Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018 for $63 billion, a purchase Bayer CEO Werner Baumann said would further their goal of creating a leading agriculture company.1 Bayer is now the largest seed and pesticide company in the world, but it might not stay that way for long, as lawsuits mount against the chemical giant over Roundup herbicide’s cancer link.
At least 13,400 lawsuits have been filed from people who claim exposure to their glyphosate-containing Roundup caused them health problems, including cancer. The first three lawsuits have already ended in favor of the plaintiffs, leaving Bayer saddled with billions in damages — and that’s only the beginning.
Now some experts are calling Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto “the worst deal ever,”2 and the company is scrambling to appeal and trying to convince courts to toss out the lawsuits because U.S. regulatory agencies continue to side with industry and assert glyphosate is safe.3
Bayer Zero for 3 in First Series of Roundup Lawsuits
In August 2018, a jury ruled in favor of plaintiff Dewayne Johnson in a truly historic case against Monsanto. Johnson — the first of the cases pending against the chemical company — claimed Roundup caused his Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and the court agreed, ordering Monsanto to pay $289 million in damages to Johnson, an amount that was later reduced to $78 million.
Bayer asked the court to throw out the judgment in April 2019 and reverse the damages awarded because Johnson is near death.4 In the second case, a judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering Bayer to pay more than $80 million.
The jury agreed that Edwin Hardeman’s repeated exposures to Roundup, which he used to kill weeds on his 56-acre property, not only played a role in his cancer diagnosis but also that the company did not warn consumers that the product carried a cancer risk.5
The case was particularly noteworthy because it was split into two phases, with jurors first finding the chemical to have caused the cancer on purely scientific grounds and the next phase finding that Bayer is liable for damages.6Ultimately, Hardeman was awarded $75 million in punitive damages, $5.6 million in compensatory damages and $200,000 for medical expenses.7
The third case involved a married couple, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, who claimed they both developed Non-Hodgkin lymphoma after regular use of Roundup. The pair had been using Roundup since the 1970s, stopping only a few years ago.
The jury heard 17 days of testimony and deliberated for less than two days before deciding in the Pilliods’ favor and ordering Bayer to pay $2 billion in punitive and compensatory damages.8 As for what compelled the possibly-disastrous Monsanto acquisition in the first place, The Telegraph’s deputy business editor Ben Marlow states it was part arrogance and greed:9
“On one side was Bayer’s uber-ambitious new boss Werner Baumann, who seemed determined to start his promotion to the top job with an almighty bang, unveiling Germany’s biggest ever takeover, a mere four weeks into the job.
Meanwhile, his opposite number at Monsanto, Hugh Grant, had a mind-boggling $226m (£173m) in shares and severance pay resting on the merger. Perhaps that explains why the boards of both companies were prepared to overlook the financial and legal risks of the tie-up.
Bayer Argues Lawsuits Should Be Thrown Out Because of Industry-Friendly US Regulators
The likelihood that Bayer will ultimately have to offer a settlement to the tens of thousands of people who say Roundup caused their cancer grows ever stronger — and the company is no stranger to settlements. Bayer and Johnson & Johnson recently agreed to settle more than 25,000 U.S. lawsuits alleging their blood thinner drug Xareltocauses uncontrollable bleeding, severe injury and death for $775 million.10
In the case of the glyphosate lawsuits, however, Bayer is not going down without a fight. Their latest argument is that the $2 billion jury award, along with pending lawsuits, should be thrown out because of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) favorable stance toward glyphosate.11
In their latest review of glyphosate, the EPA released a draft conclusion April 30, 2019, stating the chemical poses potential risks to mammals and birds that eat treated leaves, as well as risks to plants,12 but poses “no risks of concern” for people and “is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”13
Reuters quoted one of Bayer’s lawyers, William Hoffman, who stated, “We have very strong arguments that the claims here are preempted … and the recent EPA registration decision is an important aspect of that defense.”
The news outlet continued, “Preemption is generally regarded as a ‘silver bullet defense’ because it stops claims across the board, said Adam Zimmerman, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.”14
In stark contrast, in March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined glyphosate to be a “probable carcinogen” based on evidence showing the popular weed-killing chemical can cause Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and lung cancer in humans, along with “convincing evidence” it can also cause cancer in animals.
