toxicity - pesticides, herbicides and insecticides - Blackherbals.com

Cont’d from page 1 - Research: Roundup HerbicideToxicity Vastly Underestimatedformulations like Roundup, which while being labeled"inert" or "non-active," are in no way neutral, and whichamplify glyphosate toxicity far beyond what toxicologicalrisk assessments presently are designed to ascertain.Glyphosate-Formulations Dramatically More Toxic thanGlyphosate AloneBack in Feb. of 2012, the journal Archives of Toxicologypublished a shocking study showing that Roundup is toxicto human DNA even when diluted to concentrations 450-fold lower than used in agricultural applications.[i]This effect could not have been anticipated from theknown toxicological effects of glyphosate alone. Thelikely explanation is that the surfactant polyoxyethyleneaminewithin Roundup dramatically enhances theabsorption of glyphosate into exposed human cells andtissue.If this is true, it speaks to a fundamental problemassociated with toxicological risk assessments ofagrichemicals (and novel manmade chemicals in general),namely, these assessments do not take into account thereality of synergistic toxicologies, i.e. the amplification ofharm associated with multiple chemical exposuresoccurring simultaneously."Inactive Ingredients" In Herbicide Formulations AreActively Poisoning UsBut adjuvants in glyphosate formulations do not justincrease the toxicity of glyphosate -- they are themselveshighly toxic. Indeed, a study published in the journalToxicology September, 2011 titled "Ethoxylated adjuvantsof glyphosate-based herbicides are active principles ofhuman cell toxicity," found 24 hour exposures on liver,embryonic and placental cell lines at concentrations as lowas 1 ppm – a dose well within "acceptable" environmentaland occupational doses – resulted in negative effects oncellular respiration and membrane integrity.[ii] Theauthors reported their findings as such:Altogether, these results challenge the establishment ofguidance values such as the acceptable daily intake ofglyphosate, when these are mostly based on a long term invivo test of glyphosate alone. Since pesticides are alwaysused with adjuvants that could change their toxicity, thenecessity to assess their whole formulations as mixturesbecomes obvious. This challenges the concept of activeprinciple of pesticides for non-target species.What the consumer of GM-contaminated food mustunderstand is that glyphosate, and the many insufficientlytested "inactive" ingredients sprayed on these foods, enterthe body and have real, adverse effects that arecumulative, even if mostly subclinical. The only way wecan be sure to reduce our exposure to these agrichemicalsis through consciously refraining from consuming them.And how do we do that? Get the stuff labeled, and givethe consumer a choice not to eat it.Vote with your fork by buying only organic food,whenever possible.Resources[i] Verena J Koller, Maria Fürhacker, Armen Nersesyan,Miroslav Mišík, Maria Eisenbauer, Siegfried Knasmueller.Cytotoxic and DNA-damaging properties of glyphosate andRoundup in human-derived buccal epithelial cells. ArchToxicol. 2012 Feb 14. Epub 2012 Feb 14. PMID: 22331240[ii] R Mesnage, B Bernay, G-E Séralini. Ethoxylated adjuvantsof glyphosate-based herbicides are active principles of humancell toxicity. Toxicology. 2012 Sep 21. Epub 2012 Sep 21.PMID: 23000283Sayer Ji is an author, researcher, lecturer, and advisory boardmember of the National Health Federation.http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/research-roundupherbicide-toxicity-vastly-underestimated☻☻☻☻☻☻Biotech’s Next Big Disaster:Seeds that Emit MultiplePesticidesBy Jon RappoportMay 13, 2013www.nomorefakenews.comTom Laskawy, writing at Grist, points out how the nextgeneration of GMOs is following in the track of presentdisasters:“…the growing pest and weed problems for GMOs havecaused farmers to turn to seeds that are coated with adifferent pesticide—a neonicotinoid. If that name rings abell, it’s because these pesticides… have been implicatedin the increasing epidemic of bee deaths.“And that’s aside from the evidence that biotech’s ‘nextbig thing’ —seeds that emit multiple pesticides—may bedoomed to fail. An international team of researchers,including USDA and biotech scientists, found what theytermed ‘cross-resistance’ to these pesticides in[predatory] bugs exposed to the next-generation GMOseeds. Evidence, in other words, that GMO seeds arehitting a bug-covered wall.” The seeds don’t knock outthe plant pests. Continued on page 11-2 - Traditional African Clinic – July 2013

AFRIKAN SPIRITUALITYTombs of Buganda Kings atKasubiThe traditional shrine as a symbol of our cultural historyBrief DescriptionThe Tombs of Buganda Kings at Kasubi constitute a siteembracing almost 30 ha of hillside within Kampala district.Most of the site is agricultural, farmed by traditionalmethods. At its core on the hilltop is the former palace ofthe Kabakas of Buganda, built in 1882 and converted intothe royal burial ground in 1884. Four royal tombs now liewithin the Muzibu Azaala Mpanga, the main building,which is circular and surmounted by a dome. It is a majorexample of an architectural achievement in organicmaterials, principally wood, thatch, reed, wattle and daub.The site's main significance lies, however, in its intangiblevalues of belief, spirituality, continuity and identity.Outstanding Universal ValueBrief synthesisThe Tombs of Buganda Kings constitute a site embracing--------------------------Managing Editor: Nakato LewisPublisher: Kiwanuka R.G.LewisPublished monthly and freely by BHSN for the ATHR Clinichttp://www.blackherbals.com/athrc_newsletters.htm-3 - Traditional African Clinic – July 201326.8 hectares of Kasubi hillside within Kampala City.The site is the major spiritual centre for the Bagandawhere traditional and cultural practices have beenpreserved. The Kasubi Tombs are the most activereligious place in the kingdom, where rituals arefrequently performed. Its place as the burial groundfor the previous four kings (Kabakas) qualifies it as areligious centre for the royal family, a place wherethe Kabaka and his representatives carry outimportant rituals related to Buganda culture. The siterepresents a place where communication links withthe spiritual world are maintained.Its spatial organization, starting from the border ofthe site marked with the traditional bark cloth trees,leading through the gatehouse, the main courtyard,and culminating in the large thatched building,housing the tombs of the four Kabakas, represents thebest existing example of a Baganda palace/burial site.At its core on the hilltop is the main tomb building,locally referred to as the "Muzibu-Azaala-Mpanga"which is a masterpiece of this ensemble. A tombbuilding has been in existence since the 13 th century.The latest building was the former palace of theKabakas of Baganda, built in 1882 and convertedinto the royal burial ground in 1884. Four royaltombs now lie within the Muzibu-Azaala-Mpanga.The main tomb building, which is circular andsurmounted by a dome, is a major example of anarchitectural achievement that was raised with use ofvegetal materials comprised of wooden poles, speargrass, reeds and wattle. Its unusual scale andoutstanding details bear witness to the creative geniusof the Baganda and as a masterpiece of form andcraftsmanship, it is an exceptional surviving exampleof an architectural style developed by the powerfulBuganda Kingdom since the 13th Century.The built and natural elements of the Kasubi Tombssite are charged with historical, traditional, andContinued on page 93

African Traditional Herbal Research ClinicVolume 8, Issue 6 NEWSLETTER July 2013FEATURED ARTICLESPesticide Issues in the Food ChainPesticide Action Network - UKWhat are pesticides?We use the term pesticide to cover a wide range ofchemicals used to control insect pests (insecticides), plantdiseases (fungicides), weeds (herbicides), rats(rodenticides) or other unwanted organisms.Pesticides are one of the few groups of man-madechemicals that are designed to kill and deliberatelyreleased into the environment. You can tell this from theirname -the ending -cide literally means ‘killer’.Several pesticides were originally developed as nervetoxins to be used as instruments of war. When peacecame, their manufacturers found a ready new market forthese products as pest control agents.The insecticide DDT is probably the best-knownpesticide. It was used in huge quantities for three decadesafter World War Two as a miracle cure for many insectpests in agricultural crops and against household andmosquito pests until the first signs began to appear that itcould have harmful effects on many other animals.Rachel Carson published her famous book.“Silent Spring” in 1962 drew public attention to the factthat DDT was harming birds and lead to declines in theirpopulation. DDT has been banned for 20 years in Britainbut because it breaks down so slowly and builds up in thefatty tissue of all animals, it has left a toxic legacy aroundthe globe- traces of it can be found in polar bears andseals in the Arctic thousands of miles from where itwas sprayed. Almost everyone on the planet has DDTin their body and it gets passed to babies in breast milk.However, many other pesticides are far more‘poisonous’ in immediate terms, what we term acutelytoxic, as opposed to chronic effects that may take yearsbefore they turn into noticeable symptoms.People often don't realise that many pesticides can alsocause harm to human beings. Insecticides in theorganophosphate and carbamate groups work bydisrupting the nervous system. Unfortunately, the wayour nervous system works is very similar to the way itworks in insects and so we are vulnerable to the sameharmful effects.Take the example of chlorpyrifos, an insecticide used ina wide range of crops and in certain UK householdantkiller products. Symptoms of chlorpyrifos poisoningin humans include headache, nausea, dizziness, muscletwitching, weakness, increased sweating and salivation.At very high exposure levels, the damage to thenervous system can lead to unconsciousness,convulsions, respiratory failure and death. Serious andfatal pesticide poisonings occur frequently indeveloping countries, especially among peasant farmersand farm workers who often handle these toxicchemicals without any form of protective clothing.Between 3-25 million people are estimated toexperience some form of acute poisoning each yearworldwide. In industrialised countries, farm workersmust use protective equipment and there are restrictionson how insecticides like chlorpyrifos are handled soserious poisoning cases are much less common. Evenso, chlorpyrifos is one of the major causes of pesticidepoisoning in the US.Long term and low dose effectsLow doses of nerve toxin pesticides can also have moresubtle, longer term effects such as drowsiness,Continued on page 5-4 - Traditional African Clinic – July 2013

Continued from page 6 – Roundup, an Herbicide, Could BeLinked To Parkinson's, Cancer and Other Health IssuesOf the more than two dozen top herbicides on the market,glyphosate is the most popular. In 2007, as much as 185million pounds of glyphosate was used by U.S. farmers,double the amount used six years ago, according toEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) data.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/roundup-herbicidehealth-issues-disease_n_3156575.html☻☻☻☻☻☻Lethality of Roundup'Weedkiller' Extends BeyondPlants to Humans, StudySuggestsBy Sayer JiApril 25, 2013A shocking new study finds that glyphosate, the activeingredient in Roundup herbicide, "...may be the mostbiologically disruptive chemical in our environment,"capable of contributing to a wide range of fatal humandiseases.A new report published in the journal Entropy links theactive ingredient in Roundup herbicide known asglyphosate with a wide range of fatal diseases.[i]Glyphosate is the world's most popular herbicide and isdesigned to kill all but genetically modified "RoundupReady" plants, such as GM corn, soy, beet, cottonseedand canola. Over 180 million pounds of the chemical arenow applied to US soils each year,[ii] and whileagrichemical manufacturers and government regulatorshave considered it 'relatively safe,' an expanding body ofbiomedical research indicates that it may cause over 30distinct adverse health effects in exposed populations atfar lower concentrations than used in agriculturalapplications.The new report, authored by Stephanie Seneff, a researchscientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,and Anthony Samsel, a retired science consultant fromArthur D. Little, Inc., brings to the forefront concernsvoiced by an outspoken minority that Roundup andrelated glyphosate herbicide formulations arecontributing to diseases as far-ranging as inflammatorybowel disease, anorexia, cystic fibrosis, cancer,Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, and infertility. Infact, the authors propose that glyphosate, contrary tobeing essentially nontoxic, "...may be the mostbiologically disruptive chemical in our environment."7-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013The researchers identified the inhibition and/or disruptionof cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes as a hithertooverlooked mechanism of toxicity associated withglyphosate exposure in mammals.CYP enzymes are essential for detoxifying xenobioticchemicals from the body. Glyphosate therefore enhancesthe damaging effects of other food borne chemicalresidues and environmental toxins. The researchers alsoshowed how interference with CYP enzymes actssynergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis ofaromatic amino acids by gut bacteria (e.g. tryptophan), aswell as impairment in serum sulfate transport, a criticalbiological system for cellular detoxification (e.g.transulfuration pathway which detoxifies metals).These effect, according to the researchers, can contributeto causing or worsening "...most of the diseases andconditions associated with a Western diet which includegastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease,depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer'sdisease."This new report may help to explain why over 30 adversehealth effects associated with Roundup herbicideexposure have been identified in the peer-reviewed andpublished literature so far. The full report in PDF formcan be obtained here. Please help us spread thisinformation, as well as our Roundup Toxicity Researchand GMO Research pages, by sharing them with otherconcerned individuals and groups.Resources[i] Samsel A, Seneff S. Glyphosate's Suppression ofCytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis bythe Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases. Entropy.2013; 15(4):1416-1463.[ii] Huffingtonpost.com, Roundup, An Herbicide, Could BeLinked To Parkinson's, Cancer And Other Health Issues, StudyShowshttp://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/lethality-roundupweedkiller-may-extend-beyond-plants-humans-study-shows☻☻☻☻☻☻Insecticides Modified in GMCorn Polluting U.S. WatersBy Elizabeth RenterAugust 6, 2012Corn, a crop most likely to be genetically modified – with70 percent of corn engineered simply to drown inMonsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup - is castingoff its GMO contaminants into surrounding waterways,and likely making it into your drinking water. Accordingto researchers, the insecticides modified into the corn areContinued on page 9

