According to the precautionary principle, we shouldn’t be using Roundup on the idea that “it might not be hurting us.” We should not be lab rats for Monsanto in an uncontrolled experiment.
The chemical companies for years insisted that lead in paint is A-OK, just fine, paint your nurseries with lead based paint, no problemo!
Now many apartments cannot be rented to families with children under 7 years old because they are contaminated with lead paint. The precautionary principle should have been used with lead paint; it should be used with GMO crops and Roundup.
How is this relevant to the pro-White cause? The mass poisoning is making so many people autistic and disabled that there won’t be enough functioning liberals to enforce political correctness!
Moreover, if you live by the precautionary principle and avoid the poisoning for your children, then they will inherit leadership over Idiocracy, just like Not Sure, simply by virtue of his average intelligence. In the land of the poisoned and consequently mentally disabled, the non-poisoned will be kings and rulers.
SIGN THE PETITION! The life you save may be your own.
Tell the EPA and FDA: Immediately suspend Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide.
Sign the petition
Petition to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg:
Evidence is mounting that the massive use of glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup, is making us sick at alarming rates. Immediately suspend the use of glyphosate.
You’ll receive periodic updates on offers and activism opportunities.
Tell the EPA and FDA: Immediately suspend Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide.
In case you weren’t sure yet if the massive use of the herbicide glyphosate – also known as Monsanto’s Roundup – was cause for concern, here’s the sobering takeaway from an MIT senior researcher who just conducted a review of the stuff:
“I’m certain at this point that glyphosate is the most important factor in an alarming number of epidemic diseases.”1
The introduction of Roundup in 1973 has corresponded with a rise in conditions including celiac disease (gluten intolerance), autism, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, obesity, pancreatic cancer, thyroid cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Parkinson’s and others.2
And its use – along with the rates of many of these diseases – has gone stratospheric over the last 15 years, with the approval of Monsanto’s GMO “Roundup Ready” crops specifically engineered to tolerate massive exposure to glyphosate. Roundup is now used all over the world on staple crops like wheat and soy, and has become the most widely used herbicide in the US.
Despite these trends, the EPA and FDA still consider glyphosate to be relatively safe and harmless – based largely on unpublished, industry-produced studies. That position is looking increasingly dangerous, and possibly wrong.
Tell the EPA and FDA: Immediately suspend the use of Monsanto’s Roundup until it can be proven safe.
Of course – just because two trends match does not mean those two things are related. And in the eyes of the scientific process, just because something looks, swims and quacks like a duck, doesn’t make it a duck.
But in the case of glyphosate, there are many reasons to believe it could be related to higher incidence of many diseases.
Glyphosate doesn’t just kill weeds. It is an antibiotic (which kills the gut bacteria that make up a significant portion of our immune system and digestive function), a chelator (which strips the body of nutrients needed to fight disease other essential functions), an endocrine disruptor (which affects hormones and leads to birth defects), and impairs the liver’s ability to detox (allowing heavy metals to build up in our bodies). And we put nearly 200 million pounds of the stuff on our food each year!
Even worse, the so-called “inactive” ingredients in Roundup may be amplifying the toxic effects of glyphosate by orders of magnitude. One new study found Roundup’s overall concoction to be up to 1000 times more toxic than glyphosate alone.3 Yet Roundup’s approval is based on tests of only glyphosate, and does not take into account it’s possible interaction with other chemicals EPA considers safe.
Another recent study has challenged Monsanto’s claim that glyphosate doesn’t accumulate in our bodies — the cornerstone of our government’s finding that Roundup is safe — finding glyphosate levels in breast milk up to 1,600 times higher than the level Europe allows for individual pesticides.4
Part of the challenge in finding an absolute link is that long range controlled studies are difficult to conduct – partially because of Monsanto’s efforts to control research money and block information.
So we, in effect, have become the subjects of Monsanto’s Roundup experiment. There is ample evidence to suggest that this backward system of pesticide approval may be having terrible implications for our health.
The EPA and FDA should immediately suspend the use of Roundup.
1. “Your Food Is Poisoning You,” Outside, May 12, 2014
2. “Is Monsanto’s Roundup linked to a deadly kidney disease?,” Grist, May 1, 2014
3. “Major Pesticides Are More Toxic to Human Cells Than Their Declared Active Principles,” Bio Med Research International, February 26 2014
4. “World’s Number 1 Herbicide Discovered in U.S. Mothers’ Breast Milk,” Sustainable Pulse, April 6, 2014
More articles about Roundup:
“Since Monsanto first introduced Roundup into crops in 1974, there’s been a rise in autism and other diseases,” says Stephanie Seneff, a senior research scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory and co-author, with Anthony Samsel, a retired environmental scientist, of the recent review claiming that Roundup leads to celiac disease . “I’m certain at this point that glyphosate is the most important factor in an alarming number of epidemic diseases.” Diseases ranging from autism, Alzheimer’s, and diabetes to pancreatic cancer, thyroid cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Parkinson’s disease and—wait for it—the ongoing collapse of bee colonies.
But where then, beyond the work of Seneff and Samsel, is the proof? Well, there isn’t much hard evidence (only two long-term studies on the health effects of the chemical have been conducted). And for a complicated set of reasons. For one, historically, people who’ve challenged the biotech industry have been systematically discredited, says Pollan, “as we learned recently about Tyrone Hayes, the UC Berkeley herpetologist who ran afoul of Syngenta.” Also, there’s the just-as-hard-to-prove theory that no one wants to bite the hand that feeds them.
