GMOS Are 125 Times More Deadly Than Previously Thought

[JohnyCanuck]

Because glyphosate used in large quantities as a herbicide on crops genetically modified to be resistant to glyphosate screws up mitochondria in human cells.

[SusanCalvin]

1. That's the big issue, for sure.

The secondary issue is that "they" want to keep us from knowing what we're eating. GMO is OK, PTB? Then give us the info and let us decide what to eat.

[cui bono]

3. Yep. I question anything that corporations what to keep secret.

If it were actually good for us they would let us in on it.

[SusanCalvin]

4. Nah. They keep secrets as a matter of habit. nt

[niyad]

2. and waiting for the gmo crowd in 3 . . . 2. . . . 1. . . .

[Major Nikon]

8. What? And miss the total hilarity of the anti-GMO crowd channeling no-shit tin foil hatters?

http://anhinternational.org/2013/06/26/why-you-should-avoid-having-a-smart-meter-installed/

[OilemFirchen]

29. Who knew?

‘Smart’ meters are intended to form part of home networks in which everyday appliances, such as kettles, toasters and refrigerators, will be microchipped and transmit detailed usage data to the power companies

I'll save 'em the trouble: Darjeeling, cinnamon swirl and plutonium. Now pick on someone else!

[Archae]

5. More bullshit from a quack web site.

How much of a quack?

"The ANH runs campaigns in favor of dietary supplements, "sustainable healthcare", and traditional medicinal cultures such as Ayurveda and traditional Chinese medicine.[1]. It also campaigns against GMOs, fluoridation of drinking water, corporate influence in agricultural, electromagnetic radiation, and the global harmonisation of the food trade by the United Nations Codex Alimentarius Commission."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_Natural_Health

[Quixote1818]

7. We posted almost exactly the same thing

[Major Nikon]

9. ANH often sues the FDA for having the audacity to employ actual science

They are also quite literally tin-foil hatters.

http://anhinternational.org/2013/06/26/why-you-should-avoid-having-a-smart-meter-installed/

[Quixote1818]

6. Sorry but I found no Peer Review studies backing this claim up

Also, the Alliance for Natural Health believes in homeopathy and argues against fluoridation of water so clearly they are just a bunch of quacks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_Natural_Health

[HuckleB]

35. Shush! Conspiracy theories are always right!

[wildeyed]

10. Then that would mean that glyphosate are deadly, not GMOs, right?

GMOs might also be deadly, but who knows, since that is not addressed in this video at all. A more accurate title would be "Glysophates 125% more deadly than previously thought" , but I would also need to see some research to verify that this is true.

Is this video for children? It is hard to take it seriously after the announcer starts called mitochondria "mightychondria".

[Major Nikon]

11. ANH tips to reduce your exposure to EMR

http://anhinternational.org/campaign/electro-magnetic-radiation-emr/

[wildeyed]

13. Very helpful

I hate it when radiation gets in my ears. http://www.air2hear.co.uk/index.php?id=focus

[pnwmom]

17. That is the issue for many of us. Each GMO should be judged separately.

The GMO plants that are designed to withstand heavy doses of pesticides should be examined very carefully.

[wildeyed]

20. Absolutely

Overuse of pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers are serious issues. Corporate abuses by agribusiness is a serious issue. The idea that banning and/or labeling all GMOs will solve these problems is silly. It is particularly silly when you also account for the fact that humans have been manipulating plant genome and creating GMOs with selective breeding since we began to use agriculture.

GMO seems to be a shorthand for the legitimate anxiety some people have about our food supply. But that anxiety just got wired to this one phrase and there does not seem to be a way to un-stick the two in many people's minds.

[pnwmom]

24. Unfortunately in 1992, under a Rethug administration, the FDA ruled that from then on

all GMO's would henceforth be automatically deemed safe -- by default. And it would be the job of anyone who disputed the safety of a GMO to disprove it. At the same time, the agency allowed GMO producers to withhold their seeds from independent researchers who wanted to use them for research. It was only in the last few years that access became easier. In the meantime, we have have decades of questionable industry sponsored and/or approved safety research.

[Alittleliberal]

27. More of a condemnation of corporate farming practices

Then the science used to make those shitty cheap tactics even cheaper and shittier.