African Traditional Herbal Research ClinicVolume 8, Issue 6 NEWSLETTER July 2013FEATURED ARTICLESAs Biotech Seed Falters, Insecticide Use SurgesIn Corn BeltBy Dan CharlesJuly 9, 2013Across the Midwestern corn belt, a familiar battle hasresumed, hidden in the soil. On one side are tiny, whitelarvae of the corn rootworm. On the other side arefarmers and the insect-killing arsenal of modernagriculture.We've reported on earlier phases of this battle: Thediscovery of rootworms resistant to one type ofgenetically engineered corn, and an appeal fromscientists for the government to limit the use of thisnew corn to preserve the effectiveness of its protectionagainst rootworm.It appears that farmers have gotten part of the message:Biotechnology alone will not solve their rootwormproblems. But instead of shifting away from those cornhybrids, or from corn altogether, many are doublingdown on insect-fighting technology, deploying morechemical pesticides than before. Companies likeSyngenta or AMVAC-Chemical that sell soilinsecticides for use in corn fields are reporting hugeincreases in sales: 50 or even 100 percent over the pasttwo years.This is a return to the old days, before biotech seedscame along, when farmers relied heavily on pesticides.For Dan Steiner, an independent crop consultant innortheastern Nebraska, it brings back bad memories."We used to get sick [from the chemicals]," he says."Because we'd always dig [in the soil] to see how thecorn's coming along. We didn't wear the gloves andeverything, and we'd kind of puke in the middle of theday. Well, I think we were low-dosing poison onourselves!"For a while, biotechnology came to his rescue. Biotechcompanies such as Monsanto spent many millions ofdollars creating and inserting genes that would makecorn plants poisonous to the corn rootworm butharmless to other creatures.The first corn hybrids containing such a gene went onsale in 2003. They were hugely popular, especially inplaces like northeastern Nebraska, where the rootwormhas been a major problem. Sales of soil insecticidesfell. "Ever since then, I'm like, hey, we feel good everyspring!" says Steiner.But all along, scientists wondered how long the goodtimes would last. Some argued that these genes — agift of nature — were being misused. (For a longerexplanation, read my post from two years ago.)Those inserted genes, derived from genes in a strain ofthe bacterial Bacillus thuringiensis, worked well for awhile. In fact, the Bt genes remain a rock-solid defenseagainst one pest, the European corn borer.In parts of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska,though, farmers are running into increasingproblems with corn rootworms."You never really know for sure, until that big rainevent with the strong wind, and then the next morningthe phone starts ringing [and people ask]: 'What's goingon out there?” says Steiner.Entire hillsides of corn, with no support from theireaten-away roots, may be blown flat.Monsanto has downplayed such reports, blamingextraordinary circumstances. But in a half-dozenuniversities around the Midwest, scientists are nowtrying to figure out whether, in fact, the Bt genes havelost their power.At the University of Nebraska, entomologist LanceMeinke is turning colonies of rootworms loose onpotted corn plants that contain different versions of theanti-rootworm gene, to see how well they survive.The larvae get to feed on the corn roots for about twoweeks. The soil from each pot then is dumped into aContinued on page 98-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 8 – As Biotech Seed Falters,Insecticide Use Surges In Corn Belt\David Wangila points to a tiny rootworm larva in the soilsurrounding the roots of a corn plant in his laboratory.Dan Charles/NPRkind of steel container. If the larvae are still alive, abright light will drive them into little glass jars filledwith alcohol. "They try to escape from the heat," saysDavid Wangila, a graduate student who is managingthis experiment.If the rootworm-fighting genes in the corn are workingwell, no larvae should emerge.But some have. Wangila points to one of the little glassjars. Inside, there are three nice plump corn rootwormlarvae.This is not good. Those insects, originally collectedfrom a cornfield in Nebraska, were feeding on cornthat contained the first rootworm-fighting gene thatMonsanto introduced ten years ago. Technically, it'sknown as the Cry 3Bb gene.Meinke and Wangila will compare the survival rate ofthese rootworms with others that have never beenexposed to Bt. They're looking for signs thatrootworms in the corn fields of Nebraska have evolvedresistance to genetically engineered crops.An identical experiment in Iowa, carried out more than ayear ago, found corn rootworms resistant to the Cry 3Bbgene.Nobody knows how widely those insects have spread, butfarmers aren't waiting to find out. Some are switching toother versions of biotech corn, containing anti-rootwormgenes that do still work. Others are going back topesticides.Steiner, the Nebraska crop consultant, usually argues foranother strategy: Starve the rootworms, he tells his clients.Just switch that field to another crop. "One rotation can doa lot of good," he says. "Go to beans, wheat, and oats. It'sthe No. 1 right thing to do."Insect experts say it's also likely to work better in the longrun.Meinke, who's been studying the corn rootworm fordecades, tells farmers that if they plant just corn, year afteryear, rootworms are likely to overwhelm any weaponsomeday.The problem, Meinke says, is that farmers are thinkingabout the money they can make today. "I think economicsare driving everything," he says. "Corn prices have been sohigh the last three years; everybody is trying to protectevery kernel. People are just really going for it right now, tobe as profitable as they can."As a result, they may just keep growing corn, fightingrootworms with insecticides — and there's a possibility thatthose chemicals will eventually stop working, too.http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/07/09/198051447/asbiotech-seed-falters-insecticide-use-surges-in-corn-belt☻☻☻☻☻☻Continued on page 7- Insecticides Modified in GMCorn Polluting U.S. Watersbeing detected in streams up to 500 meters away from cornfarms, and quite possibly further.The corn rootworm larvae in this glass jar survived on theroots of genetically engineered corn plants that weresupposed to kill these insects. Dan Charles/NPRThe research was conducted in the states of Iowa, Illinois,and Indiana, where corn fields are abundant. Scientistsfound the bacterial protein washed off the corn and directlyinto the streams. While they won’t say for certain what thismeans for human health, the consensus is that it can’t begood. Continued on page 109-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 9 –Insecticides Modified in GM CornPolluting U.S. WatersAccording to U.K.’s Independent, U.S. corn has a genefrom the Bacillus thuriengensis (BT) bacterium insertedinto it to repel bugs. This gene produced the Cry1Abprotein, which “has insecticidal properties.” It’s thisprotein that is being found in the water system.It’s believed the protein is making its way to the waterbecause of the practice of leaving plant material on thefield until the next season. This “no till” method is usedbecause it prevents erosion, but it also provides anopportunity for the potentially dangerous protein to bewashed away.And while the GM corn is a culprit in polluting ourwaters, research has pointed to GMO farming in generaland chemicals like glyphosate for being significantcauses of water pollution. One explosive study confirmedthat glyphosate, the active ingredient residing in the everso-popularRoundup product from Monsanto, is makingits way into groundwater across the nation throughwidespread contamination of aquifers, wells, and springs.Needless to say, this isn’t the first time Bt has been in thenews. This spring we reported on a study linking Btinsecticide to the death of human kidney cells.Despite this and other troubling news about GMO crops,the United States remains steadfast in its protectionagainst agri-giants like Monsanto, preferring to pleasethem rather than protect the people.In 2009, more than 85% of American corn crops weregenetically modified, but that number has likely increasedsince that time. All the while, other countries in Europedon’t even allow the GMO corn or at the very minimumlabel food sources that contain GMO ingredients. Nosimilar protections are provided in the United States.http://naturalsociety.com/insecticides-gm-corn-polluting-water/☻☻☻☻☻☻New Study Proves Bt Toxinsin GMOs Toxic to MammalianBloodAccording to a new study, the ‘Cry’ toxins thatMonsanto’s GMO crops have been genetically modifiedto produce are a lot more toxic to mammals thanpreviously thought, primarily to the blood.May 7, 2013Activist PostBy Fritz Kreiss10-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013Dr. Mezzomo and his team from the Department ofGenetics and Morphology at the Institute of BiologicalSciences, University of Brasilia recently performed andpublished a study done involving testing Bacillusthuringensis toxin (Bt toxin) on swiss albino mice. Thistoxin is the same one built into Monsanto’s GMO Btcrops such as corn and soy as a pesticide.While Bt toxin has been used quite safely inconventional and organic farming as an occasional sprayused when dealing with a pest problem, now it has beenengineered to be produced by and present throughout theinside of every cell and intercellular space of the plantsthemselves, which is why they chose to undertake thestudy.It should also be noted that as bacteria use lateraltransference of genetic material, making it a possibilityfor this genetic material to become part of the humanbody’s bacterial bouquet that we depend on for ourhealth (our bodies contain more bacteria cells thanhuman ones by number).…advances in genetic engineering promise theexpression of multiple Cry toxins in Bt-plants, known asgene pyramiding. Therefore, studies on non-targetspecies are requirements of international protocols toverify the adverse effects of these toxins, ensuringhuman and environmental biosafety.Due to its growing use in agricultural activities, Btpresence has already been detected in differentenvironmental compartments such as soil and water.Consequently, the bioavailability of Cry proteins hasincreased, and for biosafety reasons their adverse effectsmight be studied, mainly for non-target organisms.Studies are therefore needed to evaluate Bt toxicity tonon-target organisms; the persistence of Bt toxin and itsstability in aquatic environments; and the risks tohumans and animals exposed to potentially toxic levelsof Bt through their diet.Thus, we aimed to evaluate, in Swiss albino mice, thehematotoxicity and genotoxicity of four Bt sporecrystals…The scientists already knew that Bt toxin was very toxicand potentially deadly at levels above 270 milligramsper kilogram (basically ppm), so they instead testedlevels ranging from 27mg/kg, 136mg/kg, and 270mg/kgfor one to seven days (each of the Cry toxins wereseparated out and tested individually to maximizeaccuracy and total info). It was quite clear right off thebat that these Cry toxins were quite hemotoxic even atthe lowest level of 27mg/kg administered only one timeand one day as they clearly had damaged the blood,Continued on page 11

Continued from page 10 – New Study Proves Bt Toxins inGMOs Toxic to Mammalian Bloodparticularly in reference to red blood cells. The quantityand size of the erythrocytes (RBCs) were bothsignificantly reduced, as was the overall levels ofhemoglobin for which oxygen to attach to.All major factors regarding RBCs demonstrated somelevel of damage present for all levels of toxinadministered and across all Cry proteins, although therewere some clear variances present between differentproteins and levels for certain factors. The white bloodcell count was also quite noticeably raised, and asexpected it dramatically increased depending on theduration the subject was tested for.The tests clearly demonstrated that Cry proteins werecytotoxic to bone marrow cells, accounting for a portionof the measured effects. It should also be noted that aprevious study found that these proteins causedhemolysis (they killed blood cells) in vitro, particularlyseeming to target the cell membranes of red blood cells.Cry1Ab (the protein produced in common Bt corn andsoy) induced microcytic hypochromic anemia in mice,even at the lowest tested dose of 27 mg/Kg, and thistoxin has been detected in blood of non-pregnantwomen, pregnant women and their fetuses in Canada,supposedly exposed through diet [34]. These data, aswell as increased bioavailability of these MCA in theenvironment, reinforce the need for more research,especially given that little is known about sporecrystals’ adverse effects on non-target species.While Bt toxin is not known to bioaccumulate in fatcells and internal organs, it is of note that the studydemonstrated clearly that there was a significantincrease in measurable negative effects of the toxin astime progressed especially concerning the higher doses.Also of note was the increased inflammatory response,while it was quite minor, the scientists consider it to bestatistically significant due to the intricacies of theirchosen test subjects’ biology. No measurablegenotoxicity was found.The full results of the study and a more detailedexplanation can be found at, along with full citations forthis article:http://gmoevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/JHTD-1-104.pdfhttp://www.activistpost.com/2013/05/new-study-proves-bttoxins-in-gmos.html☻☻☻☻☻☻Continued from page 2 – Biotech’s Next Big Disaster:Seeds that Emit Multiple PesticidesYet the venerable journal Nature recently urged patience,because just over the next hill, the biotech giants willsurely succeed in bringing us better GMO crops.This reveals an underlying assumption about technology:when scientists discover a new way of doing things, it cannever be retracted; it will eventually work well;improvements will come.That false assumption sustains a tremendous amount offalse science, as well as profits, of course, for thecompanies involved.Just because medical researchers can come up with newchemo drugs that kill cells and destroy immune systems, itdoesn’t mean they have to.Despite failures along every front of GMO-cropproduction, despite the fact that predictions of higher cropyields and reduced use of pesticides and herbicides havefailed to materialize, Monsanto pushes on.Monsanto lies and pretends their work is an enormoussuccess. Their researchers, many of whom know thecatastrophic failure they are dealing with, neverthelesskeep going, keep telling themselves that this is science,and therefore it will ultimately succeed.Translation: The seven billion people of earth are theguinea pigs in a vast corporate experiment.Technocrats who envision trans-humans, a combine ofbrain and computerized brain, pin faith on the idea that,since brains can be hooked up to machines, they shouldbe. It’s “scientific progress,” and therefore it has tohappen.All this used to be called scientism, a massive overreachof misplaced faith, but now the word is largely defunct. Itwas too accurate. It nailed the obsession and showed howcrazy it was.Years ago, I was invited to give a lecture to an atheistgroup in Los Angeles. The topic was HIV research,because I had written a book about it, AIDS INC.I described the line of HIV research, and made a detailedcase for the fact that researchers had never proved HIVcaused a condition that was being called AIDS.My analysis was met with strong opposition. The groupwas unhappy.No problem. But it turned out their unhappiness wasbased on the notion that I was attacking science itself.And since they believed that’s what I was doing, theyContinued on page 1211-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 11- Biotech’s Next Big Disaster:Seeds that Emit Multiple Pesticideswere angry because, get this, if I was against science, Imust be for God. And they were atheists.Therefore, I had to be wrong.Their reaction mirrored 19 th century attitudes about therise of science. Its proponents felt they’d finally foundan antidote to religion, and therefore, anyone whocriticized science on any terms (e.g, flawed reasoning,bad data, bogus experiments) must be demanding areturn to the Church, the Inquisition, and burning at thestake.In the second half of the 20 th century, a new class ofpeople came into being. Amateurs who wanted topretend they were scientific thinkers. Even though theyknew nothing about what really went on in laboratories,they could spout a few pseudo-scientific truths and winfriends and influence people at cocktail parties andacademic confabs. They were “up on the latestdevelopments.”More and more, this also became the m.o. in media.Reporters, broadcasters, anchors, governmentspokespeople, and pundits issued proclamations aboutscience, without in fact having a clue about the truth orfalsity of what they were saying.We saw this (and still do), for example, in the area ofso-called climate science. Everyone is now an expert onglobal warming and its imminent threat to the planet.The evidence is “settled.” Well, that’s what thepresident said, so it must be right.After all, he personally knows all there is to knowabout methods of compiling historical temperaturerecords, about alternate periods of cooling andwarming, about computer modeling, about themathematics of climate prediction.Through cutouts, the White House has recentlylaunched a campaign to defame anyone who doubts orquestions or criticizes the manmade warminghypothesis. This is science by PR and intimidation.The very best medical researchers assured us thatSwine Flu was an emerging pandemic. In the spring of2009, on the basis of 20 cases of Swine Flu, and afterchanging the very definition of “pandemic,” so it nolonger needed to include “widespread death anddevastation,” the World Health Association declaredSwine Flu a level 6 pandemic, the most dangerousthreat level.Eventually, it turned out that Swine Flu was far lesssignificant than ordinary seasonal flu. But no meacul-pas emerged. No one admitted the hoax. No one steppedup and confessed.It was science, and science (and profits) had to beprotected, even and especially if it was wrong.Many of these science projects are designed, at thehighest level, as ops. The lies are told from the top, thedeceptions are arranged. But much, much support isgiven, at lower levels, by people who swallowgeneralities about science.They entertain delusions about science as a continuousmarch of progress which shouldn’t be interrupted. Theywill swear up and down they’re defending rationalthought, logic, and the experimental method, when infact they’re merely mouthing sentiment and propaganda.Monsanto, like a stage magician working a cheap club inVegas, says, “Look! We can insert genes in plants! Isn’tthat incredible?”And the rubes in the audience, enchanted by the trick,applaud, ready to support all the coming variations. Fortheir part, these yokels only want to be able to saythey’re on the cutting edge of science.Lower, not higher crop yields? Nutritionally deficientfood? Increased, not decreased use of pesticides andherbicides? Superweeds that don’t die under the assaultof Roundup, as advertised, but instead thrive and spread?Health problems for people consuming GMO food? Whocares? It’s the magic trick that counts.They can insert genes in plants. No one could do thatbefore. It’s got to be a good thing. You want proof? Nowthey can make the plant exude more than one pesticide.What a feat.Let’s eat.For those who continue to parrot the company/governmentline that there is no difference between GMO andconventional crops, and claim “that’s good science,” hereare smoking gun data from Mosanto’s own researchers.The data were uncovered by science writer BarbaraKeeler in 2000. Keeler published pieces in the WholeLife Times and the LA Times. The Whole Life Timespiece was titled: “Buried Data in Monsanto’s Study onRoundup Ready Beans.”Keeler discovered that, in 1994, when Monsantosubmitted studies to the FDA, to win approval for GMOsoybeans, highly significant data were hidden.Roundup Ready (RR) Monsanto beans contained 29%less choline than conventional non-GMO beans.Continued on page 1312-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued on page 12 - Biotech’s Next Big Disaster: Seeds thatEmit Multiple PesticidesRR beans contained “27% more trypsin inhibitor, anallergen that inhibits protein digestion, can retard growthin animals fed raw soybeans, and has been connected toenlarged cells in rat pancreases.”In data Monsanto failed to submit to the FDA, from itsPuerto Rico field trials, RR beans “were significantlylower in protein and the amino acid phenylalanine.”In retoasted RR soy meal, “levels of allergens calledlectins…almost doubled the levels [found] in controls[non-GMO meal].”In other words, there was quite enough evidence, in 1994,to halt the whole FDA approval process of Monsanto soy.It was there in Monsanto’s own studies. And it wasignored and buried.Now new biotech masterpieces are on the way. Plants thatemit multiple pesticides. We’re supposed to believe this isgood science that will do no harm.We’re in the technological age, and it’s all wonderful, andbecause we’re rational people, we should jump on thebandwagon.http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/biotechs-nextbig-disaster/☻☻☻☻☻☻Continued from page 5 – Pesticides Issues in theFood Chainthe European Commission acknowledged for the first timein 2003 that some nerve toxin residue levels foundoccasionally in certain fruits and vegetables could pose areal health risk to small children.Another concern about the long-term effects of certainpesticides in food is cancer. We cannot prove a definitelink between pesticide intake and cancer; however, theauthorities make decisions on whether to license aparticular pesticide or not taking into consideration resultsfrom laboratory animals if these suggest it might causecancer. If so, then they will not approve products thatcould possible cause one case of cancer per million people.One American study of residue levels suggested thatchildren under five could rapidly build up their cancer riskfrom residues in food in the first few years of life as theirfood intake is very different from that of adults.Other studies suggest that low-dose regular exposure topesticides in food, drink and the air in our homes could berelated to behavioural problems which are becoming morecommon in children, such as hyperactivity and attentiondeficit disorder, as well as memory and learning difficul-ties. These problems could also be caused by manyother chemicals in our environment and other factors,but pesticides may well play an important role. Ourscientific understanding is not good enough to beprecise about the risks.Why PAN UK isn’t happy with governmentreassurances(a) Safety assessments don’t properly protectvulnerable groupsOne of the main concerns is that the way that the riskfrom pesticides are calculated looks mainly at youraverage, healthy, 60kg man. Children under five maybe at much higher risk than adults, because they eatthree to four times more food per kilo of their bodyweight than an average adult. Their exposure to harmfulpesticides can be therefore be much greater, especiallywhen eating certain foods. Some of the most frequentlycontaminated and highest pesticide residue levels arefound in pears, apples, oranges and bananas -preciselythe foodstuffs we favour for young children, althoughthe government does consider children’s weight in itsassessment. But the fact that children are also far moresensitive to damage from pesticides because theirorgans are still developing isn’t factored into theequations. The government is looking more closely atpesticides consumed in different kinds of British diet(vegetarian, the elderly, different ethnic groups, etc.)but to date “safety” limits have not considered the mostvulnerable groups- the unborn child, pregnant andbreast-feeding women and the sick.The amounts of residues can vary widely between onefruit and another but in testing the procedure is to blendtogether a sample of 10 different apples and take theaverage from the mixture, then add a factor to considerthe possible variation. This may not be enough toprotect children- a recent UK study calculated thatevery day between 10-226 British under-fives could beeating more than the “safety” limit for a single day’sintake of certain nerve toxin pesticides just by eating asingle apple or pear with high residue levels Thisworrying scenario was calculated for children eatingdifferent amounts of apples- not for just for appleaddicts!(b) Are we doing enough testing to really get thepicture?What you find depends on what you look for. If you’renot monitoring very much, then you might not find verymuch. While only about 200 different pesticides can beused on British crops, worldwide over 800 may besprayed on crops and we eat a lot of imported food. YetContinued on page 1413-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued on page 13 – Pesticides in the Food Chainthe UK government only tests foodstuffs for amaximum of 150 pesticides, often it’s a lot fewer.We also have one of the lowest rates of residue testingin the whole of Europe in terms of number of samplesper head of population. The Danish government testsfive times as many food samples per person in theirpopulation than we do so maybe it’s not surprising thatthey find a higher percentage of Danish food iscontaminated. The UK government only looks at aselected number of foods each year, so we don’t haveyear on year data for most foods to show whetherresidue trends are going up or down.The exceptions are bread, milk and potatoes which aretested every year, but, again, we don’t sample enough toget an idea of how much pesticide we consume even onthese daily staples.(c) What happens when we eat food with a mixtureof different residues?We really have no idea of how the cocktail of differentpesticides consumed in our diet interact once inside thebody. Scientists do know that the potency of the mixtureof some toxic chemicals can be very much higher thanjust adding up the effect of the individual compoundsthemselves- this is particularly worrying for the groupof pesticides that act in similar ways on the nervoussystem. The US system now takes this into accountwhen setting safety levels but we’re lagging behind inEurope. Pesticide mixtures can also cause some nastysurprises- scientists discovered that neither theweedkiller paraquat nor the fungicide maneb alone hadany effect on the brain function of mice in thelaboratory. But when they put them together, they sawdamage similar to the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease.These kind of interactions are not considered at all ingovernment safety assessments and there is no limit setfor total daily intake of pesticides from all food sources.(d) As long as residues are below the legal limit,there’s no problem?The authorities always stress that the vast majority offood sampled does not exceed the legal limits forparticular pesticides in particular foodstuffs (these arecalled maximum residue levels). This means thatgovernment considers it acceptable to consume verysmall doses of pesticides every day as part of a dailydiet. The government also reassures us that thesemaximum residue levels are way below establishedsafety limits but this is not always true. We’ve looked atthe data and found that for 26 different pesticides whichmay be sprayed on apples, a toddler eating an applecontaining a residue at the legal limit would exceed thegovernment’s own level of what is considered “safe” to eatin one day’s intake of apples.Across Europe, governments do aim to re-assess currentlegal limits to make sure there is no chance of eating morethan the daily safety limit but the process is painfully slow.In the meantime, we are exposed to a daily cocktail ofdozens of different pesticides in our food, many of whichare known to cause long-term damage to different systemsof the human body. Nobody has any real idea of how muchpesticide the average British school child, for example, isconsuming every day in their food and drink, or how thisdose of poison might affect children’s development. Andwe don’t consider whether they might also be exposed topesticides applied at school, at home or in public places,all adding to the build up of toxic contamination. It’s timeto look much more closely at our daily diet of pesticidesand to demand action from our government and food andfarming companies to take these hidden ingredients out ofthe menu!References for this textDDT fact sheet. Pesticides News no.40, June 1998, p18-20Chlorpyrifos fact sheet, Pesticides News no.41, September 1998,p18-19The Pesticide Hazard: A global health and environmental audit .Barbara Dinham, PAN UK, 1993Chlorpyrifos faces severe restriction. Wayne Brittenden,Pesticides News No.49, September 2000, p16EA Traces Source of Ouse Fish Deaths, Report No 181,Environment Agency for England and Wales, 21 August 2001Hundreds of hazardous pesticides are still approved in Europe.C Wattiez and F Veillerette. Pesticides News No. 65, September2004, page 11Pesticides in food- what’s the problem? Briefing no. 3, PANEurope, London. September 2004Pesticides in your food. PAN UK http://www.panuk.org/poster.htmUK government tomato residue results. In; Pesticide residuemonitoring. Second quarter results April-June 2004, brand nameannex.http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/prc.asp?id=998Pesticides in the diet of infants and children. National ResearchCouncil, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1993.Have we lost our heads ? Neurotoxic residues harmful to thedeveloping brain of our children, Luijk R. and S. Schalk(Consumentenbond) and H. Muilerman (Stichting Natuur enMilieu), Utrecht, Netherlands, 2000.14-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013Monitoring of Pesticide Residues in Products of Plant Origin inthe European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtensten. 2002Report. SANCO/17/04 final, Health & Consumer ProtectionDirectorate General, European Commission, 2004.Continued on page 15

