EU dropped pesticide laws due to US pressure over TTIP | |
|
EXCERPT:
The series of events was described as “incredible” by the the Green MEP
Bas Eickhout. “These documents offer convincing evidence that TTIP not
only presents a danger for the future lowering of European standards,
but that this is happening as we speak,” he told the Guardian.
— EU dropped pesticide laws due to US pressure over TTIP, documents reveal
Arthur Neslen
The Guardian, 22 May 2015 http://www.theguardian.com/ * US trade officials pushed EU to shelve action on endocrine-disrupting chemicals linked to cancer and male infertility to facilitate TTIP free trade deal EU moves to regulate hormone-damaging chemicals linked to cancer and male infertility were shelved following pressure from US trade officials over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) free trade deal, newly released documents show. Draft EU criteria could have banned 31 pesticides containing endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). But these were dumped amid fears of a trade backlash stoked by an aggressive US lobby push, access to information documents obtained by Pesticides Action Network (PAN) Europe show. On the morning of 2 July 2013, a high-level delegation from the US Mission to Europe and the American Chambers of Commerce (AmCham) visited EU trade officials to insist that the bloc drop its planned criteria for identifying EDCs in favour of a new impact study. By the end of the day, the EU had done so. Minutes of the meeting show commission officials pleading that “although they want the TTIP to be successful, they would not like to be seen as lowering the EU standards”. The TTIP is a trade deal being agreed by the EU and US to remove barriers to commerce and promote free trade. Responding to the EU officials, AmCham representatives “complained about the uselessness of creating categories and thus, lists” of prohibited substances, the minutes show. The US trade representatives insisted that a risk-based approach be taken to regulation, and “emphasised the need for an impact assessment” instead. Later that day, the secretary-general of the commission, Catherine Day, sent a letter to the environment department’s director Karl Falkenberg, telling him to stand down the draft criteria. “We suggest that as other DGs [directorate-generals] have done, you consider making a joint single impact assessment to cover all the proposals,” Day wrote. “We do not think it is necessary to prepare a commission recommendation on the criteria to identify endocrine disrupting substances.” The result was that legislation planned for 2014 was kicked back until at least 2016, despite estimated health costs of €150bn per year in Europe from endocrine-related illnesses such as IQ loss, obesity and cryptorchidism – a condition affecting the genitals of baby boys. A month before the meeting, AmCham had warned the EU of “wide-reaching implications” if the draft criteria were approved. The trade body wanted an EU impact study to set looser thresholds for acceptable exposure to endocrines, based on a substance’s potency. “We are worried to see that this decision, which is the source of many scientific debates, might be taken on political grounds, without first assessing what its impacts will be on the European market,” the chair of AmCham’s environment committee wrote in a letter to the commission. These could be “dramatic” the letter said. In a high-level internal note sent to the health commissioner, Tonio Borg, shortly afterwards, his departmental director-general warned that the EU’s endocrines policy “will have substantial impacts for the economy, agriculture and trade”. The heavily redacted letter, sent a week before the EU’s plans were scrapped continued: “The US, Canada, and Brazil [have] already voiced concerns on the criteria which might lead to important repercussions on trade.” The series of events was described as “incredible” by the the Green MEP Bas Eickhout. “These documents offer convincing evidence that TTIP not only presents a danger for the future lowering of European standards, but that this is happening as we speak,” he told the Guardian. Earlier this year, 64 MEP’s submitted questions to the commission about the delay to EDC classifications, following revelations by the Guardian about the scale of industry lobbying in the run up to their abandonment. Sweden, the European Parliament and European Council have brought court proceedings against the commission for the legislative logjam. Just weeks before the regulations were dropped there had been a barrage of lobbying from big European firms such as Dupont, Bayer and BASF over EDCs. The chemical industry association Cefic warned that the endocrines issue “could become an issue that impairs the forthcoming EU-US trade negotiations”. The German chemicals giant BASF also complained that bans on pesticide substances “will restrict the free trade with agricultural products on the global level”. Around this time, the commission’s more industry-friendly agriculture department weighed into the internal EU debate after being “informed by representatives of the US chemical industry” about it. A common theme in the lobby missives was the need to set thresholds for safe exposure to endocrines, even though a growing body of scientific results suggests that linear threshold models – in which higher doses create greater effects – do not apply to endocrine disruptors. “The human endocrine system is regulated by hormones and the hormone receptors are sensitive to low doses,” said Hans Muilerman, PAN Europe’s chemicals coordinator. “In animal toxicity studies, effects are seen from low doses [of endocrines] that disappear with higher ones. But in the regulatory arena, lower doses are not tested for.” A commission spokesperson insisted that health and environmental concerns would be fully addressed, despite pressure from industry or trade groups. “The ongoing EU impact assessment procedure is not linked in any way to the TTIP negotiations,” the official said. “The EU will proceed to the adoption of definitive criteria to identify endocrine disruptors, independently from the further course of our TTIP negotiations with the US.” An EU-TTIP position paper on chemicals published last May, cited endocrine disruptors as as one of the “new and emerging scientific issues” which the EU and the US could consider for “enhanced regulatory cooperations” in a future TTIP deal. “However, given the fact that a possible future TTIP Agreement will most likely not enter into force before the adoption of definitive EU criteria to identify endocrine disruptors, it is clear that the EU’s ongoing impact assessment and adoption of definitive criteria will not be dealt with in the TTIP negotiations,” the spokesperson said.
______________________________
Website: http://www.gmwatch.Profiles: http://www. Twitter: http://twitter.com/ Facebook: http://www.facebook. | |
Friday, May 22, 2015
US CORPORATIONS ALREADY PRESSURING THE REST OF THE WORLD TO ACCEPT TOXIC DEALS
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
NEWS FROM ORGANIC AND NON-GMO ROUNDUPS
Thanks to Mark Kastel and his team at The Cornucopia Institute who
blogged and Tweeted from last week’s National Organic Standards Board
meeting in California.