[pnwmom]

28. The same companies, like Monsanto, produce the GMO's

and the pesticides that are meant to be used with them.

So it isn't just the corporate farming practices. The big chem companies are involved as well.

[Alittleliberal]

30. They wouldn't make them

Last edited Wed Nov 25, 2015, 11:47 PM - Edit history (1)

If people didn't use them. If it's not glyphosphate it will be something else. Really what we need is far more small farms and less mega farms. It becomes too hard to make your margins work in large farming without the use of powerful herbicides and pesticides. There's too much labor to make it cost effective with out. Farming sucks but if we want to move away from dangerous pesticides more people have to do it and people will pay more for food. That is unavoidable.

[HuckleB]

36. And the funny thing is...

GMOs have led to less pesticide use, and the use of safer herbicides, but GMOs are still going to be damned by those who have decided that they must be damned! Conspiracies are fun! No?

[Alittleliberal]

39. Didn't even get to that part

The herbicides we used before Round-Up were far worse. Not to mention one of the largest classes of GMO make use of the bacterium BT. One of the most commonly used Organic Pesticides that effects a pathway in caterpillars that human's don't have. GMO's aren't the problem they were part of the solution to an ever increasing population combined with an out of control oligarchy were people have less and less to spend on food making smaller more sustainable farms impossible.

[HuckleB]

40. Shhhhhhh.

The majority of DUers don't like that reality.

[Alittleliberal]

44. As a 3rd generation organic farmer

I'll kindly tell them they are wrong and that while they waste time harping on GMOs we have far bigger farming concerns. Monocropping, imbalances in natural nitrogen and phosphorous cycles and inefficient use of water are our big existential farming crises.

[Johnny2X2X]

12. STOP!

Stop posting junk science!!!

[Bubzer]

14. That strikes me as a problem with herbicide over usage rather than GMOs themselves.

Which, honestly, is true with or without GMOs... herbicides and pesticides are both used in extreme amounts that are dangerous to all flora and fauna.

[uhnope]

15. question: do adults really watch these childish animated vids and get convinced by them?

[fbc]

16. 125 times more deadly than... what?

If it's something that's not at all deadly, then it's probably nothing to worry about.

Ya know, we mock republicans for their refusal to acknowledge the realities of global climate change, but a number of democrats seem to fall for this stuff.

[suzanner]

57. more deadly than suspected it says

Observation-ally, I'd agree that something is causing a rise in health issues with younger people (as I am over 65 and have never seen so many kids and young adults with allergies or other subtle, puzzling issues). But, not a doctor. FDA gives approval on 'benefit outweighs risk'.

[iandhr]

18. 125 times.

not 120 or 130?

[Eko]

19. The stupidity hurts.

[JohnyCanuck]

22. If you take a couple of aspirin, you might find it helps n/t

[HuckleB]

41. Aspirin? Chemicals!!!!! Yikes!

[JohnyCanuck]

21. Dramatic Correlation Shown Between GMOs And 22 Diseases

The research highlighted below, “Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America,” was published in The Journal of Organic Systems this September and links GMOs to 22 diseases with very high correlation. We reprinted many of the graphs from the study that show an incredible correlation between the rise of GMO crops that use the herbicide glyphosate and a wide range of diseases.

Glyphosate was introduced to the marketplace in 1974 but data on its use is only available since 1990. Monsanto has genetically modified foods so that they are resistant to glyphosate, a herbicide Monsanto sells, resulting in a dramatic increase in the use of glyphosate. The study points out that research has shown that “glyphosate disrupts the ability of animals, including humans, to detoxify xenobiotics. This means that exposures to the numerous chemicals in food and the environment, such as endocrine disrupting chemicals and carcinogens, could be causing levels of damage that would not occur if the body were able to detoxify them.”

Correlation is not proof of causation. But the authors point out “we have data for 22 diseases, all with a high degree of correlation and very high significance. It seems highly unlikely that all of these can be random coincidence.” They point out that according to “the American Academy of Environmental Medicine’s position paper on genetically modified (GM) foods: ‘[S]everal animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.’”

https://www.popularresistance.org/dramatic-correlation-shown-between-gmos-and-22-diseases/

[Archae]

23. "Popular Resistance" is not science.