Continued frm page 14 - Pesticides in the Food Chainhttp://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/inspections/fnaoi/reports/annual_eu/index_en.htmlPesticides in children's food. Environmental Working Group,Washington, 1993.Rachel’s Environment & Health News #821-- EnvironmentalToxic ants and Developmental Disabilities, July 07, 2005http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/index.cfm?St=3Rachel’s Environment & Health News #810-811 -- HumanExposure and Health Hazards, Part 1 & 2, February 03,2005Modeling the dietary pesticides exposures of young children.Pennycook, FR et al., International Journal Occupational &Environmental Health 10 304-309, 2004.Hot on Parkinson’s trail. Scientists have amassed evidencethat long-term exposure to toxic compounds, especiallypesticides, can trigger the neurological disease. Marla Cone,The Los Angeles Times 27 November 2005http://www.panuk.org/archive/Projects/Food/Pesticide%20issues%20in%20the%20food%20chain.pdf☻☻☻☻☻☻Scientists link Pesticides &Biodiversity LossBy GroundTruthJuly 1, 2013Many scientists rank biodiversity loss very high on theirlist of urgent global concerns. Chemical contaminantshave long been understood as an important driver, butempirical evidence on a large scale has been sparse.A new study published in the Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences provides compelling datato fill this gap. Researchers found that biodiversitydropped in pesticide-laden streams in three countries:Germany, France and Australia.The study examines biological diversity data at both thespecies and taxonomic family level, and groups thestream sites into three “contamination categories”according to pesticide levels found through monitoring.Both family and species biodiversity decreasedsignificantly with increased pesticide contamination.Biodiversity loss in perspectiveFive great extinction events have reshaped earth in thepast 439 million years, each wiping out between halfand 95% of planetary life. The most recent was thekilling off of dinosaurs. Today, scientists tell us, we'reliving through a sixth great cataclysm.Seven in ten biologists believe that today's trajectorytoward mass extinction poses an even greater threat tohumanity than the global warming which contributes to it.So the value of studies identifying drivers of the trendcannot be overstated.This most recent research used a “species-at-risk” indicatorin the analysis, tagging species that previous studies haveidentified as particularly susceptible to pesticides. Astoxicity increased, so did the proportion of the sensitivespecies adversely impacted, in both Europe and Australia.Sites were screened for other environmental factors thatmight affect species diversity, and a second line of analysiswas used to determine whether other water quality factorscould be adversely affecting biodiversity.The researchers found no consistent link to other indicators,leaving pesticide contamination as the main driver ofbiodiversity loss.Prioritizing action on pesticidesThe authors called for more protective standards — and formore ecotoxicology investigations to cover large-scalepesticide applications, as these are most relevant to policyand real-world impacts.“The measurement of the environmental concentrations ofpesticides is difficult and expensive due to their episodicand low-level exposure and the multitude of substances.Therefore, the actual effects of pesticides can easily bemisattributed to other... drivers... which are betterunderstood and can be more easily investigated.”We know that pesticide drift and residues on our food aremajor routes of exposure that pose potential harms tohuman health. The fact that pesticides are bad for otherorganisms comes as no surprise.The question is, just how much evidence do we needlinking pesticides to broad ecological harms before webegin the wholesale shift to safer alternatives?http://www.panna.org/blog/scientists-link-pesticides-biodiversityloss☻☻☻☻☻☻News Releases fromHeadquarters (EPA)Release Date: May 28, 2013Wal-Mart Pleads Guilty To Federal Environmental CrimesAnd Civil Violations And Will Pay More Than $81 Million /Retailer admits violating criminal and civil laws designedto protect water quality and to ensure proper handling ofhazardous wastes and pesticidesContinued on page 1615-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 15 - News Releases from Headquarters(EPA)WASHINGTON – Wal-Mart Stores Inc. pleaded guiltytoday in cases filed by federal prosecutors in Los Angelesand San Francisco to six counts of violating the CleanWater Act by illegally handling and disposing ofhazardous materials at its retail stores across the UnitedStates. The Bentonville, Ark.-based company alsopleaded guilty today in Kansas City, Mo., to violating theFederal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act(FIFRA) by failing to properly handle pesticides that hadbeen returned by customers at its stores across thecountry.As a result of the three criminal cases brought by theJustice Department, as well as a related civil case filed bythe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Wal-Mart will pay approximately $81.6 million for itsunlawful conduct. Coupled with previous actions broughtby the states of California and Missouri for the sameconduct, Wal-Mart will pay a combined total of morethan $110 million to resolve cases alleging violations offederal and state environmental laws.According to documents filed in U.S. District Court inSan Francisco, from a date unknown until January 2006,Wal-Mart did not have a program in place and failed totrain its employees on proper hazardous wastemanagement and disposal practices at the store level. Asa result, hazardous wastes were either discardedimproperly at the store level – including being put intomunicipal trash bins or, if a liquid, poured into the localsewer system – or they were improperly transportedwithout proper safety documentation to one of sixproduct return centers located throughout the UnitedStates.“By improperly handling hazardous waste, pesticides andother materials in violation of federal laws, Wal-Mart putthe public and the environment at risk and gained anunfair economic advantage over other companies,” saidIgnacia S. Moreno, Assistant Attorney General for theJustice Department’s Environment and Natural ResourcesDivision. “Today, Wal-Mart acknowledged responsibilityfor violations of federal laws and will pay significantfines and penalties, which will, in part, fund importantenvironmental projects in the communities impacted bythe violations and help prevent future harm to theenvironment.”“Federal laws that address the proper handling, storageand disposal of hazardous wastes exist to safeguard ourenvironment and protect the public from harm,” saidAndré Birotte Jr., the U.S. Attorney for the CentralDistrict of California. “Retailers like Wal-Mart that16-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013generate hazardous waste have a duty to legally and safelydispose of that hazardous waste, and dumping it down thesink was neither legal nor safe. The case against Wal-Martis designed to ensure compliance with our nation’senvironmental laws now and in the future.”“As one of the largest retailers in the United States, Wal-Mart is responsible not only for the stock on its shelves,but also for the significant amount of hazardous materialsthat result from damaged products returned by customers,”said Melinda Haag, U.S. Attorney for the NorthernDistrict of California. “The crimes in these cases stemfrom Wal-Mart's failure to comply with the regulationsdesigned to ensure the proper handling, storage, anddisposal of those hazardous materials and waste. With itsguilty plea today, Wal-Mart is in a position to be anindustry leader by ensuring that not only Wal-Mart, but allretail stores properly handle their waste.”“This tough financial penalty holds Wal-Mart accountablefor its reckless and illegal business practices thatthreatened both the public and the environment,” saidTammy Dickinson, U.S. Attorney for the Western Districtof Missouri. “Truckloads of hazardous products, includingmore than 2 million pounds of pesticides, were improperlyhandled under Wal-Mart’s contract. Today’s criminal fineshould send a message to companies of all sizes that theywill be held accountable to follow federal environmentallaws. Additionally, Wal-Mart’s community servicepayment will fund important environmental projects inMissouri to help prevent such abuses in the future.”“The FBI holds all companies, regardless of size, to thesame standards,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge DavidJ. Johnson of the San Francisco Field Office. “We willcontinue to work closely with our law enforcementpartners to ensure there is a level playing field for allbusinesses and that everyone follows the rules.”“Today Wal-Mart is taking responsibility for violatinglaws that protect people from hazardous wastes andchemicals,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator forEPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.“Walmart is committing to safe handling of hazardouswastes at all of its facilities nationwide, and action thatwill benefit communities across the country.”Wal-Mart owns more than 4,000 stores nationwide thatsell thousands of products which are flammable, corrosive,reactive, toxic or otherwise hazardous under federal law.The products that contain hazardous materials includepesticides, solvents, detergents, paints, aerosols andcleaners. Once discarded, these products are consideredhazardous waste under federal law.Wal-Mart pleaded guilty this morning in San FranciscoContinued on page 17

