http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=weed-whacking-herbicide-p
Weed-Whacking Herbicide Proves Deadly to Human Cells
Used in gardens, farms, and parks around the world, the weed killer Roundup contains an ingredient that can suffocate human cells in a laboratory, researchers say
By Crystal Gammon and Environmental Health News
WEED KILLER: New research has found that an 'inert' ingredient in the herbicide Roundup can kill human embryonic, placental, and umbilical cord cellsAVIXYZ/FLICKR
Used in yards, farms and parks throughout the world, Roundup has long been a top-selling weed killer. But now researchers have found that one of Roundup’s inert ingredients can kill human cells, particularly embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells.
The new findings intensify a debate about so-called “inerts” — the solvents, preservatives, surfactants and other substances that manufacturers add to pesticides. Nearly 4,000 inert ingredients are approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, is the most widely used herbicide in the United States. About 100 million pounds are applied to U.S. farms and lawns every year, according to the EPA.
Until now, most health studies have focused on the safety of glyphosate, rather than the mixture of ingredients found in Roundup. But in the new study, scientists found that Roundup’s inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cells—even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and lawns.
One specific inert ingredient, polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, was more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself – a finding the researchers call “astonishing.”
“This clearly confirms that the [inert ingredients] in Roundup formulations are not inert,” wrote the study authors from France’s University of Caen. “Moreover, the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death [at the] residual levels” found on Roundup-treated crops, such as soybeans, alfalfa and corn, or lawns and gardens.
The research team suspects that Roundup might cause pregnancy problems by interfering with hormone production, possibly leading to abnormal fetal development, low birth weights or miscarriages.
Monsanto, Roundup’s manufacturer, contends that the methods used in the study don’t reflect realistic conditions and that their product, which has been sold since the 1970s, is safe when used as directed. Hundreds of studies over the past 35 years have addressed the safety of glyphosate.
“Roundup has one of the most extensive human health safety and environmental data packages of any pesticide that's out there,” said Monsanto spokesman John Combest. “It's used in public parks, it's used to protect schools. There's been a great deal of study on Roundup, and we're very proud of its performance.”
The EPA considers glyphosate to have low toxicity when used at the recommended doses.
“Risk estimates for glyphosate were well below the level of concern,” said EPA spokesman Dale Kemery. The EPA classifies glyphosate as a Group E chemical, which means there is strong evidence that it does not cause cancer in humans.
In addition, the EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture both recognize POEA as an inert ingredient. Derived from animal fat, POEA is allowed in products certified organic by the USDA.
The EPA has concluded that it is not dangerous to public health or the environment.
The French team, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini, a University of Caen molecular biologist, said its results highlight the need for health agencies to reconsider the safety of Roundup.
“The authorizations for using these Roundup herbicides must now clearly be revised since their toxic effects depend on, and are multiplied by, other compounds used in the mixtures,” Seralini’s team wrote.
Controversy about the safety of the weed killer recently erupted in Argentina, one of the world’s largest exporters of soy.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Parsley....Some time ago, yours truly was invited to a breakfast hosted by Monsanto who at the time were lobbying for registration of Roundup herbicide(glyposate)for in crop pre harvest weed control. They were hoping to persuade the farm group I was involved with to help them out. During their presentation on the safety of Roundup herbicide for this type of application they said that thier own research showed that Roundup applied to a crop at kernel moisture levels above 30% would result in Roundup uptake to the kernels. Under 30% the risk was negligable. The conclusion was that the pre harvest application must be done only to a standing ripe crop with total kernel moisture below 30%. Kind of makes sense,the plant is still translocating nutrients to the seed. Monsanto subsequently received their sought after registration for preharvest weed control.
Farmers liked this idea and in- crop preharvest application of Glyphosate is now common. But there is an interesting twist to this story. Farmers also like preharvest glyphosate application because it kills the crop. It evens out the immature areas, ripens them up, makes harvesting easier, and kills weeds as well. Farmers even have a term for this type of application. They call it "dessication" which it definitely is not. Glyphosate is not registered as a dessicant. Dessicants are used to remove moisture from crops, to dry them down. The use of glyphosate as a "dessicant" applied to areas in the crop that are higher than 30% kernel moisture will result in uptake to the seed and will remain in the seed.
Monsanto, to my knowledge has not adequately informed farmers of the consequences of the widespread use of glyphosate as a "dessicant". It is after all, registered only for preharvest weed control.
So, Parsley, if you're chowing down on your favorite DQ cheese burger on a big moist sesame seed bun and it is made from Canadian Wheat Board wheat flour, you may be getting a tiny bit of glyphosate along with your fries and ketchup, courtesy of Monsanto and Canadian farmers. Yummmmm!
5 the risk was negligable
I'm an organic eater, and a good one! lol. The beef we eat pastures on our land.
Food derived from a dessicated process may spell intergenerational infertility, at worst.
Farmers forget we produce food for our great great grandchildren.
Is anyone familiar with or has information about the chemical residue testing some of the MPs in Ottawa took part in a few years ago, including testicle chemical residue?
The problem with humans is we're so smart, we're stupid.
We thought we could prescribe harmones in a delicate sophisticated manner. We can't.
Reproduction is the most complicated function, and we don't have a clue about 'what' or 'how much' triggers decline OR destruction of that process.
They can come and take my wife before I'm giving up my Round-Up!
Annony......spoken like a true addict. Can't farm without your roundup.
I'm addicted to clean fields and making a profit.
Round-up helps on both counts.