Mark said this morning, taht the divisiveness between the organic non-profits and big corporates/OTA is as strong as ever – not something that anyone likes to hear.
Check out the daily recaps of the meeting on Cornucopia’s website. http://www.cornucopia.org/
IN OTHER NEWS
Chipotle claims that GMOs “don’t make the cut” anymore at its restaurant chain. I beg to differ.
http://bit.ly/1FL2mJ8
Judge upholds Vermont GMO labeling law while case continues. http://shrd.by/PPrBQp
Gary Hirshberg and Just Label It launch #concealorreveal campaign, target Quaker.
http://shrd.by/vVzSE6
Costco's organic food sales approach $3 billion.
http://shrd.by/Zxl4FB
Wendy's to start selling its first organic product – tea.
http://shrd.by/brTeOs
USDA to launch certified organic database.
http://shrd.by/slLr9b
Mark said this morning, taht the divisiveness between the organic non-profits and big corporates/OTA is as strong as ever – not something that anyone likes to hear.
Check out the daily recaps of the meeting on Cornucopia’s website. http://www.cornucopia.org/
IN OTHER NEWS
Chipotle claims that GMOs “don’t make the cut” anymore at its restaurant chain. I beg to differ.
http://bit.ly/1FL2mJ8
Judge upholds Vermont GMO labeling law while case continues. http://shrd.by/PPrBQp
Gary Hirshberg and Just Label It launch #concealorreveal campaign, target Quaker.
http://shrd.by/vVzSE6
Costco's organic food sales approach $3 billion.
http://shrd.by/Zxl4FB
Wendy's to start selling its first organic product – tea.
http://shrd.by/brTeOs
USDA to launch certified organic database.
http://shrd.by/slLr9b
Saturday, April 25, 2015
"STOP PRODUCING GLYPHOSATE" - WORLD'S LARGEST PRODUCER -CHINA- ASKED TO AWAIT TESTING RESULTS
Ten NGOs ask China to stop producing glyphosate to protect world health | |
Ten
NGOs, including GMWatch, have written to the Chinese Ambassador to the
UK asking China to suspend exports and imports of glyphosate herbicides
while independent testing is carried out.
— Open letter to the people of China
Ambassador Liu Xiaoming
Embassy of the People's Republic of China 49 Portland Place, London W1B 1JL Request for urgent letter to be forwarded to President Xi Jin-ping and Premier Li Ke-qiang To the Chinese people, To Xi Jin-ping, President of the People's Republic of China To Li Ke-qiang, Premier of the People's Republic of China OPEN LETTER: The Impact of Glyphosate/Roundup on global health April 2015 Dear Friends We write to you as members of various non-governmental organizations in Europe, to draw your attention to one of the biggest health problems currently facing the planet – namely the ill health epidemic associated with the ongoing (and expanding) use of the chemical glyphosate and its main formulation called Roundup. As you will know, the latter is a proprietary product marketed by the Monsanto Corporation and other companies worldwide, on the pretence that it is harmless to human beings but lethal to plants. In addition to being widely used as a weedkiller, it is also used increasingly with herbicide-tolerant GMO crops and as a desiccant prior to the harvesting of wheat and other crops. In situations where "industrial agriculture" is practised, it is sprayed on a vast scale, affecting not just farm workers but also the inhabitants of neighbouring communities. It is therefore widely found nowadays in the food supplies of many countries, including the People's Republic of China, and is traceable in animal tissues, human urine and breast milk, and a wide variety of marketed food products. This is well documented in the science literature. We have been investigating the claims that glyphosate and Roundup are "safe" products, and we respectfully ask you to bear in mind the following recent findings: 1. A working party of the World Health Organization (WHO) has declared that glyphosate is now considered to be “a probable human carcinogen”. (1) Their full report – as yet unpublished – will contain the full evidence underpinning the conclusion. The IARC Panel has given glyphosate a 2A categorisation for humans, as well as stating that genotoxic effects in other mammals are "sufficiently demonstrated”. As you may know, a 2A categorisation in the IARC is equivalent to category 1B in the European Union, which means that glyphosate cannot receive a new EU authorisation (the matter is currently under review). 2. Recently the Argentinian Federation of Health Professionals (representing 30,000 members) stated: "Glyphosate not only causes cancer. It is also associated with increased spontaneous abortions, birth defects, skin diseases, and respiratory and neurological disease.” On the basis of accumulated experience over many years, the doctors have called for an immediate ban on glyphosate herbicides in their country (2). 3. Following various leads into the archives of the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), we issued a short report (3) that shows that both Monsanto and the EPA knew of the link between glyphosate and cancer as long ago as 1980, since malignant tumours and other organ damage had been recorded in rat and mouse feeding studies which were, and still are, treated as trade secrets (4). Our revelations confirmed other findings published by Caroline Cox in 1995 and by the Institute of Science in Society in 2014 (5) . The myth relating to the "relative safety" of glyphosate herbicides was promoted by both Monsanto and the EPA in 1981, and has been kept alive ever since by American, EU and other regulators around the world for purely commercial reasons. We are also uncomfortable with the business practice of hiding away important scientific findings by classifying them as trade secrets, thus disallowing public scrutiny of such documents. From a European perspective, in our view EFSA and other EU agencies have also turned a blind eye to the accumulating evidence of harm since 2002. Arising out of the above, we are genuinely frightened by the harm currently being done to the health of your citizens and indeed the health of people across the planet. We understand that China already is the largest producer and exporter of glyphosate in the world, including supplies exported to Monsanto for use in the manufacture of Roundup formulations worldwide. Accordingly, we ask that your Government accepts that it shoulders, together with Monsanto, some responsibility for the devastating harm to public health in those countries importing glyphosate/Roundup from China. We are also concerned that there may be massive claims for compensation in the near future. China is also the largest importer