Unless you have an actual *SCIENCE* citation, all you have are worthless accusations.

[JohnyCanuck]

25. Seems you didn't even read the first paragraph of the post you are responding to.

Here it is again, this time with a bit of bolding and underlining added to perhaps help in your comprehension:

The research highlighted below, “Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America,” was published in The Journal of Organic Systems this September and links GMOs to 22 diseases with very high correlation. We reprinted many of the graphs from the study that show an incredible correlation between the rise of GMO crops that use the herbicide glyphosate and a wide range of diseases.

In other words the post at Popular Resistance linked to, commented on and summarized an article which had previously appeared in The Journal of Organic Systems. Here is what the Journal of Organic Systems has to say about themselves on the home page:

In 2006 the first issue of the Journal of Organic Systems was posted on this website. This resulted from several years of discussion, prompted by the need for a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (my emphasis /JC) in which researchers could publish their findings on ‘Organic Systems’ in the Australasian and Pacific Regions (and beyond).

Here is a list of their editors & editorial board. You can take a look and decide if it is scientific enough for you.

Here is the abstract and a couple of concluding paragraphs from the full paper as published on The Journal of Organic Systems' web site (and which was also linked to from the Popular Resistance web site):

Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America

Abstract
A huge increase in the incidence and prevalence of chronic diseases has been reported in the United States (US) over the last 20 years. Similar increases have been seen globally. The herbicide glyphosate was introduced in 1974 and its use is accelerating with the advent of herbicide-tolerant genetically engineered (GE) crops. Evidence is mounting that glyphosate interferes with many metabolic processes in plants and animals and glyphosate residues have been detected in both. Glyphosate disrupts the endocrine system and the balance of gut bacteria, it damages DNA and is a driver of mutations that lead to cancer.

In the present study, US government databases were searched for GE crop data, glyphosate application data and disease epidemiological data. Correlation analyses were then performed on a total of 22 diseases in these time-series data sets. The Pearson correlation coefficients are highly significant (< 10 ^-5) between glyphosate applications and hypertension (R = 0.923), stroke (R = 0.925), diabetes prevalence (R = 0.971), diabetes incidence (R = 0.935), obesity (R = 0.962), lipoprotein metabolism disorder (R = 0.973), Alzheimer’s (R = 0.917), senile dementia (R = 0.994), Parkinson's (R = 0.875), multiple sclerosis (R = 0.828), autism (R = 0.989), inflammatory bowel disease (R = 0.938), intestinal infections (R = 0.974), end stage renal disease (R = 0.975), acute kidney failure (R = 0.978), cancers of the thyroid (R = 0.988), liver (R = 0.960), bladder (R = 0.981), pancreas (R = 0.918), kidney (R = 0.973) and myeloid leukaemia (R = 0.878).

The Pearson correlation coefficients are highly significant (< 10 ^-4) between the percentage of GE corn and soy planted in the US and hypertension (R = 0.961), stroke (R = 0.983), diabetes prevalence (R = 0.983), diabetes incidence (R = 0.955), obesity (R = 0.962), lipoprotein metabolism disorder (R = 0.955), Alzheimer’s (R = 0.937), Parkinson's (R = 0 .952), multiple sclerosis (R = 0.876), hepatitis C (R = 0.946), end stage renal disease (R = 0.958), acute kidney failure (R = 0.967), cancers of the thyroid (R = 0.938), liver (R = 0.911), bladder (R = 0.945), pancreas (R = 0.841), kidney (R = 0.940) and myeloid leukaemia (R = 0.889). The significance and strength of the correlations show that the effectsof glyphosate and GE crops on human health should be further investigated.

snip

The probabilities in the graphs and tables show that it is highly unlikely that the correlations are a coincidence. The strength of the correlations shows that there is a very strong probability that they are linked somehow. The number of graphs with similar data trends also indicates a strong probability that there is a link. Although correlation does not necessarily mean causation, when correlation coefficients of over 0.95 (with p-value significance levels less than 0.00001) are calculated for a list of diseases that can be directly linked to glyphosate, via its known biological effects, it would be imprudent not to consider causation as a plausible explanation.