EPA Doesn’t Protect Anything but the Chemical Industry
In 2015, following IARC’s glyphosate cancer ruling, the EPA, rather than taking immediate steps to protect Americans from this probable cancer-causing agent, decided to reassess its position on the chemical and, after doing so, released a paper in October 2015 stating that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.15
In April 2016, the EPA posted the report online briefly, before pulling it and claiming it was not yet final and posted by mistake. The paper was signed by Jess Rowland (among other EPA officials), who at the time was the EPA’s deputy division director of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and chair of the Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC).
Email correspondence showed Rowland, who at the time was the EPA’s deputy division director of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and chair of the Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC), helped stop a glyphosate investigation by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), on Monsanto’s behalf.
In an email, Monsanto regulatory affairs manager Dan Jenkins recounts a conversation he’d had with Rowland, in which Rowland said, “If I can kill this I should get a medal,”16 referring to the ATSDR investigation, which was put off for years. The final draft conclusion is the report that was finally released in April 2019, stating the chemical “is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”17
EPA Inspector General Launched Investigation Into Collusion Accusations, but Where Are the Findings?
Another internal email between Rowland and the late Marion Copley, a former EPA toxicologist, suggests Rowland colluded with Monsanto to find glyphosate noncarcinogenic.
In Marion’s correspondence to Rowland, she cites more than a dozen reasons why she believes glyphosate to be carcinogenic, and states “it is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer” and “the CARC category should be changed to ‘probable human carcinogen.”18
She then pleads with Rowland to “for once do the right thing and don’t make decisions based on how it affects your bonus,” continuing:19
“You and Anna Lowit [science advisor in the EPA’s Office of Pesticides] intimidated staff on CARC and changed HIARC [Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee] and HASPOC [Hazard and Science Policy Committee] final reports to favor industry.
Chelators [which glyphosate was originally designed to be] clearly disrupt calcium signaling, a key signaling pathway in all cells and mediates tumor progression.
Greg Ackerman [Branch Chief, Office of Pesticide Programs] is supposed to be our expert on mechanisms, but he never mentioned any of these concepts at CARC and when I tried to discuss it with him he put me off. Is Greg playing your political games as well, incompetent or does he have some conflict of interest of some kind?”
As the evidence of potential collusion between an EPA agency staffer and Monsanto grew, Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., requested that an investigation be conducted into whether such collusion took place. The inspector general responded in 2017, stating that he asked the EPA’s Office of Investigations (OIG) to “conduct an inquiry into several agency review-related matters.”20
The question now, two years later, is what were the findings from the investigation? The EPA’s OIG shows no mention of such a report on their news releases and inspector general statements page.21 Back in 2017, Bart Staes, a Belgian member of parliament, told HuffPost of increasing evidence relating to Monsanto’s manipulation of science and regulatory agencies:22
“We are now getting some written proof of collusion between scientists and Monsanto, which has these scientists like puppets on a string … More and more, the debate is about corporations controlling the science, and then this science is used by the regulators.”
Another example occurred in 2015, when Henry Miller, who was outed as a Monsanto shill during the 2012 Proposition 37 GMO labeling campaign in California, published a paper in Forbes Magazine attacking IARC’s findings after it classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. Later it was revealed that Miller’s work was in fact ghostwritten by Monsanto.
Bayer Investors Give Vote of No Confidence
At Bayer’s annual general meeting in Bonn, Germany, 55.5% of shareholders voted against ratifying the management’s actions, in large part due to the Monsanto acquisition.23 Marlow called the move “a rare act of defiance in conservative Germany,” even though the vote was symbolic in nature only and won’t legally change anything.24
“But having forced through the Monsanto takeover without a vote,” Marlow added, “Bayer has already made it quite clear what it thinks of shareholders. Salvaging something from this ruinous deal will take a heroic act.”25
The next Bayer Roundup case will go to trial in August 2019. The plaintiff is Sharlean Gordon, who used Roundup for 15 years and was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2006. The trial will take place in St. Louis, Missouri, just miles from Monsanto’s former world headquarters.
