Monsanto has with regulators. They point to 2013, when Monsanto asked for and received, EPA approval to allow even higher tolerance levels than were already allowed in many foods. 11 (page 60)

11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Glyphosate—Pesticide Petition (PP#2E7979,) Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132.
[www.regulations.gov] - Note, when I tried to retrieve this, it came back as non-functional at this time. Hmmmm.

For more enticement, review the Chapter titles at Amazon’s Look Inside feature... [www.amazon.com]

Corporate power, not public interest, at root of science committee hearing on IARC
Posted on February 5, 2018 by Carey Gillam
[usrtk.org]

If you don’t care to read the book, there are many reports such as these by Carey Gillam online.
Corporate-spun Science Should Not Be Guiding Policy
[careygillam.com]

[careygillam.com]
• November 28, 2017
• Published at UnDARK [undark.org]

Author Credits
Carey Gillam is the author of the recently released: Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science. She is a veteran journalist, researcher, and writer with more than twenty-five years of experience in the news industry covering corporate America. Since 1998, Gillam’s work has focused on digging into the big business of food and agriculture.

As a former senior correspondent for Reuters’ international news service, Gillam specializes in finding the story behind the spin—uncovering both the risks and rewards of the evolving new age of agriculture. Gillam’s areas of experience include biotech crop technology, agrichemicals and pesticide product development, and the environmental impacts of American food production.

Carey Gillam Leading Investigative Reporter on Monsanto
INTERVIEW TITLE:
Monsanto’s Deception Revealed: Discover the Astonishing
Cover up of How Our Food Supply has been Poisoned

What you will learn:
• How Monsanto was finally caught red-handed manipulating science and colluding with EPA officials
• How Roundup has now been linked to cancer and numerous other serious health conditions
• Why it’s critical for each of us to take charge of our health and not rely on government regulators to protect us
[huffduffer.com]

Excellent overview summary review as background
A Roundup of Roundup® Reveals Converging Pattern of Toxicity from Farm to Clinic to Laboratory Studies
[www.i-sis.org.uk]


Knowledge is power.

Jackie



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2018 01:44PM by Jackie.
Re: science behind glyphosate
March 06, 2018 03:13PM
I am not so sure about what Carey Gillam writes about Glyphosate, so I believe in the whole story:


14
Feb 2018

Hogwash! A review of Whitewash by Carey Gillam

https//www.biofortified.org/2018/02/hogwash

Liz
Re: science behind glyphosate
March 06, 2018 04:57PM
I think the big issue here is the process of "desiccation", by which wheat farmers "kill" their crops with RoundUp so they will turn brown more quickly and can be harvested sooner (and fields replanted sooner).

That practice needs to be stopped.
Re: science behind glyphosate
March 06, 2018 07:40PM
Hello Good Friends!!

It's been a couple years since I've been on this site, but there isn't a day that goes by that I don't think about the wonderful folks here that helped me in my daily battle with afib for many years. I am forever grateful!! I've been very blessed to be afib-free since my ablation surgery with Dr. Hongo in San Francisco in 2014.

I do, however, have many other health issues due to chemical toxicity, which is why I am always researching ways to become informed in hopes of healing my body

A couple years ago, I was diagnosed by my doctor with a Roundup sensitivity found in the food I was eating Back then, I was eating mainly organic fruits and vegetables, but was not eating organic grains and animal protein, yet I still had Roundup issues. I thought if I didn't eat Roundup ready GMO foods, I would be okay; but now I know that isn't the case because much of non-organic grains, like oats and wheat, are sprayed with Roundup a few days before harvesting. Also, unless chickens, beef, turkey, etc. are fed non-Rounduped grains, they will be contaminated as well, perhaps being even more toxic than produce, since Roundup accumulates in the muscle of the animals that we eat.

Roundup is now in our air, rain water, ground water, food, cotton products (like diapers and tampons), and even breast milk! Almost all soy is now a GMO Roundup ready crop, and soy is being used in many baby formulas! It is ubiquitous, and even if we eat organic food and filter our water, we can't escape its devastation, because even organic food is being cross-contaminated by spray that is being carried through the air by nearby non-organic crops being sprayed. For example, "Even some "organic" crops such as garbanzo beans, red lentils, buckwheat flour and pinto beans, have been found to be nearly as contaminated as their conventional counterparts. High glyphosate residues have been detected from 600-12,000 ppb to even 1.67 ppm. It only takes .1 ppm (100 ppb) to destroy gut bacteria."
[www.momsacrossamerica.com]

In Oct 2017, The European Union banned the use of glyphosate by 2022. [www.france24.com]. We must do the same to protect our citizens!

As MIT researcher, Dr. Stephanie Seneff explains in a video linked at the bottom of my post, the problem with glyphosate is that it destroys the microbiome in our gut, allowing all kinds of toxic chemicals to enter our bodies through our broken digestive systems, making pesticides, metal poisonings from lead, nickel, aluminum, and mercury, organophosphates, BPA in plastics, fluoride, and microorganisms even more deadly to our bodies. This leads to a myriad of autoimmune and other diseases.

As shown in the excerpt from the study below, even very low amounts of a toxin like glyphosate can cause horrible effects on our health. [detoxproject.org]

Glyphosate in Numbers

"Stone-Age industry funded science suggested that the higher the dose of a chemical, the more dangerous it was, however modern independent science has discovered that many toxic chemicals have as much or more of an influence on our health at low doses – these chemicals are known as hormone hackers (endocrine disruptors).

A study from March 2015 stated that the health costs to the European Union of hormone hacking chemicals is over $ 150 Billion per year! The study stated that lower IQ, adult obesity and 5% or more of autism cases are all linked to exposure to endocrine disruptors. Glyphosate is likely to be one of these hormone hacking chemicals according to independent science.


