Environment

Glyphosate: A Trajectory of Human Misery

April 26, 2013 by admin in Glyphosate with 16 Comments

Facebook386Google+2Twitter12Pinterest0StumbleUpon39Email

Glyphosate has likely caused more damage to human health than any other chemical ever produced. Indeed, it is probably a cause of the explosion in chronic diseases. Surely civilization cannot be maintained when the average person is irrevocably ill. This trajectory of human misery must come to an end.

Glyphosate, 'Monsanto' Logo, Cracked Earthby Heidi Stevenson

This is Part 3 of a three-part series:

Part 1, Glyphosate: Chronic Disease Degeneration
Part 2, Glyphosate: Disease Creator
Part 3, Glyphosate: A Trajectory of Human Misery

Ubiquity of Glyphosate

Glyphosate was first introduced in 1974 and has become the world’s most dominant herbicide. It’s now generic, so there are many brands and formulations. As a result, it’s virtually ubiquitous, found nearly everywhere on earth. Further driving its use are genetically modified (GM) crops, which were first developed for the purpose of creating glyphosate-tolerant plants, usually known as Roundup Ready. These have resulted in ever-more blatant and free use, especially in the wake of glyphosate-resistant superweeds. Estimates put glyphosate-tolerant GM crops at 90% of all transgene crops.

In the United States alone, the amount and increase in glyphosate’s use is stunning. The following table gives estimated figures in millions of pounds of glyphosate for one year:

Year

2001

2003

2005

2007

Range

85-90

128-133

155-160

180-185

Notice that the amount of use has doubled in just six years.

Exposure to Glyphosate

Samsel & Seneff state:

The Western diet is a delivery system for toxic chemicals used in industrial agriculture. It consists primarily of processed foods based on corn, wheat, soy and sugar, and they’re consumed in high quantities. Chemical residues of insecticides, fungicides and herbicides like glyphosate contaminate the entire diet.

Roundup Ready GM crops have become the mainstay of Agribusiness. These include soy, beet sugar, and corn—which supply the bulk of the processed food industry. High fructose corn syrup, implicated in the diabetes epidemic, is produced mostly with GM corn. Cotton is genetically engineered and its oil has entered the food supply.

Glyphosate is systemic in plants, so it cannot be washed off. If it’s used on a crop, it will be in the food produced from it. All the soy, sugar, cotton, and corn that ends up in packaged foods is carrying glyphosate into our bodies.

Food and dairy animals are raised in concentrated animal feed operations (CAFOs). The bulk of their diets consists of GM grain crops. Grain and sugar crops take up higher levels of glyphosate than other crops. Therefore, the flesh, eggs, and milk of CAFO-raised animals are contaminated with glyphosate, which enters the food pipeline.

Glyphosate is used not only on Roundup Ready crops, but also on glyphosate-sensitive sugar cane and wheat shortly before harvest, when it acts as a dessicant. It’s also used as a dessicant on Roundup Ready sugar beets, canola, and cottonseed for oils, among others.

The perception that glyphosate is not toxic in humans results in difficulty obtaining figures on how much glyphosate ends up in the food supply. The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Pesticide Data Program is voluntary. Searching for information on residues for the year 2010, the most recent year for which data is provided, shows residue levels for all pesticides except glyphosate and another organophosphate, glufosinate. The USDA has simply not monitored residue levels for either of these herbicides, though they will this year (2013), but only for a small sampling of glyphosate residues in soy.

Increasing Limits on Glyphosate Use

Governments have failed to control use of glyphosate. The precautionary principle has not been in evidence anywhere. The drive to use it has increased as the use of glyphosate on Roundup Ready crops, which has driven development of noxious superweeds. Therefore, Agribusiness in the forms of chemical and biotech industries have demanded increased limits on glyphosate residue.

In 1999, the EU and UK, where no GM crops are currently grown for human consumption, increased the limit for soy from 0.1 parts per million to 20 ppm—a 200-fold increase! The US limit for soy is currently the same.

Pressure is now on to increase levels even more. In the EU, industry is pressing for an increase of at least 100 times current residue levels in lentils from 0.1 ppm to 10 ppm, or even 15 ppm. Safety isn’t factored in. Approval levels are based solely on anticipated use, and glyphosate use is being driven massively higher by the noxious superweeds that exist only because of it.

The residue limits for food animals are even worse, and by a huge amount. Animal-feed grass is allowed glyphosate residues of 300 ppm, and animal-feed corn can have glyphosate residues of 400 ppm!

Glyphosate’s Toxicity

It should come as no surprise that sickness is becoming the normal state of health. Chronic diseases, once fairly rare, are now how we live and die. Diseases once seen almost exclusively in the elderly are now being seen in children. Autoimmune and neurological disorders are becoming common.

There are many potentially causative and contributory factors, but glyphosate has generally gotten a pass because it was considered “generally recognized as safe”—GRAS—for its apparently low toxicity. Indeed, short term studies appeared to confirm its innocence. However, long term studies of its effects on health weren’t done until recently. The most insidious factor in glyphosate’s toxicity has been the slow expression of harmful effects. Because of it, studies demonstrating glyphosate’s insidious action inside the body—like those Samsel & Seneff reviewed—have been systematically ignored.

So glyphosate is now the most popular herbicide on earth, and that factor is driving the extent of harm it produces. It isn’t just the fact of its toxicity that’s at issue, it’s the sheer volume of usage.

Samsel & Seneff’s research is blowing away the smokescreen around the harmful effects of this monstrous product. They have provided specifics for how glyphosate can destroy health and produce the modern plague of chronic diseases.

