Roundup - And What Ails You

[What Would Jesus Do?]

This is a 40-min video lecture on Roundup (glyphosate). Not the attack on GMO that you might think from the title.

Very informative.

Even though some of the studies he mentions are more convincing than others, there are more than enough red flags raised about glyphosate.

The 3 take-away thoughts I had were:

1) go even more organic (generally a good idea, but not always easy)
2) cut back further on grains and soy
3) find and take a good mineral supplement

YouTube

 

[Nat Algren]

I have not listened to it yet, but, it is my intention. I did read the following this morning before going to work. You might find it of interest.

Herbicide US Sprays over Millions of Acres in Columbia "Drug War" Linked to Cancer
Posted on March 24, 2015 by Robert Barsocchini
The Associated Press reports that "the world's most-popular weed killer" has been discovered to be "a likely cause of cancer":

The International Agency for Research on Cancer, a French-based research arm of the World Health Organization, has reclassified the herbicide glyphosate as a result of what it said is convincing evidence the chemical produces cancer in lab animals and more limited findings it causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in humans.

…the glyphosate-containing herbicide Roundup [made by Monsanto] is a mainstay of industrial agriculture.

This has implications, AP continues, for the US "aerial spraying program in Colombia":

[A] fumigation program, which is financed by the U.S. and partly carried out by American contractors [has sprayed] 4 million acres of land in the past two decades to kill coca plants, whose leaves are used to produce cocaine.

Colombia's left likens [the program] to the U.S. military's use of the Agent Orange herbicide during the Vietnam War.

In 2013, Colombia agreed to pay Ecuador $15 million to settle a lawsuit over economic and human damage tied to spraying along the countries' border.

The US government has stated:

…damage to the environment and health risks from production of cocaine far outweigh the adverse effects of aerial eradication.

And, AP notes:

…the spraying program is operating as usual.

…

As the spraying of Columbia with known likely carcinogens is being carried out due to purported US hand-wringing over the adverse effects of drugs on humans, the US continues to push the world's most lethal drug, tobacco:

The United States is consistently the world's number 4 producer of tobacco.

In 2002, the US Department of Agriculture recorded that that US was the world's number 2 exporter of tobacco, and that was after a steep decline in US exports, as noted below.

Click link for balance of article.

Round-up

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by Nat Algren:
I have not listened to it yet, but, it is my intention. I did read the following this morning before going to work. You might find it of interest.

Herbicide US Sprays over Millions of Acres in Columbia "Drug War" Linked to Cancer
Posted on March 24, 2015 by Robert Barsocchini
The Associated Press reports that "the world's most-popular weed killer" has been discovered to be "a likely cause of cancer":

The International Agency for Research on Cancer, a French-based research arm of the World Health Organization, has reclassified the herbicide glyphosate as a result of what it said is convincing evidence the chemical produces cancer in lab animals and more limited findings it causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in humans.

…the glyphosate-containing herbicide Roundup [made by Monsanto] is a mainstay of industrial agriculture.

This has implications, AP continues, for the US "aerial spraying program in Colombia":

[A] fumigation program, which is financed by the U.S. and partly carried out by American contractors [has sprayed] 4 million acres of land in the past two decades to kill coca plants, whose leaves are used to produce cocaine.

Colombia's left likens [the program] to the U.S. military's use of the Agent Orange herbicide during the Vietnam War.

In 2013, Colombia agreed to pay Ecuador $15 million to settle a lawsuit over economic and human damage tied to spraying along the countries' border.

The US government has stated:

…damage to the environment and health risks from production of cocaine far outweigh the adverse effects of aerial eradication.

And, AP notes:

…the spraying program is operating as usual.

…

As the spraying of Columbia with known likely carcinogens is being carried out due to purported US hand-wringing over the adverse effects of drugs on humans, the US continues to push the world's most lethal drug, tobacco:

The United States is consistently the world's number 4 producer of tobacco.

In 2002, the US Department of Agriculture recorded that that US was the world's number 2 exporter of tobacco, and that was after a steep decline in US exports, as noted below.