We do not imply that all of these diseases have a single cause as there are many toxic substances and pathogens that can contribute to chronic disease. However, no toxic substance has increased in ubiquity in the last 20 years as glyphosate has. The disruption by glyphosate of the detoxification pathways in the human body can intensify the effect of other toxic chemicals. The disruption of the Cytochrome P450 pathways by glyphosate could account for it causing numerous diseases (Samsel & Seneff, 2013a). The Cytochrome P450 enzymes are the superfamily of enzymes that are responsible for around 75% of the reactions involved in drug metabolism and the oxidation of organic molecules (Guengerich, 2008). Another critical issue is that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor and it has been argued that there are no safe levels of endocrine disruptors (Vandenberg et al., 2012; Bergman et al.,2013). This would imply that the current permitted residue levels in food could be causing multiple health problems that have been documented in the scientific literature to be caused by endocrine disrupting chemicals.

[Archae]

31. This is not science either. It's organic advocacy.

You want to pay 2, 3, even 4 times what I pay for food, go ahead.

Just don't expect me to believe in this "Natural and organic is ALWAYS better!" bullshit.

In fact many organic fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides are far more toxic than Roundup ever was or is.

And nowadays, organic is not a bunch of hippy farmers singing while they tenderly water each plant.

Organic is BIG BUSINESS, making billions every year.

Just look at how rich the republican-supporting CEO of Whole Paycheck...I mean Whole Foods is.

[JohnyCanuck]

33. And we are going to solve our problems by leaving our food production to Monsanto-like solutions?

i.e. changing to more deadly forms and mixtures of poisonous chemicals to spray on the mono-cropped food we eat? Even the EPA finally has had to call a halt to chemical companies/poison suppliers using the public as their unwitting guinea pigs in their increasingly desperate flailing around to provide a solution to the now apparent failures of the "lets just soak them in glyphosate" approach.

Note to Mods, the following is a press release, so I am reproducing in full:

EPA Pulls Registration for Dow’s Enlist Duo Herbicide Citing High Toxicity Levels
November 25th, 2015

Toxic pesticide banned on genetically engineered crops

Washington D.C. — The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), responding to litigation, has announced it is revoking the registration of “Enlist Duo.” Approved by the agency just over a year ago, Enlist Duo is a toxic combination of glyphosate and 2,4-D that Dow AgroSciences created for use on the next generation of genetically engineered crops, designed to withstand being drenched with this potent herbicide cocktail. In its court filing, EPA stated it is taking this action after realizing that the combination of these chemicals is likely significantly more harmful than it had initially believed.

This action resolves a year-long legal challenge filed by a coalition of conservation groups seeking to rescind the approval of the dangerous herbicide blend. EPA had approved use of Enlist Duo in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and North Dakota, and had intended to approve it in additional areas in the near future.

Earthjustice and Center for Food Safety, on behalf of Center for Food Safety, Beyond Pesticides, Center for Biological Diversity, Environmental Working Group, the National Family Farm Coalition, and Pesticide Action Network North America, had challenged EPA’s failure to consider the impacts of Enlist Duo on threatened and endangered plants and animals protected under the Endangered Species Act. The Act requires that every federal agency consider the impacts of its actions on our nation’s most imperiled plants and animals and seek input from the expert wildlife agencies before plunging ahead, which EPA had refused to do.

"The decision by EPA to withdraw the illegally approved Enlist Duo crops is a huge victory for the environment and the future of our food," said George Kimbrell, Center for Food Safety's senior attorney. “We will remain vigilant to ensure industry does not pressure the agency into making the same mistake in the future."

“With this action, EPA confirms the toxic nature of this lethal cocktail of chemicals, and has stepped back from the brink,” said Earthjustice Managing Attorney Paul Achitoff. “Glyphosate is a probable carcinogen and is wiping out the monarch butterfly, 2,4-D also causes serious human health effects, and the combination also threatens endangered wildlife. This must not, and will not, be how we grow our food.”

Dow created Enlist crops as a quick fix for the problem created by “Roundup Ready” crops, the previous generation of genetically engineered crops designed to resist the effects of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. Just as overuse of antibiotics has left resistant strains of bacteria to thrive, repeated use of Roundup on those crops allowed glyphosate-resistant “superweeds” to proliferate, and those weeds now infest tens of millions of acres of U.S. farmland. Enlist crops allow farmers to spray both glyphosate and 2,4-D without killing their crops, which they hope will kill weeds resistant to glyphosate alone. But some weeds have already developed 2,4-D resistance, and the escalating cycle of more toxic pesticides in the environment will continue unless EPA stops approving these chemicals, and USDA stops rubber-stamping new genetically engineered crops.