Glyphosate in Numbers

(parts per billion – ppb)

0.1 ppb: altered the gene function of over 4000 genes in the livers and kidneys of rats.

0.1 ppb: severe organ damage in rats

0.1 ppb: Permitted level for glyphosate and all other herbicides in EU tap water

10 ppb: toxic effects on the livers of fish

700 ppb: alternations of kidneys and livers in rats

700 ppb: Permitted level for glyphosate in U.S. tap water

11,900 ppb: found in Genetically Modified (GMO) Soybeans

Find out more information here what levels of glyphosate are safe


Here is another recent research article (Jan 24, 2018) that reveals RoundUp contains arsenic and other heavy metals and petroleum products that are not tested (labeled as inert ingredients) by Monsanto, which are toxic to humans.

[healthfreedomidaho.org]

Glyphosate Herbicides Contain Toxic Levels of Arsenic

"Prof. Gilles-Eric Séralini from the University of Caen Normandy, France, and his colleagues Dr. Nicolas Defarge and Dr. Joël Spiroux, have discovered several new findings which crush the pesticide industry’s claim that the ‘inert’ ingredients in glyphosate-based herbicides do not need regulating:

Glyphosate-based herbicides are shown to contain heavy metals such as arsenic. These are not declared and are normally banned due to their toxicity.
Tested on plants, herbicide formulants such as POEA are toxic in isolation, while glyphosate alone is not toxic to plants at normal agricultural levels, but apparently only at higher levels.
Tested on human cells, formulants composed of petroleum residues have a more endocrine disruptive effect and are more toxic than glyphosate.

The comparative effects of glyphosate alone and 14 of its formulations were studied by Seralini’s team. Glyphosate was clearly shown to not be the major toxic compound in the herbicide formulations – Petroleum-based compounds in the herbicide formulations were more toxic than glyphosate.

Seralini and his team also searched for other known toxic and endocrine-disrupting elements in 22 pesticides, including 11 glyphosate-based herbicides. They discovered several heavy metals in most formulations, in particular arsenic, chromium, cobalt, lead and nickel, which are known to be toxic and endocrine disruptors. All diluted formulations except one contained a cocktail of these metals.

This phenomenon thus appears to be widely distributed in the world, as the pesticide samples mainly came from the European Union and North America. In Asia, large amounts of Arsenic were found in the glyphosate-based herbicides previously sold in Sri Lanka before the country banned such herbicides due to concerns about CKDu – Chronic kidney disease.

Prof. Séralini stated Sunday: “These results show that the declarations of glyphosate as the active principle for toxicity are scientifically wrong, and that the toxicity assessment is also erroneous: glyphosate is tested alone for long-term health effects at the regulatory level but the formulants – which are composed of toxic petroleum residues and arsenic – are not tested over the long term. We call for the immediate, transparent and public release of the formulations and above all of any health tests conducted on them. The acceptable levels of glyphosate residues in foods should be divided immediately by a factor of at least 1,000 because of these hidden poisons. Glyphosate-based herbicides should be banned.”

Below is a bio of Dr. Stephanie Seneff, who is at the forefront of this battle. If you click on that link, it will take you to Dr. Seneff's website where you will find a compilation of the many papers she has written and videos she has done. Below that is a link to a video in which Jeffrey Smith interviews Dr. Seneff about the diseases she sees linked to Roundup. Once you go to that youtube website, you will see many other videos of interviews she has done as well.

Who is Dr. Stephanie Seneff? [people.csail.mit.edu]

"Stephanie Seneff is a Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. She received the B.S. degree in Biophysics in 1968, the M.S. and E.E. degrees in Electrical Engineering in 1980, and the Ph.D degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1985, all from MIT. For over three decades, her research interests have always been at the intersection of biology and computation: developing a computational model for the human auditory system, understanding human language so as to develop algorithms and systems for human computer interactions, as well as applying natural language processing (NLP) techniques to gene predictions. She has published over 170 refereed articles on these subjects, and has been invited to give keynote speeches at several international conferences. She has also supervised numerous Master's and PhD theses at MIT. In 2012, Dr. Seneff was elected Fellow of the International Speech and Communication Association (ISCA).

In recent years, Dr. Seneff has focused her research interests back towards biology. She is concentrating mainly on the relationship between nutrition and health. Since 2011, she has published over two dozen papers in various medical and health-related journals on topics such as modern day diseases (e.g., Alzheimer, autism, cardiovascular diseases), analysis and search of databases of drug side effects using NLP techniques, and the impact of nutritional deficiencies and environmental toxins on human health"

Intro to Video: The Health Dangers of Roundup by Jeff Smith and Stephanie Seneff:
[www.youtube.com]

"It was "supposed" to be harmless to humans and animals—the perfect weed killer. Now a groundbreaking article just published in the journal Entropy points to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, and more specifically its active ingredient glyphosate, as devastating—possibly "the most important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases and conditions that have become prevalent in Westernized societies."

That's right. The herbicide sprayed on most of the world's genetically engineered crops—and which gets soaked into the food portion—is now linked to "autism ... gastrointestinal issues such as inflammatory bowel disease, chronic diarrhea, colitis and Crohn's disease, obesity, cardiovascular disease, depression, cancer, cachexia, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, and ALS, among others."

In addition to my chemical toxicity issues, I have very high cholesterol due to a genetic condition. Dr. Seneff has also linked high cholesterol to Roundup as seen in this video:
The Great Cholesterol Deception--The Story Behind the Statins
[www.youtube.com]

Hope these posts are helpful. I have many others to share if more information is desired.