Click link for balance of article.

Excellent article. Thanks.

I love how he compares our faux concern for the health effects of cocaine with our stance on tobacco.

It's also interesting to consider that if cocaine were legal, we could regulate many of the environmental and health negatives that we are using to justify dumping poison on large stretches of Columbia.

And here's 1 more point. People who use cocaine in harmful amounts at least choose to do so. People who have glyphosate dumped on them and who eat foods adulterated with glyphosate and whose crops are killed or diminished by glyphosate and whose kids have developmental issues, asthma, autism and other problems that may be linked to the Roundup chemical, do NOT choose to be "treated" with glyphosate.

 

[lawsonhawk]

On the news the other night it was announced the FDA cleared gmo potatoes that don't bruise and apples that won't brown. I assume they effed w/ enzymes to get that affect (but I don't know, don't really care) which I would think would cause similar problems that processed food cause (more inflammation), but, the FDA says it's cool.

I can't think of an argument to screw w/ food this way. If only we had potatoes that don't bruise, think of the global impact

 

[Sooner-Be-Dead]

The French roundup "study" was a complete hatchet job and conflicts with the vast majority of research on the topic.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by lawsonhawk:
On the news the other night it was announced the FDA cleared gmo potatoes that don't bruise and apples that won't brown. I assume they effed w/ enzymes to get that affect (but I don't know, don't really care) which I would think would cause similar problems that processed food cause (more inflammation), but, the FDA says it's cool.

I can't think of an argument to screw w/ food this way. If only we had potatoes that don't bruise, think of the global impact

Apparently there's a rule having to do with equivalence that basically says that if an engineered food is substantially equivalent to the ordinary variety, it can skip the years of testing and strict controls you might apply to drugs. Someone else here can probably explain that better.

As I have said before, I'm not opposed to genetic engineering, but I do fear we are being entirely too reckless - primarily due to pressure from the genetic engineering corporations who care about short term profits more than long term human or environmental health. Unfortunately, these days those are the guys calling the shots about funding, regulation, law and enforcement.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by Sooner-Be-Dead:
The French roundup "study" was a complete hatchet job and conflicts with the vast majority of research on the topic.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Did you watch the video? He talks about a "retracted" study by some French scientists. Is that the one you are talking about? He also explains what was going on and why you might not want to be too quick to accept that it was a hatchet job. He also describes a bunch of other studies consistent with the French findings.

 

[Sooner-Be-Dead]

Can't watch it at work. Maybe tonight.

I just find the GMO debate to be strangely similar to climate change but opposite interests. Anti-GMO folks start with a conclusion and try to work their way back to the science. And of course you can find someone willing to support your side. In this case a study with no new data.

Sure we should continue to study GMOs effects with new data and findings. But in the meantime the majority of science says it's fine.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[lawsonhawk]

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
Apparently there's a rule having to do with equivalence that basically says that if an engineered food is substantially equivalent to the ordinary variety, it can skip the years of testing and strict controls you might apply to drugs. Someone else here can probably explain that better.

As I have said before, I'm not opposed to genetic engineering, but I do fear we are being entirely too reckless - primarily due to pressure from the genetic engineering corporations who care about short term profits more than long term human or environmental health. Unfortunately, these days those are the guys calling the shots about funding, regulation, law and enforcement.

I don't pay too much attention to the gmo issues. I think it's far to complicated for any study to come to a satisfactory conclusion. Outside of the fact that there are serious vested interests in getting these products to market. Even if "science" says it's okay, there's no way to put physiology in a vacuum and think isolating a couple variables makes it okay.

Look at statins, first they're great. Then they interfere with CoQ10, then they interfere w/ lipid rafts screwing w/ insulin receptors (specifically making women diabetic), they impact/increase lactic acid production, then we find out they lower IQ . . . . when it's already known that HDL is more important anyway, as well as inflammation and oxidation being the actual culprits . . . all the while one has to ignore the mechanisms of how and why cholesterol is produced which is a lifestyle issue w/ the rare cholesterol receptor issue.