“This Thanksgiving, I am thankful for EPA taking this important action to protect people, rare plants, and animals from Enlist Duo,” said Lori Ann Burd, Environmental Health director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “As we gather with our families for the holiday feast, we can all breathe a little bit easier knowing that EPA has protected our food from being drenched with this poisonous pesticide cocktail.”

Judy Hatcher, executive director of Pesticide Action Network, commented: "EPA is taking a step in the right direction, but Enlist Duo shouldn’t have been given the green light in the first place. Too often, GE seeds and the herbicides designed to accompany them are rushed to market without thorough evaluation of their real-world impacts on community health and farmer livelihoods."

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/4144/epa-pulls-registration-for-dows-enlist-duo-herbicide-citing-high-toxicity-levels

[Major Nikon]

34. Junk Science

The "journal" you are referencing is financed by the Organic Federation of Australia and is so obscure it doesn't even have an impact factor.

Here's another observation based on the same "science" contained in your source:

[HuckleB]

37. Yup. How are DUers not embarrassed to see so many fellows recommend these posts?

[Major Nikon]

54. I suppose you just really need to get with the program

Corporate farms that use "toxic" pesticides and plant species that have been genetically altered by precise and predictable methods = bad

Corporate "organic" farms that use even more "toxic" pesticides and plant species that have been genetically altered by imprecise and unpredictable methods = good

[bananas]

51. Journals with high impact factor have high retraction rates; "junk science" is corporate PR

"Junk science" is a term commonly used by astroturfers and anti-science right-wingers like Steven Malloy to push corporate propaganda.

http://www.nature.com/news/high-retraction-rates-raise-eyebrows-1.15942

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science#Use_as_corporate_PR

[Major Nikon]

52. Shitty journals with no impact factor rarely retract anything

That's why they are shitty journals.

I guess you stopped at your link when you found what you wanted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science#Use_by_scientists

[MisterP]

26. of course they said for decades that glyphosphate is safe as mother's milk

of course that's because by itself it doesn't go into any cells and is thus useless as herbicide; so what they sell has been known to be carcinogenic from the get-go, but they cut out the soaking agents from any tests and let it bounce off cell walls while pretending to evaluate it

you don't have to fudge the science, you just ... massage it ...

[JohnyCanuck]

32. Ever wonder why US gov't agencies and politicians

seem more concerned about protecting the GMO pushers' profits than the health, safety and well being of the US citizens they are supposed to protect?

Well it is often said one picture is worth a thousand words.



For better readability copy and paste the following link into your browser:
media.mercola.com/ImageServer/public/2012/january/study1-big.jpg

You should then be able to click on the image to enlarge.

[HuckleB]

38. You just posted Mercola?

Umm. Really?

This is Democratic Underground, not Conspiracy Theory Silliness Underground.

[Archae]

42. The original post is a video from a tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory group.

You expected any different?

We still have anti-vaxxers here, anti-GMO's, anti-medicine, and so on.

"To hell with science, woo is king!"

[HuckleB]

45. How is DU allowing this?

I thought there was group for this stuff, and that posts like this would be sent there? What is happening to DU?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

46. I was on a jury and voted to keep

The woo starts with the OP, so it's not a hijack of a good thread. This one was doomed at birth. I'm all for quacks revealing themselves, it makes it easier to see who to take seriously.

[Judi Lynn]

43. Thank you, JohnnyCanuck. n/t

[JohnyCanuck]

48. Check this one out: Corporate Parasites And Economic Plunder: We Need A Genuine Green Revolution

Corporate Parasites And Economic Plunder: We Need A Genuine Green Revolution

The current economic system and model of globalisation and development serves the interests of Western oil companies and financial institutions (including land and commodity speculators), global agribusiness and the major arms companies. These interlocking, self-serving interests have managed to institute a globalized system of war, poverty and food insecurity and have acted to devastate economies.