One of Gordon’s attorneys, Eric Holland, said that not only has the human toll been tremendous in this case, but Monsanto’s behavior is also atrocious. “This evidence against them, their conduct, is the most outrageous I’ve seen in my 30 years of doing this,” Holland said. “The things that have gone on here, I want St. Louis juries to hear this stuff.”26
If you’re curious how much glyphosate is in your body, the Health Research Institute (HRI) in Iowa developed the glyphosate urine test kit, which will allow you to determine your own exposure to this toxic herbicide. In order to avoid this chemical as much as possible, choose organic or biodynamic foods, and install a filter on your drinking water.
By Joseph Mercola, DO
*Article originally appeared at Mercola. Reposted with permission.
Even though Monsanto has been ‘taken down’ via a buy-out by Bayer Pharmaceuticals, the ‘legacy’ of its toxic herbicide, Roundup®, literally has become a chemical scourge upon human health, plus the environment by poisoning soil, ground water, insect pollinators and producing other adverse effects yet to be discovered.
One unsuspecting place glyphosate, the main chemical active in Roundup®, has been scientifically found is in certain vaccines per the Anthony Samsel, PhD, and Stephanie Seneff, PhD, independent, conflict-of-interest-free research on page 15 of the report Vaccines and Glyphosate: A Toxic Combination.
One of the most dedicated, twenty-plus-years independent researcher to exposing the problems with Roundup® is Jeffrey Smith of the Institute for Responsible Responsibility. Jeffrey’s IRT recently produced a documentary about how changing from a standard American diet to an organic, glyphosate-free diet cured a family’s 21 different adverse health conditions, including Autism, which you can see below.
A film by Jeffry Smith & Amy Hart
If there is any relationship in the phrase “cause and effect,” this film should make consumers think how important it is to eat a clean, pesticide-, chemical-free dietto regain and also maintain optimum health, something your physician may not be aware about just yet!
Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice, plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer health issues researcher and holistic health advocate since the late 1970s; she continues researching and writing in retirement. Her career in holistic healthcare began in the early 1970s when she had to save, and restructure, her life resulting from having “fallen through the allopathic medical paradigm cracks.”
If you have been exposed to glyphosate/Roundup/RangerPro or other chemicals director OR indirectly you may need a neurotoxin cleanse.
This cleanse designed by a nutritionist and toxicologist and produced by Nutritional Frontiers can help support your liver in clearing the toxins from your body allowing your liver to do its job once again. When it is bogged down with chemicals you become sick. Organophosphate poisoning takes many forms and is often undiagnosable or misdiagnosed leaving people sick and in pain for months and years before figuring out what the problem is.
There is a test. Its called the cholinesterase RBC & Plasma test. You can have this blood draw done at any lab and do not need a doctors order. It is approximately $159-$200. The currently accepted lab values are wrong. According to the CDC website, a person may present symptoms of toxicity at just 40-75% of “acceptable” levels. So don’t just look and see your number is green – do the math.
There really is no acceptable level of exposure. This is a carcinogenic neurotoxin which experts in the field are now comparing to Sarin gas which is outlawed in war. If you use RoundUp or other glyphosate-based products. Get rid of them and do not use them again. The problem is we are exposed in parks, public walkways, other peoples yards, during rain runoff, in farming it leaches into our food, and into our water supply.
If you are sick and cannot figure out why – this could be a possibility.
Author and poisoning victim: Sarah Barendse
Now that two juries have named Monsanto’s top weedkiller, Roundup, as a “substantial factor” in causing cancer in at least two people, concerns about current farming practices are on the rise. The food industry has a dirty little secret they’ve been hiding for many years: Farmers sometimes use Roundup for off-label purposes — and by doing so, they are putting public health at risk. Shocking research published by Environmental Sciences Europe describes the ways in which many grain farmers now use Roundup to expedite the harvesting process — and how they contaminate their crops in the process.