Continued from page 16 – News Releases fromHeadquarters (EPA)to six misdemeanor counts of negligently violating theClean Water Act. The six criminal charges were filed bythe U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles and SanFrancisco (each office filed three charges), and the twocases were consolidated in the Northern District ofCalifornia, where the guilty pleas were formally enteredbefore U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. As part ofa plea agreement filed in California, Wal-Mart wassentenced to pay a $40 million criminal fine and anadditional $20 million that will fund various communityservice projects, including opening a $6 million RetailCompliance Assistance Center that will help retail storesacross the nation learn how to properly handle hazardouswaste.In the third criminal case resolved today, Wal-Martpleaded guilty in the Western District of Missouri toviolating FIFRA. According to a plea agreement filed inKansas City, beginning in 2006, Wal-Mart begansending certain damaged household products, includingregulated solid and liquid pesticides, from its six returncenters to Greenleaf LLC, a recycling facility located inNeosho, Mo., where the products were processed forreuse and resale. Because Wal-Mart employees failed toprovide adequate oversight of the pesticides sent toGreenleaf, regulated pesticides were mixed together andoffered for sale to customers without the requiredregistration, ingredients, or use information, whichconstitutes a violation of FIFRA. Between July 2006 andFebruary 2008, Wal-Mart trucked more than 2 millionpounds of regulated pesticides and additional householdproducts from its various return centers to Greenleaf. InNovember 2008, Greenleaf was also convicted of aFIFRA violation and paid a criminal penalty of $200,000in 2009.Pursuant to the plea agreement filed in Missouri andaccepted today by U.S. District Judge John T.Maughmer, Wal-Mart agreed to pay a criminal fine of$11 million and to pay another $3 million to theMissouri Department of Natural Resources, which willgo to that agency’s Hazardous Waste Program and willbe used to fund further inspections and education onpesticide regulations for regulators, the regulatedcommunity and the public. In addition, Wal-Mart hasalready spent more than $3.4 million to properly removeand dispose of all hazardous material from Greenleaf’sfacility.In conjunction with today’s guilty pleas in the threecriminal cases, Wal-Mart has agreed to pay a $7.628million civil penalty that will resolve civil violations ofFIFRA and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA). In addition to the civil penalties, Wal-Mart isrequired to implement a comprehensive, nationwideenvironmental compliance agreement to managehazardous waste generated at its stores. The agreementincludes requirements to ensure adequate environmentalpersonnel and training at all levels of the company,proper identification and management of hazardouswastes, and the development and implementation ofEnvironmental Management Systems at its stores andreturn centers.Compliance with this agreement is a condition ofprobation imposed in the criminal cases.The criminal cases announced today are a result ofinvestigations conducted by the FBI and the EPA, whichreceived substantial assistance from the CaliforniaDepartment of Substance and Toxics Control, and theMissouri Department of Natural Resources.In Missouri, the case was prosecuted by Deputy U.S.Attorney Gene Porter and ENRD Senior Trial AttorneyJennifer Whitfield of the Environmental Crimes Sectionof the Environment and Natural Resources Division. InCalifornia, the cases were prosecuted in Los Angeles byAssistant U.S. Attorney Joseph O. Johns and in SanFrancisco by Assistant U.S. Attorney Stacey Geis.More information about the case: URLhttp://www.epa.gov/enforcement/waste/cases/walmart.html☻☻☻☻☻☻GE’s Dirty Little SecretBy Marcia Ishii-EitemanOctober 4, 2012As a scientist at Pesticide Action Network, I amfrequently asked these days to explain what geneticallyengineered (GE) crops have to do with pesticides. When Ianswer that GE crops both contain and drive up pesticideuse, I am often met with earnest incredulity. We seem toneed to believe that GE technology is the best thing sincesliced bread.On a radio program just last week, a caller voiced hisgenuine hopes to me that GE crops would provide a greensolution to the woes of the world since he’d heard thatthese crops increase yield, cure blindness and reducepesticide use. I was sorry to have to disappoint him on allcounts, since GE crops have consistently failed toimprove yield, have done nothing to date for Vitamin Adeficiency-related blindness and have driven increases inpesticide use since their introduction some sixteen yearsago.Continued on page 1817-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 17 – GE’s Dirty Little SecretOn this last point, a new study on GE crops out lastweek added yet more weight to the body of evidencecontradicting the GE crop industry’s long-standingmyth. Published Friday in the journal EnvironmentalSciences Europe, the Washington State University(WSU) study offers a simple but devastating finding:GE seeds dramatically increase pesticide use, and thatuse will grow unless we change the course of our foodand farming system.So here it is, the pesticide industry’s dirty little secret:GE seeds are no green solution to the world’s foodneeds, but are rather the growth engine of the world’sbiggest pesticide companies. In point of fact, the latestwave of GE crops is expected to drive a 25-fold increasein the use of one particularly nasty pesticide (2,4-D) incorn over the next seven years.Analyzing USDA data, the study—authored by WSUresearch professor Charles Benbrook, a former NationalAcademy of Sciences’ executive director—shows thatGE crops have driven up overall pesticide use across thecountry, with 400 million more pounds applied from1996 to 2011. Just last year, GE crops used 20 percentmore pesticides on average than non-GE crops. Theadoption of herbicide-resistant crop technology has beenthe primary driver, contributing to a 527 million poundincrease in herbicide use during the same period. Andthe increase in pesticide use is expected to continue, ifUSDA approves the next wave of GE herbicide-resistantcrops.The next cycle of the treadmill is especially frightening.2,4-D-resistant corn is the first in a new flood ofindustry products currently under consideration byUSDA. If the agency approves it and other 2,4-D crops,use of this hazardous pesticide in corn is expect to surge25-fold over the next seven years, putting farms, farmersand rural communities in harm’s way. The chemical hasbeen linked to birth defects, neurological damage andcancer, and children are especially susceptible to itseffects. For these reasons, 70 medical doctors and healthprofessionals joined Pesticide Action Network thissummer in urging EPA to reject Dow AgroScience’sapplication for new uses of 2,4-D.What now?Monsanto, Dow and other major pesticide companiesstand to benefit the most from the continued use ofglyphosate and surge in 2,4-D and other chemical salesthat will accompany the next round of herbicide-basedGE crops. So it should come as no surprise that thelargest opponents of California’s ‘Right to Know’ ballotinitiative to label GE foods are the pesticide companies,together spending nearly $20 million to blanket theairwaves with false and misleading ads about the initiative.I am heartened, however, by recent polls showingCalifornians resolute in their demand that GE food belabeled.Of even greater importance, perhaps, is the fact that peopleare asking serious questions about this technology, and itsplace in our food and farming systems. Finally we arehaving a genuine public conversation about geneticengineering, pesticides, our health, our rights and whoshould control what we eat and how we grow our food:corporations or communities. True, we should have had thisconversation sixteen years ago, before the first GE seedswere ushered to market by our public agencies, withoutadequate safety or efficacy testing. But here and now is stilla very good place to start.Additional resources for editors and reporters:• Summary of existing research on genetic engineering.• Additional information on 2,4-D corn and the othergenetically engineered crops in the pipeline.• Major findings and summary of new report fromWashington State Universityhttp://www.panna.org/blog/ge-dirty-little-secret☻☻☻☻☻☻Warning: Genetically Modified“Agent Orange Corn” Comingsoon to a Plate near YouBy Carolanne Wright14 July 2013Remember Agent Orange, the herbicide sprayed inVietnam linked with devastating birth defects, cancer andParkinson’s disease?Dow AgroSciences would like to feed this toxic chemicalto the American population via a new breed of geneticallymodified corn. If the corporation has its way, “AgentOrange corn” will arrive on dinner plates across the U.S. asearly as 2014.Poisonous history of Agent OrangeDa Thi Kieu experienced the deadly effects of AgentOrange first hand. During the Vietnam War, the U.S.military sprayed her fields with the herbicide. Likewise, herhusband was exposed when he fought in the army and diedan early death due to cancers associated with the toxin. Oftheir eight children, seven were born with birth defects andonly two survived.Continued on page 2718-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