You're certainly free to wallow in your junk science delusions, but the product is safer and less toxic than most if not all the spices you put on your organic tofu.
I regret that you have an ugly wife, anonymous.
HEALTH HAZARD ALERT:
KILDARA FARMS ORGANIC GOURMET SALAD GREENS MAY CONTAIN SALMONELLA BACTERIA
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/recarapp/2009/20090622e.shtml
According to recent data compiled by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control CDC), people who eat organic and "natural" foods are eight times as likely as the rest of the population to be attacked by a deadly new strain of E. coli bacteria (0157: H7). This new E. coli is attacking tens of thousands of people per year, all over the world. It is causing permanent liver and kidney damage in many of its victims. The CDC recorded 2,471 confirmed cases of E. coli 0157: H7 in 1996 and estimated that it is causing at least 250 deaths per year in the United States alone.
Consumers of organic food are also more likely to be attacked by a relatively new, more virulent strain of the infamous salmonella bacteria. Salmonella was America’s biggest food-borne death risk until the new E. coli O157 came along.
The new reality is quite sobering. Organic and “natural” food producers supply only about 1 percent of the nation’s food, but the Centers for Disease Control have traced approximately 8 percent of the confirmed E. coli 0157 cases to such foods. Consumer Reports recently found much higher levels of salmonella on free-range chickens than on conventionally raised ones. Many other organic foods also pose higher salmonella risks than “supermarket” foods. To be sure, most strains of salmonella are mild and are easily killed by cooking one’s food adequately. But the new salmonella, S. typhimurium, is far stronger than other varieties. Infection often proves fatal. The CDC estimates that there are up to four million cases of salmonella poisoning per year in the U.S., and it has identified one-fourth of the culture-confirmed cases as the more virulent S. typhimurium.
As if that were not frightening enough, organic and “natural” food consumers also face increased risk of illness from toxins produced by fungi—and some of these toxins are carcinogenic. Refusing to use artificial pesticides, organic farmers allow their crop fields to suffer more damage from insects and rodents, which creates openings through which fungi can enter the fruits and seeds. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regularly tests samples of various foods for such dangers, and it routinely finds high levels of these natural toxins in organically grown produce. It found, for instance, that organic crops have higher rates of infestation by aflatoxin, one of the most virulent carcinogens know to man.
I enjoyed the organic horror tales.
There is undoubtdly fungi and bacteria and unlimited assorted viruses that can kill you. Can kill me. And neither scientific science nor junk science disputes it.
And as you say, cooking works.
You see, I KNOW chicken could be deadly if not cooked properly. I have some control.
I won't waste my time talking about those chickens who are fed dessicated grain. Or talking about those farmers continuing to work in an airspace where the molecules smell sickly, but the science says, "Don' worry, be happy."
I'm questioning science a little more closely these days. And questioning the role of bought and paid for professionals. And questioning the regulators who believe the professionals' Saturday night tales.
I'm questioning science that promoted routine Estrogen supplement for brunettes. Science that says Roundup is a dandy flavoring.
Science that has become such a bold paid mouthpiece.
Enjoy your eggs this morning. They are now once again, officially good for you. Parsley
The difference between the organic horror tales and your round up horror tales is that on the organic side of the equation one can actually point to real bodies.
Wrong.
The difference is that organic farmers and processors and companies are held fully and openly accountable. By their own choice.
Their name is published. There is instant traceability. There is an official audit trail.
As the bodies are lined up, those farmers responsible are telephoned, contacted, sued, and revealed and punished. They stand up and they are counted.
Do you assume that harmone replacement therapy and pesticide and insecticide usage is victim-free, and bodyless?
You seem as if you favor a 'monkey sees no evil' approach where you'd la la la through your dessicated crops humming,
"Roundup loves me, this I know, for a scientist told me so".
Accountability. That's the difference.
Sorry you missed it.
PS, anonymous,
Maybe too much playing with your Roundup makes farm boys blind.
Looks to me like (organic)people in glass house shouldn't be throwing rocks. LOL
"harmone replacement therapy and pesticide and insecticide usage is victim-free, and bodyless?"
So far all you've been able to show is virtual bodies based on mathematical models and unscientific anecdotal evidence.
You've even gone so far as reject the scientific principle that correlation does not equal causation. You probably don't believe in the most fundamental principle of toxicology, that it is the dose that makes the poison. And you are under the mistaken impression that statistical analysis i.e. epidemiology is science when it clearly is not.
Yet you claim to "know" what science is all about.
Then there is this...
"I'm questioning science a little more closely these days. And questioning the role of bought and paid for professionals. And questioning the regulators who believe the professionals' Saturday night tales.
I'm questioning science that promoted routine Estrogen supplement for brunettes. Science that says Roundup is a dandy flavoring.
Science that has become such a bold paid mouthpiece."
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't those in the organic business also trying to make a profit? Or are we to believe that it is all being done for the greater good of humanity or some such piffle? Seems to me that the Organic movement has quite a financial interest in scaring people away from conventionally grown food.
The greedy bastards that will just say whatever it takes to get you to buy their product argument cuts both ways. I don't believe that either side holds a monopoly on Angels who are willing to forgo making a buck off some poor slob who doesn't know any better.
There are people out there right now who have been told that if they eat nothing but organic food it will cure their cancer. It is a complete unfounded lie with no evidence to support it yet it goes on every day. And there are plenty of people in the organic industry who are more than happy to make money from peddling false hope to these dieing people.
Post a Comment