Blessings to all,
Nancy (Windstar)
Re: science behind glyphosate
March 06, 2018 10:02PM
Not exactly from scientific sources ---- Moms across America?

Arsenic is a natural occurring element on earth--Do you know that Brown rice contains arsenic in its husk, many Chinese eat white rice instead of brown for that reason. Water contains arsenic, states vary as to what percentage is allowed. Arsenic is added to animal feed and fed to chickens to prevent disease and promote growth, there is arsenic in grape and apple juice.

Roundup kills Palmera Amaranth, a super weed, it grows rapidly and can take over fields, Roundup seems to be the only herbicide that works on it.

A lot of sources that you have given are not hard science, I don't really like pesticides but without them we would not have the food supply that we enjoy. I know, I grow vegetables, berries and fruit. I have to use a spray on my cabbage, broccoli or I wouldn't have any, the rest of my garden I do not spray. I do have to spray my fruit trees or I wouldn't have any fruit. I have to hand weed my strawberries, veggies, I can do that but on fields and fields it isn't possible, the price of that produce would be very costly.

Lot of condemnation but no answers.

Liz

Liz
Re: science behind glyphosate
March 07, 2018 12:28PM
Thanks, Nancy for your very extensive and valuable contribution to this "Awareness Alert".

The science is there and it's coming from highly-credentialed researchers including Drs. Seneff and because this issue has been covered up and numbers manipulated, those who are speaking out with facts deserve a lot of credit.

Speaking of Moms Across America, if you check at this link… they have published analyses of various common foods and the amount of glyphosate contained versus organic. And many people who drink wine or eat grapes and juice are unaware that…

Glyphosate is sprayed in vineyards throughout Napa County in the winter when the vines are dormant. According to the California Department of Pesticide Registry, 50,417 pounds of glyphosate were applied on Napa County vineyards in 2013 alone, the last reported year.

In March 2016, Moms Across America reported that tests of ten wines from the California North Bay, including wines from Napa County, all contained varying levels of glyphosate. At the Acres USA Conference in 2011, Dr. Huber stated that the glyphosate is likely absorbed through the roots and bark of the grapevines and is then translocated into the leaves and grapes, making its way into the wine itself.

[www.momsacrossamerica.com]

Wolfpack - Yes, the desiccation practice is just one problem... it's not just wheat... and also other crops that are Genetically Modified to withstand spraying with Roundup to keep out competing weeds. So the glyphosate remains in the food. If animals are fed the corn, then they accumulate glyphosate... and if used for food - meat, eggs, milk, etc... the glyphosate in that goes into humans. Further, when Roundup is sprayed to eliminate the need for plowing before planting the next crop, they are finding now that the weeds are becoming resistant, so more Roundup is sprayed to keep that under control. The GMO foods cause other problems in animals and humans who consume them.

Jackie
Re: science behind glyphosate
March 07, 2018 01:37PM
Quote
Elizabeth
Roundup kills Palmera Amaranth, a super weed, it grows rapidly and can take over fields, Roundup seems to be the only herbicide that works on it.

I have to hand weed my strawberries, veggies, I can do that but on fields and fields it isn't possible, the price of that produce would be very costly.

[www.totallandscapecare.com]

$1000 bucks and a cup of coffee says that technology is readily scaleable. They won't unionize, either. winking smiley
Re: science behind glyphosate
March 07, 2018 01:59PM
Wolfpack:

Wouldn't work in my strawberry patch, that robo might work in a small garden, mine isn't real small. Weeds grow in the rows as well, so they would have to be pulled. People don't understand how much work is needed in growing food whether on a small scale or large.

Liz
Re: science behind glyphosate
March 07, 2018 02:16PM
Dr. Seneff a "highly credentialed researcher"? She doesn't believe in taking Vit. D

So what we have here is a computer scientist interested in artificial intelligence who thinks she can switch her expertise to medicine, biology, and epidemiology. Let’s just put it this way. An undergraduate degree in biophysics in 1968 does not qualify one to do this sort of research, and, as I discussed in her foray into autism and vaccine epidemiology, it really does show. Badly. The paper was so embarrassingly incompetent that I’m surprised any journal was willing to publish it.



Now compare those 8 published papers of Dr. Seneff to the 118, 280, 296, 400, and 470 papers published respectively by some of the top vitamin D researchers that have been cited by the Natural Health Perspective.

Her 8 published papers are so laughable that they are hardly worth reviewing.

In her paper on the metabolic syndrome, for example, it would be tempting to claim that she basically copied Lustig's position on fructose, who she mentions in at least one of her videos, and then adds the bit about a relatively low fat, low cholesterol diet in order to make her position seem somewhat different.

Dr. Seneff has not bothered to publish a paper on vitamin D. The Natural Health Perspective would be tempted to say that if an interviewer were to ask her about that she would claim that she is working on getting one published, which would basically mean that she has been unable to con a research journal into publishing a paper on that topic.

Most of her thunder is coming from her numerous slide show presentations that are available on YouTube. Much like the contestants on America's Got Talent Dr. Seneff has learned a lot from watching other academically oriented speakers.

After watching a few of her videos, one cannot help but notice that most of them are nothing but a poor rip-off of some of the main speakers who have been featured in a video on the Natural Health Perspective. Admittedly, however, Seneff does a lot better job of animating her Microsoft PowerPoint Slide Presentations, which expertise is no doubt coming from her computer background.