of "Roundup Ready" (RR) soybeans and maize, thus contributing to the ongoing production of these varieties in the USA, Argentina and Brazil. It will be no easy thing to close down factories and to ban the use of the chemical in town and country; and if imports of RR soy and maize are stopped, they will have to be replaced with other products. But we respectfully ask you to take a global lead in this matter. First, will you please commission appropriate scientific institutions in China to carry out independent long-term carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, endocrine developmental disruption, and multiple-generation reproduction toxicity tests on glyphosate alone, and on Roundup formulations? These studies should be carried out by institutions with no commercial or academic interest links with the glyphosate and/or related products industries, and with no connections to the earlier safety evaluation of glyphosate and/or related products. We also believe that in China, as elsewhere, there should now be a nationwide programme of testing for glyphosate residues in surface water, underground water, animal and human urine, breast milk and blood. In parallel, we hope that you will see merit in a nationwide epidemiological investigation of the link between glyphosate/Roundup pollution (including traces contained in imported GM soybeans) and the increased incidence of malignant diseases during the past 20 years. Second, before such studies are commissioned, we ask you as an essential precautionary measure immediately to suspend production/sales and exports of glyphosate, to suspend imports of Roundup formulations, and to suspend imports of all agriculture products (such as RR varieties) containing any glyphosate residues. Finally, given the past frauds practised by IBT and Craven Labs in carrying out industry tests on pesticides, including glyphosate, we urge you to challenge Monsanto to place certain key reports (6) immediately into the public domain. If the corporation will not cooperate by releasing these documents without deletions or alterations, we will assume that there has been scientific malpractice and that the WHO findings of a glyphosate/cancer link are well founded. Glyphosate should have been banned globally 35 years ago, and Roundup should never have been placed on the market. After decades of health damage, it must be in the interests of the whole world for these lethal chemicals to be taken immediately out of use before any more harm is done. While many scientists in Europe and the Unites States share the concerns expressed above, there are many political and commercial obstacles to change. If China could take a lead in the manner which we respectfully suggest, placing the safety and good health of future generations above the commercial aspirations of multinational corporations, that would be something of truly historical importance for our planet. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely yours, Dr Brian John, GM-Free Cymru, Wales, UK Peter Melchett, The Soil Association, UK Dr John Fagan, Earth Open Source, London, UK Dr Mae-wan Ho, Institute of Science in Society, London, UK Michael O'Callaghan, Global Vision Foundation, Geneva, Switzerland Henry Rowlands, Global GMO Free Coalition, Bulgaria Claire Robinson, GM Watch, UK Pat Thomas, Beyond GM, London, UK Sandra Smith, GM-Free Scotland, UK Lawrence Woodward, GM Education - Citizens Concerned about GM, UK NOTES 1. Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate (2015) Kathryn Z Guyton, Dana Loomis, Yann Grosse, Fatiha El Ghissassi, Lamia Benbrahim-Tallaa, Neela Guha, Chiara Scoccianti, Heidi Mattock, Kurt Straif, on behalf of the International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group, IARC, Lyon, France Lancet Oncol 2015. Published Online March 20, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S1470-2045(15)70134-8 International Agency for Research on Cancer 16 Volume 112: Some organophosphate insecticides and herbicides: tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon and glyphosate. IARC Working Group. Lyon; 3–10 March 2015. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risk Chem Hum (in press). 2. Argentina: 30,000 doctors and health professionals demand ban on glyphosate http://www.gmwatch.org/index. 3. http://www.gmfreecymru.org/ 4. It has been further revealed to us by our consultant, that Bio/dynamics used three studies to dilute the data found on kidney tumors, but went even further by fraudulently using five unrelated historical controls to dilute the tumor data found in the testes of male rats. The study clearly showed that glyphosate caused testicular tumors in all three of the test groups. However, the experiment's own control animals showed zero incidence of tumors in the testes of male rats. 5. Cox C. Glyphosate, Part 1: Toxicology. J Pesticide Reform, 1995, 15, Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, Eugene, OR. http://www.1hope.org/glyphos8. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ ISIS Report 26/03/14 Glyphosate and Cancer: New research shows that the low levels of glyphosate found in human urine can promote the growth of human breast cancer cells, confirming the carcinogenic potential of the herbicide known since the 1980s Dr Mae Wan Ho 6. "A Three-Generation Reproduction Study in Rats with Glyphosate" (Final Report; Bio/dynamics Project No. 77-2063; March 31, 1981) -- submitted by Monsanto to EPA "Addendum to Pathology Report for a Three-Generation Reproduction Study in Rats with Glyphosate. R.D. #374; Special Report MSL-1724; July 6, 1982" EPA Registration No 524-308, Action Code 401. Accession No 247793. CASWELL#661A" -- submitted by Monsanto to EPA "A Lifetime Feeding Study of Glyphosate (Roundup Technical) in Rats" (Report by GR Lankas and GK Hogan from Bio/dynamics for Monsanto. Project #77-2062, 1981: MRID 00093879) -- submitted by Monsanto to EPA. Including the study's 4-volume Quality Control evaluation of the Bio/dynamic assessment performed by Experimental Pathology Laboratories, Inc. (2,914 pp). Also Addendum Report #77-2063 Knezevich, AL and Hogan, GK (1983) "A Chronic Feeding study of Glyphosate (Roundup Technical) in Mice". Project No 77-2061. Bio/dynamics Inc for Monsanto. Accession No #251007-251014 -- document not available but cited in EPA 1986 Memo. Follow-up study: McConnel, R. "A chronic feeding study of glyphosate (Roundup technical) in mice: pathology report on additional kidney sections". Unpublished project no. 77-2061A, 1985, submitted to EPA by Bio/dynamics, Inc.