“Some of our scientists are the ones who are the most difficult—and the biggest impediment to better research—because they’re funding is dependent on the very same agrichemical companies like Monsanto that are producing Roundup,” says Dr. Don Huber, professor emeritus of plant pathology at Purdue University (who for years consulted with Monsanto scientists). “They’re not about to go in a different direction from the people who’ve been funding them.”
Others agree. Many of them levelheaded, despite coming off like Oliver Stone. “Monsanto and these other companies are doing an exceptionally good job at blocking all information and data on the subject from public discourse,” stresses Dave Schubert, professor and head of the Salk Institute’s Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory.
“There is indeed an enormous amount of published data showing that Roundup is very nasty stuff, particularly at the levels currently being used (ten times more than before genetically modified, herbicide-resistant crops) and the extent of human exposure in food—a greatly allowed increase by the EPA to reflect increased use.”
Not everyone, however, is so convinced—though many are still intrigued by a possible link. “Samsel and Seneff have produced a series of plausible hypotheses,” says Sheldon Krimsky, chairman of the Council for Responsible Genetics and Professor of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning at Tufts University. “But that is all they are: hypotheses.”
Indeed, Krimsky himself, as sober as he remains in his reception to Samsel and Seneff’s study, cites a chapter from Earth Open Source’s 2012 paper, “GMO Myths and Truths,” in which, among many other things, glyphosate is called “toxic,” Roundup’s marketing campaign as a “safe” herbicide is “based on outdated and largely unpublished studies by manufacturers,” glyphosate’s acceptable daily intake level in the U.S. and Europe is “inaccurate and potentially dangerously high,” and “the added ingredients (adjuvants) in Roundup are themselves toxic and increase the toxicity of glyphosate by enabling it to penetrate human and animal cells more easily.”
If Bigfoot’s still a bit fuzzy, consider these words from Dr. Alessio Fasano, founder of Massachusetts General Hospital’s Center for Celiac Research, in a 2011 interview with the gluten-free website livingwithout.com: “Gluten and autism, gluten and schizophrenia—is there a link or not?” he asked rhetorically.“I have a hard time believing that gluten has absolutely nothing to do with these behaviors.”
Many, though, do. “There is no link between Roundup and celiac,” says Dr. Stefano Guandalini, founder and medical director of the University of Chicago’s Celiac Disease Center, in response to Samsel and Seneff’s review. “The whole story is preposterous and finds a cause/effect relationship when there is none.”
Other critics have been harsher, while supporters embrace the review as evidence of what’s been plaguing them and/or their children. Already an emotional issue, celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder of the small intestine that affects upwards of 3 million people in the U.S. alone. It is triggered by gluten, the protein in wheat, barley, and rye. As yet there is no cure.
Linking celiac disease to glyphosate also stems on the belief (and a growing body of scientific literature that seems to back it up) that glyphosate, and aminomethylphosphonic acid, or AMPA, the compound glyphosate breaks down into as it decays, affects the balance of our gut microbials. These changes to our bacteria can then lead to disease, obesity, autoimmune deficiencies—and maybe even the bee-colony collapse.
“You have this very broad, extremely powerful broad-spectrum chelator that causes a tremendous level of dysbiosis,” says Dr. Huber. “When you disrupt your intestinal microflora, you’re not a happy individual.” Or healthy.
Part of the reason it’s so easy to castigate Samsel and Seneff (and others like them) with the bigfoot brush is that, as they admit, many of their observations are anecdotal and their research is based on making correlations. Seneff graphed Roundup and its use in corn and soy and the rise of celiac disease (and other autoimmune disorders) and came up with A + B = C.
“People have been trained to dismiss these types of correlations, but they’re there,” asserts Seneff, a senior research scientist at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. “The data are there. You just have to connect the dots.” And the picture she has painted—glyphosate leading to celiac disease and a plethora of other maladies and autoimmune diseases—is far from pretty.
(Michael Hansen, a senior staff scientist with Consumers Union, denied that the dots match up so well. “If you don’t understand biology, you’d go, Wow! They match up perfectly. If you do understand biology, those graphs don’t show anything. They’re nonsense.”)
“They looked at the biochemical impact of glyphosate relative to the biochemical impact of various diseases and found a perfect fit—they didn’t have any problem connecting the biochemical dots,” explains Dr. Huber, who warns that our “wake-up call” is just around the corner.
In the meantime, while Samsel and Seneff’s review may not yet be fully accepted, their work, and others’, should lead to better, more convincing studies, something both Dr. Huber and Krimsky agreed is worth pursuing. And Hansen, who’s still leery of embracing any link to celiac disease, notes that there are “absolutely potential adverse health effects from glyphosate,” but that the strongest data is in cases of birth defects and non-Hodgkins lymphoma.
“There are growing suspicions that this supposed non-toxic pesticide is more toxic than we realized. Especially when used with the ‘inert ingredients’ it comes with—surfactants that help the chemical force its way into plant tissues,” says Pollan. “There are also reports on illness around the big round-up soy fields in Brazil and Argentina. To me it seems like a lot of smoke and I wouldn’t be surprised to find fire.”
Until then, voices in the wilderness like Samsel and Seneff and Dr. Huber will continue to proselytize about the evils of their personal Bigfoot, and hope to prove Pollan right, and vindicate their theories. “The proof isn’t there,” says Seneff, “but the innuendo is.”