Then the most damning evidence against her claim that it is actually cholesterol sulfate rather than vitamin D that prevents cancer is two published research studies that have documented that cholesterol sulfate is a known marker for two different types of cancer: prostate cancer for males and ovarian and uterine cervical cancer for females. If cholesterol sulfate is so good at preventing cancer, why then can it be used to diagnose cancer?



In conclusion, Dr. Seneff appears likable on video. But, there is something off about her that at first is hard to put a finger on. The tip-off is without any advanced degrees in Health, or years of research experience, Stephanie presents herself as an expert on just about every topic imaginable.

Stephanie Seneff provides enough fluff for those who do not understand anything at all about how science works in order to support the delusions of people that strongly believe they can get enough sunshine in the States in order to save themselves from both heart disease and cancer. Sure sunning yourself is possible, but in most cases that would require using some type of a sun lamp on a daily basis. Using a lamp to artificially stimulate vitamin D production is no more "natural" than supplementation. The most delusional of them all seems to be Stephanie herself who resides in Boston, Massachusetts.

Not satisfied with the attention Dr. Seneff has gotten on just the vitamin D issue she has branched off on many other topics such as vaccines, dementia, autism, and the evils of the Roundup herbicide.

Vitamin D Supplements Work!

We have one entire article devoted to the health benefits of vitamin D.

On the Natural Health Perspective at least, vitamin D supplementation has NEVER been marketed as a quick fix for heart disease. Nor, is it being advocated as a quick fix for cancer, since it takes at least 3 years of daily supplementation. The evidence that supplementation with vitamin D effectively prevents cancer is quite solid. After over 30 years of research, the physical proof of effectiveness goes way beyond mere association.
•At least ten different physical mechanisms of action explain why vitamin D and calcium supplementation would be effective against age-related cancer.
•Vitamin D prevents cancer by controlling gene expression
•Vitamin D supplementation prevents cancer by boosting your natural immunity.
◦380+ Studies on Vitamin D and Immunity
◦35+ Studies on Vitamin D, Immunity, and Cancer

Furthermore, it has NEVER been about just vitamin D supplementation, since other nutrient cofactors are involved, such as calcium, magnesium, and selenium. These vitamin D cofactors can be effectively obtained from a healthy diet and / or by supplementation.

Of course, the gold standard of proof on the effectiveness of vitamin supplementation are randomized control trials (RCT). The definitive RCT research study to date on the effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation in preventing cancer is the Lappe Trial. Of course, there have been other randomized control trials on the effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation.
•50+ RCTs on Vitamin D
•7+ RCTs on Vitamin D and Cancer

Whether or not sunning brings other factors into play is besides the point since RCTs have shown vitamin D supplementation, alone, to be effective.

Furthermore, the Natural Health Perspective advocates at least six different ways to prevent age-related cancer.


This article was originally published on 09/26/2014.


Liz



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2018 02:25PM by Elizabeth.
Re: science behind glyphosate
March 07, 2018 05:22PM
Hi Liz,

We all have to do what is right for our own health, and if you want to continue to eat GMO and nonorganic food sprayed with Roundup, that is your choice. However, my doctor has told me I must eat organic because of my multiple chemical toxicities. But eating organic, as I said earlier, is becoming very difficult, because of cross-contamination of food from Roundup being sprayed on non-organic crops. The studies that Jackie referenced above report that even organic crops are being contaminated with Roundup.

Roundup is in the air, in the ground water, and in the rain water, so what is the answer? If we continue to flood our land with more and more Roundup, contamination may not be able to be reversed.

Why do you think that the European Union has banned Roundup by 2022? Certainly they will have to figure out a better way to deal with weeds if they want to grow food. We are just as innovative as the EU, so we should be able to do the same.

Nancy
Joe
Re: science behind glyphosate
March 07, 2018 05:52PM
Something along those lines might be useful replacing chemical soups to control weeds?
[www.abc.net.au]
Re: science behind glyphosate
March 07, 2018 05:59PM
Why didn't they ban it outright, instead of waiting 5 years? The problem is there isn't any real scientific data only speculation by people like Dr. seneff who isn't a scientist. May I ask what kind of doctor that told you that you must eat only organic, which is doubtful that anything that you buy is truly organic.

Liz
Re: science behind glyphosate
March 07, 2018 08:48PM
All of this reminds me of the hoopla about Rachel Carson and her book "Silent Spring" and DDT, DDT saved millions of lives and did not kill birds yet because of this book DDT was outlawed.

[www.thenewatlantis.com]

Liz
Re: science behind glyphosate
March 07, 2018 09:12PM
This article explains the why of GMO foods.

[www.thenewatlantis.com]

Liz
Re: science behind glyphosate
March 08, 2018 08:28AM
This report from Jeffrey Smith's website (Institute for Responsible Technology) is worth noting as it describes the endocrine disruption properties of glyphosate herbacides.

Intro:

The following article by Dr. Ramon Seidler, PhD. is on the dangers of Roundup that we should re-post, download, and share with anyone who still supports the use of this dangerous herbicide or the GMO plants that are engineered to be sprayed with it. It also exposes how the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has bent over backwards to ignore proven dangers that are now ravaging the health of our population. The author should know. He is Ramon Seidler, PhD., the former Team Leader of the EPA’s Genetically Engineered Organism biosafety program. He consistently warned the agency about very real risks of GMOs, but was ignored by decision makers.

By circulating this article, you will likely inspire someone to stop using Roundup on their lawns. In other words, just by re-posting this full piece, you may prevent someone from getting cancer, liver disease, or possibly numerous other disorders associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals. And hopefully this article will also inspire people to eat more organic food. As the article states, based on urine sampling, Americans probably consume 1000 times the amount of Roundup that causes fatty liver disease in rats. One fourth of all Americans have fatty liver disease.