The solution

The Oakland Institute has just released research showing the tremendous success of agroecology across Africa. Instead of prioritising an inappropriate Gates-Monsanto corporate-led petro-chemical industrial model of agriculture, priority should be given to agroecology, as stated in numerous official reports in the last few years, not least the IAASTD report.

This would entail supporting and investing in highly productive (see this data on output per country) smallholder/peasant agriculture, which is the backbone of global food production but is being marginalised, criminalised and squeezed onto lessand less land.

People want solutions for hunger, poverty and conflict but are too often told there is no alternative to what exists. The solution ultimately lies in taking manipulated markets and rigged trade rules out of farming and investing in and supporting indigenous knowledge, agroecology, education and infrastructure, instead of inappropriately diverting funds to underperforming sectors. This involves rejecting big agritech’s current agenda and resisting the US strategy of using agriculture as a geopolitical tool. It involves challenging the corporate takeover of agriculture, supporting food sovereignty movements and embracing sustainable agriculture that is locally owned and rooted in the needs of communities.

http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/parasites-and-plunder-we-need-a-genuine-green-revolution/

[JohnyCanuck]

47. Why did IARC and EFSA come to different conclusions about glyphosate as a carcinogen

Dr Kate Guyton, the senior toxicologist who worked on the International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) report that classified glyphosate as a carcinogen, has explained why the IARC report came to a different conclusion to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). EFSA recently said the chemical was not likely to be carcinogenic.

In a radio interview with BBC Farming Today, Guyton defended the methods used by IARC. She said IARC had conducted "the most independent, rigorous and transparent evaluation”, based on “rigorous scientific criteria” that were openly published in a preamble to the report. She added that the evaluation was performed by the “world’s leading experts”.

Guyton said the main difference between the two reports was that IARC had only used studies that were publicly available for independent scientific review”, which is “extremely important for independence and transparency”. EFSA included other studies that were not published and that IARC were not able to review.

In fact, Guyton is referring to industry-sponsored studies that are kept hidden from the public under commercial confidentiality rules. EFSA’s evaluation relied heavily on these industry studies.

http://gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16543-iarc-expert-defends-glyphosate-cancer-verdict

[JohnyCanuck]

49. "Regulators Are Toothless and Worse"

Volkswagen & Others Cheat Because Regulators Are Toothless and Worse

It’s not just Volkswagen and it’s not just motor manufacturers. The same sort of behaviour can be seen in many other industries -- and of course in the banks as well.

A common feature is the weakness of the regulators. The EPA should be ashamed that it was not they but a small NGO that discovered what Volkswagen were up to. Where was the EPA when this was going on? They seem to have seen their role as purely bureaucratic: the manufacturer would have its vehicles tested at a testing station of their own choosing and pass the numbers to the EPA who would tick an appropriate box. Had the EPA been doing the tests themselves, someone might have wondered about the results just as John German of the ICCT did [1].

The EPA has collaborated with the biotech industry in playing down evidence for harm (see e.g. [5, 6] Genetically Modifying Genes and Scientific Evidence, SiS 67). The European Commission is no better, the re-approval of glyphosate herbicides is to be based on a review carried out largely by the Glyphosate Task Force, a consortium of chemical and biotech companies including Monsanto “joining forces and efforts in order to renew that glyphosate registration with a joint submission” [ 7, 8] Scandal of Glyphosate Re-assessment in Europe, SiS 63).

SNIP

The regulatory agencies must play a more active role in implementation than many of them have so far. This would not require building new laboratories and hiring large numbers of staff. Most of the necessary equipment and expertise can already be found in universities and research institutions. But the work would be commissioned by the regulators rather than the manufacturers, and the staff would have proper career paths within their institution; they would not be looking forward to later employment with the companies they are being now paid to regulate. It would be part of their job to think of and ask awkward questions, as the ICCT did and the EPA did not. It is encouraging that a suggestion along these lines has recently appeared as an editorial in the journal Nature [13].

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Regulators_Are_Toothless_and_Worse.php

[JohnyCanuck]

56. Monsanto’s secret studies reveal glyphosate link to cancer

Monsanto has known for almost four decades that glyphosate causes cancer, according to a new paper by researchers Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff.

Samsel is the first independent researcher to examine Monsanto’s secret toxicology studies on glyphosate. He obtained the studies, which have been denied to other inquirers, via a request to his senator. With his co-researcher Dr Stephanie Seneff of MIT, he reviewed Monsanto’s data.