______________________________
Website: http://www.gmwatch.Profiles: http://www. Twitter: http://twitter.com/ Facebook: http://www.facebook. | |
Friday, April 17, 2015
DOCTOR CALLS FOR BAN ON GLYPHOSATE
The Case for Banning Monsanto's Roundup
There's strong evidence that the herbicide causes birth defects and probably causes cancer. There's also reason to believe it causes or exacerbates numerous chronic illnesses.
By Dr. Jeff Ritterman
On
March 20, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
reclassified glyphosate as a chemical that probably causes cancer. The IARC is
a branch of the World Health Organization that focuses on cancer, and
it combines the knowledge and expertise of epidemiologists, laboratory
scientists, and biostatisticians. The IARC has been engaged in cancer
research for more than five decades, and its vast experience in cancer
research has led the agency to conclude that "most cancers are, directly
or indirectly, linked to environmental factors and thus are
preventable."
The
IARC had previously designated glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic.
Monsanto, a leading producer of glyphosate under the trade name Roundup,
immediately issued a press releasechallenging
the new IARC designation and contending that Roundup is safe. But
Monsanto has a tremendous amount at stake. Half of the corporation's
revenues come from sales of Roundup and Roundup Ready seeds, which can
tolerate the herbicide. Monsanto advocates that farmers spray their
fields heavily and repeatedly with Roundup in order to kill unwanted
weeds, and Monsanto's corporate strategy is based on the assumption that
Roundup is safe. If Roundup is found to be toxic, the entire house of
cards comes tumbling down, and with it, Monsanto and biotech
agriculture. The banning of glyphosate could mean bankruptcy for
Monsanto.
But
the scientific case for banning glyphosate is convincing. Research
shows that in addition to concerns about cancer, there is strong
evidence that Roundup causes birth defects in vertebrates, including in
humans. The research also reveals that glyphosate may be the cause of or
trigger for a number of chronic illnesses that are now plaguing people
around the globe.
Originally
patented by the Stauffer Chemical Company in 1964, glyphosate is a
powerful chelating agent — meaning that it avidly binds to metals. It's
this chelating property that led to glyphosate's first use as a
descaling agent to clean mineral deposits from pipes in boilers and
other hot water systems. The ability to bind to metals also allows glyphosate-metal complexes to
persist in soil for decades. The chelating property also underlies the
hypothesis that glyphosate-metal complexes are the cause of a fatal chronic kidney disease epidemic that has been ravaging Central America, Sri Lanka, and parts of India.
In
the 1970s, John Franz, a Monsanto scientist, discovered glyphosate's
usefulness as an herbicide. Monsanto patented glyphosate and has
marketed the chemical as "Roundup" since 1974. Glyphosate is now the
world's most widely used herbicide.
But
contrary to Monsanto's claims that Roundup is safe, a virtual avalanche
of scientific studies, including some funded by Monsanto itself, show
alarming incidences of fetal deaths and birth defects in animals exposed
to glyphosate. Birth defects include missing kidneys and lungs,
enlarged hearts, extra ribs, and missing and abnormally formed bones of
the limbs, ribs, sternum, spine, and skull.
These startling revelations can
be found in the 2011 report "Roundup and Birth Defects: Is the Public
Being Kept in the Dark?" It was written by eight experts from the fields
of molecular genetics, agro-ecology, toxico-pathology, scientific
ethics, ecological agriculture, plant genetics, public health, and cell
biology. The report, written primarily for a European readership, is
highly critical of the biotech industry and of the European Union's
failure to evaluate glyphosate based on science rather than on political
concerns. It calls for an immediate withdrawal of Roundup and
glyphosate from the European Union until a thorough scientific
evaluation can be completed on the herbicide.
"The
public has been kept in the dark by industry and regulators about the
ability of glyphosate and Roundup to cause malformations," the report
states. "In addition, the work of independent scientists who have drawn
attention to the herbicide's teratogenic effects has been ignored,
denigrated or dismissed. These actions on the part of industry and
regulators have endangered public health."
A teratogen is any agent that can disturb the development of an embryo or a fetus. The term stems from the Greek teras, meaning monster.
In
late 2012, when Danish pig farmer Ibn Bjorn Pedersen began feeding his
pigs genetically modified soy that was contaminated with glyphosate, the
rate of birth defects soared. In early 2013, piglets were born without
an ear, with only one large eye, with a large hole in the skull, and
with a monstrously large "elephant tongue." A female piglet was born
with testes, and still others had malformed limbs, spines, skulls, and
gastrointestinal tracts. The deformed piglets all tested positive for glyphosate in their tissues.
These
birth defects in test animals and in farmer Pedersen's pigs were
similar to those reported by humans living in Argentina, where
glyphosate is sprayed heavily from airplanes as part of the production
of genetically modified soy. In the Córdoba region of Argentina, the
Gatica family resides in the barrio of Ituzaingó, only 50 meters away
from fields of GMO soy. Airplanes would regularly fly overhead, spraying
glyphosate on the crops. In the mid-1990s, Sofia Gatica's oldest son
became extremely ill. "When he was four years old, he came down with the
illness that left him temporarily paralyzed," she recalled,according to a 2013 report published by the German news organization Deutsche Welle. "He was admitted to the hospital. They told me that they didn't know what was wrong with him."
In
1999, Gatica gave birth to a baby girl. The infant died of kidney
failure on her third day of life. This tragedy prompted the grieving
mother to take action. Gatica went door-to-door, collecting information
on the health of her community. Her survey uncovered an unusually high
rate of birth defects and cancer. "Children were being born with
deformities, little babies were being born with six fingers, without a
jawbone, missing a skull bone, with kidney deformities, without an anus —
and a lot of mothers and fathers were developing cancer," she said,
according to the Deutsche Welle report.