Continue: [responsibletechnology.org]
Re: science behind glyphosate
March 08, 2018 12:12PM
Liz - If you had read Whitewash by Carey Gillam, you’d know about documented detail the author provides as evidence that exposes the obfuscations and outright cover-ups and manipulations by Monsanto and to keep from telling the truth to the public about the health risks that accompany glyphosate. It is, after all, a huge money maker.

She points out that bloggers are paid to write rebuttals and positive feedback on the internet about Roundup so that many seeking the truth are often misled by convincing arguments that the chemical sound harmless.
Here’s a sample:


Book review

WHITEWASH: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science

It’s the pesticide on our dinner plates, a chemical so pervasive it’s in the air we breathe, our water, our soil, and even found increasingly in our own bodies. Known as Monsanto’s Roundup by consumers, and as glyphosate by scientists, the world’s most popular weed killer is used everywhere from backyard gardens to golf courses to millions of acres of farmland. For decades it’s been touted as safe enough to drink, but a growing body of evidence indicates just the opposite, with research tying the chemical to cancers and a host of other health threats.

In Whitewash, veteran journalist Carey Gillam uncovers one of the most controversial stories in the history of food and agriculture, exposing new evidence of corporate influence. Gillam introduces readers to farm families devastated by cancers which they believe are caused by the chemical, and to scientists whose reputations have been smeared for publishing research that contradicted business interests. Readers learn about the arm-twisting of regulators who signed off on the chemical, echoing company assurances of safety even as they permitted higher residues of the pesticide in food and skipped compliance tests. And, in startling detail, Gillam reveals secret industry communications that pull back the curtain on corporate efforts to manipulate public perception.

Whitewash is more than an exposé about the hazards of one chemical or even the influence of one company. It’s a story of power, politics, and the deadly consequences of putting corporate interests ahead of public safety. The Society for Environmental Journalists says Gillam "comes at one of the world’s most powerful corporations hard and doesn’t hold back, something legions of other journalists have been reluctant to do."
[careygillam.com]
Joe
Re: science behind glyphosate
March 08, 2018 05:31PM
Quote
Elizabeth
This article explains the why of GMO foods.

[www.thenewatlantis.com]

Liz

Interesting that you come to that conclusion, Liz.
My conclusion is that it weighs in more on the why not of GMOs.

Quote

Its function in policymaking is to place the burden of proof for the safety of a new product or process on those who wish to produce or import it, requiring them to demonstrate the absence of danger, and forbidding its sale and production until then.

I can't fault that logic, can you?

BTW, i'm talking about roundup ready (herbicide ready) food crops and not about all of the GMO's.

*how will roundup contamination of organic production farmers be remedied?
*roundup interferes with the shikimate pathway from what i understand? Plants rely on that for energy production. Mammals don't rely on that
pathway for energy production.
However, much if not all of our gut microbiom does rely on a functioning shikimate pathway for survival?
It is no longer a secret these days that we massively rely on the well-being of our good intestinal biom.
*how does roundup affect soil organisms.....?

Joe
Re: science behind glyphosate
March 08, 2018 08:05PM
Joe:

I don't like pesticides per say, however, I am realistic and know that we do need them. We need adequate proof by scientists not by people that just go off and blast them by taking the words of people that are not really qualified. During my life I have seen claims come and go, I do not believe everything that someone posts, it is their beliefs, may not be mine.

In your post you have lumped GMO foods and roundup together, a little confusing. GMO foods have been blasted, do you know that Luther Burbank was one of the first to genetically change plants, it has been done over the years. GMO foods need less pesticide sprays, they were fed to animals in the 1990s, there hasn't been any adverse effects on them.

There doesn't seem to be much of a give and take in this discussion, the posters are adamant in their believes about GMO foods and Roundup, so I really don't care to comment further.

Liz
Joe
Re: science behind glyphosate
March 09, 2018 01:19AM
Did i Liz?
Quote

BTW, i'm talking about roundup ready (herbicide ready) food crops and not about all of the GMO's

Was hoping to get an answer on the points i brought up - anybody? I do wish roundup isn't detrimental to our gut microbiom.
Re: science behind glyphosate
March 09, 2018 08:55AM
Joe - yes... That's a major focus - the gut microbiome. I'll dig out some references for you and post it soon.
Your questions are en pointe.

Jackie
Re: science behind glyphosate
March 09, 2018 09:27AM
Not surprisingly here, the topic has quickly entrenched those holding stead fast views, bringing us to the whole purpose of this weeks federal court hearing of taking emotion out of the equation, and focusing on it's science. For those who care for more details to this weeks event, court and discovery documents leading to this weeks hearings can be found below.

[usrtk.org]
Re: science behind glyphosate
March 09, 2018 11:49AM
Thank you, Larry. This is an outstanding resource link. I'm starting to read right now.

Jackie.



Joe – Just a few resources for you to check out of many available on this topic.

Neurologist, David Perlmutter, MD, and author of several highly informative books on brain health… has
examined the gut/brain/GMO connection as well as the impact on overall health. In his book “Brain Maker” he focuses on “The Power of Gut Microbes to Heal and Protect Your Brain…for Life”…. and spends time talking about environmental chemicals as well as GMOs and the toxicity impact on gut bacteria aka microbiome. Most of his recent blogs and comments are about the importance of protecting the gut microbiome.

He also notes: (quoting Dr. Perlmutter)

“ Epidemiological evidence supports strong temporal correlations between glyphosate usage on crops and a multitude of cancers that are reaching epidemic proportions, including breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, kidney cancer, thyroid cancer, liver cancer, bladder cancer and myeloid leukaemia.”