The problem w/ "science" and health is that the science is just a measurement, it doesn't address the functionality and what the best way to address a problem really is other than to say this profitable procedure works better then nothing if you don't care about the side effect.

 

[jscott78]

I think as long as we let politicians and ideologues figure these things our we will all be healthy and disease free. Although we may have a lot of pinhead kiddies running around.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by Sooner-Be-Dead:
Can't watch it at work. Maybe tonight.

I just find the GMO debate to be strangely similar to climate change but opposite interests. Anti-GMO folks start with a conclusion and try to work their way back to the science. And of course you can find someone willing to support your side. In this case a study with no new data.

Sure we should continue to study GMOs effects with new data and findings. But in the meantime the majority of science says it's fine.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Well, this video isn't generically anti-GMO. But it does raise concerns about the use of glyphosate - the use of which has dramatically increased because of genetic engineering that has made crops safe from Roundup.

I hope you do watch it and get back to us.

I liked it in part because he spends a little time on the chemistry. I'm not a chemist, but what he said made sense to someone with decent scientific literacy. So it made sense to me when he explained how glyphosate binds metals and metals are critical in certain enzymes and metabolic cycles - meaning those metals are less bioavailable and those medabolic cycles are less effective in the presence of glyphosate. And then he goes on to present studies showing the presence of glyphosate in - and the damage to - animals, plants, and organs - and so on.

I found it a pretty compelling presentation. Even if I didn't think all the studies were of equal merit, the combined view certainly raised my concern about crops and animals in our food chain that have been in contact with Roundup.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by lawsonhawk:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
Apparently there's a rule having to do with equivalence that basically says that if an engineered food is substantially equivalent to the ordinary variety, it can skip the years of testing and strict controls you might apply to drugs. Someone else here can probably explain that better.

As I have said before, I'm not opposed to genetic engineering, but I do fear we are being entirely too reckless - primarily due to pressure from the genetic engineering corporations who care about short term profits more than long term human or environmental health. Unfortunately, these days those are the guys calling the shots about funding, regulation, law and enforcement.

I don't pay too much attention to the gmo issues. I think it's far to complicated for any study to come to a satisfactory conclusion. Outside of the fact that there are serious vested interests in getting these products to market. Even if "science" says it's okay, there's no way to put physiology in a vacuum and think isolating a couple variables makes it okay.

Look at statins, first they're great. Then they interfere with CoQ10, then they interfere w/ lipid rafts screwing w/ insulin receptors (specifically making women diabetic), they impact/increase lactic acid production, then we find out they lower IQ . . . . when it's already known that HDL is more important anyway, as well as inflammation and oxidation being the actual culprits . . . all the while one has to ignore the mechanisms of how and why cholesterol is produced which is a lifestyle issue w/ the rare cholesterol receptor issue.

The problem w/ "science" and health is that the science is just a measurement, it doesn't address the functionality and what the best way to address a problem really is other than to say this profitable procedure works better then nothing if you don't care about the side effect.

Part of the problem with some GMO products - which, again, is not really the main focus of the video - is that you can't always roll them back when you discover the harm they do. In your example with statins, we can always stop using statins. So while there is still a good argument to be made that we may need stronger testing and longer term testing for some drugs, mistakes can be corrected going forward. It doesn't help the early adopters, maybe, but we can change the regs or ban them. But if engineered crops or animals or microbes turn out to be dangerous AFTER they have gotten out in the wild, we may not be able to just stop.

Conversation about the precautionary principle seems especially appropriate. And the power of for-profit enterprise to circumvent appropriate caution should cause concern.

 

[Nat Algren]

Originally posted by Sooner-Be-Dead:
The French roundup "study" was a complete hatchet job and conflicts with the vast majority of research on the topic.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

I honestly don't know enough about this topic, but, I am eager to learn more. I would like to ask who funded the side that decided it was a hatchet job? Are there Monsanto fingerprints on this? Just calling it a 'hatchet job' indicates to me that someone has interests that they wish to protect.

By now, everyone should know that Monsanto lobbyists have a revolving door at the USDA and other fedgov agencies. Clarence Thomas and Killary Clinton have Monsanto connections. I sincerely would like to know.