Gatica
shared her findings with her friends and neighbors. Soon a group
formed, calling itself the Mothers of Ituzaingó. In 2012, Gatica was
awarded the Goldman Environmental Prize for her work protecting her
community from glyphosate toxicity.
A
group of Argentine doctors, alarmed by the increases in birth defects
and cancer, joined the Mothers of Ituzaingó. These concerned physicians
formed Doctors of Fumigated Towns, which held its first national
conference in August 2010 in Córdoba, Argentina, a farming area where
agribusinesses heavily and repeatedly spray glyphosate. The Department
of Medical Sciences of the National University at Córdoba sponsored the
conference. Some 160 doctors from throughout the country attended. At
the conference, Dr. Medardo Avila Vazquez, a pediatrician and
environmental health expert, explained his concerns:
"The change in how agriculture is produced has brought, frankly, a
change in the profile of diseases. We've gone from a pretty healthy
population to one with a high rate of cancer, birth defects, and
illnesses seldom seen before. There are more than 12 million people
affected by fumigation (pesticide spraying) in the country. In these
areas, the rate of birth defects is four times higher than in the
cities."
Chaco is Argentina's poorest province and a region of intensive glyphosate spraying. Records from
the neonatal service at Chaco's Perrando Hospital show that birth
defects increased fourfold, from 19.1 to 85.3 per 10,000 people, in the
decade after intensive herbicide use began.
The
experimental animal studies, the observations in farm animals, and the
epidemiological studies in humans all bolster the conclusion that
glyphosate causes birth defects.
And
the research directly contradicts claims by Monsanto, which states on
its website that Roundup is safe "because it binds tightly to most types
of soil so it is not available for uptake by roots of nearby plants. It
works by disrupting a plant enzyme involved in the production of amino
acids that are essential to plant growth. The enzyme, EPSP synthase, is
not present in humans or animals, contributing to the low risk to human
health from the use of glyphosate according to label directions."
So
how can Roundup cause birth defects if it only affects an enzyme (EPSP
Synthase) that animals do not possess? Andrés Carrasco, an embryologist
and the former director of the molecular embryology laboratory at the
University of Buenos Aires, found the link.
Carrasco
suspected that glyphosate caused an abnormal hyperactivity in the
Vitamin A pathway. The Vitamin A signaling pathway is present in all
vertebrates from the very earliest stages of embryonic development. The
pathway turns on certain genes and turns off others. It acts like a
conductor, orchestrating the symphony of embryological development. And
there is no room for error. Genes must be turned on and off at precisely
the right instant in exact sequence. Any disturbance of the Vitamin A
pathway can result in birth defects. It is because of the enhanced risk
of birth defects that pregnant women are advised not to take any Vitamin
A (retinoic acid) containing medications.
When
Carrasco added a chemical inhibitor to his experiments, he was able to
block the glyphosate-induced hyperactivity in the Vitamin A pathway. The
birth defects no longer appeared. Mystery solved! Glyphosate had caused
birth defects by over-stimulating the Vitamin A pathway. Since this
pathway is present in all vertebrates, glyphosate has the capacity to
cause birth defects in fish, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals.
But Roundup doesn't just cause birth defects.
Epidemiologic
studies from the areas in Latin America where agribusinesses heavily
spray glyphosate have consistently shown spikes in cancer incidence.
Other epidemiological research has implicated glyphosate in brain cancer
in children and in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. In addition, laboratory
studies of many kinds, as well as animal feeding studies, have
repeatedly linked glyphosate to cancer.
Cancer
is a complex process. One of the initial steps is damage to our DNA.
Each of our cells gets its operating instructions from DNA, and if DNA
is damaged and not repaired, it can program cells to divide rapidly and
chaotically. When that happens, cells transform into cancers.
Cells
are also vulnerable to becoming cancers during cell division. Each cell
receives from its parent cell an identical copy of DNA. If a mistake
occurs during this process, cells receive faulty DNA copies, and the
cells can then turn cancerous.
Since
both DNA damage and errors during cell division can lead to cancer,
scientists have studied whether glyphosate can cause these
abnormalities. And the results have been conclusive. For example, fruit fly larvae exposed to glyphosate have developed lethal DNA damage. And mice injected with glyphosate and with Roundup showed an increased frequency of DNA damage in the bone marrow, liver, and kidneys. Roundup damaged the DNA in blood cells of the European eel at environmentally realistic concentrations. And when researchers exposed cow lymphocytes to glyphosate, the herbicide caused DNA damage.
In
a 2004 study, researchers from the National Scientific Research Center
and the University of Pierre and Marie Curie in France exposed sea
urchin embryos to glyphosate, and found that the herbicide caused
significant errors in cell division. The scientists commented that these
abnormalities are hallmarks of cancer and delivered a particularly chilling warning.
"The concentration of glyphosate needed to cause these errors was 500
to 4,000 times lower than the dose to which humans may be exposed by
aerial spraying or handling of the herbicide."
Fernando
Manas, a biologist at the National University of Rio Cuarto in
Argentina, has been investigating the effects of pesticides for years.
He believes that glyphosate spraying is causing cancer by inducing DNA damage,
and his research has documented genetic damage in those exposed. When
Manas studied people who spray pesticide while working in the soy
industry in Córdoba, Argentina, he found significantly more DNA damage
in their lymphocytes than those in an unexposed group. Glyphosate was
one of the most commonly used pesticides by the workers.
Genetics
researchers from the Pontifical Catholic University in Quito, Ecuador
evaluated Ecuadorians living in the SucumbÃos district in northern
Ecuador for evidence of DNA damage. The Colombian government had heavily
sprayed the SucumbÃos district with glyphosate to eradicate illegal
coca crops. People exposed to the herbicide developed a number of acute
symptoms, including abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhea, fever, heart
palpitations, headaches, dizziness, numbness, insomnia, depression,
shortness of breath, blurred vision, burning of eyes, blisters and rash.