Given the groundbreaking court cases we’ve seen taken up against Monsanto and their toxic herbicide in the last year, the fact that farmers are spraying crops with Roundup a week before harvest is highly alarming. Research from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has shown that a striking majority of cereals, snack bars and other grain-based foods are tainted with glyphosate residue. Many of these foods are positioned as snack options for children — but they’re more poison than they are healthy.
Glyphosate and harvest season
Glyphosate use has been on the rise since the 1970s, but most of the 1.6 billion kilograms used on crops has been sprayed within the last 10 years. Research published in 2016 by Charles M. Benbrook shows that there have been many disturbing changes in glyphosate usage since it first hit the market over forty years ago. He writes that “no pesticide has come remotely close to such intensive and widespread use,” — a fact that is most unsettling, given the grievous health effects glyphosate formulations are now known to cause.
The power of the elements: Discover Colloidal Silver Mouthwash with quality, natural ingredients like Sangre de Drago sap, black walnut hulls, menthol crystals and more. Zero artificial sweeteners, colors or alcohol. Learn more at the Health Ranger Storeand help support this news site.
Waking Times reports that research led by Benbrook indicates the practice of using glyphosate to dry out, or “desiccate,” wheat crops first began in 1980’s Scotland.
Via the Waking Times:
Farmers there often had trouble getting wheat and barley to dry evenly so they can start harvesting. So they came up with the idea to kill the crop (with glyphosate) one to two weeks before harvest to accelerate the drying down of the grain.
Benbrook’s 2016 paper notes that the practice of using glyphosate as a desiccant first started gaining popularity in the United States in the mid-2000s. So much glyphosate is applied to our crops, regulatory agencies have drastically altered tolerance levels to accommodate increases in herbicide spraying.
Because such applications occur within days of harvest, they result in much higher residues in the harvested foodstuffs . To cover such residues, Monsanto and other glyphosate registrants have requested, and generally been granted, substantial increases in glyphosate tolerance levels in several crops, as well as in the animal forages derived from such crops.
In the EU, the expected increases in glyphosate residues from expanded spraying practices were so large that many countries have banned “harvest aid” herbicide applications. In the U.S., they simply raised the threshold.
Glyphosate is dangerous
In the last year, two people have taken Monsanto to court over allegations that glyphosate — the star ingredient of Roundup — causes cancer. And in both cases, the jury has decided in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that the herbicide was a “substantial factor” in their illnesses.
The World Health Organization has named glyphosate as a probable carcinogen — and there is a mountain of independent science which clearly demonstrates the potential risk it poses to human health.
More, scientists are now admitting that it is impossible for them (or pesticide manufacturers) to truly predict the effects their products will have in real life. There is little to no data on what happens when pesticides interact with each other, for example — even though almost all conventionally grown crops will contain traces of more than one chemical. Across the board, safety testing on pesticides is woefully lacking.
Glyphosate isn’t just a nuisance, it’s a major health hazard. Learn more about the dangers of agrichemicals at Pesticides.news.
Sources for this article include:
Originally posted: https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-04-07-heres-why-glyphosate-is-sprayed-on-food-crops.html
Author: Vicki Batts
As promised, Natural News is now releasing the full video showing the surprising results of the water filters vs. glyphosate lab tests. Our lab, CWC Labs, is the only laboratory in the world carrying out these tests and releasing the results directly to the public, for free.
To carry out the tests, we diluted glyphosate concentrate into water to create a 2ppm solution (two parts per million, or 2 ug / ml). This solution was then poured through all the water filters and the resulting water was collected and labeled. Before this, every water filter was thoroughly rinsed with clean, laboratory-grade purified water to flush their filters.
The resulting “filtered” glyphosate water was then analyzed using a high-end Waters triple quad mass spec instrument (LC-MS-MS), against a multi-point curve to quantitate the concentration of glyphosate remaining in the post-filtered water. (The video below shows the actual screen shots of the chromatography and mass spectrometry.)
Brands of water filters tested
We tested water filters from all the following brands. Note that we are receptive to testing more brands in a follow-up round of testing. No brands were deliberately excluded from these tests; we simply had to limit the testing to a certain number of water filters because, for the most part, we had to purchase these water filters ourselves (see full explanation and disclaimer below, as a few brands gave us water filters at no cost).
