Roundup probably causes cancer

[Tom Sawyer]

:mod:

 

[Under the Rose]

The practice of dessication is what concerns me and I am of the opinion that it is the reason that I began to react to wheat products some years ago. Since then, I have discovered that baking at home with organic flour does not cause me symptoms. Purely subjective evidence but it's my life and I trust my senses far more than government regulations which I both question and observe flaunted on a regular basis.

Desiccation is one of the most egregious scandals of modern agricultural history, As such, it is worth taking a minute to consider what is actually happening in the process. Just before crops are harvested, threshed, and sold to bakeries, farmers soak them in broad-spectrum systemic herbicides to kill them off and give them the appearance of uniform maturity. One could just as well stir the glyphosate right into the bread dough. With protein-rich feed it is the same – the herbicide is spayed directly on the grain several days before it is sold as concentrated feed.

http://www.ithaka-journal.net/herbizide-im-urin?lang=en

 

[Juma]

The practice of dessication is what concerns me and I am of the opinion that it is the reason that I began to react to wheat products some years ago. Since then, I have discovered that baking at home with organic flour does not cause me symptoms. Purely subjective evidence but it's my life and I trust my senses far more than government regulations which I both question and observe flaunted on a regular basis.

Desiccation is one of the most egregious scandals of modern agricultural history, As such, it is worth taking a minute to consider what is actually happening in the process. Just before crops are harvested, threshed, and sold to bakeries, farmers soak them in broad-spectrum systemic herbicides to kill them off and give them the appearance of uniform maturity. One could just as well stir the glyphosate right into the bread dough. With protein-rich feed it is the same – the herbicide is spayed directly on the grain several days before it is sold as concentrated feed.

http://www.ithaka-journal.net/herbizide-im-urin?lang=en

But come on. The highest amounts measured in urine are some micrograms per litre. Since water weighs 1000 gr per litre the mass ratio is 1/1000 000 000.

 

[arkirk]

The practice of dessication is what concerns me and I am of the opinion that it is the reason that I began to react to wheat products some years ago. Since then, I have discovered that baking at home with organic flour does not cause me symptoms. Purely subjective evidence but it's my life and I trust my senses far more than government regulations which I both question and observe flaunted on a regular basis.



http://www.ithaka-journal.net/herbizide-im-urin?lang=en

But come on. The highest amounts measured in urine are some micrograms per litre. Since water weighs 1000 gr per litre the mass ratio is 1/1000 000 000.

The fact remains, it has passed through the human digestion system and the blood and still not been reduced to metabolites. That means it is PERSISTENT. If you keep using it year after year persistent chemicals increase in concentration. The poisoning becomes cumulative. There are many contaminants that are dangerous in the ppb range. If the standard has been set for drinking water, there surely are available LD50 and other forms of rating a chemical. There is a reason for the standard. When it is violated, it very well could be cause for a great deal of concern.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

what is the deal with the incredible demonization of Monsanto?

I understand Monsanto products contain dihydrogen monoxide in spite of the thousands of people that have died from DHMO inhalation.

Amazing--a killer like that and I can't find a LD50 for inhalation. All I find is for the much less lethal oral route--depending on the animal it's in the 10%-15% of body weight.

 

[bilby]

But come on. The highest amounts measured in urine are some micrograms per litre. Since water weighs 1000 gr per litre the mass ratio is 1/1000 000 000.

The fact remains, it has passed through the human digestion system and the blood and still not been reduced to metabolites. That means it is PERSISTENT. If you keep using it year after year persistent chemicals increase in concentration. The poisoning becomes cumulative. There are many contaminants that are dangerous in the ppb range. If the standard has been set for drinking water, there surely are available LD50 and other forms of rating a chemical. There is a reason for the standard. When it is violated, it very well could be cause for a great deal of concern.

Excretion is evidence against persistence; And not being reduced to metabolites is evidence that it is largely inert in humans - which would makes sense, as it is specifically used due to its targeting of a pathway only found in plants.

 

[Godless Raven]

Still no science? Oh well....you're the expert I guess.

Of course there is still no science; you don't post any, and you don't read the stuff I link to.

- - - Updated - - -

For the record, WHO does excellent work; but IARC are not the appropriate body to look at for safety assessments on pesticide residues. .

Monsanto is, I know

Hmm. You really don't think that misrepresenting what I say by quote mining adds to your credibility do you?