When compared to a control group, they also showed significantly more DNA damage.
In
addition to the DNA and cell division research, scientists have
explored glyphosate's association with cancer in tissue culture studies.
In these experiments, researchers grow cells in a small dish with
nutrients and add various chemicals to test their effects.
In
2010, researchers in India exposed mouse skin cells grown in tissue
culture to glyphosate. When the herbicide was added, the cells became cancerous.
Scientists
in Thailand studied the impact of glyphosate on human
estrogen-responsive breast cancer cells in tissue culture.
Hormone-responsive breast cancer cells are known to grow when exposed to
estrogen. And according to their published results in 2013, glyphosate
also stimulated these cells to grow. The herbicide was able to bind to
the cancer's estrogen receptors, thus mimicking the effects of estrogen
and accelerating tumor growth. Scientists refer to this as "endocrine
disruption." An endocrine disruptor is a chemical that can mimic or
block a hormone. Because hormones work as chemical messengers at very
low doses, even a minute dose of an endocrine disruptor can lead to serious illness.
Glyphosate's
links to cancer have also been assessed in studies with a variety of
test animals for more than three decades. One of the earliest studies
was conducted from 1979 to 1981, under the auspices of the United
Nations Environmental Program, the International Labor Organization, and
the World Health Organization. Rats exposed to low levels of the
herbicide developedtesticular cancer.
A larger dose did not produce the cancer. Unfortunately, at the time of
the experiment, it was not understood that certain substances have more
potent effects at lower doses than at higher doses, and so the
evaluators erroneously dismissed the results.
In
a study from the Institute of Biology at the University of Caen in
France, researchers studied glyphosate's effects on rats, and found that
glyphosate doubles the incidence of mammary gland tumors.
These cancers also developed much faster in rats exposed to glyphosate
than in controls. There was also an increase in cancers of the pituitary
gland. Originally published in 2012, the report was retracted after the
biotech agriculture industry complained. But after extensive review
failed to show any fraud or problem with the data, the report was
re-published in 2014.
Human epidemiologic studies also have shown a link between glyphosate and cancer.
Argentine
physicians working in areas in which glyphosate is heavily sprayed have
reported significant increases in cancer incidence. In Sante Fe
province, which is an area of intensive herbicide spraying, a
house-to-house epidemiological study of 65,000 people found cancer
rates two to four times higher than the national average.
Two
villages in Chaco province also raised concerns about glyphosate's
association with cancer. Researchers compared residents of the heavily
sprayed farming village of Avia Terai to people in the non-sprayed
ranching village of Charadai. In the farming village, 31 percent of
residents had a family member with cancer while only 3 percent of residents in the ranching village had one.
Dr. Avila Vasquez, a doctor working in the heavily sprayed region of Barrio Ituzaingo, noted that cancer was responsible for 33 percent of the deaths in the region, while the cancer death rate in the big cities was only 19 percent.
In
addition, scientists from the International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC), who have analyzed studies spanning almost three decades,
have found a positive association between organo-phosphorus herbicides,
like glyphosate, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. IARC researchers found that
the B cell lymphoma sub-type is
strongly associated with glyphosate exposure. As mentioned earlier, the
IARC published a monograph last month classifying glyphosate as
probably carcinogenic.
The
most recent research raising concerns about glyphosate's connection to
cancer is the linkage to lymphoma. Scientists from the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, a branch of the US Department of Health
and Human Services, who specialize in illnesses caused by toxic
substances, published results of the US Atlantic Coast Childhood Brain
Cancer Study in 2009. That study compared children with brain cancer in
Florida, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania to age-matched controls.
The researchers found that if either parent had been exposed to
glyphosate during the two years before the child's birth, the chances of
the child developing brain cancer doubled.
Glyphosate's
ability to produce birth defects and its association with cancer show
that the herbicide actively impacts a number of important biological
processes. Scientists have uncovered some of these impacts, and this
work may have far-reaching implications for human health.
As
noted above, Dr. Carrasco showed that glyphosate causes birth defects
in vertebrates by interfering with the Vitamin A signaling pathway. And
this pathway is part of a much larger enzyme system known as the
"Cytochrome P450" system. This enzyme system is present in most tissues
of our bodies. It is an extremely important and complex, responsible for
inactivating toxic compounds and metabolizing medications. The
Cytochrome P450 system is also important in the metabolism of sex
hormones, cholesterol, and Vitamin D. And glyphosate interferes with several of the enzymes in this vital system.
One
of the enzymes it inhibits is aromatase, which converts testosterone to
estrogen. The testosterone-estrogen balance is fundamental to normal
functioning. Glyphosate can mimic estrogen by binding to estrogen
receptors, as we saw in the case of glyphosate's ability to accelerate
breast cancer cell growth in tissue culture. The herbicide can also
prevent the chemical conversion of testosterone to estrogen.
Glyphosate's interference with aromatase may explain its association
with impaired fertility. Clearly, these endocrine disrupting effects are
cause for concern.
Glyphosate
is also toxic to many gut bacteria that are important for human health.
These bacteria live symbiotically with humans: The human digestive
tract provides a friendly environment, full of nutrients for the
bacteria, and in exchange, the bacteria perform a number of essential
functions, including the synthesis of vitamins and the detoxification of
foreign substances. The bacteria also aid immunity and help digestion
and the maintenance of the normal permeability of the gastrointestinal
tract.
And
when glyphosate kills off helpful gut bacteria, other harmful bacteria
can proliferate. Studies analyzing the gut bacteria of cows, horses, and
poultry have shown that many highly pathogenic bacteria are
glyphosate resistant. The loss of helpful bacteria may also make us
vulnerable to leaky gut syndrome, ulcerative colitis, and other
gastrointestinal maladies.