African Traditional Herbal Research ClinicVolume 8, Issue 6 NEWSLETTER July 2013FEATURED ARTICLESGlyphosate (Roundup) Carcinogenic In thePARTS PER TRILLION RangeBy Sayer JiWake up World, June 24, 2013An alarming new study finds that glyphosate, theactive ingredient in Roundup weedkiller, isestrogenic and drives breast cancer cellproliferation in the parts-per-trillion range. Doesthis help explain the massive mammary tumors thatthe only long term animal feeding study onRoundup and GM corn ever performed recentlyfound?An alarming new study, accepted for publication inthe journal Food and Chemical Toxicology lastmonth, indicates that glyphosate, the world’s mostwidely used herbicide due to its widespread use ingenetically engineered agriculture, is capable ofdriving estrogen receptor mediated breast cancer cellproliferation within the infinitesimal parts pertrillion concentration range.[i]The study, titled, “Glyphosate induces human breastcancer cells growth via estrogen receptors,”compared the effect of glyphosate on hormonedependentand hormone-independent breast cancercell lines, finding that glyphosate stimulateshormone-dependent cancer cell lines in what thestudy authors describe as “low and environmentallyrelevant concentrations.”The results were broken down by the researchers asfollows:Glyphosate induces T47D, hormone dependent breastcancer cell growth.The proliferative effect of glyphosate is mediated viaestrogen receptors.Glyphosate induces ERE [Estrogen ResponseElement]-transcription activity via estrogen receptors.Glyphosate modulates the expression of E[strogen]R[eceptor] α and E[estrogen] R[eceptor]β in humanbreast cancer cells.These effects indicate that glyphosate is a‘xenoestrogen,’ capable of inducing EstrogenResponse Elements (EREs) in a manner, slightlyweaker but functionally similar to the most potenthuman estrogen Estradiol (E2).More concerning is the discovery that infinitesimalglyphosate concentrations in the parts-per-trillionrage (10 to the minus 12) had proliferative(carcinogenic) effects on the studied T47D breastcancer cells line:In this study, we found that glyphosate at a loginterval concentration ranging from 10-12 to 10-6 Mincreased the cell proliferation of a hormornedependent breast cancer T47D cell…The researchers also discovered that the naturallyoccurring phytoestrogen in soybean known asgenistein, produced “an additive estrogenic effect”when combined with glyphosate, raising the seriousquestion as to whether GMO soybeans arecontributing to the epidemic levels of breastcancer within countries like the US where they areconsumed in relatively high quantities.It should be noted that the concentrations used todetermine the interactive effects of glyphosate andphytoestrogen genistein in this study were modeled“as in a real world situation” by using informationobtained from studies that assayed the respectivelevels of genistein and glyphosate in GM soybeans,as well as human plasma and urine concentrationsfollowing their consumption and/or exposure. Forinstance, glyphosate concentrations have beendetected within human urine within the 0.1 – 233parts per billion range on the lowest end, and anestimated systemic dose of 0.004 mg/kg on the highend.Continued on page 2019-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 19 – Glyphosate (Roundup)Carcinogenic In the PARTS PER TRILLION RangeThe authors stated:This finding should raise concern about the existence ofmore than one xenoestrogen such as phytoestrogen andcontaminants in plant derived food which may bebeneficial or harmful depending on the hormonal andpathological status of consumers. This study impliedthat the additive effect of glyphosate and genistein inpostmenopausal woman may induce cancer cellgrowth. In this present in vitro study, we showed anestrogenicity of pure glyphosate. In summary, we foundthat glyphosate exhibited a weaker estrogenic activitythan estradiol. Furthermore, this study demonstrated theadditive estrogenic effects of glyphosate and genisteinwhich implied that the use of glyphosate-contaminatedsoybean products as dietary supplements may pose arisk of breast cancer because of their potential additiveestrogenicity.” [emphasis added]This finding is relevant to virtually anyone whoconsumes genetically modified food today. GM crops,which are designed to survive glyphosate poisoning bybeing genetically engineered with ‘glyphosateresistance”(i.e. RoundUp Ready), are universallycontaminated with glyphosate and its toxic metaboliteAMPA. Furthermore, glyphosate pollution andexposure is now omnipresent, with one 2011 studyfinding glyphosate in 60-100% of all US air and rainsamples tested, and another 2012 study findingthat glyphosate widely contaminates groundwater,which is the water located beneath the ground surface,that supplies aquifers, wells and springs. It is thereforevirtually impossible to hermetically seal yourself offfrom the growing global environmental threat by onlyconsuming “certified organic” food. The time has cometo face the fact that unless there is a systemic change inthe way our GM, petrochemically-driven monoculturedfood production system operates, we will all experiencea great deal of harm.GM Food/Roundup Breast Cancer Link AlreadyFirmly EstablishedThis latest study is not the only compelling evidencethat there is a Roundup-Breast Cancer link. In aprevious article titled, “Will the GMO-Breast CancerLink Be Pinkwashed Away?“, we addressed thedisturbing implications of the first long-term GM andRoundup animal feeding study produced by Gilles-ÉricSéralini’s research team last November, and whichfound that after 90 days (the temporal thresholdbeneath which all previous biotech industry funded GMfood safety studies end) the animals began to showdisturbing signs of systemic organ damage, failure andcancer. More pointedly, Séralini’s team observed that theanimals developed massive, estrogen-dependent mammarytumors:“Suffering inducing euthanasia and deathscorresponded mostly in females to the development oflarge mammary tumors. These appeared to be clearlyrelated to the various treatments when compared to thecontrol groups. These tumors are generally known tobe mostly estrogen-dependent (Harvell et al., 2000).We observed a strikingly marked induction of mammarytumors by R[roundup] alone, a major formulatedpesticide, even at the very lowest dose administered.R[oundup] has been shown to disrupt aromatase whichsynthesizes estrogens (Richard et al., 2005)… [pg. 9]”Could the results of this latest study help explain themolecular mechanism behind this finding?Article Sources[i] Siriporn Thongprakaisang, Apinya Thiantanawat,Nuchanart Rangkadilok, Tawit Suriyo, JutamaadSatayavivad. Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cellsgrowth via estrogen receptors. Food Chem Toxicol. 2013 Jun 8.Epub 2013 Jun 8. PMID: 23756170d Satayavivad. Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cellsgrowth via estrogen receptors. Food Chem Toxicol. 2013 Jun 8.Epub 2013 Jun 8. PMID: 23756170http://wakeup-world.com/2013/06/24/glyphosate-roundupcarcinogenic-in-the-parts-per-trillion-range/☻☻☻☻☻☻Toxic Shock: Californiaallows up to One ThousandTimes more Glyphosate inDrinking Water than neededto cause Breast Cancer inWomenBy Mike AdamsJune 17, 2013(NaturalNews) Late last week, a story broke that revealedglyphosate -- the chemical name of Roundup herbicide --multiplies the proliferation of breast cancer cells by 500%to 1300%... even at exposures of just a few parts pertrillion (ppt).The study, published in Food and Chemical Toxicology,is entitled, "Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cellsgrowth via estrogen receptors." You can read the abstracthere. Continued on page 2120-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 20 – Toxic ShockThere's a whole lot more to this story, however, but to follow it,you need to understand these terms:ppm = parts per million = 10 (-6) = number of parts out ofa millionppb = parts per billion = 10 (-9), which is 1,000 timessmaller than ppmppt = parts per trillion = 10 (-12), which is 1,000 timessmaller than ppb and 1,000,000 times smaller than ppmThe study found that breast cancer cell proliferation isaccelerated by glyphosate in extremely low concentrations:ppt to ppb. The greatest effect was observed in the ppbrange, including single-digit ppb such as 1 ppb.This news, all by itself, sent shockwaves across the 'net allweekend. Women were asking things like: "You mean totell me that glyphosate residues on crops in just ppt or ppbconcentrations can give me breast cancer?" It doesn'texactly translate like that. It depends on how much you eatvs. your body mass (nanograms of glyphosate per kilogramof body weight). But with ridiculously small amounts ofthis chemical now being correlated to cancer cellproliferation, you don't have to eat much at all in order toput yourself at risk.But it's not just eating glyphosate that's the problem.You're also DRINKING it.California allows 1,000 ppb of glyphosate in drinkingwaterIn December of 1997, California released its Glyphosate inDrinking Water California Public Health Goal (PHG)document. You can view the document yourself at:http://oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/glypho_c.pdfThe document openly admits:Glyphosate is a non-selective systemic herbicide used inagriculture, rights-of-way and aquatic systems. Exposure toglyphosate may occur from its normal use due to drift,residues in food crops and from runoff into potentialdrinking water sources.It then goes on to state something borrowed straight fromMonsanto's quack science team: "Glyphosate is notmutagenic or teratogenic and there is no evidence forreproductive toxicity in multigeneration studies in rats."Based on this blatant lie, California set an upper limit of"1.0 mg/L (1,000 ppb) for glyphosate in drinking water."Yes, that's 1,000 times higher than the amount now shownto cause a 500% to 1300% increase in cancer cellproliferation.What's even more shocking is that California's allowableexposure level was nearly 50% HIGHER than thefederal (EPA) level -- 700 ppb.Yes, California -- the state where more people areconcerned about GMOs than seemingly anywhere else --actually used Monsanto-sounding language in its"official" report that set a higher water contaminationlevel than the federal government!Glyphosate carcinotoxicity was documented yearsearlierEven though California released this document in 1997,the state was already willfully ignoring a growing body ofscientific evidence documenting glyphosate toxicity. Forexample, a study published two years earlier -- in 1995 --in the Journal of Pesticide Reform (Volume 15, Number3, Fall 1995) written by Caroline Cox concluded:Glyphosate-containing products are acutely toxic toanimals, including humans. ...In animal studies, feedingof glyphosate for three months caused reduced weightgain, diarrhea, and salivary gland lesions. Lifetimefeeding of glyphosate caused excess growth and death ofliver cells, cataracts and lens degeneration, and increasesin the frequency of thyroid, pancreas, and liver tumors.Glyphosate-containing products have caused geneticdamage in human blood cells... reduced sperm counts inmale rats... an increase in fetal loss...In other words, California knew -- or should have known-- that glyphosate was harmful to humans. But theCalifornia government willfully ignored this evidence andseemingly went out of its way to incorporate deceptiveMonsanto spin into its "Public Health Goal" documents,thereby allowing 1,000 times higher levels of glyphosatein drinking water than we now know to cause cancer cellproliferation.Ten years later, California lowers its level by just 10%Fast forward to 2007. After a public comment periodwhich was no doubt dominated by disinfo-spewingMonsanto trolls, the state of California issued an updatedPublic Health Goal (PHG) document.You can view that document here:http://oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/080406dglyphosate.pdfIt concludes that the allowable glyphosate exposure for allCalifornians should be lowered to 900 ppb -- still ninehundred times higher than the amount needed toaccelerate cancer cell growth as we see in the studyreleased last week.This 2007 document from the California government alsoborrows language that sounds like it's right out ofMonsanto's P.R. department: "Based on the genotoxicityContinued on page 2221-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 20 –Toxic Shockand carcinogenicity study results, glyphosate is not likelyto pose a cancer hazard to humans," it says.Now the evidence is becoming clear: Monsanto'schemicals are killing womenNow it's 2013. We've seen the horrific results of theGMO rat study revealing the growth of massive tumorsin rats exposed to GMOs and Roundup (glyphosate).We've also now seen the "parts per trillion" studyshowing cancer cell proliferation being caused by ultralowconcentrations of glyphosate.We also know the biotech industry has gone to ridiculouslengths to spread disinfo on all this -- to try to discreditscientists who speak out against GMOs and glyphosate,to get scientists blackballed from the industry, and to buyoff politicians and members of the press to make surethere is no coverage granted to any scientific studiesreporting the dangers of genetically modified crops (andtheir related chemical herbicides).Glyphosate is the new DDTBased on what we're seeing now, I believe glyphosate isthe most toxic chemical that has ever been widelydeployed across our food supply. Glyphosate is the newDDT, and it's contaminating our waterways, soils, foodand bodies.Furthermore, the California government has clearly beencomplicit in allowing extremely high levels of glyphosateto contaminate the public drink water, thereby causingtens of millions of Californians to be poisoned withconcentrations of glyphosate that promote cancer cellgrowth.And what will the California government tell you nowthat the truth has come out? Now that they've allowedtheir own population to be exposed to a thousand timesthe concentration needed to accelerate the growth ofcancer tumors?"Run for the cure!" And don't label GMOs, either,because you don't have a right to know whether you'reeating deadly poison in your food.Join the Monsanto Video Revolt, July 24, 2013Take part in the global video revolt against Monsanto.Learn more at:www.MonsantoVideoRevolt.comhttp://www.naturalnews.com/040808_glyphosate_breast_cancer_drinking_water.html☻☻☻☻☻☻Is Monsanto's HerbicideHarming Male Fertility?By Sayer JiMay 19, 2012In a disturbing new study published last month (Dec.2011) in the Journal of Toxicology in Vitro, researchersfound that Monsanto's popular "weed killer" known asRoundup, which has already been linked to over 25adverse health effects, is also capable of interfering withand/or harming the male reproductive system.Researchers tested Roundup, a glyphosate-basedherbicide, on mature rat testicular cells at a concentrationrange between 1 and 10,000 ppm, which they describedas "the range in some human urine and in environment toagricultural levels." They found that within 1 to 48 hoursof Roundup exposure testicular (Leydig) cells weredamaged or killed.What is more disturbing is that even at a lower,presumably "non toxic" concentration of 1 ppm ofRoundup, or glyphosate by itself, testosteroneconcentrations were observed to decrease by 35%.Keep in mind that 1 ppm of Roundup is an infinitesimalContinued on page 2322-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 22 - Is Monsanto's Herbicide HarmingMale Fertility?concentration. Distilled water, as a reference point,contains between 5-10 ppm of dissolved solids. How cansuch a small concentration of Roundup/glyphosate causesuch a profound disruption of biological activity intesticular cells? The phenomenon is known as endocrinedisruption.Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that interfere with the"synthesis, secretion, transport, binding, action, orelimination of natural hormones in the body that areresponsible for development, behavior, fertility, andmaintenance of homeostasis (normal cell metabolism),"and are capable of interfering with hormonal health evenin minute concentrations.Whereas a higher concentration of Roundup might resultin immediate cell death, a much lower one can alter thehormonal and genetic expression of that cell, perhapstaking it down the path towards pathological dysfunction,or even cancer.There are already 16 studies in the biomedical literatureindicating that glyphosate acts an an endocrinedisruptor, with a 2010 paper revealing that prepubertalexposure to commercial formulation of the herbicideglyphosate alters testosterone levels and testicularmorphology. Also, cell research from 2009 indicates thatconcentrations of glyphosate as low as 500 parts perbillion may disrupt endocrine function, underscoringjust serious the problem of low-dose exposure really is.Ultimately, the connection between Roundup/glyphosateand endocrine disruption is not simply theoretical. Mostof us in the industrialized world are already beingexposed to significant concentrations in our air, rain,drinking water and food. Mass herbicide exposure isjust one form of fall-out from what is perhaps the largestexample of mass human experimentation ever conducted:the global co-option of the world's food supply (andmodes of food production) by chemical and biotechcompanies. We did not give our consent to thisexperiment, nor were we fully informed -- glaringevidence that our human rights were violated.Only through raising awareness will we be able to turnthe tide against the ceaseless chemical and biologicalassault against our health articulated through companieslike Monsanto and Dow AgroScience.http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/monsantos-herbicideharming-male-fertility☻☻☻☻☻☻Roundup is tied to Infertilityand Cancer; Herbicide’sMaker calls it SafeBy Carey GillamApril 29, 2013Heavy use of the world’s most popular herbicide,Roundup, may be linked to a range of health problemsand diseases, including Parkinson’s, infertility andcancers, according to a new study.The report, published this month in the online journalEntropy, said evidence indicates that residues ofglyphosate, the chief ingredient in Roundup and otherweedkillers, has been found in food.Those residues enhance the damaging effects of otherfood-borne chemical residues and toxins in theenvironment to disrupt normal body functions andinduce disease, according to the report, authored byStephanie Seneff, a research scientist at theMassachusetts Institute of Technology, and AnthonySamsel, a retired science consultant from themanagement consulting firm Arthur D. Little and amember of the Union of Concerned Scientists, anadvocacy group.“Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifestsslowly over time as inflammation damages cellularsystems throughout the body,” the study says.We “have hit upon something very important that needsto be taken seriously and further investigated,” Seneffsaid.Environmentalists, consumer groups and plant scientistsfrom several countries have warned that heavy use ofglyphosate is causing problems for plants, people andanimals.The EPA is conducting a standard registration review ofglyphosate and has set a deadline of 2015 fordetermining if its use should be limited. The study isamong many comments submitted to the agency.Monsanto is the developer of both Roundup herbicideand of crops that are genetically altered to withstandbeing sprayed with the weedkiller.These biotech crops, including corn, soybeans, canolaand sugarbeets, are planted on millions of acres in theUnited States annually. Farmers like them because theycan spray Roundup directly on the crops to kill weeds inthe fields without harming the crops.Continued on page 2423-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 23- Roundup is tied to Infertility andCancer; Herbicide’s Maker calls it SafeRoundup is also used on lawns, gardens and golf courses.Monsanto and other leading industry experts have saidfor years that glyphosate is proven safe and has a lessdamaging impact on the environment than othercommonly used chemicals.Jerry Steiner, Monsanto’s executive vice president ofsustainability, reiterated that when questioned about thenew study.“We are very confident in the long track record thatglyphosate has. It has been very, very extensivelystudied,” he said.Of the more than two dozen top herbicides on the market,glyphosate is the most popular. In 2007, as much as 185million pounds of glyphosate were used by U.S. farmers,twice the amount used six years ago, according toEnvironmental Protection Agency data.http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-29/national/38895115_1_glyphosate-roundup-herbicidemonsanto☻☻☻☻☻☻Weed Killer GlyphosateFound in Human Urineacross EuropeJune 18, 2013Digital JournalBy Anne SewellFriends of the Earth Europe (FoE) commissioned a seriesof urine tests on people in 18 countries across Europe.The results were released on Thursday and FoE is asking,“Why is there weed killer in our bodies?”The findings from these tests raise serious concerns aboutthe increasing levels of exposure to glyphosate-basedweed killers, which are commonly used by farmers,public authorities and gardeners across Europe. What isworrying is that should more genetically modified (GM)crops be grown in Europe, the use of glyphosate ispredicted to rise even further. According to FoE, despitethe widespread use of the weed killer, there is littlemonitoring of glyphosate at present in food, water or thewider environment.The FoE test is the first of its kind in Europe to test forthe presence of the weed killer in human bodies.Spokesperson for Friends of the Earth Europe, AdrianBebb said on their website: “Most people will be worriedto discover they may have weed killer in their bodies. Wetested people living in cities in 18 countries and foundtraces in every country. These results suggest we arebeing exposed to glyphosate in our everyday lives, yet wedon’t know where it is coming from, how widespread it isin the environment, or what it is doing to our health.“Our testing highlights a serious lack of action by publicauthorities across Europe and indicates that this weedkiller is being widely overused. Governments need tostep-up their monitoring and bring in urgent measures toreduce its use. This includes rejecting any geneticallymodified crops that would increase the use ofglyphosate.”The group is calling on the EU to urgently investigatehow glyphosate is finding its way into people’s bodies.They are demanding that there is an increase in the levelsof monitoring in the environment, food and water. Theyalso demand immediate restrictions on the use ofglyphosate across Europe.The laboratory tests were run between March and May2013 on urine samples from volunteers in 18 countriesacross the European Union. On average, 44% of thesamples contained glyphosate. The proportion ofglyphosate found in the samples varied betweencountries, with Malta, Germany, the UK and Polandhaving the most positive tests, and lower levels detectedin Macedonia and Switzerland.The volunteers who were tested and provided samples alllive in cities. None of them had handled or usedglyphosate products in the run-up to the tests. Monsantois the largest producer of glyphosate, and the corporationsells it under the brand name “Roundup.”The product is used on many genetically modified crops.At present, there are 14 new GM crops, designed forcultivation with glyphosate, awaiting approval to begrown in Europe. Should these additional crops beapproved, this would inevitably lead to a further increaseof glyphosate spraying in the EU.The product is used on many genetically modified crops.Continued on page 2524-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 24 - Weed Killer Glyphosate Found inHuman Urine across EuropeAt present, there are 14 new GM crops, designed forcultivation with glyphosate, awaiting approval to begrown in Europe. Should these additional crops beapproved, this would inevitably lead to a further increaseof glyphosate spraying in the EU.The full results of ‘Determination of Glyphosate residuesin human urine samples from 18 European countries’ byMedical Laboratory Bremen are available online.More detail of the samples used: Urine samples werecollected from volunteers in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria,Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Georgia,Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Macedonia, Malta, Poland,Spain, Switzerland, The Netherlands, and the UK. A totalof 80/182 samples tested were found to containglyphosate. Volunteers were all city-dwellers andincluded vegetarian and non-vegetarian diets. No twosamples were tested from the same household. Thesamples were analysed by Dr Hoppe at MedicalLaboratory Bremen in Germany.”However, according to Farmers Weekly magazine, UKscientists who reviewed the study said its findings were“unreliable.” The magazine quoted Alison Haughton,head of the pollination ecology group at RothamstedResearch, as saying: “This is not good science – I cannotfind where the methodology and results are published[note they are published here], and so it is impossible toassess the robustness of the work.”“If FoE and GM Freeze want their work to have scientificcredibility, and provide a genuine contribution to thedebate on pesticide residues, then they should submittheir work for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.”“As it stands, this press release is completelyinsubstantial, it is not scientific, and cannot be takenseriously by anyone.”And apparently Monsanto insists that glyphosate “doesnot pose any unacceptable risk to human health or theenvironment”. “It is not surprising to find glyphosate inurine should a person ingest food with low residues ofglyphosate. Glyphosate is not metabolized by the humanbody but excreted into the urine and faeces. This is awell-known aspect of glyphosate that contributes to itscomprehensive safety assessment,” Monsanto’sspokesperson told the magazine. “We always take anyallegation seriously and would like to know more,” headded.http://www.cornucopia.org/2013/06/weed-killer-glyphosatefound-in-human-urine-across-europe/☻☻☻☻☻☻25-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013GM MAIZE’S HEALTHEFFECTSSafety of Monsanto’s genetically engineered maizethrown into doubt.By Lim Li ChingNew results about the health impacts of the widely usedRoundup herbicide and the Roundup tolerant geneticallyengineered maize NK603 have been presented at aninternational scientific conference on biosafety inHyderabad, India.Agribusiness giant Monsanto manufactures theseproducts.The research, recently published in the journal Food andChemical Toxicology, demonstrated increased and morerapid mortality in rats, coupled with hormonal non-linearand sex-related effects. Females developed significantand numerous mammary tumours, pituitary and kidneyproblems. Males died mostly from severe chronicdeficiencies to the liver and kidney.The biosafety conference was organized by the EuropeanNetwork of Scientists for Social and EnvironmentalResponsibility, Third World Network and the TaraFoundation. The conference was held from 28-29September 2012 and was part of a series of activitiesorganized in conjunction with the sixth Conference of theParties serving as the Meeting of the Parties (COP-MOP6) to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. [TheCartagena Protocol on Biosafety is the only internationallaw regulating genetically modified organisms, or livingmodified organisms (LMOs) as they are known in theProtocol. The Protocol is a treaty under the Conventionon Biological Diversity.]The study was presented by Robin Mesnage, part of theteam at the University of Caen in France that carried outthe research. It was a long-term animal feeding trial ofgreater duration (spanning the average life-span of rats,two years) and with more detailed analyses than anyprevious studies to date.The research focused on Roundup, which is the mostwidely used herbicide in the world, and a crop geneticallyengineered to be tolerant to Roundup, NK603 maize. Themajority of genetically engineered crops available on themarket are engineered to be tolerant to Roundup, andRoundup residues are widespread on food and feed.Earlier studies had already demonstrated Rounduptoxicity on human cells, at levels far below agriculturaldilutions. These effects occurred on hepatic, embryonicContinued on page 26