… “So let’s take a step back. I’d like to explore why it is that we should indeed do everything possible to avoid GMO foods.

First, let’s take a look at the scope of the issue. At least 90% of the canola, cotton, corn, soy, and sugar beets sold in United States come from seeds that have been genetically engineered. The main reason that these crops are genetically engineered is to make them resistant to herbicides. That means farmers can spray these crops to kill weeds, and because of genetic engineering, the crops themselves are not affected by the poison. Nonetheless, residues of the poison remain in the food, which is then consumed across our country. My point is that most of the agricultural products consumed by Americans come from genetically engineered seeds and have residues of herbicides.”

See also his GMO online report here:
[www.drperlmutter.com]


The World Health Organization has now said that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen….
[www.google.com]

My comment:
A major focus on all this is the body’s inflammatory reaction and what resultant reactivity is caused in the body… highly individualized. Some, are much more reactive than others and will be treated more aggressively but often not treating the underlying cause which is the glyphosate exposure and all that leads to in the downhill health spiral when gut bacteria affected.

So Joe – also, a great source of researched information is Jeffrey Smith’s website Institute for Responsible Technology…since he has been involved in communicating to the world, the detrimental effects of GMOs for almost 20 years now. [responsibletechnology.org]

Be aware, you’ll see a lot of criticism for his exposure of this serious problem, but that’s typically either driven by lack of understanding the science or vested financial interests. If glyphosate and such are banned, a lot of money is lost so obfuscation and denial is rampant. We can’t live in a bubble but we can be aware and take precautions to avoid as much exposure as possible.

Jackie



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2018 11:51AM by Jackie.
Re: science behind glyphosate
March 09, 2018 02:27PM
Oh, the great Dr. Perlmutter,, or a charlatan:

[www.thecut.com]

I certainly wouldn't use him as a reference.

The World Health Org., gee, they work in family planning, (maybe they want to thin out the population), immunizations (thought you were against that), they also want a Universal health coverage (no), Jackie you are quoting this organization?

Liz
Re: science behind glyphosate
March 09, 2018 02:44PM
Joe:

[thoughtscapism.com]








← 2.-3. Glyphosate and Health Effects A-Z

5.-6. Glyphosate, Other Pesticides, and The Precautionary Principle →


4. Does Glyphosate Harm Gut Bacteria?

Posted on September 8, 2016 by Thoughtscapism


In my series 17 Questions about Glyphosate, question 4. looks at glyphosate and its potential to affect our gut bacteria. This is one of the favourite returning points for many who find the newness of the field of microbiome research a reason be extra cautious, and in the process, sometimes jump into some rather hasty conclusions. Updated with a new study in November 2017.


Glyphosate and the gut bacteria is a topic that holds a magnetic fascination for many. They simply cannot seem to let go of the idea that glyphosate could be causing problems for the microbiome, despite the perspective of the minuscule size of the residue concentrations, and despite lack of signs of a connection to health problems and glyphosate exposure in all the epidemiological studies from last four decades.

Some studies do exist which suggest a connection, but so far they are only sketching hypothetical models, may often be of very poor quality, and their flaws are easy for scientists, and even laymen, to detect if given a careful look. One good overview of that kind presented on Skeptoid.

This does not stop people like Seneff, et al (see more on that in sections 3. in the previous post, 2.-3. Glyphosate and Health Effects A-Z) from theorising that glyphosate could cause a host of effects through an unclear mechanisms indirectly via the gut microbiome. In her article in Forbes, Kevin Senapathy sums up the major stumbling point of these claims well: there is no evidence for glyphosate having a harmful effect in our gut bacteria (more on that also in the end of the post). She writes:


Targeting the shikimate metabolic pathway in weeds, glyphosate interferes with protein synthesis in plants, bacteria, fungi and other organisms, but not in animals. There is no evidence that glyphosate residues on food affect the shikimate pathways of bacteria in the human gut.
dirty-dozen
The pesticide residues on produce in general are really very low – Nurse Loves Farmer provides perspective on the dirty dozen.

But the lack of evidence of harm does not necessarily give a layman the reassurance it may relay to a researcher. Let’s make it more tangible. To help us with the effort, firstly, the very thorough and detail-oriented skeptical activist Credible Hulk has kindly dug out the exact figures on allowed levels of pesticide residue on a number of different plants in his post and gone to even more detail in his blog piece, where he lays out the math: a 70 kg person in the US would have to eat 28 kg or 62 lbs of produce at the highest level of allowed residue every day in order to reach the limit set by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the still safe level for the consumer – 2 mg glyphosate per kg body weight per day. This allowed level already has a hundred-fold built-in safety margin: it is set hundred times lower than the level for no observed adverse effects (NOAEL) in the most sensitive lab animal species tested. It is physically not possible to eat enough of normal produce to reach that level. And what about gut bacteria?

Liz



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2018 03:05PM by Elizabeth.
Re: science behind glyphosate
March 09, 2018 04:09PM
We can argue scientific facts, but until one is personally affected by glyphosate, the reality of the problem will never hit home. I know because my first husband was the victim of Agent Orange (glyphosate). He served in the US Army during the Vietnam War. The US navy sent PT boats through the canals, spraying Agent Orange on the foliage along the shores to kill the foliage so the enemy couldn't hide there. The US soldiers were told the spray wouldn't hurt them, so they went swimming in the canals to cool off from the hot weather.