Glyphosate: A Trajectory of Human Misery

The proven and probable effects of glyphosate are manifold. The meteoric rise in chronic diseases and metabolic disorders has occurred during the same time period that glyphosate was introduced, and has followed a trajectory much like that of the herbicide’s massive increase in use.

At some point, officials in power must take their heads out of the sand and address the evidence that ties glyphosate to the epidemic of chronic diseases. Samsel and Seneff have now collected, sorted, and logicially extrapolated on evidence from studies, and they leave little question that there must be an association between the herbicide and the phenomenom of mass ill health.

Samsel and Seneff do not oversell their findings. They clarify that glyphosate is not the only toxin in today’s world. Nonetheless, its known effects on some of the human body’s most basic functions—disruption of gut bacteria, impairment of sulphate transport, and interference with CYP enzyme activity—indicate that, at the very least, glyphosate must have a synergistic effect with other environmental toxins.

It is, therefore, imperative that—at the very least—a moratorium be declared on the use of glyphosate until and unless it can be demonstrated to be safe. Surely it’s long past time to apply the precautionary principle to glyphosate and its partner in synergy, Roundup. The toll in human suffering, not to mention costs to society and economic losses, cannot be allowed to continue.

Surely civilization cannot be maintained when the average person is irrevocably ill. This trajectory of human misery must come to an end.

Part 1, Glyphosate: Chronic Disease Degeneration
Part 2, Glyphosate: Disease Creator
Part 3, Glyphosate: A Trajectory of Human Misery

Source:

Samsel, Anthony; Seneff, Stephanie. 2013. “Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases.” Entropy 15, no. 4: 1416-1463; doi:10.3390/e15041416

Facebook386Google+2Twitter12Pinterest0StumbleUpon39Email

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related Posts

  • Pingback: Glyphosate: Chronic Disease DegenerationGaia Health

  • Steve

    Who is doing research to counteract the effects of glyphosate? For example, would we all do well to be taking vitamins A and D along with zinc? It’s obvious we’re not going to get glyphosate stopped soon, so what can we do to protect ourselves, other than growing and/or buying totally non-GMO foods? My son-in-law works for a big farmer and glyphosate is used regularly. What can he do to protect himself? Besides being a small farmer, I currently work in a grain facility that handles GMO crops. Our dust masks don’t filter out 100% of the grain dust. What else can I do until I can get away from this?

    • / Heidi Stevenson

      Those are good questions. The supplements you suggest certainly make sense – but the disruption of glyphosate is so primary that I fear nothing is going to truly protect from it. At least, I would not make such an assumption.

      Getting away from it is surely the best thing you can do personally, but why not start a letter writing campaign to try to get the glyphosate plague ended? Write to members of congress. Write to the USDA & the FDA. And keep writing. Let your representatives know that this is a voting issue for you and that you have no tolerance. A single pro-glyphosate vote in any sense will end your support. That’s the only thing politicians can understand.

      • Steve

        I’m not sure you grasp the tight connections among ag lenders, crop insurance companies, chemical/seed suppliers, and large farmers (who produce a strong 80% of America’s food). To obtain an operating loan, you must have crop insurance. It’s the extremely rare farmer who can do business without loans. Crop insurance companies, while not overtly requiring a certain method of farming, do talk about using “best farming practices”, which at this time is heavy on the chemicals, particularly glyphosate. I seriously doubt anything will happen until large numbers of farmers die or become so sick they retire–enough to threaten the food supply. I have heard farmers talk about how many of their neighbors are gone from cancer, and they know the cause, but feel powerless to change without losing their farms, especially since glyphosate and no-till farming are, so far, producing excellent yields. Farmers in general agriculture get paid on yield, not so much on quality. And so far, most retired farmers renting their land out are concerned only about dollars. Glyphosate has made farming relatively easy, and until now no one that gets heard in the farm press says anything bad about glyphosate. A few of us farmers are learning things off the internet that counter the farm press, but we are few and far between. I suppose a big reason why I am writing this is because we sold enough land to pay off all our bank debts, pay the capital gains tax, and have enough cash left over, with my wife’s and my off-farm jobs, to farm carefully without loans. We lost all our rented land, except that owned by family, so unless we find a phenomenally profitable farming enterprise, we will remain small, but hopefully healthy. Our politicians see no need to tackle big agribusiness. They do know who votes for them. As I wrote above, I don’t believe anything major will happen until a lot of farmers are gone, and the smoking gun connections are finally made. Check out what protections are already in federal law for the big ag corporations should their products be found harmful. Do they know something?

  • http://twitter.com/Fillows4 Terry Fillow

    Can a blood test be run to see if you have glyphosate in your blood? Urine test?

    • / Heidi Stevenson

      That’s a good question. I’m sure that there’s no standard test. However, since the glyphosate molecule can be found in the blood in its entirety, it’s certainly doable.

    • John

      It will be there if you are eating contaminated foods which you probably are.

  • Grant Ingle

    The link to the third section of the article needs revision…currently it’s a link to the first section…

    • / Heidi Stevenson

      Thank you for pointing this out – but I’m a bit confused. This page is the third section and the links here seem to be working. Could you be referring to a link on another page?

  • Grant Ingle

    I see the issue…I found the link on a recent post by Moms Across America March to Label GMOs to Facebook…it’s a link to the third page not the first…sorry for the confusion…

    • / Heidi Stevenson

      No problem, Grant. I appreciate that you were trying to straighten something out!

  • Pingback: IfDuyKlrzG IfDuyKlrzG

  • Pingback: thehaydaycheats.com

  • Pingback: urlman 9990mine

  • Pingback: thehaydaycheats.com

  • Pingback: facebook.com

Search Gaia Health
newsletter software