Continued from page 25 - GM MAIZE’S HEALTHEFFECTSand placental cell lines, and on human placentalextracts, primary umbilical cord cells and freshlyisolated testicular cells. Glyphosate, the activeingredient of Roundup, had also been found to causeendocrine disruption in human cells at sub-agriculturaldoses.Previous research had also found that adjuvants addedto the herbicide formulations are not inert, but rathercan be the active route for toxicity.Meanwhile, a re-analysis of the raw data of a 90-dayfeeding trial with rats fed Roundup tolerant NK603 hadpreviously showed signs of toxic effects on liver andkidney.Therefore, this latest research studied the effects of thefull commercial formulation of Roundup, as well as ofthe genetically engineered maize, on its own as well assprayed with Roundup.The results, as presented at the conference, showed thatrats fed with the genetically engineered maize and/orRoundup died more rapidly. The first male fed thegenetically engineered maize to die did so one yearbefore the first control, while the first female, eightmonths before the first control. Significantly, mortalitywas higher in the treated groups, for example, there wastwo to three times more mortality in all treated femalegroups.According to the researchers, tumours also developedmore rapidly in rats fed the genetically engineeredmaize and/or Roundup; up to 600 days before thecontrols in males, which saw tumours develop in theskin and kidneys, and on average 94 days before thecontrols in females, largely in the mammary glands.There were two to three times more tumours in treatedrats for both sexes.All in all, the study found that female rats died mostlyfrom mammary tumours and pituitary dysfunctions,while males died mostly from pathologies in the liverand kidneys. The pathological profiles were similar forthe three treatments.The researchers hypothesized that the reason whyNK603 maize, NK603 maize sprayed with Roundup,and Roundup on its own, all produced very similarimpacts, is that both the genetically engineered maizeand Roundup may cause hormonal disturbances in thesame biochemical and physiological pathway.The researchers recommended that the authorizations ofthese products need to be reconsidered. This is perfectly26-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013consistent with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety,which in its Article 12 preserves the right of Parties ofimport to, at any time, in light of new scientificinformation, review and change their decision regardingan LMO import. Many national biosafety laws alsocontain such safeguards to enable the authorities to takeinto account new information on potential adverseimpacts, not only on biological diversity, but also onhuman health.Furthermore, the scientists recommended that the existingrisk assessment protocols should be revised in light of thefindings. Specifically, the 90-day tests with rats, whichare currently done by the industry and presented toregulators, need to be extended to two years for allLMOs, and pesticides need to be tested for two years atlow levels and with their full commercial formulations.As Parties to the Cartagena Protocol gather for their sixthmeeting in Hyderabad, these new results should informtheir discussions, in line with the precautionary principle,particularly on risk assessment and risk management, andincluding on the identification of LMOs or specific traitsof LMOs that may adverse effects on the conservationand sustainable use of biological diversity, taking intoaccount risks to human health. – Third World NetworkFeatures.About the writer: Lim Li Ching is a Researcher with ThirdWorld Network.http://www.twnside.org.sg/twnf/2012/3869.htm☻☻☻☻☻Continued from page 18 – Warning: GeneticallyModified “Agent Orange Corn” Coming soon to aPlate near YouSadly, Kieu’s story is not an unfamiliar one. Countlessothers throughout Vietnam and America have suffered atthe hands of Agent Orange. Parkinson’s, Hodgkin’sdisease, Bcell leukemias and multiple myeloma are alllinked with exposure to the herbicide. And the poisonsdon’t just magically disappear — decades later, traces arestill found in the soil. Additionally, many view AgentOrange as chemical warfare. According to GlobalResearch:“In US Senate Congressional Records dated August 11,1969, a table presented to senators showed that congressclearly classified 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T (main components ofAgent Orange) in the Chemical and Biological Warfarecategory.”If Agent Orange is so toxic, why does Dow AgroScienceswant to introduce more of it into our food supply?Continued on page 27

Continued from page 26 – Warning: Genetically Modified“Agent Orange Corn” Coming soon to a Plate near YouFollow the moneyAs with all genetically modified crops, the reason comesdown to one point: corporate profit. It is not about feedingthe hungry masses or improving the lives ofmillions. The main motivating force is always money,plain and simple. This is why whenever a new GM crop ison the ticket for approval, food activist groups like theOrganic Consumers Association go on high alert. Theyrealize mega corporations such as Monsanto and Dow areup to something — and it’s most likely harmful.millions. The main motivating force is always money,plain and simple. This is why whenever a new GM crop ison the ticket for approval, food activist groups like theOrganic Consumers Association go on high alert. Theyrealize mega corporations such as Monsanto and Dow areup to something — and it’s most likely harmful.New “Frankencorn” cropEnlist brand GM corn is Dow AgroSciences latest mutantbaby. It’s a crop developed to withstand extreme amountsof 2,4-D — an ingredient found in Agent Orange thatseverely jeopardizes the health of the environment as wellas that of humans and wildlife. Round Up Ready resistant‘superweeds’ apparently need something stronger. EnterAgent Orange.As accurately observed by conventional soybean and cornfarmer George Naylor, “Farmers are on the front lines ofthis potential chemical disaster,” and adds, “I’m also veryconcerned about the further pollution of the air and waterin my community.” Scientists and more than 140 advocacygroups have flooded U.S. Agriculture Secretary TomVilsack’s inbox with letters protesting Dow’s regulatoryapplication for the Enlist crop. But further pressure isneeded to stop the approval. To take action against thistoxic new breed of corn, click here.Sources for this article include:http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/agentorange/chi-091204-vietnam-agentorange-pictureshttp://www.globalresearch.ca/vietnam-chemical-companies-usauthorities-knew-thedangers-of-agent-orangehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/enlist-dow-agentorangecornhttp://disabilitymessage.com/disability/content/vets-suspectagent-orange-dangerspassed-down-kidshttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2185917/Landmark-US-clean-Vietnam-Agent-Orange-fallout-announced-Chemicallinked-cancer-birth-defectshttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/12100209283927-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013http://directaction.org.au/issue25/agent_orange_us_still_attacking_the_people_of_vietnam_35_years_onhttp://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/diseaseshttp://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/birth_defects.asphttp://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/publichttp://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/ob364http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/diseaseshttp://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/birth_defects.asphttp://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/publichttp://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/ob364http://wakeup-world.com/2013/07/14/warning-geneticallymodified-agent-orange-corn-coming-soon-to-a-plate-nearyou/☻☻☻☻☻Herbicide and PesticideExposure linked toParkinson's DiseaseBy Case AdamsJune 05, 2013A recent study from UCLA has confirmed thatexposure to the herbicide Paraquat is linked with aheightened risk of Parkinson's disease. This combineswith other research that has found other chemicals usedon our foods and landscapes significantly increase therisk of Parkinson's.The researchers, from UCLA's Fielding School ofPublic Health, studied 357 Parkinson's disease casesalong with 754 control subjects - adults from CentralCalifornia. The researchers determined increasedexposure to the herbicide Paraquat through geographicmapping linking their home locations to agriculturaluse of the chemical on farms. Those living closer tofarms that sprayed the herbicide were found to have aalong with 754 control subjects - adults from CentralCalifornia. The researchers determined increasedexposure to the herbicide Paraquat through geographicmapping linking their home locations to agriculturaluse of the chemical on farms. Those living closer tofarms that sprayed the herbicide were found to have a36% increased risk of Parkinson's.Continued on page 28

Continued from page 27 – Herbicide and Pesticide Exposurelinked to Parkinson's DiseaseHowever, those who experienced a head injury combinedwith increased Paraquat exposure tripled their chances ofhaving Parkinson's disease.Researchers from Mexico's Unidad de Medicina Familiaralso studied cases of Parkinson's together with exposure tothe herbicide Paraquat among Mexican workers. They alsofound a positive association between exposure to thischemical and Parkinson's disease.Paraquat is N,N′-dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium dichloride.A study published last year from the Louvain Center forToxicology and Applied Pharmacology of Brussels'Catholic University of Louvain concluded that pesticideexposure was also significantly linked to Parkinson's. Herethe researchers analyzed and calculated the data fromtwelve peer-reviewed clinical studies that investigatedParkinson's disease together with pesticide exposure. Theycollected research conducted between 1985 and 2011.The meta-analysis found that all twelve studiesindividually and collectively established a link betweenpesticide exposure and Parkinson's disease.After calculating meta-data ratios and relative risk, theresearchers found that Parkinson's disease incidence asdiagnosed by a neurologist was more than two-and-a-halftimes for those exposed to more pesticides comparedto those less exposed. Other risk calculations showed theincreased incidence of Parkinson's disease to range fromnearly double to 28% - which was the average of all casesstudied.But when the research focused upon farm workersinvolved in the growing of bananas, pineapples orsugarcane, the incidence of Parkinson's disease more thandoubled that of lower-exposure individuals.The researchers concluded:The present study provides some support for the hypothesisthat occupational exposure to pesticides increasesthe risk of Parkinson's disease.Since this review study came out, other studies haveinvestigated some of the worst pesticides, and themechanisms by which they produce Parkinson's disease.A study from Korea's Yonsei University studied the broadspectrum pesticide Rotenone – and how it damages nervecells and pathways. The researchers found that Rotenoneinduces cell death in a process called with G2/M cell cyclearrest. G2/M cell cycle arrest blocks the process of mitosisthat enables cells and their DNA to replicate – and moreimportantly among nerve cells - repair any DNA damage.Thus the insecticide basically blocks the ability of thenerve cell to repair itself – lending to the cellseventually dying off or mutating.Meanwhile, researchers from UCLA's David GeffenSchool of Medicine found that the fungicide Benomylwill block multiple cell processes. One of these blocksthe production of aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH).This increases the dopamine metabolite 3,4-dihydroxyphenyl-acetaldehyde,which produces among neuronsassociated with degeneration the production ofdopamine. One of the central dopamine- producingcenters exists in the brain – the substantia nigra locatedwithin the midbrain.A lack of these neurotransmitters will produce theshakiness and eventual loss of coordinationcharacteristic amongst progressed Parkinson's patients.When the nerve cells located in this region die off orbecome otherwise deranged, they stop producing Iseating non-organic food worth risking the health of notonly our children and family? Is it worth risking thehealth of farm workers who are exposed to these toxicchemicals every day? And what about sprayingpesticides and herbicides around the house?http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2013/06/05/herbicide-andpesticide-exposure-linked-to-parkinson-s-disease/☻☻☻☻☻Allergy and PesticidesTen Questions and AnswersHOW IS ALLERGY DEFINED?Allergy may be defined as a hypersensitivity reaction ina person to an exposure that does not affect most people.About five percent of the population has a genetictendency to develop allergies. This condition, calledatopy, runs in families, starting in infancy with skinproblems (eczema),wheezing, food intolerance and othersusceptibilities. The most common allergens are proteinswhich occur in nature. The term "allergy" has become sopopular that a recent survey revealed that 37% of thoseinterviewed thought that they were "allergic" tosomething. However, clinical allergy is diagnosed by acombination of history, physical examination, andspecial tests.HOW IS ASTHMA DEFINED?Respiratory allergy is one kind of hypersensitivity. It ismanifest in two forms: "intrinsic" and "extrinsic."Intrinsic asthma is a physiological (not environmental)condition which occurs in certain people. They have alifelong condition of airway response (called reactive28-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013Continued on page 29

Continued from page 28 - Allergy and Pesticidesairway); infections, allergens, and irritants (includingchemicals) trigger excessive spasm and swelling of thebronchi. Once recognized, reactive airway patients can behelped with a lifelong medical program and strictavoidance of specific triggering substances. Extrinsicasthma refers to a respiratory reaction to specificallergens in the environment. Environmental allergensmay include manmade substances such as chemicals andnatural substances such as airborne mold from peanuts orcheese. There are allergic reactions to microbes, dander,insect venoms, house dust, and plant products such aspollens, wood dust, thorns and sap. Allergic responses toprescribed drugs are well known. Many causes ofextrinsic asthma can be diagnosed with skin tests and canbe corrected or modified by a series of shots calleddesensitization.WHAT ABOUT ALLERGY OF THE SKIN?There are at least five major types of skin reactions. Themost common is an irritant reaction from a sharp prick orscratch. This will cause an immediate flare of the skinespecially in certain atopic individuals. The next type is areaction to a foreign protein which produces a hive orwelt which itches. This occurs within 30 minutes througha substance carried in the blood called IgE(immunoglobulin). The third response is delayedhypersensitivity which is characterized by a response ofthe lymphocytes or white blood cells. This response takesa minimum of 24 to 36 hours to respond to the allergicchallenge of the sensitizing substance. The fourth type ofresponse is similar to the third type but requires additionof ultraviolet light and is called photosensitivity. Forexample, oral tetracycline antibiotic can cause a delayedtype of rash in people when they are exposed to sunlight.It is more severe and long lasting than simple sunburn.The fifth type of skin reaction is poorly understood. Thisis a psychosomatic skin reaction that occurs when aperson, under unusual stress, breaks out in hives.HOW ARE PEOPLE EXPOSED TO PESTICIDESWHICH MIGHT RESULT IN ALLERGICSYMPTOMS?Pesticides may be encountered as residues in food, airand water. People may also be exposed to pesticides usedin agriculture, applications for pest control at home or atwork, applications to roadside right-of-ways to controlweeds and applications of pesticides for public healthvector control programs. A specific pesticide exposurewhich might cause an allergic reaction in a susceptibleindividual can be 1,000 times less than an exposurewhich would cause a toxic reaction. For example,exposure to pyrethrum can trigger an asthma attack at atrivial dose of exposure.29-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013WHY DO SOME PEOPLE COUGH, WHEEZE ORSNEEZE WHEN THEY ARE AROUNDPESTICIDE SPRAYS?The answer is not simple. Pesticide products consist oftwo components: the active ingredients whose percentageis very small and the inert ingredients which account forthe bulk of most products. The active ingredient is usually a single, highly purified component although it may bea combination of two or more pesticides. Usually, theinert ingredients consist of carriers such as petroleumdistillates, but may contain other chemicals such asemulsifiers, conditioning agents or wetting agents. Theirability to irritate or sensitize is poorly understood. Somepeople react to the strong odor and irritating effect ofpetroleum distillates. The eyes, the mucous membranesof the nose and even the sensitive linings of the mouthand the back of the throat may feel scratchy. This isusually an annoying symptom which subsides within afew minutes after being removed from exposure to theirritant. Irritation occurs not only with manmade volatilesubstances, but also with naturally occurring substancessuch as perfumes, flowers, or onions. A pesticide productwhich causes someone to develop severe, acuterespiratory symptoms would be a true hypersensitivity toone of the active ingredients. This can occur with alimited number of specific pesticides, all requiringclinical confirmation.Allergic symptoms tend to last for hours or days; irritantsymptoms clear up quickly when the person moves awayfrom the source of exposure. There is no specificdesensitization for pesticide allergy.HOW COMMON IS ALLERGY TO PESTICIDES?Fortunately, few of the thousands of pesticides usedtoday cause true allergic symptoms. Like cosmetics,pesticides are tested for their allergenic potential prior tomarketing. Which pesticide is responsible for the asthmaattack or the rash requires detective work by the patientand the doctor.WHICH PESTICIDES CAUSE ALLERGY?The following list of common names of pesticides hasbeen reported by scientists to be sensitizers in certainsusceptible individuals: allidochlor, anilazine, antu,barban, benomyl, captafol, captan, dazomet,dichloropropane, dichloropropene, lindane, maneb,nitrofen, propachlor, pyrethrum/pyrethroids, rotenone,thiram, zineb.DO PESTICIDE LABELS CARRY ALLERGYWARNINGS?Pesticide labels carry warnings about known healtheffects. Most of these deal with toxicity. Some indicateproblems that have been reported with either irritation toContinued on page 30