– Zero Water
– Crystal Drop
– Big Berkey
– Aqua Pail
Sponsored solution from CWC Labs: This heavy metals test kit allows you to test almost anything for 20+ heavy metals and nutritive minerals, including lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, aluminum and more. You can test your own hair, vitamins, well water, garden soil, superfoods, pet hair, beverages and other samples (no blood or urine). ISO accredited laboratory using ICP-MS (mass spec) analysis with parts per billion sensitivity. Learn more here.
Water filters were significantly more effective than we had predicted
Three different categories of water filters were tested: Sports bottles, countertop pitchers, and countertop gravity filters. (We have not yet testing portable pump filters used by hikers.) On average, the sports bottles performed poorly, the countertop pitchers performed better, and the big gravity filters performed the best.
The good news is that these tests found water filters to be far more effective than we had predicted. In fact, these tests found one countertop filter that removed 100% of the glyphosate. Similarly, two of the large, countertop gravity filters were also confirmed to remove 100% of glyphosate. (See the video below for the actual brands that achieved 100% removal.)
Removing glyphosate from water is extremely difficult from a chemistry point of view because of the unique properties of the glyphosate molecule. It is very small (roughly 169 daltons) and highly polar, making it soluble in water and very difficult to separate from water. In fact, detecting glyphosate on lab instruments requires unique, complex chemistry far beyond the typical chromatography chemistry used to detect pesticides or common contaminants. (Read Glyphosate.news for more news updates on this cancer-causing herbicide.)
Very few labs in America are able to accurately test for glyphosate. CWC Labs, which I founded, worked for two years to refine a glyphosate method that worked reliably. CWC Labs is ISO accredited and is a recognized pioneer in forensic food analysis and food safety testing. With the help of many experienced chemists, scientists and mass spec experts, we finalized a mass spec analysis method for glyphosate that requires no post-column derivatization and has virtually no tailing on the chromatography, allowing for accurate, consistent quantitation. Our most recent quant curve fit coefficient, for example, was .999991, describing a near-perfect linear response to varying levels of analyte concentration.
Watch the full video here and see which filters did the best
This independent lab analysis testing is made possible by your support of the Health Ranger Store, where we are applying glyphosate testing (and certification) to an ever-expanding list of our in-house products. To continue to support our mission, consider shopping at HealthRangerStore.com where you’ll find over 700 lab-tested products for healthy living and healthy home.
The video is available exclusively on Brighteon.com:
Many more glyphosate experiments are yet to come from CWC Labs. In fact, we have a list of 16 experiments to conduct and publish, just concerning glyphosate herbicide.
ACTION ITEM: Be sure to subscribe to the Natural News email newsletter to receive email alerts as these test results are released.
Disclaimers / conflict of interest disclosures
To maintain ethics in science, it is customary for those who carry out scientific experiments to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that might be present. As mentioned in the video, we purchased most of the water filters ourselves, but were given some filters for free. In the video, I stated that AquaPail gave us a filter for testing, but I did not recall at the time that Seychelle also gave us water filters for testing. So I’m adding that disclaimer here. All the other filters were purchased by us.
- No water filter manufacturer paid us for testing. In fact, they were not even aware that we were conducting these tests.
- My online store (HealthRangerStore.com) sells the Big Berkey water filter. However, it’s worth noting that we only chose to sell that filter after conducting heavy metals tests several years ago, finding that the Big Berkey removed nearly 100% of all heavy metals. (See WaterFilterLabs.com for detailed results of heavy metals testing.) From that test result, we decided to offer Big Berkey to our customers, since it was the most effective filter we could find. Nevertheless, Big Berkey was not aware of these new glyphosate tests and did not pay us any fees to conduct this test, nor did they give us a free filter for testing (we ran these new tests on a Big Berkey that we had purchased ourselves).
- There are many other water filter brands where were not included in these test, but we are welcome to testing those brands if those manufacturers would send us a water filter for testing. Some of the requested brands we’re hearing about from readers include Alexa Pure, Aqua Tru and portable filters (pump filters) used by hikers. We welcome receiving filters from other companies as well, and we plan to conduct another round of testing to include those brands that wish to participate.