Also, I read once that Round-up is applied to crops 10 days before harvesting, as to lessen the the wear and tear on the farm equipment. Don't know if its true.
This post was edited on 3/24 1:59 PM by Nat Algren

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by Nat Algren:

Originally posted by Sooner-Be-Dead:
The French roundup "study" was a complete hatchet job and conflicts with the vast majority of research on the topic.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

I honestly don't know enough about this topic, but, I am eager to learn more. I would like to ask who funded the side that decided it was a hatchet job? Are there Monsanto fingerprints on this? Just calling it a 'hatchet job' indicates to me that someone has interests that they wish to protect.

By now, everyone should know that Monsanto lobbyists have a revolving door at the USDA and other fedgov agencies. Clarence Thomas and Killary Clinton have Monsanto connections. I sincerely would like to know.

Also, I read once that Round-up is applied to crops 10 days before harvesting, as to lessen the the wear and tear on the farm equipment. Don't know if its true.
This post was edited on 3/24 1:59 PM by Nat Algren

Watch the video, Nat. He addresses several of those points.

 

[Nat Algren]

I will WWJD.

From Washington's blog:

"Control oil and you control nations," said US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the 1970s. "Control food and you control the people."

Global food control has nearly been achieved, by reducing seed diversity with GMO (genetically modified) seeds that are distributed by only a few transnational corporations. But this agenda has been implemented at grave cost to our health; and if the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) passes, control over not just our food but our health, our environment and our financial system will be in the hands of transnational corporations.

Sixty to seventy percent of the foods in US supermarkets are now genetically modified. By contrast, in at least 26 other countries-including Switzerland, Australia, Austria, China, India, France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, Greece, Bulgaria, Poland, Italy, Mexico and Russia-GMOs are totally or partially banned; and significant restrictions on GMOs exist in about sixty other countries.

Jeffrey M. Smith, Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, confirms that US Food and Drug Administration policy allows biotech companies to determine if their own foods are safe. Submission of data is completely voluntary. He concludes:

In the critical arena of food safety research, the biotech industry is without accountability, standards, or peer-review. They've got bad science down to a science.

link

 

[HIWB]

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by Sooner-Be-Dead:
The French roundup "study" was a complete hatchet job and conflicts with the vast majority of research on the topic.
Posted from http://www.journals.elsevier.com/food-and-chemical-toxicology/news/editor-in-chief-a-wallace-hayes-responds-to-letters/
If you're looking for additional outside parties to weigh in with opinions, the EFSA issued a statement saying it didn't meet acceptable scientific methods. Here are a few more: http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/06/24/scientists-react-to-republished-seralini-maize-rat-study/
Vrain isn't representing Seralini's opinions and conclusions accurately. Seralini quite clearly stands by his work to say that the study indicates carcinogenicity, not that the study is inconclusive as Vrain tries to innocently suggest.

 

[dalynchmob]

Originally posted by Nat Algren:

Originally posted by Sooner-Be-Dead:
The French roundup "study" was a complete hatchet job and conflicts with the vast majority of research on the topic.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

I honestly don't know enough about this topic, but, I am eager to learn more. I would like to ask who funded the side that decided it was a hatchet job? Are there Monsanto fingerprints on this? Just calling it a 'hatchet job' indicates to me that someone has interests that they wish to protect.

By now, everyone should know that Monsanto lobbyists have a revolving door at the USDA and other fedgov agencies. Clarence Thomas and Killary Clinton have Monsanto connections. I sincerely would like to know.

Also, I read once that Round-up is applied to crops 10 days before harvesting, as to lessen the the wear and tear on the farm equipment. Don't know if its true.

This post was edited on 3/24 1:59 PM by Nat Algren

I can't speak for every crop (although, knowing how much it costs and what it actually does, I highly doubt it happens in any crop), but this is NOT true with corn/soy.

 

[rocketclone]

I have a friend who travels all over the USA and talks about this along with GMO's. A lot has to do with the residue or whatever from Round up on the crops.