Five years later, my husband was diagnosed with testicular cancer, which then spread to his spine, and eventually his brain. After a ten year battle with cancer, he passed away. He had been an athlete in college, and was extremely healthy before going to Vietnam. At first, the US government and Dow Chemical (who made Agent Orange) denied that Agent Orange was the cause of so many servicemen becoming ill, but over time there was solid evidence that there was an undisputable correlation between the areas sprayed by Agent Orange and cancer.

My point in telling this story is to confirm Jackie's documentation that glyphosate studies are being falsified and the public is not being told the truth. I lost a beloved husband to glyphosate, we were never able to have children, and I was left a widow with thousands of dollars of debt due to surgery and chemo bills.

To confirm my lack of confidence in the FDA, medical and pharmaceutical communities, and companies like Dow Chemical and Monsanto, here is a recent article revealing the truth from two of their own:

"Let’s go to the record. Here are two editors of two of the most prestigious and respected medical journals in the world. During their long careers, they have read and scrutinized more studies than any doctor, researcher, bureaucrat, or so-called medical blogger. And this is what they have written:

ONE: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)

TWO: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…

“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…” (Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”)

Taken from: [www.infowars.com]
Joe
Re: science behind glyphosate
March 09, 2018 04:16PM
Thank you Jackie and Liz for the links! I'll read them as soon as i find more time.

Without being able to proof anything one way or another i tend to avoid anything i suspect was treated with roundup until i'm totally satisfied it's not harmful in the long run.

Quote

Glyphosate and the gut bacteria is a topic that holds a magnetic fascination for many. They simply cannot seem to let go of the idea that glyphosate could be causing problems for the microbiome, despite the perspective of the minuscule size of the residue concentrations, and despite lack of signs of a connection to health problems and glyphosate exposure in all the epidemiological studies from last four decades.

Some studies do exist which suggest a connection, but so far they are only sketching hypothetical models, may often be of very poor quality, and their flaws are easy for scientists, and even laymen, to detect if given a careful look. One good overview of that kind presented on Skeptoid.
Some emotional thought from someone pro Roundup in that? Chronic health problems can take how long before symptoms show?
Looking forward to reading about what i balded.
Didn't the EPA in the US increase their initial safe limit of roundup/glyphosate after it became clear and the the behest of industry?
Re: science behind glyphosate
March 09, 2018 08:38PM
Windstar:

Very sorry about your husband:

You posted:

We can argue scientific facts, but until one is personally affected by glyphosate, the reality of the problem will never hit home. I know because my first husband was the victim of Agent Orange (glyphosate). He served in the US Army during the Vietnam War. The US navy sent PT boats through the canals, spraying Agent Orange on the foliage along the shores to kill the foliage so the enemy couldn't hide there. The US soldiers were told the spray wouldn't hurt them, so they went swimming in the canals to cool off from the hot weather.

You are calling Agent Orange (glyphosate) which isn't true:


What also has been missing from the claims of activists who tried to confuse 2,4-D with Agent Orange and dioxins is the fact that the Agent was made of distinct chemicals, with distinct properties. And 2,4-D was not the problem.

Agent Orange was a combination of two herbicides: 2,4D and another called 2,4,5-T. The toxic dioxin, 2,3,7,8-TCDD was a contaminant only of 2,4,5-T. It was not a byproduct of 2,4-D, although some forms of 2,4-D that weren’t widely used did have some small dioxin contamination. Modern manufacturing methods have eliminated this contamination from today’s 2,4-D.

Info Wars is just a conspiracy site, Alex Jones believes that President Bush was responsible for 9-11.

[geneticliteracyproject.org]

Liz



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2018 08:44PM by Elizabeth.
Re: science behind glyphosate
March 10, 2018 12:36PM
Nancy - I can’t begin to imagine and I am truly sorry for your loss. I appreciate your sharing your horrific story to emphasize the risks of these dangerous chemicals… whether it is the 2,4-D ingredient of the Agent Orange era or the new combo that uses both the 2,4-D and glyphosate. The risk factors continue to be of concern and it’s time that people took off their blinders to pay attention to what’s not being disclosed and is covered up because of vested interests.

Following is a segment from an exposeˊ report in the Chicago Tribune – Dec 8, 2015 that gives important historical background for the chemical exposure dilemma we face today. This summary review is easier to understand rather than slog through the scientific documents.

Jackie


A Chicago Tribune investigation finds that the Environmental Protection Agency discounted safety data for a World War II-era chemical called 2,4-D that has been linked to cancer and other health problems. Dow Chemical wants to use it as a weedkiller on the company's new genetically modified crops. (Chicago Tribune)
By Patricia Callahan

How the EPA cleared the way for Dow to revive a worrisome old pesticide for new GMO crops.

When Monsanto genetically engineered corn and soybeans to make them immune to its best-selling weedkiller, the company pitched the technology as a way to reduce overall use of herbicides and usher in an environmentally friendly era of farming.

Instead of relying on older, more harmful chemicals, farmers could douse their fields with Roundup, a product that Monsanto once advertised as less toxic than table salt.

Two decades later, overuse of Roundup has spawned weeds that can survive spraying to grow 8 feet tall with stems as thick as baseball bats. To kill those so-called superweeds, chemical giants are giving the next wave of genetically modified crops immunity to the weedkillers of generations past.

The technology that was supposed to make those older herbicides obsolete soon could make it possible for farmers to use a lot more.

For use on its new genetically engineered corn and soybeans, Dow Chemical Co. is reviving 2,4-D, a World War II-era chemical linked to cancer and other health problems.

If these crops are widely adopted, the government’s maximum-exposure projections show that U.S. children ages 1 to 12 could consume levels of 2,4-D that the World Health Organization, Russia, Australia, South Korea, Canada, Brazil and China consider unsafe.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had considered that exposure dangerous for decades as well. But the Obama administration’s EPA now says it is safe to allow 41 times more 2,4-D into the American diet than before he took office.

