I was dumbfounded to learn that, aside from the well-documented dangers and health risks associated with glyphosate -- the active in ingredient in Roundup -- this poison is seeping into the entire food system.
We also know that glyphosate is increasingly prevalent, turning up in blood, urine, and even breast milk. The Alliance for Natural Health USA tested twenty-four popular breakfast foods and ingredients, including items such as flour, bagels, yogurt, potatoes, organic eggs, and coffee creamers.
Their findings confirmed that our food system has been saturated with glyphosate, reaching even into some organic products.
The findings of the study were below the EPA's safety limits, but I was dismayed to learn that not only have a number of consumer groups contested those agency-set safety limits for glyphosate as being inadequate, you actually raised those limits in 2013! Safety limits also do not take into account the dangers of the so-called "inert" ingredients of pesticides, which have been found to be much more toxic than glyphosate.
Especially worrisome are the levels of glyphosate found in some organic eggs and dairy creamers, animal products which are not sprayed directly with glyphosate. This indicates that the chemical is entering the food chain and building up in the tissues of animals -- likely also the case for humans.
More fundamentally, the use of pesticides like glyphosate is destroying the soil biota.Just as most of the genetic material found inside the human body belongs to the rich assortment of bacteria and microorganisms, the soil is home to a wide variety of organisms that aid in healthy plant growth. And just as taking antibiotics and being exposed to toxic chemicals destroys our gut microbiota, the heavy use of pesticides wreaks similar havoc on the soil biota--it affects rhizospheres (soil and organisms around the root of a plant or tree), worms (crucial for aerating soil, circulating nutrients, and increasing microbial activity), and mycorrhizae fungi (which plants rely on for nutrients and moisture).
Just as our gut microbiota are increasingly seen as crucial to human health, microbes in the soil are essential to the proper functioning of the ecosystem--not to mention in providing humans with clean, nutritious food. Healthy soil means healthy plants; healthy plants mean healthy food, both for animals and humans.
The pervasiveness of glyphosate in our food could be setting the stage for a public health nightmare. I urge your agency to reconsider its approval of glyphosate as an herbicide, especially now that the World Health Organization says it likely causes cancer in humans. You simply must protect the public health.
Simonjester wrote:
probably wise not to hold your breath.... the roundup - GMO lobby - revolving door from company man to politician, and back, is one of the most powerful, well funded, and incestuous, that there is in the world of corrupt cronyism...
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
At least we won't have weeds growing in our gut. And, all those toxic inert ingredients: a major one is water. You can actually drown in that stuff, and the LD50 for water is significant http://www.compoundchem.com/2014/07/27/lethaldoses/ . We should start a campaign to tell everyone how hazardous water really is. "Umbrellas and floaties and 4oz glasses for all", a potential mass protest mob chant.
... M
Edit: The LD50 for water in the link is much lower than what our science lab said - they said it was 470,000 mg/kg if I remember correctly, but that was 40 years ago and my memory may have faded a bit since then.
Last edited by Mountaineer on Wed Apr 27, 2016 6:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
The main problem is that the EPA doesn't have enough money to do their own studies, so they rely on studies done by industry a lot of the time (Monsanto, etc. have a ton of money), which is obviously not a good idea.
But, there doesn't seem to be much will to increase funding for the EPA (or other agencies like the FDA, which has similar issues) these days.
At least we won't have weeds growing in our gut. And, all those toxic inert ingredients: a major one is water. You can actually drown in that stuff, and the LD50 for water is significant http://www.compoundchem.com/2014/07/27/lethaldoses/ . We should start a campaign to tell everyone how hazardous water really is. "Umbrellas and floaties and 4oz glasses for all", a potential mass protest mob chant.
... M
Edit: The LD50 for water in the link is much lower than what our science lab said - they said it was 470,000 mg/kg if I remember correctly, but that was 40 years ago and my memory may have faded a bit since then.
If you think water is hazardous, what about dihydrogen monoxide (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html)? That stuff is terrifying!
I find it let's say interesting that MG is apparently at least skeptical about global warming but apparently buys glyphosate (and vaccine) hysteria hook, line, and sinker.
I'm definitely not a Monsanto fan (I'd rank them in the top 5% of evils the world has ever known), but this hysteria about glyphosate seems kind of ridiculous.
jafs wrote:
I'm concerned that the EPA relies on industry studies, instead of conducting their own. That's an obviously bad idea, isn't it?
Just as the FDA relies on studies conducted by drug companies, who are looking for approval of their drugs.
I say "not necessarily". It is highly dependent on ethics, of the involved individuals and the organization as a whole ... whether one is working for the FDA, EPA, or private industry. Corrupt people are corrupt people regardless of who is paying their salary. A three letter government agency is neither more nor less likely to publish bad data, or good data, than the private industry....
M.
Simonjester wrote:
the problem is that the EPA has become a enforcement arm for political agendas, just like the IRS was used against the tea party and patriot groups applying for tax exemption, the EPA have become puppets, to be used against whomever or whichever industry "the powers that be" wish.....
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
jafs wrote:
I'm concerned that the EPA relies on industry studies, instead of conducting their own. That's an obviously bad idea, isn't it?
Just as the FDA relies on studies conducted by drug companies, who are looking for approval of their drugs.
I say "not necessarily". It is highly dependent on ethics, of the involved individuals and the organization as a whole ... whether one is working for the FDA, EPA, or private industry. Corrupt people are corrupt people regardless of who is paying their salary. A three letter government agency is neither more nor less likely to publish bad data, or good data, than the private industry.
... M
I disagree.
If Monsanto is commissioning studies about the safety of one of their ingredients, they have a clear vested interest in studies that show it's safe.
The EPA, operating as it should, has so such interest and is more impartial.
If Monsanto is commissioning studies about the safety of one of their ingredients, they have a clear vested interest in studies that show it's safe.
The EPA, operating as it should, has so such interest and is more impartial.
i disagree.
the majority of Monsanto upper management employees are ex government or about to become new government employees. they donate millions (if not billions) of dollars to insure that congress and the EPA don't question those studies, and vote straight pro Monsanto, on any issue that effects there company..
That may be.
But, I said the EPA, "operating as it should", which means without those ties to industry.
rickb wrote:
I find it let's say interesting that MG is apparently at least skeptical about global warming but apparently buys glyphosate (and vaccine) hysteria hook, line, and sinker.
I'm definitely not a Monsanto fan (I'd rank them in the top 5% of evils the world has ever known), but this hysteria about glyphosate seems kind of ridiculous.
I'm skeptical about AGW not GW. I don't buy AGW "settled science" or modern, untested vaccination "safety", hook, line and sinker. I buy "it" by examining the inconvenient, contrary, negative, embarassing evidence that is ignored, not acknowledged and/or swept under the rug for sake of career ambitions and/or corporate profit. It's not rocket science; its human nature.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Wed Apr 27, 2016 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
jafs wrote:
I'm concerned that the EPA relies on industry studies, instead of conducting their own. That's an obviously bad idea, isn't it?
Just as the FDA relies on studies conducted by drug companies, who are looking for approval of their drugs.
Just "concerned"? As far as I'm concerned, it's a systematic evil. So since the utopian ideal of an impartial, independent public government agency unfettered by the profit motive will reign in unruly, lassize-faire, "greed is good" capitalism doesn't actually work, what's your solution?
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
But, as I've said before, the only way out and towards what would be the right way is to get the money out of politics, and eliminate the business/government revolving door of favors.
People are imperfect and corruptible, and that will mess up any system that we could come up with.