Research has suggested that
the overgrowth of harmful bacteria can also cause a deficiency in
essential amino acids and in necessary metals, like zinc and sulfur. The
change in bacterial flora may also lead to the overproduction of
ammonia.
Because
the presence of glyphosate is not tested in our food supply nor by
healthcare providers caring for the sick, implicating glyphosate in the
etiology of diseases has been difficult. There is concern, however, that
a large number of chronic diseases, including neurological illnesses,
may be triggered or exacerbated by changes in amino acid, ammonia, and
metal concentrations.
The
depletion of amino acids, for example, can result in abnormally low
levels of the neurotransmitters serotonin and dopamine. Serotonin
regulates mood, appetite, and sleep. Its depletion may lead to
depression, insomnia, and disorders of the appetite, such as obesity and
anorexia. Dopamine depletion in a key brain area is also the hallmark
of Parkinson's disease.
Researchers
have also found elevated ammonia levels in children with autism. Sulfur
deficiency also has been associated with autism and Parkinson's
disease, and with Alzheimer's disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
Zinc deficiency, too, has been associated with autism and Alzheimer's
disease, and also with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders.
An
interesting finding from a study at the University of Leipzig showed an
unexpected association between chronic illness and glyphosate exposure.
The researchers tested urine from humans. They found that chronically
ill humans have significantly higher glyphosate residues in their urine
when compared to healthy people.
Another
chronic illness may have a direct link to glyphosate. Peasant farmers
exposed to pesticides in Central America, India, and Sri Lanka have
developed a new and fatal kidney ailment. The cause has been difficult to pin down. The illness has become known as "Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown Etiology [CKDu]."
CKDu
is now the second-leading cause of death among men in El Salvador. This
small Central American nation has the highest kidney disease mortality
rate in the world. Neighboring Honduras and Nicaragua also have
extremely high rates of death from kidney disease. More men in El
Salvador and Nicaragua are dying from CKDu than
from HIV/AIDS, diabetes, and leukemia combined. In one area of rural
Nicaragua, so many men have died that the community is called "the
Island of the Widows."
India and Sri Lanka have also been hit hard by the epidemic. More than20,000 people have died from CKDu in the past two decades in Sri Lanka. In the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, more than 1,500 have been treated for the ailment since 2007.
While the exact cause of the kidney ailment remains under investigation, a leading hypothesis is
that glyphosate-metal complexes are to blame. It appears that
glyphosate's chelating properties give the chemical the ability to form
complexes with heavy metals that can be readily absorbed through the
skin, inhaled, or ingested. Scientists are concerned that these
glyphosate-metal complexes can travel through the bloodstream to the
kidney and destroy the kidney tubule, leading to renal failure and
death.
In response, both the governments of El Salvador and Sri Lanka have instituted bans on glyphosate.
Glyphosate and its degradation product amino-methyl-phosphonic acid have been found in air, rain, groundwater,
surface water, seawater, and soil. These studies show that glyphosate
persists in soil and water for long periods of time. In addition, the
amount of glyphosate detected in samples is increasing over time. The
chemical is accumulating in our environment. It also accumulates in animal tissue.
A study conducted last year at the University of Leipzig showed that
cows were excreting glyphosate in their urine. These cows also had
comparable levels of the herbicide in their organs (kidney, liver, lung,
spleen, muscle, intestine), proving that meat and dairy are a source of
glyphosate for humans.
And
glyphosate is an essential ingredient in biotech farming. Its residues
can be found in a wide variety of food products. Almost all processed
food that contains corn (including high fructose corn syrup) or soy has
glyphosate contamination. The same is now true for wheat products,
because glyphosate has been added to the wheat harvest production
method. Meat products derived from animals exposed to glyphosate in
their feed will also be glyphosate contaminated.
But
because the FDA does not test for glyphosate, we have no way to monitor
the damage that the herbicide is wreaking on human health. We know from
leaked US State Department cables that support for biotech agriculture
is official US policy despite the health risks. It appears that our best
chance of protecting our health and that of our children is a
grassroots movement to ban glyphosate use.
The
data now shows that glyphosate causes birth defects and cancer. There
is also good reason to believe that this herbicide causes or exacerbates
a large number of chronic illnesses.
There
is really no sensible alternative to banning this poison. Two of the
world's visionaries have shared their thoughts on this issue.
"Someday we shall look back on this dark era of agriculture and shake our heads," wrote world famous primatologist Jane Goodall in Harvest for Hope: A Guide to Mindful Eating. "How could we have ever believed that it was a good idea to grow our food with poisons?"
The great Indian environmental leader Vandana Shiva added:
"We will continue to create the other world that we are sowing,
seed-by-seed, inch-by-inch of soil, person-by-person,
community-by-community, until all of this planet is embraced in one
circle of a resurgent life and a resurgent love."
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
BIG FOOD: IS TOBACCO DISINFORMATION DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN
Big Tobacco
'Hired guns' tasked with overseeing approval of additives
Joseph Borzelleca has been evaluating the safety of food additives
longer than pretty much anyone else in the business. The 84-year-old
toxicologist, who credits his career to Italian parents who taught him
to love food, has helped companies bring hundreds of new ingredients to
market.
“Food to me was always very important,” said Borzelleca, a long-time professor at Virginia Commonwealth University, who has been reviewing the safety of food additives since the 1960s. “I had an interest in food, not just from a nutritional perspective but from a historical and safety” perspective.
A Center for Public Integrity analysis of publicly available data found that Borzelleca is the most active of a small group of scientists — including several with ties to Big Tobacco — that the food industry turns to over and over again to determine whether additives can be deemed “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS, and avoid a rigorous pre-market government safety review.
Of the 379 panels convened to review the safety of new ingredients in the last 17 years, the Center for Public Integrity found, three-quarters included at least one of these 10 scientists. But none has even come close to serving on as many as Borzelleca, who has appeared on 41 percent of them.