- The reason this testing is so expensive for us is because all the water filters can no longer be used for human consumption after they have been subjected to this glyphosate test. As you would expect, the filter media become inundated with glyphosate molecules, which might be slowly released over time due to future use of the filters, theoretically releasing small concentrations of glyphosate into future water flows. We have not tested this effect, but because it is theoretically possible, these water filters in our lab can never be used by consumers due to safety concerns. In effect, we can only use these water filters for lab experiments from this point forward.
CWC Labs is available to help water filter manufacturers test the glyphosate removal capabilities of their products
Finally, because our mission has long been to help the public avoid exposure to toxic pesticides and herbicides, I am announcing today that CWC Labs is available to work with water filter manufacturers who wish to test their products (or various media variations of their products) for glyphosate removal efficacy as part of their R&D process. Any financial relationship with a water filter manufacturer would, of course, be openly disclosed in any future testing results.
We are able to offer private, validated glyphosate testing with sub-ppb detection capabilities and extremely accurate quantitation and full reporting for your own validation files. We are an ISO-accredited laboratory. Contact us at CWClabs.com if you represent a water filter manufacturer and are interested in this specialized glyphosate testing. Our lab also offers heavy metals testing via ICP-MS, with detection capabilities below 1 ppb. We do not yet offer a full complement of pesticide tests, but we are refining a multi-analyte method which will be available later this year.
Much more testing is yet to come from CWC Labs, Glyphosate.news and NaturalNews.com.
We are doing the job the EPA refuses to do. And we’re doing it without government money (i.e. money confiscated from taxpayers to waste on big government).
Thank you for your continued support of our mission for real science, public transparency and safe products for the public.
Have you ever considered that the majority of cotton (in the U.S. anyway) is genetically modified, and as such, it might be tainted with cancer-causing, endocrine-disrupting, infertility-promoting glyphosate?
Well, a new study at the University of La Plata found just that: 85% of cotton products like gauze, cotton balls, swabs, pads, wipes, etc. tested positive for glyphosate. Another 62% tested positive for its environmental metabolite AMPA, which has been found to potentially be 1,000 times more toxic in the body. Gauze samples tested positive 100% of the time.
[Here’s an option. Use these ones instead!]
Via Infobae (keep in mind this page was translated into English from an Argentinian news source.)
“The result of this research is very serious. When you use cotton or gauze to heal wounds or personal use hygienic, does thinking they are sterilized products, and results that are contaminated with a carcinogenic substance,” said pediatrician Vazquez Medardo Avila.
Glyphosate In Tampons
As you have probably heard, even the World Health Organization has recently been forced to admit that glyphosate, the most popular herbicide worldwide, is a probable human carcinogen.
So let’s get down to brass tacks, as they say. We have to face the very real possibility that these glyphosate-tainted products are tainting us in more ways than just through our food.
Over 90% of the cotton grown in the United States is grown from genetically modified seeds made specifically to withstand the application (typically what is many multiple applications) of glyphosate. And while cotton products are routinely used on places like cuts, or to clean your ears or even wipe your baby’s bottom, when it comes to feminine “protection” products, they aren’t just used for a brief moment in time. Tampons, for example, are placed in a highly sensitive mucous membrane area near a woman’s cervix and her reproductive organs for hours at a time, over a period of multiple days, each and every month, throughout all the years a woman is fertile.
How often is a potentially harmful chemical that has been shown to cause cancer, infertility and a whole host of other immune disorders and health issues seeping into your body this way, ladies?
And we wonder why infertility is on the rise in this country!
Unless these products explicitly state they are made from organic cotton (like these organic options), it’s a safe bet to assume they are genetically modified because over 90% of the cotton here is GMO. Now, if this study is any indication, if it doesn’t say organic, it’s very likely tainted with glyphosate!
It’s such a common sense connection, and yet, until I read about this study, I will admit to you I hadn’t really fully considered the implications. These researchers also found that 90% of the residents they tested in the Buenos Aires district of General Pueyrredónin were positive for glyphosate in their urine — even though none of the people tested had direct contact with Roundup products!