Nobody would be that idiotic, surely?

I don't know bilby, I might be...I mean he does put up pretty solid arguments against things you've never said or implied. In that sense, you're totally getting your ass handed to you

 

[ZiprHead]

I remember I read something a few weeks ago that said the glyphosate in Roundup is fairly safe but the other chemicals in Roundup are dangerous. I'll have to see if I can find it again.

 

[tupac chopra]

I remember I read something a few weeks ago that said the glyphosate in Roundup is fairly safe but the other chemicals in Roundup are dangerous. I'll have to see if I can find it again.

The interesting thing is that it is often just glyphostae that gets tested rather than Roundup itself. Then on the basis of testing glyphosate it is claimed that Roundup is therefore safe. Even though Roundup contains many more chemicals.

 

[tupac chopra]

Roundup is "so safe you could drink it"...but at the same time.."not really"
[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/ovKw6YjqSfM[/YOUTUBE]

 

[bilby]

Roundup is "so safe you could drink it"...but at the same time.."not really"
[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/ovKw6YjqSfM[/YOUTUBE]

Non-toxic is not the same thing as palatable. Roundup tastes vile.

Vinegar is more toxic than Roundup. I wouldn't chug a glass of either; but I don't mind a trace of either in my food. Indeed, more than a trace of vinegar is nice on hot chips.

 

[bilby]

I remember I read something a few weeks ago that said the glyphosate in Roundup is fairly safe but the other chemicals in Roundup are dangerous. I'll have to see if I can find it again.

The interesting thing is that it is often just glyphostae that gets tested rather than Roundup itself. Then on the basis of testing glyphosate it is claimed that Roundup is therefore safe. Even though Roundup contains many more chemicals.

The Roundup I use in my backyard is a blend of chemicals, including Oxidane and Glyphosate, plus some surfactants - essentially these are detergents and act as wetting agents so the active ingredient is taken up by the leaves rather than just running off.

Some of these surfactants are more toxic, gram for gram than Glyphosate; They are very similar to the surfactants used for washing dishes. Just as many people have died from traces of dishwashing detergent on their dinner plates as have died from traces of Glyphosate in their food.

Perhaps you should be demonising Unilever as well as Monsanto.

 

[Under the Rose]

I remember I read something a few weeks ago that said the glyphosate in Roundup is fairly safe but the other chemicals in Roundup are dangerous. I'll have to see if I can find it again.

The adjuvants in Roundup were discovered to be of concern as early as 2009.

The deleterious effects are not proportional to G concentrations but rather depend on the nature of the adjuvants. AMPA and POEA separately and synergistically damage cell membranes like R but at different concentrations. Their mixtures are generally even more harmful with G. In conclusion, the R adjuvants like POEA change human cell permeability and amplify toxicity induced already by G, through apoptosis and necrosis. The real threshold of G toxicity must take into account the presence of adjuvants but also G metabolism and time-amplified effects or bioaccumulation. This should be discussed when analyzing the in vivo toxic actions of R. This work clearly confirms that the adjuvants in Roundup formulations are not inert. Moreover, the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death around residual levels to be expected, especially in food and feed derived from R formulation-treated crops.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n

 

[bilby]

The adjuvants in Roundup were discovered to be of concern as early as 2009.

The deleterious effects are not proportional to G concentrations but rather depend on the nature of the adjuvants. AMPA and POEA separately and synergistically damage cell membranes like R but at different concentrations. Their mixtures are generally even more harmful with G. In conclusion, the R adjuvants like POEA change human cell permeability and amplify toxicity induced already by G, through apoptosis and necrosis. The real threshold of G toxicity must take into account the presence of adjuvants but also G metabolism and time-amplified effects or bioaccumulation. This should be discussed when analyzing the in vivo toxic actions of R. This work clearly confirms that the adjuvants in Roundup formulations are not inert. Moreover, the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death around residual levels to be expected, especially in food and feed derived from R formulation-treated crops.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n

By the infamous Gilles-Eric Séralini, who is making a packet out of his 'research' showing Roundup to be harmful.