Despite his decades of experience and praise heaped upon him by colleagues — one called him a “wonder” — critics of the GRAS system say Borzelleca is emblematic of a system that is rife with conflicts of interest. If scientists depend on the food industry for income, they may be less likely to contest the safety of ingredients companies hope to market, critics say.
“These are standing panels of industry hired guns,” said Laura MacCleery, an attorney for the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “It is funding bias on steroids.”
Borzelleca and many of his colleagues who work with the food industry have done similar work for another well-known industry: Big Tobacco.
The Center for Public Integrity found that at least four of the top 10 GRAS panel experts, including Borzelleca, had also served as scientific consultants for cigarette makers.
Final word
The expert panels that review a new food additive to determine if it’s “generally recognized as safe” have great power because they can have the final word on that ingredient and its use. Once the group deems a new additive GRAS, it can go into an array of foods that end up on supermarket shelves, with no notice to or review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
That gives food companies an incentive to turn to experts they believe will look kindly upon their ingredients, and gives scientists incentive to do so, critics say.
“If I know that my paycheck is coming from a specific source, and I’ve been doing that for years and years, and that is what feeds me and my family, it becomes really difficult for me to be totally independent of the hand that is feeding me,” said Erik Olson, senior strategic director for health and food at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Many scientific consultants dispute accusations that they are conflicted, arguing instead that they are the most qualified and most experienced scientists for the job.
“If you’re good at something, of course you’re going to be in demand,” Borzelleca said, adding that he focuses solely on safety and never considers companies’ marketing plans. “I know GRAS pretty well. It’s not a boast. It’s a statement of fact.”
A small world
A 1958 law allows companies to market ingredients without oversight by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration if they can establish that their ingredients are “generally recognized as safe” for specific uses. In other words, companies using the so-called GRAS process must demonstrate that there is a consensus among scientific experts that their ingredients are safe.
To do so, they usually convene a panel of scientists to review articles and opinions of authoritative bodies like the National Academy of Sciences to determine if an ingredient is safe for a particular use. Of 562 publicly available GRAS determinations voluntarily submitted to the FDA since 1998, a Center for Public Integrity analysis found that companies used such panels two-thirds of the time.
These panels, typically composed of three members, are meant to represent the scientific community at large. And they are particularly useful for establishing scientific consensus “when an individual published study raises safety questions” about an ingredient, according to FDA guidance.
"As long as you adhere to science-based review," said John Thomas, a scientific consultant, "then I don't think there's a better peer-reviewed process in place."
Source: http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/15/17144/food-safety-scientists-have-ties-big-tobacco
“Food to me was always very important,” said Borzelleca, a long-time professor at Virginia Commonwealth University, who has been reviewing the safety of food additives since the 1960s. “I had an interest in food, not just from a nutritional perspective but from a historical and safety” perspective.
A Center for Public Integrity analysis of publicly available data found that Borzelleca is the most active of a small group of scientists — including several with ties to Big Tobacco — that the food industry turns to over and over again to determine whether additives can be deemed “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS, and avoid a rigorous pre-market government safety review.
Of the 379 panels convened to review the safety of new ingredients in the last 17 years, the Center for Public Integrity found, three-quarters included at least one of these 10 scientists. But none has even come close to serving on as many as Borzelleca, who has appeared on 41 percent of them.
Despite his decades of experience and praise heaped upon him by colleagues — one called him a “wonder” — critics of the GRAS system say Borzelleca is emblematic of a system that is rife with conflicts of interest. If scientists depend on the food industry for income, they may be less likely to contest the safety of ingredients companies hope to market, critics say.
“These are standing panels of industry hired guns,” said Laura MacCleery, an attorney for the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “It is funding bias on steroids.”
Borzelleca and many of his colleagues who work with the food industry have done similar work for another well-known industry: Big Tobacco.
The Center for Public Integrity found that at least four of the top 10 GRAS panel experts, including Borzelleca, had also served as scientific consultants for cigarette makers.
Final word
The expert panels that review a new food additive to determine if it’s “generally recognized as safe” have great power because they can have the final word on that ingredient and its use. Once the group deems a new additive GRAS, it can go into an array of foods that end up on supermarket shelves, with no notice to or review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
That gives food companies an incentive to turn to experts they believe will look kindly upon their ingredients, and gives scientists incentive to do so, critics say.
“If I know that my paycheck is coming from a specific source, and I’ve been doing that for years and years, and that is what feeds me and my family, it becomes really difficult for me to be totally independent of the hand that is feeding me,” said Erik Olson, senior strategic director for health and food at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Many scientific consultants dispute accusations that they are conflicted, arguing instead that they are the most qualified and most experienced scientists for the job.
“If you’re good at something, of course you’re going to be in demand,” Borzelleca said, adding that he focuses solely on safety and never considers companies’ marketing plans. “I know GRAS pretty well. It’s not a boast. It’s a statement of fact.”
A small world
A 1958 law allows companies to market ingredients without oversight by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration if they can establish that their ingredients are “generally recognized as safe” for specific uses. In other words, companies using the so-called GRAS process must demonstrate that there is a consensus among scientific experts that their ingredients are safe.
To do so, they usually convene a panel of scientists to review articles and opinions of authoritative bodies like the National Academy of Sciences to determine if an ingredient is safe for a particular use. Of 562 publicly available GRAS determinations voluntarily submitted to the FDA since 1998, a Center for Public Integrity analysis found that companies used such panels two-thirds of the time.
These panels, typically composed of three members, are meant to represent the scientific community at large. And they are particularly useful for establishing scientific consensus “when an individual published study raises safety questions” about an ingredient, according to FDA guidance.
"As long as you adhere to science-based review," said John Thomas, a scientific consultant, "then I don't think there's a better peer-reviewed process in place."
Source: http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/15/17144/food-safety-scientists-have-ties-big-tobacco
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)