Continued from page 29- Allergy and Pesticidesthe skin, eyes, and respiratory tract or true hypersensitivityreactions. It is important to read the labelcarefully before using the pesticide. Protective clothing iseffective for irritants, but may not protect against anallergen. Strict avoidance is recommended by theallergist.WHAT SHOULD A PERSON DO WHO SUSPECTSPESTICIDE ALLERGY?Persons who suspect allergy should take the pesticidelabel to their physician to begin the investigation. Expertconsultation is available to the physician from a varietyof experts in allergy and other sources. Interestingly, afteryears of tolerating a substance without symptoms, aperson may "become" allergic to it. There is noexplanation for this, doctors have learned to expect suchcases of changes in immune reactions.HOW WILL A DOCTOR HELP ME?Specific diagnosis is the key to any puzzling case ofdisease. An alert physician and a conscientious patientcan work out the most likely diagnosis.They do this by keeping an accurate history of the time,place and activity at the onset of symptoms. This thenleads to selective clinical tests for specific agents.Consultation and support of an allergy specialist may berequired.SUMMARYRemember, some use the terms "allergy" and"sensitivity" incorrectly. True symptoms of allergy arenot the same as irritant effects: diagnosis and treatmentare different. Simple avoidance of suspect allergens anduse of antihistamines help most people counter allergicreactions. Others may need to carry an adrenaline syringeto prevent anaphylactic shock from food, insect stings,etc. Inhaled medications relieve reactive airwaysymptoms.http://academicdepartments.musc.edu/family_medicine/oem_agmed/Allergypesticides.htm☻☻☻☻☻Scientists Discover What’sKilling the Bees and It’sWorse than You Thought25 July 2013The mysterious mass die-off of honey bees that pollinate$30 billion worth of crops in the US has so decimatedAmerica’s apis mellifera population that one bad wintercould leave fields fallow.Now, a new study has pinpointed some of the probablecauses of bee deaths and the rather scary results showthat averting beemageddon will be much more difficultthan previously thought.Scientists had struggled to find the trigger for so-calledColony Collapse Disorder (CCD) that has wiped out anestimated 10 million beehives, worth $2 billion, over thepast six years.Suspects have included pesticides, disease-bearingparasites and poor nutrition. But in a first-of-its-kindstudy published today in the journal PLOS ONE,scientists at the University of Maryland and the USDepartment of Agriculture have indentified a witch’sbrew of pesticides and fungicides contaminating pollenthat bees collect to feed their hives.The findings break new ground on why large numbers ofbees are dying though they do not identify the specificcause of CCD, where an entire beehive dies at once.When researchers collected pollen from hives on the eastcoast pollinating cranberry, watermelon and other cropsand fed it to healthy bees, those bees showed asignificant decline in their ability to resist infection by aparasite called Nosema ceranae.The parasite has been implicated in Colony CollapseDisorder though scientists took pains to point out thattheir findings do not directly link the pesticides to CCD.The pollen was contaminated on average with ninedifferent pesticides and fungicides though scientistsdiscovered 21 agricultural chemicals in one sample.Scientists identified eight ag chemicals associated withincreased risk of infection by the parasite. Mostdisturbing, bees that ate pollen contaminated withfungicides were three times as likely to be infected by theparasite. Widely used, fungicides had been thought to beharmless for bees as they’re designed to kill fungus, notinsects, on crops like apples.Continued on page 3130-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 30 – Scientists Discover What’s Killingthe Bees and It’s Worse than You Thought“There’s growing evidence that fungicides may beaffecting the bees on their own and I think what ithighlights is a need to reassess how we label theseagricultural chemicals,” Dennis vanEngelsdorp, thestudy’s lead author, told Quartz.Labels on pesticides warn farmers not to spray whenpollinating bees are in the vicinity but such precautionshave not applied to fungicides.Bee populations are so low in the US that it now takes60% of the country’s surviving colonies just to pollinateone California crop, almonds. And that’s not just a westcoast problem—California supplies 80% of the world’salmonds, a market worth $4 billion.In recent years, a class of chemicals called neonicotinoidshas been linked to bee deaths and in April regulatorsbanned the use of the pesticide for two years in Europewhere bee populations have also plummeted. ButvanEngelsdorp, an assistant research scientist at theUniversity of Maryland, says the new study shows thatthe interaction of multiple pesticides is affecting beehealth.“The pesticide issue in itself is much more complex thanwe have led to be believed,” he says.“It’s a lot more complicated than just one product, whichmeans of course the solution does not lie in just banningone class of product.”The study found another complication in efforts to savethe bees: US honey bees, which are descendants ofEuropean bees, do not bring home pollen from nativeNorth American crops but collect bee chow from nearbyweeds and wildflowers.That pollen, however, was also contaminated withpesticides even though those plants were not the target ofspraying.“It’s not clear whether the pesticides are drifting over tothose plants but we need take a new look at agriculturalspraying practices,” says vanEngelsdorp.http://www.adguk-blog.com/2013/07/scientists-discover-whatskilling-bees.html#comment-form☻☻☻☻☻Soy-Based Lunch kills 22Children in India: HaveGMOs and Pesticidesbecome Instant Killers?By RiseEarth.comJuly 21, 2013At least 22 children in India have died as a result ofeating soy-based school lunches served to them in thecountry's Bihar state, according to new reports. Thetainted lunches, which were loaded with geneticallymodified(GM) soybeans and pesticide chemicalresidues, were given to the student victims as part of aU.K.-based government meal program similar to the onecurrently being implemented in the U.S. by MichelleObama for American public schoolchildren.The U.K.'s Independent reports that the culprit mealscontained a blend of rice, soybeans and potatoes, andhad apparently been doused with an unidentified newcooking oil that was later determined to be tainted withtoxic crop insecticides. Early on, the school's cookwarned her superiors that the new oil appeared"discolored and dodgy," but her concerns were ignoredwhen school officials insisted that the oil was safe.Not long after students ate the first meal served with thenew oil, dozens of them began to vomit profusely andsome developed severe diarrhea. Several of them had tobe immediately rushed to the hospital for emergencycare, which sent the school's headmaster running for thehills -- according to reports; she literally fled the schoolafter first learning that students were becoming ill fromeating the food."We feel that some kind of insecticide was eitheraccidentally or intentionally mixed in the food, but thatwill be clear through investigations," said R.K. Singh,the medical superintendent at the local children'shospital in Patna, Bihar's capital. "We preparedantidotes and treated the children for organicphosphorus poisoning," he added, noting that early testsidentified the presence of a toxic organophosphatechemical in the tainted food.But the school itself appears to have dropped the ball inhelping its sick children in the immediate aftermath ofthe poisoning. Reports indicate that it took about 15hours after the first child fell ill to evacuate the rest. Itwas only after 17 children died that school officialsbegan to take the situation seriously by trying toactually help the children. Continued on page 4531-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