Samsel and Seneff concluded that “significant evidence of tumours was found during these investigations”.

However, they add, “to create doubt and obscure the statistical significance of inconvenient findings, which may have prevented product registration”, Monsanto introduced irrelevant historical control data from other experiments. This is data from the control animals in other unrelated experiments, which may have been carried out under widely differing conditions.

This practice had the effect of creating experimental noise which cancelled out the statistically significant findings of increased tumours in any one experiment.

http://gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16515-monsanto-s-secret-studies-reveal-glyphosate-link-to-cancer

[Major Nikon]

53. The IARC also classified shift work, coffee, and aspirin in the same category

[JohnyCanuck]

55. Why are we being fed by a poison expert?

The Undercurrent delves into the world of mass agriculture to ask how one company has such control over food supply. The name Monsanto was once synonymous with Agent Orange, but today it's the dominance of the widespread herbicide Roundup which helps keep the company on top.

But is the World Health Organisation's claim that Roundup 'probably' causes cancer, cause for concern? And what about the company's stance on patenting which sees farmers in developing countries unable to hold on to seed?

http://gmwatch.org/videos/6-must-see/16257-the-undercurrent-why-are-we-being-fed-by-a-poison-expert-monsanto-and-roundup

[EvolveOrConvolve]

58. Oy, my head hurts

I wish I could say the anti-science ignorance surprises me, but it doesn't. Same with the Google diarrhea - your post doesn't get the response you want, so you start link bombing the thread in the hopes that no one notices just how bad the OP really is.

[JohnyCanuck]

59. Triumph of digital toxicology: why the US won't regulate deadly chemicals

Triumph of digital toxicology: why the US won't regulate deadly chemicals
by Valerie Brown and Elizabeth Grossman
The Ecologist
27th November 2015

A six-month investigation finds that the revolving door between government and the chemical industry has led the EPA to rely on easily manipulated toxicology research carried out entirely on computers - and this 'in silico' science often trumps both biology and epidemiology when it comes to regulatory action, or lack of it. The result? Toxic substances remain in everyday products.

snip

The regulatory toxicologists typically rely on computer simulations called 'physiologically based pharmacokinetic' (PBPK) modeling. The health effects researchers - endocrinologists, developmental biologists and epidemiologists, among others - draw their conclusions from direct observations of how chemicals actually affect living things.

The debate may sound arcane, but the outcome could directly affect your health. It will shape how government agencies regulate chemicals for decades to come: how toxic waste sites are cleaned up, how pesticides are regulated, how workers are protected from toxic exposure and what chemicals are permitted in household items.

snip

That the chemical industry exerts political influence is well documented. What our investigation reveals is that, 30 years ago, corporate interests began to control not just the political process but the science itself. Industry not only funds research to cast doubt on known environmental health hazards. It has also shaped an entire field of science-regulatory toxicology - to downplay the risk of toxic chemicals.

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2986383/triumph_of_digital_toxicology_why_the_us_wont_regulate_deadly_chemicals.html

[JohnyCanuck]

60. University's medical faculty invaded by luddites and conspiracy theorists

Declaration of the 3rd NATIONAL CONGRESS OF PHYSICIANS IN THE CROP -SPRAYED TOWNS (in Argentina)

26 noviembre, 2015

Faculty of Medicine, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires. October 17, 2015

Five years since the first meeting at the Faculty of Medical Sciences of Córdoba, cientists, doctors and members of health teams for sprayed villages of Argentina, gathered in the Aula Magna of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Buenos Aires (UBA), we verify that what we said then is dramatically true and getting worse by the day: the current system of agricultural production in the country pollutes the environment and Argentine food, sickening and killing human populations in agricultural areas.

In the last 25 years the consumption of pesticides increased by 983% (from 38 to 370 million kilos), while the cultivated area increased by 50% (from 20 million ha to 30 million ha). A production system based on the systematic application of agricultural poisons means, inevitably, that nature responds by adapting, forcing farmers to apply greater quantities of pesticides in the field to achieve the same objectives. Over the years a system has been created by and for sellers of pesticides, who every year increase their net sales (in 2015 the increase was 9%) while our patients, too, year after year are being exposed to this pesticide pollution more and more.