Nobody in the biochemistry community takes him seriously; David Tribe has a nice review of the paper you quoted on his blog, which includes a brief analysis of the scientists who have signed a petition against the retraction of his work by scientific journals. I particularly like:

The “scientists” section is also little bothered by credentials. The top part of the alphabetical list includes Elizabeth Alfieri, “I have been studying independently for 30 years , concerned citizen, Rochester, United States,” Mike Arthur, “i dont want to eat gmo, United States”, or Walter Ashton, “TEXTILES, Leyland, United Kingdom.”

Mr. Jeffrey Smith, bragging as “[t]he leading consumer advocate promoting healthier non GMO choices Jeffrey Smith s meticulous research documents how biotech companies continue to mislead legislators and safety officials to put the health of society at risk and the environment in peril , Institute for Responsible Technology, Iowa, United States,” at least had the decency to sign as a “non-scientist”.

Some celebrities, as famous as Bruce Banner, aka the Incredible Hulk, or as mysterious as Cain Abel, “Biology, CNRS, Paris, France,” also gave their blessing.

How can we not take a man seriously when his work is endorsed by "Bruce Banner, PhD Gamma Radiation UNITED STATES"?

Seralini is a quack, and has discovered that being a celebrity witchfinder is far more lucrative than being a research scientist.

 

[tupac chopra]

By the infamous Gilles-Eric Séralini,

We will find out soon enough. His experiments are going to be repeated. But unlike the Monsanto "studies" which typically run for 90 days, and are designed not to find problems by setting the bar very low this new study will actually look for problems.

Largest international study into safety of GM food launched by Russian NGO

A Russian group working with scientists is set to launch what they call the world’s largest and most comprehensive long-term health study on a GM food.

The $25m three-year experiment will involve scientists testing thousands of rats which will be fed differing diets of a Monsanto GM maize and the world’s most widely-used herbicide which it it is engineered to be grown with.

The organisers of the Factor GMO [genetically modified organism] study, announced in London on Tuesday and due to start fully next year, say it will investigate the long-term health effects of a diet of a GM maize developed by US seed and chemical company Monsanto.

“It will answer the question: is this GM food, and associated pesticide, safe for human health?” said Elena Sharoykina, a campaigner and co-founder of the Russian national association for genetic safety (Nags), the co-ordinator of the experiment.

 

[Under the Rose]

I suppose the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health are not to be trusted either?

Abstract: The current chronic kidney disease epidemic, the major health issue in the rice paddy farming areas in Sri Lanka has been the subject of many scientific and political debates over the last decade. Although there is no agreement among scientists about the etiology of the disease, a majority of them has concluded that this is a toxic nephropathy. None of the hypotheses put forward so far could explain coherently the totality of clinical, biochemical, histopathological findings, and the unique geographical distribution of the disease and its appearance in the mid-1990s. A strong association between the consumption of hard water and the occurrence of this special kidney disease has been observed, but the relationship has not been explained consistently. Here, we have hypothesized the association of using glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the disease endemic area and its unique metal chelating properties. The possible role played by glyphosate-metal complexes in this epidemic has not been given any serious consideration by investigators for the last two decades. Furthermore, it may explain similar kidney disease epidemics observed in Andra Pradesh (India) and Central America. Although glyphosate alone does not cause an epidemic of chronic kidney disease, it seems to have acquired the ability to destroy the renal tissues of thousands of farmers when it forms complexes with a localized geo environmental factor (hardness) and nephrotoxic metals.

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/2/2125

 

[bilby]

I suppose the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health are not to be trusted either?

Abstract: The current chronic kidney disease epidemic, the major health issue in the rice paddy farming areas in Sri Lanka has been the subject of many scientific and political debates over the last decade. Although there is no agreement among scientists about the etiology of the disease, a majority of them has concluded that this is a toxic nephropathy. None of the hypotheses put forward so far could explain coherently the totality of clinical, biochemical, histopathological findings, and the unique geographical distribution of the disease and its appearance in the mid-1990s. A strong association between the consumption of hard water and the occurrence of this special kidney disease has been observed, but the relationship has not been explained consistently. Here, we have hypothesized the association of using glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the disease endemic area and its unique metal chelating properties. The possible role played by glyphosate-metal complexes in this epidemic has not been given any serious consideration by investigators for the last two decades. Furthermore, it may explain similar kidney disease epidemics observed in Andra Pradesh (India) and Central America. Although glyphosate alone does not cause an epidemic of chronic kidney disease, it seems to have acquired the ability to destroy the renal tissues of thousands of farmers when it forms complexes with a localized geo environmental factor (hardness) and nephrotoxic metals.