To reach that conclusion, the Tribune found the agency’s scientists changed their analysis of a pivotal rat study by Dow, tossing aside signs of kidney trouble that Dow researchers said were caused by 2,4-D.

The EPA scientists who revised that crucial document were persuaded by a Canadian government toxicologist who decided that Dow — a company that has a $1 billion product at stake — had been overly cautious in flagging kidney abnormalities that she deemed insignificant.

When Dow later published this study, the company’s scientists likewise dismissed their earlier concerns and changed the most important measure of the chemical’s toxicity so it agreed with the EPA’s less stringent view.

These decisions paved the way for the EPA to approve Dow’s weedkiller Enlist Duo last year and reassure the public that a surge in 2,4-D use wouldn’t hurt anyone.

Girding that reassurance are two calculations: How much of the herbicide is safe for human health, and how much will Americans wind up consuming? There are ways to tweak each of those risk calculations. With 2,4-D, the Tribune found, the EPA’s math favored a dramatic increase in the weedkiller.

Federal law has required the EPA to protect children from pesticides — chemicals that kill weeds, insects or other harmful organisms — since a National Research Council panel warned lawmakers in the 1990s that exposing fetuses and young kids to these compounds can cause lifelong damage at doses that wouldn’t hurt their parents.

Dr. Philip Landrigan, the pediatrician who chaired that panel, is so alarmed by the potential spike in children’s exposure to 2,4-D that for the last year he has urged EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to reject the “notoriously toxic herbicide.” He is calling for the federal National Toxicology Program to assess the safety of the mix of weedkillers that would be used on new genetically modified crops.

When Landrigan learned from the Tribune that EPA and Dow scientists had changed their minds about kidney anomalies found in exposed rats, he was shocked.

“If the tables were turned, and a group of scientists published a paper showing some adverse effect from 2,4-D, I have no doubt that Dow would say a second and third study were needed,” said Landrigan, whose research on childhood lead exposure helped prompt the removal of lead from gasoline and paint. “And yet, Dow is saying we need to trust this one study where results were reinterpreted midstream. There’s reason to raise doubt here.”

Dow said 2,4-D is safe and is one of the most extensively studied pesticides in history. James Bus, a former Dow toxicologist who worked on the company’s recent rat study, said the EPA’s evaluation of 2,4-D relies on state-of-the-art science and “stands as an example of how it should be done.”

“We know from 70 years of exposure that 2,4-D has not presented health problems,” Bus said. Studies that suggest such a link are flawed, and increased use will not put anyone at risk, he added.

For its part, the EPA said its scientific vetting ensures that any pesticide residues left in food and water won’t cause harm. The Dow rat study reveals that 2,4-D is less toxic to people than once thought, agency officials say.
“It is EPA’s understanding that other governments do agree with our interpretation of the new study, but have not yet incorporated the results into their 2,4-D reviews,” EPA spokeswoman Cathy Milbourn said in a written statement.

In a surprise move last week, the EPA asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate the agency’s approval so its scientists could review new data. But EPA officials made it clear they don’t intend to bar the product permanently.
The holdup has nothing to do with human health. Enlist Duo combines 2,4-D and glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, and the agency said it wanted to iron out concerns that the two chemicals combined are more toxic to endangered plants than either of the chemicals separately.

As far as people’s health is concerned, though, the agency maintains that Enlist Duo is perfectly safe. Even if American farmers spray 2,4-D on every acre of corn and soybeans — crops that serve as the building blocks of processed foods and fatten farm animals — it still won’t harm consumers, the EPA said.

So confident is Dow that the agency’s concerns about endangered plants can be resolved quickly that the title of its news release last week read: “Dow Expects Enlist Duo to be Available for the 2016 U.S. Crop Season.”

Continue: [www.chicagotribune.com]

2,4-D toxicity profile [pmep.cce.cornell.edu]
Re: science behind glyphosate
March 10, 2018 05:52PM
Thank you, Liz and Jackie, for your condolences.

And yes, I now realize that Agent Orange was composed of dioxin and 2,4-D and other chemicals, not glyphosate, but my point is, how can we ever trust companies like Dow Chemical and Monsanto and the EPA, FDA, and our government when they knew the devasting effects of Agent Orange and still used it? Here is just a sampling of what is has done: [theecologist.org]

"According to scientific surveys, quoted in the 19-page report from the 2009 Paris People's Tribunal on Agent Orange, land affected by Agent Orange could take 50 to 200 years to recover - and some regions may never recover. That is the foliage and the soil. Add to this the contamination of rivers and groundwater, and disappearance of all wildlife in some regions."

"So potent is Agent Orange that US airmen flying the planes that dropped the toxic herbicide - and others who came into contact with the dioxin - were DNA-damaged too. Their families have genetic deformations spanning three generations."

"Monsanto has never acknowledged its role in the devastation wreaked by Agent Orange. But the corporation has contributed funding to the Vietnam Red Cross, which keeps a tally on the number of victims with health problems related to Agent Orange: estimated at over three million. For the first generation, that would be those who came into direct contact with Agent Orange, ate food grown in contaminated areas, or ate fish or animals contaminated with the toxin."

" By this time [1968], Agent Orange had been in use for seven years and its severe effects were well-known to the US military." Yet, they kept using it until 1971. My husband served in Vietnam from Dec 1969 to Dec 1970.

These companies are out to make money, and obviously have no conscience about how many people may be killed or ill for life by using their products. Just like the cigarette industry, they will keep hiding the truth until it is too late for many who trust them.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login