There is no doubt that the massive and growing exposure to pesticides changed the disease profile of Argentine rural populations and that cancer is the leading cause of death among them (and the worst way to die).

Research presented at the congress show studies at different scales, which highlight a consistent pattern of toxicity. From small towns to larger populations at the provincial level (as in Chaco and Córdoba) or national level, different levels of exposure to glyphosate or agricultural poisons in general are compared, showing that reproductive health is affected by increases in spontaneous abortions and birth defects,also increased endocrine disorders such as hypothyroidism, neurological disorders or cognitive development problems and soaring of cancer rates to a tripling of incidence, prevalence and mortality which are directly related to pesticide exposure. In parallel, data from studies in experimental models show that the genotoxicity of glyphosate and other pesticides is an underlying biological mechanism that explains its relationship with disease that doctors have found in our patients. Furthermore, genotoxicity has been verified in agricultural populations (adults and children) exposed to pesticides while being absent in populations that are not fumigated.

SNIP

Government officials over the years have continued trying to hide the “side effects” of the agricultural production model, demonstrating its complicity and alignment with the interests of ethically questionable multinational companies. This situation led us to the need for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the OAS in the request for an injunction to protect the right to health and life of the population environmentally exposed to pesticides, especially their children.

(emphasis in text is mine /JC)
http://www.reduas.com.ar/declaration-of-the-3rd-national-congress-of-physicians-in-the-crop-sprayed-towns/

[Nailzberg]

61. I've been away since last election cycle. When did DUer's start becoming science deniers?

[JohnyCanuck]

62. Scientists challenge EFSA claim of glyphosate safety

In November, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that glyphosate is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans”.

The EFSA decision, based on the Renewal Assessment Report provided by the German federal risk assessment institute BfR, ran counter to the finding earlier this year by the international Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer arm of the World Health Organization, that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. The IARC review linked glyphosate to dose-related increases in malignant tumours at multiple anatomical sites in experimental animals and to an increased incidence of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in exposed humans.

In a new development, a group of over 90 independent scientists has written an open letter to the European Health and Food Safety Commissioner, Vytenis Andriukaitis, strongly challenging EFSA’s decision and the BfR report that it was based on.

The scientists, who come from countries as diverse as the US, Germany, Kuwait, Japan, and Korea, say that they have reviewed these two differing decisions on the human carcinogenicity of glyphosate and conclude that the IARC decision is “by far the more credible”, whereas the BfR decision is “not credible”.

http://gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16568-scientists-challenge-efsa-claim-of-glyphosate-safety

[JohnyCanuck]

63. Monsanto Wants to Know Why People Doubt Science

by Colin Todhunter

On Twitter recently, someone asked the question “Why do people doubt science?” Accompanying the tweet was a link to an article in National Geographic that implied people who are suspicious of vaccines, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), climate change, fluoridated water and various other phenomena are confused, adhere to conspiracy theories, are motivated by ideology or are misinformed as a result of access to the ‘University of Google.’ The remedy, according what is said in the article, is for us all to rely on scientific evidence pertaining to these issues and adopt a ‘scientific method’ of thought and analysis and put irrational thought processes to one side.

Who tweeted the question and posted the link? None other than Robert T Fraley, Monsanto’s Vice President and Chief Technology Officer.

snip

But the answer to the question “Why do people doubt science” is not because they have read Kuhn, Feyerabend or some sociology journal. Neither is it because a bunch of ‘irrational’ activists have scared them witless about GM crops or some other issue. It is because they can see how science is used, corrupted and manipulated by powerful corporations to serve their own ends. It is because they regard these large corporations as largely unaccountable and their activities and products not properly regulated by governments.

snip

Coming from the GMO biotech industry, or its political mouthpieces, the term “sound science” rings extremely hollow. The industry carries out inadequate, short-term studies and conceals the data produced by its research under the guise of ‘commercial confidentiality’ (see this), while independent research highlights the very serious dangers of its products (see this and this). It has in the past also engaged in fakery in India (see this), bribery in Indonesia (see this ) and smears and intimidation against those who challenge its interests (see this), as well as the distortion and the censorship of science (see this and this).

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/27/monsanto-wants-to-know-why-people-doubt-science/