Of course, you’ll probably never hear about this in the mainstream media here, in the country where corporations and lobbyists run everything and where a multi-billion-dollar company like Monsanto, whose #1 best-selling product Roundup with the key ingredient glyphosate, has its world headquarters stationed…
(Well, don’t hold your breath, anyway.)
Author: Melissa Dykes
Have you been exposed to glyphosate?
This cleanse is intended for those who have neurotoxicity including organophosphate poisoning. It is a neurotoxin liver cleanse that takes 10 days total and follows a very specific eating protocol. Make sure you drink a gallon of water a day.
It can be done up to 4x per year and is recommended to do at minimum once per year if you are continually being exposed.
Cholinesterase RBC & Plasma blood tests can tell you if you have been poisoned to a toxic level. NOTE: The lab values will likely come back in range. The ranges are wrong. The CDC’s site states clearly that toxicity can present at just 40-75% of the values. So you may be ill and have symptoms and test “normal”. Lab values are deceptive here.
Glyphosate warnings go mainstream as the dangerous truth about this toxic herbicide can no longer be denied
Now, the science is irrefutable: Glyphosate causes cancer. The toxic chemical is also a chelator of trace minerals, causing depletion of crucial minerals like zinc and magnesium.
Evil YouTube has permanently banned all Health Ranger videos in order to protect Monsanto / Bayer as this toxic corporation poisons humanity for profit. Because of the ban, you can only see Health Ranger Report videos at Brighteon.com, the new free speech alternative to YouTube.
Watch the full video here:
China is set to introduce maximum residue limits (MRLs) of 200 parts per billion (ppb) or lower for glyphosate in all imported final food products and raw materials including grains, soybeans and other legumes before the end of 2019, according to Sustainable Pulse sources.
The Chinese introduction of low MRLs, which are officially based on health concerns following the classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen in 2015 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, has been expected by both U.S. and Australian farming organizations for some time.
China’s action would likely decrease the global use of glyphosate as a desiccant. The practice, known as desiccating, pre-harvest spraying or crop topping, is favored by many ‘conventional’ farmers as a way to hasten the even ripening of grains, such as wheat, oats and barley, as well as legumes and other crops such as sunflowers and potatoes, even though it is not a recommended use of the increasingly controversial weedkiller. Desiccation leads to higher levels of the herbicide in harvested crops and final food products.
In Australia the largest farming co-operative, CBH, with revenue of AUD $3.47 billion and profit of AUD $247.6 million last year, has already acted to ban desiccation according to the Australian Financial Review, after its testing during the 2017-18 harvest detected glyphosate in more than 56 % of barley samples. Australian National Residue Survey testing detected glyphosate in 77 per cent of all samples, up from 60 per cent during the 2016-17 harvest.
In a briefing to farmers just before the start of harvest in 2018, CBH said it had a responsibility to protect and maintain market access and didn’t believe this was possible in sending barley treated with glyphosate before harvest to China.
China currently has no set maximum residue limits for glyphosate but one prominent grain industry figure, who did not want to be named while talking to the Australian Financial Review, said exporters saw it as only a matter of time before Beijing raised the issue as part of retaliatory action over Australia’s foreign policy.
It is expected that China will now import more grains from Russia, where glyphosate is not widely used as a desiccant. This also enables China to use glyphosate as a political tool in the current U.S. / China trade war, as food and raw material imports from the U.S., which often contain high levels of the weedkiller, will be put under major pressure.
Despite China’s expected glyphosate restrictions the situation is more complicated than it seems; At present, the global glyphosate production capacity concentrates in China. In 2017, the global glyphosate production capacity was 1,065,000 tons, including 380,000 tons of Monsanto and 685,000 tons of Chinese enterprises.
China is a major glyphosate exporter in the world. Over 80% of China-made glyphosate is exported to account for over 60% of the global supply. The output of glyphosate in China increased from 316,000 tons in 2010 to about 505,000 tons in 2017.
It is for this reason that China is walking the glyphosate tightrope rather than calling for a phase-out like France or an outright ban.
A new report by the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) found high levels of the toxic weed killer glyphosate in over 70 percent of the oat-based breakfast foods commonly served in K-12 schools across the U.S..