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/2/2125

The paper you linked to hypothesises a link between Glyphosate and kidney disease, but does not demonstrate such a link. Subsequent studies (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2369/15/124 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25239006) indicate that a cocktail of substances, including industrial and agricultural pollutants, and particularly Arsenic and Cadmium in the local water supply, are the cause; Glyphosate does not appear to be a causative factor here, in contradiction of the preliminary hypothesis presented in the IJERPH article.

ETA

Of course, even if the hypothesis were true, and Glyphosate did enhance the nephrotoxicity of heavy metals in the drinking water supply, that would be a problem best resolved by eliminating the toxic heavy metals from the drinking water - something which is routinely done in the OECD. It might be a good argument for not using Glyphosate in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Northern India and other places with poor water quality standards with regards to heavy metals, but it wouldn't suggest any reason to discontinue the use of Glyphosate in the developed world.

The reason glyphosate is so popular is that it is so much safer than the herbicides it replaced. The choice is not Glyphosate vs no Glyphosate; it is Glyphosate vs Atrazine, or even worse, Glyphosate vs Paraquat.

Of course, the average 'March against Monsanto' enthusiast has likely never heard of these other hebicides; they are not the target of the witch hunt, so only farmers and biochemists give them a second thought.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I remember I read something a few weeks ago that said the glyphosate in Roundup is fairly safe but the other chemicals in Roundup are dangerous. I'll have to see if I can find it again.

The interesting thing is that it is often just glyphostae that gets tested rather than Roundup itself. Then on the basis of testing glyphosate it is claimed that Roundup is therefore safe. Even though Roundup contains many more chemicals.

You normally test each chemical individually in safety testing. If they aren't testing the other chemicals it's because they were already tested previously.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We will find out soon enough. His experiments are going to be repeated. But unlike the Monsanto "studies" which typically run for 90 days, and are designed not to find problems by setting the bar very low this new study will actually look for problems.

Largest international study into safety of GM food launched by Russian NGO

A Russian group working with scientists is set to launch what they call the world’s largest and most comprehensive long-term health study on a GM food.

The $25m three-year experiment will involve scientists testing thousands of rats which will be fed differing diets of a Monsanto GM maize and the world’s most widely-used herbicide which it it is engineered to be grown with.

The organisers of the Factor GMO [genetically modified organism] study, announced in London on Tuesday and due to start fully next year, say it will investigate the long-term health effects of a diet of a GM maize developed by US seed and chemical company Monsanto.

“It will answer the question: is this GM food, and associated pesticide, safe for human health?” said Elena Sharoykina, a campaigner and co-founder of the Russian national association for genetic safety (Nags), the co-ordinator of the experiment.

Russia has a substantial track record of using bogus safety claims against companies they don't like.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I suppose the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health are not to be trusted either?



http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/2/2125

The paper you linked to hypothesises a link between Glyphosate and kidney disease, but does not demonstrate such a link. Subsequent studies (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2369/15/124 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25239006) indicate that a cocktail of substances, including industrial and agricultural pollutants, and particularly Arsenic and Cadmium in the local water supply, are the cause; Glyphosate does not appear to be a causative factor here, in contradiction of the preliminary hypothesis presented in the IJERPH article.

ETA

Of course, even if the hypothesis were true, and Glyphosate did enhance the nephrotoxicity of heavy metals in the drinking water supply, that would be a problem best resolved by eliminating the toxic heavy metals from the drinking water - something which is routinely done in the OECD. It might be a good argument for not using Glyphosate in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Northern India and other places with poor water quality standards with regards to heavy metals, but it wouldn't suggest any reason to discontinue the use of Glyphosate in the developed world.

The reason glyphosate is so popular is that it is so much safer than the herbicides it replaced. The choice is not Glyphosate vs no Glyphosate; it is Glyphosate vs Atrazine, or even worse, Glyphosate vs Paraquat.

Of course, the average 'March against Monsanto' enthusiast has likely never heard of these other hebicides; they are not the target of the witch hunt, so only farmers and biochemists give them a second thought.

Yeah, heavy metals are dangerous, period. Even if it did somehow make the heavy metals more toxic (something I could certainly understand--how heavy metals are bound has a lot to do with how they are metabolized and therefore their toxicity) the answer is to remove the heavy metals, not the binding agent.