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, the world’s most widely used herbicide, is applied on farms that grow corn, soybeans, oats, and hundreds of other crops. From there, it can make its way into our food, especially popular breakfast cereals and nutrition bars.
CEH tested 13 popular breakfast foods served to school children. The report prioritized school districts with high rates of participation in the National School Breakfast Program since low-income children are already disproportionately exposed to toxic chemicals. Items containing the highest levels of glyphosate include Quaker Maple, Brown Sugar Instant Oatmeal, and Quaker Old-Fashioned Oats. CEH did not find glyphosate residues in any of the certified organic cereals tested.
The World Health Organization identified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen in 2015 and last year California’s state environmental protection agency listed it as a chemical known to the state to cause cancer.
Glyphosate is also an endocrine-disrupting chemical (EDC). EDCs interfere with the body’s hormones, and as such have been linked to cancers, diabetes, stroke, and reproductive problems, health issues which can even be passed onto future generations. EDCs can also be harmful in low, long-term exposures, the kind of dose one would be exposed to by eating foods containing trace amounts of glyphosate.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that exposure to glyphosate residues in our food has increased four times over the past quarter-century, with children more likely to be exposed than adults. Recent biomonitoring studies have detected it in the urine samples of 70 to 93 percent of the U.S. population.
“Our findings are particularly alarming for children’s health because their bodies are still developing, which makes them more vulnerable to these toxic chemicals than adults,” said Caroline Cox, CEH’s Research Director. “School children shouldn’t be exposed to Monsanto’s toxic herbicide, and school nutrition providers and parents shouldn’t have to worry about whether school foods are contaminated with a chemical linked to cancer and hormone disruption.”
The report follows the historic jury ruling in August that Monsanto had caused a man’s terminal cancer and ordered it to pay $289 million in damages (A judge later reduced the award to $78.5 million, citing statutory limits). The decision has paved the way for thousands of other cancer patients and families to seek justice and compensation in court.
CEH’s findings corroborate a growing list of recent studies demonstrating the presence of glyphosate in children’s foods, including preliminary findings by CEH in August, as well as those by Environmental Working Group, Moms Across America, The Detox Project/Food Democracy Now, and the Food and Drug Administration.
“We applaud all of the work that school districts across the country are doing to provide more nutritious meals. The purpose of our report is to alert schools to the problem posed by foods with high levels of glyphosate and assist them in transitioning to healthier alternatives.,” said Sue Chiang, CEH’s Pollution Prevention Director. “Switching to organic cereals in the short-term, and advocating for stronger chemical regulation in the long-term, is beneficial to all eaters, including especially those people who are exposed to the highest levels of pesticides because of their work, such as groundskeepers and farmworkers.”
Transitioning to healthier school breakfasts is further supported by a recent study published in JAMA Internal Medicine that found a significant reduction in cancer risk for individuals who ate more organic foods. While organic foods can be out-of-reach for individuals and institutions alike, the report asserts that access to safe, healthy food isn’t a privilege, but a right. And as institutional purchasers, if schools collectively demand food companies offer healthier alternatives, the price for organic foods would be further driven down.
It wasn’t until 2016 that the FDA started some limited testing for glyphosate residues in food, and after keeping this data secret for more than a year, it finally made the results public last month. The FDA found glyphosate in about two-thirds of corn and soybean samples but did not test any oats or wheat. Glyphosate can be applied to oats and wheat just before harvest resulting in higher levels of contamination.
“Protecting children’s health from pesticides is essential, and cancer-causing chemicals do not belong in children’s meals, whether served at home, at school, or any other child care center,” concluded Cox. “Parents and schools can’t count on the government to provide them with the right to know what toxic chemicals are in the foods their kids are eating or to properly regulate these chemicals. We plan to help schools find ways to serve healthier alternatives.”
CEH’s report recommends that schools request more organic options from suppliers at affordable costs, offers resources for putting pressure on elected officials and agency regulators to better protect children’s health from harmful EDCs, and suggests that schools serving a breakfast product that has not been tested yet to contact CEH about submitting a sample to assess for glyphosate residues.