African Traditional Herbal Research ClinicVolume 8, Issue 6 NEWSLETTER July 2013FEATURED ARTICLESNew Urgency Targets Mysterious Kidney Diseasein Central AmericaBy Sasha ChavkinCenter for Public Integrity, 29 April 2013SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador — Bringing newurgency to a mysterious kidney disease afflicting theregion’s agricultural laborers, Central America’shealth ministries signed a declaration Friday citing theailment as a top public health priority and committingto a series of steps to combat its reach.Over the last two years, the Center for Public Integrityhas examined how a rare type of chronic kidneydisease (CKD) is killing thousands of agriculturalworkers along Central America’s Pacific Coast, aswell as in Sri Lanka and India. Scientists have yet todefinitively uncover the cause of the malady, althoughemerging evidence points to toxic heavy metalscontained in pesticides as a potential culprit.Following years of official inaction in the U.S. andbeyond, Friday’s San Salvador declaration — for thefirst time — formally recognized the disease and itsunique characteristics.“This disease fundamentally affects sociallyvulnerable groups of agricultural communities alongthe Pacific Coast of Central America, predominatesamong young men, and has been associated withconditions including toxic environmental andoccupational risk factors, dehydration, and habits thatare damaging to renal health,” said the declarationadopted by the Council of Health Ministers of CentralAmerica.The ministers pledged potentially meaningful newsteps, including more detailed statistical tracking ofCKD, the development of national and regional plansto investigate and treat the disease, and promotion ofstronger regulation of agrochemicals.The declaration represented a major victory for ElSalvador and its health minister, Dr. Maria IsabelRodriguez. Ninety years old and barely five feet tall,peering from behind enormous eyeglasses, Rodriguezhas been a driving force behind catapulting the ailmentfrom obscurity to formal recognition as a leadingregional threat.“This is a disease of poor people,” Rodriguez said.“This is a disease of people who work in the fields andhave very bad living conditions.”The outcome signaled a turnaround by the U.S. Centersfor Disease Control and Prevention, which in 2011helped beat back an effort by El Salvador to declare themalady a top priority for the Americas. The CDC nowsays it has devoted “several hundred thousand” dollarsto support research of the disease, created amultidisciplinary internal task force on chronic kidneydisease in Central America, and pledged to help fund anational survey by El Salvador to measure theprevalence of chronic ailments including CKD.“We have that commitment to provide the support tofollow and strengthen their investigations in theministries of health,” said Dr. Nelson Arboleda, theCDC’s director for Central American Region.The San Salvador conference also marked a thresholdin international cooperation in combating themysterious disease. Following years in whichresearchers battling parallel epidemics in CentralAmerica, Sri Lanka and India failed to compare results,Sri Lanka sent an official delegation to El Salvador andurged Central America to consider its research findingsand policy responses as a model for future action.“We are having enough clinical, biochemical andhistopathological evidence to say this is the samedisease,” said Channa Jayasumana, Sri Lanka’sdelegate in El Salvador.The disease has felled thousands. In Sri Lanka, moreContinued on page 3332-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 32 – New Urgency Targets MysteriousKidney Disease in Central Americathan 8,000 patients are receiving treatment for CKD ofunknown cause, an official report found, a figurerepresenting just a fraction of those affected by a diseasethat remains latent until its advanced stages.More than 16,000 men died of kidney failure in CentralAmerica from 2005 to 2009, with annual deathsincreasing more than threefold since 1990, according toan analysis of World Health Organization data. In ElSalvador, CKD has become the leading cause of hospitaldeaths among adult men.The Debate over PesticidesAlthough the declaration reflected broad agreement totake action, the two-day conference that preceded itssigning was dominated by a forceful debate. The centralquestion: whether there was adequate evidence to declarethe disease is linked to agrochemicals and respond byrestricting their use.At the conference, El Salvador presented findings froman ongoing official study, conducted jointly with the PanAmerican Health Organization, suggesting that pesticidesand fertilizers containing heavy metals may be to blame.Environmental tests of soil and water samples in a villageheavily affected by CKD, Ciudad Romero, found thepresence of high levels of cadmium and arsenic, heavymetals toxic to the kidneys. Among a sample of 42residents of Ciudad Romero who suffer from CKD, allreported applying pesticides without any protectiveequipment.A national sample of 46 CKD patients found that 96%reported using pesticides, and medical tests of thesepatients revealed additional symptoms such as impairedreflexes and damage to arteries in the lower limbs thatsuggest toxic poisoning.El Salvador’s findings echo those in Sri Lanka. Anofficial study there, conducted by the Sri Lankan healthministry in partnership with the World HealthOrganization, documented elevated levels of cadmiumand arsenic contained in agrochemicals and withinenvironmental samples from the endemic region — andfound the same heavy metals in samples of urine, hairand nails of patients. Sri Lanka also found residues ofseveral pesticides in the urine of many of the affectedpatients.Since publication of its report, the Sri Lankangovernment has imposed a ban on four commonpesticides from use in the endemic region. Rodriguez, ElSalvador’s health minister, said she also hopes to banpesticides that are potentially linked to the epidemic.Yet other researchers questioned the weight of evidencepointing to pesticides. El Salvador found arsenic abovepermitted levels in one location in Ciudad Romero andcadmium above permitted levels in another location inthe same village — hardly proof of widespreadcontamination, critics say. The nation also has yet tocomplete toxicology tests that will determine whetherthe heavy metals came from pesticides, or whetherheavy metals and pesticide residues appeared in blood,urine, or tissue samples of CKD patients.Basic questions about the pesticide hypothesis remainunanswered in both El Salvador and Sri Lanka’sreports, including evidence of how the agrochemicalsare entering victims’ bodies or what products are atfault. Despite the dramatic parallel findings from therecently released reports, no peer-reviewed studies inmore than a decade of research have established adefinitive link to agrochemicals.“There is still no direct causal connection,” said Dr.Ramon Trabanino, a Salvadorean nephrologist whopublished two of the first studies demonstrating thepresence of the disease. “I think all of this is political.They want something to blame.”The controversy came to head in the final portion of thescientific conference. The argument pitted skeptics ofthe evidence against conference organizers who arguedthat the Sri Lankan and Salvadorean results were clearenough to create a moral obligation to takeprecautionary action. The debate was concluded byRodriguez, who delivered a forceful defense of ElSalvador’s findings. “What has been presented here isscientific fact, and I will defend it with my nails,” shesaid, holding up bright red-painted fingernails andreducing the room to laughter.Chemicals in the SpotlightTwo chemicals in particular have come intoinvestigators’ crosshairs in both El Salvador and SriLanka: 2,4-D and glyphosate. 2,4-D is a commonherbicide used to control weeds, and glyphosate is theactive ingredient in the world’s most popular herbicide,Roundup. Both are used worldwide, including incountless areas not affected by this distinctive form ofchronic kidney disease.The El Salvador sample of CKD patients from CiudadRomero — the community shown to be contaminatedby heavy metals — found that 100 percent and 75percent of the patients, respectively, reported using 2,4-D and glyphosate. In Sri Lanka, both are used heavilyand were found in urine samples of some sick patients.Continued on page 3433-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 33 – New Urgency Targets MysteriousKidney Disease in Central AmericaGlyphosate was developed by Monsanto, but the patenthas expired so numerous companies now sell glyphosateproducts. Monsanto said it currently sells glyphosateproducts in Sri Lanka but did not confirm whether it sellssuch products in Central America.Dr. Daniel Goldstein, a Senior Science Fellow atMonsanto, said “glyphosate does not cause renal failure.”He said he was aware of the official findings from SriLanka, and that glyphosate contains phosphorus, anelement whose molecular similarity to arsenic can resultin small amounts of arsenic byproduct in quantities notthreatening to human health. But the “plausibility ofrelationship is virtually nil” between glyphosate and theSri Lankan kidney disease epidemic, Goldstein said.Dow Chemicals, which developed 2,4-D, did not respondto requests for comment. Like glyphosate, the patent onproduction has expired and other companies also producepesticides containing 2,4-D.According to the Environmental Protection Agency,excessive quantities of glyphosate and 2,4-D in drinkingwater can cause damage to the kidneys. But little researchhas been conducted into other types of exposures, andparticularly on long-term health effects on humans.“I'm appalled at how little [research] there is on humans,”said Dr. Stephanie Seneff, a Senior Research Scientist atthe Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Seneffpublished a study last week raising concerns about avariety of potential health effects from long-termexposure to glyphosate.Scientists from the Salvadorean and Sri Lankan researchteams also suspect that toxic additives to pesticides, ordangerous combinations of chemicals, may pose healthrisks additional to those presented by the productsthemselves.In an interview in San Salvador, Rodriguez reacted withsurprise to Monsanto’s position that glyphosate does notthreaten the kidneys.“Ah, Monsanto!” she said, a look of consternationcrossing her face. “They are the ones that will be fightingus.”Anna Barry-Jester contributed to this report.Support for this report was provided by the Stabile Center forInvestigative Journalism at Columbia University.http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/04/29/12582/newurgency-targets-mysterious-kidney-disease-central-america☻☻☻☻☻Data show Correlationsbetween Increase inNeurological Diseases andGMOsBy Nancy SwansonApril 10, 2013Glyphosate was first marketed in 1976 and its use hasexploded since the advent of glyphosate-resistant,genetically engineered (GE) crops in 1995. Theherbicide-resistant GE crops absorb glyphosate throughdirect application and from the soil and it cannot bewashed off. It is in the food. Glyphosate has also beenfound in rivers, streams, air and rain.The thyroid is an endocrine organ that secretes thethyroid hormone. Thyroid dysfunction has been identifiedwith mood disorders. Depression is frequently associatedwith low levels of thyroid hormone (hypothyroidism),while mood elevation is often associated with high levelsof thyroid hormone (hyperthyroidism). An endocrinedisrupting chemical (EDC) can cause erratic behavior.Recent studies have shown links between food additivesand neurotoxicity in cells and hyperactive behavior inchildren. Incidents have been reported of laboratory ratsand farm animals exhibiting uncharacteristic aggressiveand anti-social behavior on being fed a diet consisting ofGMO soy or corn.Many scientific studies have shown links between thyroiddisruption and neurological diseases. “Thyroid hormonesare critical for development of the fetal and neonatalbrain ... Hypothyroidism in either the mother or fetusfrequently results in ... a high incidence of mentalretardation. ... numerous studies with rats, sheep andhumans have reinforced this concept...” According to deCock et al, “Perinatal exposure to EDCs appears to beassociated with the occurrence of ASD [autism spectrumdisorder] as well as ADHD. Disruption of thyroidhormone function ... may offer an explanation for theobserved relations....” MacSweeney et al. report, “that themothers of 104 schizophrenic patients had: (1) asignificantly higher incidence of thyroid disease than acarefully matched control group; (2) significantly moreabortions, still-births and greater infant mortality. Thefindings and possible relevance of thyroid disease toschizophrenia are discussed.” Strong correlation wasshown between cancer of the thyroid and glyphosate useon corn and soy crops and that thyroid cancer affectswomen more than men. It seems that women are moresensitive to thyroid disruption.Continued on page 3534-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 34 – Data show Correlations betweenIncrease in Neurological Diseases and GMOsThe incidence and prevalence for neurological disordershave been skyrocketing. Data trends over time forneurological disorders are not readily available for tworeasons: they are not as well-studied as other diseases(cancer, diabetes etc.), and the diagnostic methods keepchanging. The experts argue over whether the increasesare real, or a by-product of changes in diagnostics alongwith greater attention given to these disorders in recenttimes. For example, a former diagnosis of mentalretardation might now result in a diagnosis of autism.Furthermore there is a large degree of overlap insymptoms. Typical manifestations of ADHD, such asdistractibility or hyperactivity are also present in pediatricbipolar disorder, for example.ChildrenADHD According to the New York Times, “an estimated6.4 million children ages 4 through 17 had received anA.D.H.D. diagnosis at some point in their lives, a 16percent increase since 2007 and a 41 percent rise in thepast decade.” From the Center for Disease Control(CDC), “rates of ADHD diagnosis increased an averageof 3% per year from 1997 to 2006 and an average of5.5% per year from 2003 to 2007. ... It is not possible totell whether this increase represents a change in thenumber of children who have ADHD, or a change in thenumber of children who were diagnosed.” It also makes agreat deal of difference who is doing the reporting:parents or doctors. The disorder affects boys more thangirls. Whatever the numbers, there seems to be anincreasing behavioral problem with our youth. Oursolution is to give them more chemicals in the form ofmood-altering drugs.Bipolar According to a 2007 report by Moreno et al.,“the annual number of office-based visits with adiagnosis of bipolar disorder was estimated to increase inyouth from 25 (1994-1995) to 1003 (2002-2003) per100,000 population, whereas in adults it increased from905 (1994-1995) to 1679 (2002-2003) per 100,000population. ... most youth bipolar disorder visits were bymales (66.5%), whereas most adult bipolar disorder visitswere by females (67.6%).”Autism The number of autistic children has explodedduring the last decade, and some are calling it anepidemic. There is great controversy over what is causingthis and whether all of it is real. “But many researchersnow say that at least part of the rise in autism is real andcaused by something in the environment. Rather thanquibbling over recounts they are focusing on finding thecauses.”It was shown in previous articles that there has been ahuge increase in the amount of glyphosates applied tocorn and soy crops grown in the U.S. corresponding tothe rise in the percentage of corn and soy planted withgenetically engineered (GE) varieties. Those datarepresent only a portion of the total GE crops and amountof glyphosates applied. The USDA only collects data onGE crops for corn, cotton and soy. Since most of the corn(88%) and soy (94%) planted now is GE, these data givea representation of the rising trends in both GE crops andherbicide use.The amount of glyphosate applied to U.S. corn and soycrops is plotted against the prevalence of autism in one ofthe slide show graphs. The prevalence of autism wasdifficult to find and the values shown on this graph camefrom many sources using different methods and differentage groups. A better estimate was obtained from the U.S.Department of Education, which keeps track of schoolage children receiving services under the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act (IDEA). A second plot isshown using data from USDE for the number of autisticchildren receiving services. The correlation is quitestrong which may indicate that glyphosate is acontributing factor in the rise of autism.Elderly: Alzheimer's and senile dementiaThe elderly are susceptible because they may alreadyhave a great body burden of chemical exposure over theirlifetime and because some of their body processes areshutting down and hormonal disruptions can have a muchgreater effect on them.Continued on page 3635-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 35 – Data show Correlations betweenIncrease in Neurological Diseases and GMOsAccording to the University of Washington Institute forHealth Metrics and Evaluation, Alzheimer's disease wentfrom number 32 in 1990 to number nine in 2010 in theranking of leading causes of death in the U.S. SenileDementia and it's care costs have also skyrocketed in thelast two decades.Prevalence and incidence data were sparse, but data ondeath rates were available from 1979. Graphs of the deathrates for Alzheimer's and Senile Dementia have beenplotted against glyphosate applications to U.S. corn andsoy crops (see slide show). Again, the correlations arequite strong. Deaths due to Alzheimer's have been risingsince 1980, but there is a sharp spike in 1999.Correlation does not necessarily imply causation andthere are now a host of chemicals in our food and ourenvironment. The huge increase in the amount ofglyphosate applied to GE food and feed crops hassignificantly increased our exposure to endocrinedisrupting chemicals.In a previous article, correlations were shown betweenglyphosate use, GMO crop increase and: thyroidcancer, liver cancer, obesity, high blood pressure, acutekidney injury, incidence and prevalence of diabetes andend stage renal disease. All of these diseases anddisorders were carefully chosen based on:1 Glyphosate is a known endocrine disruptor.2. Endocrine disruptors can cause organ andneurological damage.3. Roundup and GMOs have shown liver and kidneydamage and abnormal behavior in rat studies.4. Use of glyphosate on herbicide-resistant crops hasskyrocketed since 1995.5. Incidence, prevalence and deaths due to thesediseases has also skyrocketed since 1995.It seems improbable that the correlations in the ninegraphs of glyphosates and organ disease, and the threepresented here (for a total of 12), can all becoincidence.There has been a trend among the agricultural and foodindustries and their regulators to engage in practicesthat place the consumers at risk, emerging in the mid-1990s and growing. It involves not just GMOs butmany other things as well and those factors may maybe correlated with each other. That may make itimpossible to separate out which one caused aparticular effect. Much more research needs to be done.Our children are disturbed and our elders are dyinghorribly.Acknowledgment: Jon Abrahamson helped with datamining for this article.Notes:In 2006 Irena Ermakova reported to the EuropeanCongress of Psychiatry that, “As in previous series thebehavior of males from GM group was compared withthe behavior of control rats. Obtained data showed ahigh level of anxiety and aggression in males, femalesand young pups from GM groups. Aggression wasmore expressed in females and rat pups: they attackedand bite each other and the worker.” 14th EuropeanCongress of Psychiatry, Nice, France, Sunday, March 52006, Poster #048.Numerous anecdotal reports of animals on GMO dietsbehaving aggressively and anti-socially have beenreported by farmers and veterinarians.In 2010 Shelton et al. published a paper describingpotential mechanisms linking pesticides and autism.Continued on page 3736-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 36- Data show Correlations betweenIncrease in Neurological Diseases and GMOsIn 2006, Grandjean and Landrigan reported ondevelopmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals.“Neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism, attentiondeficit disorder, mental retardation, and cerebral palsyare common, costly, and can cause lifelong disability. ...Exposure to these chemicals during early fetaldevelopment can cause brain injury at doses much lowerthan those affecting adult brain function.”Data sources:Alzheimer's & Senile Dementia death data: CDCcompressed mortality filesAutism prevalence: CDC:1975* & 1995* from Nature, vol. 479, Nov. 2011Autism IDEA data: 1992-19981999-2010http://nces.ed.gov/FastFacts/display.asp?id=64U.S. Dept. of Education, National Center for EducationStatistics (2012). Digest of Education Statistics, 2011(NCES 2012-001), Chapter 2.Glyphosate: USDA:NASS National AgriculturalStatistics Service (NASS)Percent GE corn & soy data:1996-1999 data: USDA Agricultural Economic ReportNo. (AER-810) 67 pp, May 20022000-2012 data: USDA:NASS National AgriculturalStatistics ServiceSuggested by the author:• Data trends show correlation between increasein organ disease and GMOs• GMOs are prevalent in the U.S. food supply• GMO crops increase pesticide use (Photos)http://www.examiner.com/article/data-show-correlationsbetween-increase-neurological-diseases-and-gmos☻☻☻☻☻Popular Herbicide moreDeadly to Liver Cells than itsActive Chemical AloneAug 18, 2009Gasniera C, C Dumontb, N Benachoura, E Claira, MCChagnonb and GE Séralini. 2009. Glyphosate-basedherbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors inhuman cell lines.Toxicology doi:10.1016/j.tox.2009.06.006.Synopsis by Negin P. Martin, Ph.DVery low doses of some types of the herbicide Roundupcan disrupt human liver cell function; the formulations'toxicity may be tied to their "inactive" ingredients ratherthan the active weed-killing ingredient glyphosate.French scientists report that a number of Roundupformulations tested at very dilute concentrations can alterhormone actions and cause human liver cells to die within24 hours of treatment.The toxicity of some of the formulations was independentof how much glyphosate – the active herbicide in Roundup– they contained, suggesting it is other "inert" ingredientsthat may alone – or in combination with each other and/orthe weedkiller – assault the cells. This study's results aresimilar to prior studies – as reported in a recentEnvironmental Health News article – that find humanembryo cells are affected more by the Roundupformulations and an inert ingredient than by the activeingredient.The levels of Roundup used in this study are similar towhat is typically found in food crops or animal feed treatedwith Roundup. Because of this, it is possible that people,livestock and wildlife may be exposed to levels of theherbicide mix that can damage cells.Glyphosate is harmful to humans and animals even at avery low dose. It is often tested by itself in regulatorystudies to determine if the Roundup formulation is toxic.However, according to this study, levels of glyphosate inRoundup formulations are not good indicators of toxicity.The ingredients responsible for the increased potency ofRoundup formulations seen in this study – as compared topurified glyphosate – remain unknown. The chemicalformulas of herbicide additives are generally protected astrade secrets, and the researchers did not try to chemicallyidentify them. Therefore, their effects cannot be easilyinvestigated and they remain undetected in the environment.Roundup was developed as a weapon against weeds. Manygenetically modified (GM) plants have been developed totolerate Roundup. Today, Roundup is the most widely usedweedkiller in the world and 75 percent of all GM plants areengineered to resist the herbicide. Monsanto agriculturalcompany produces both Roundup and Roundup-resistantGM plants.37-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013Four Roundup formulations – Roundup Express 7.2 (R7.2),Bioforce (R360), Grands Travaux (R400) and GrandsTravaux Plus (R450) – were tested in this study.Continued on page 38

Continued from page 37 – Data show Correlations betweenIncrease in Neurological Diseases and GMOsAll formulations were more potent than purifiedglyphosate (at similar levels to R360) in causing celldeath. Surprisingly, R400 containing less glyphosate wasmore toxic to human liver cells than R450.In the study, exposure of a single gene regulated by eitherestrogen or androgen hormones demonstrated that allformulations disrupt hormone function more efficientlythan purified glyphosate. The findings show that theformulations act against the hormones to produce antiestrogenicand anti-androgenic effects.http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/roundup-mix-more-toxic-to-liver-cells-than-glyphosate/☻☻☻☻☻New Review Links Roundupto Diabetes, Autism, Infertilityand CancerApril 18, 2013A new peer-reviewed scientific review paper has beenreleased in the US stating that glyphosate-basedherbicides such as Roundup are contributing togastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease,depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’sdisease.The review paper states that “glyphosate enhances thedamaging effects of …food borne chemical residues andenvironmental toxins. Negative impact on the body isinsidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammationdamages cellular systems throughout the body. Here, weshow how interference with CYP enzymes acts syner-gistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromaticamino acids by gut bacteria, as well as impairment inserum sulfate transport. Consequences are most of thediseases and conditions associated with a Western diet,which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity,diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility,cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.”For the full study click here .“The paper gives good arguments why it’s vital to opposethe recent capitulation by UK supermarkets to acceptingproducts from animals raised on GM feed,” GM Watchstated.Glyphosate (N-phosphonomethylglycine), the activeingredient in the herbicide Roundup®, is the mainherbicide in use today in the United States, andincreasingly throughout the World, in agriculture and inlawn maintenance, especially now that the patent hasexpired. 80% of genetically modified crops, particularlycorn, soy, canola, cotton, sugar beets and most recentlyalfalfa, are specifically targeted towards the introductionof genes resistant to glyphosate, the so-called “RoundupReady® feature”. In humans, only small amounts (~2%)of ingested glyphosate are metabolizedto aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), and the restenters the blood stream and is eventually eliminatedthrough the urine.Studies have shown sharp increases in glyphosatecontamination in streams in the Midwestern United Statesfollowing the mid 1990s, pointing to its increasing role asthe herbicide of choice in agriculture. A now commonpractice of crop desiccation through herbicide administrationshortly before the harvest assures an increasedglyphosate presence in food sources as well. The industryasserts that glyphosate is nearly nontoxic to mammals,and therefore it is not a problem if glyphosate is ingestedin food sources. Acutely, it is claimed to be less toxicthan aspirin. As a consequence, measurement of itspresence in food is practically nonexistent.A vocal minority of experts believes that glyphosate mayinstead be much more toxic than is claimed, although theeffects are only apparent after a considerable time lapse.Thus, while short-term studies in rodents have shown noapparent toxicity, studies involving life-long exposure inrodents have demonstrated liver and kidney dysfunctionand a greatly increased risk of cancer, with shortenedlifespan.http://sustainablepulse.com/2013/04/18/new-study-linksroundup-to-diabetes-autism-infertility-andcancer/#.Uezu46zhcWk☻☻☻☻☻38-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

African Traditional Herbal Research ClinicVolume 8, Issue 6 NEWSLETTER July 2013FEATURED ARTICLESWide Range of Diseases Linked to PesticidesDatabase Supports Policy Shift from Risk to AlternativesAssessmentBy Kagan Owens, Jay Feldman and John KepnerPesticide-Induced Diseases DatabaseBeyondpesiticides.orgThe common diseases affecting the public’s healthare all too well-known in the 21st century: asthma,autism and learning disabilities, birth defects andreproductive dysfunction, diabetes, Parkinson’s andAlzheimer’s diseases, and several types of cancer.Their connection to pesticide exposure continues tostrengthen despite efforts to restrict individualchemical exposure, or mitigate chemical risks, usingrisk assessment-based policy.The Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, launchedby Beyond Pesticides, facilitates access toepidemiologic and laboratory studies based on realworld exposure scenarios that link public healtheffects to pesticides. The scientific literaturedocuments elevated rates of chronic diseases amongpeople exposed to pesticides, with increasingnumbers of studies associated with both specificillnesses and a range of illnesses. With some ofthese diseases at very high and, perhaps, epidemicproportions, there is an urgent need for publicpolicy at all levels –local, state, and national—toend dependency on toxic pesticides, replacing themwith carefully defined green strategies.Data Supports Policy ChangeThe database is a tool to support efforts to eliminatethe continued use of hazardous pesticides in favorof green strategies that emphasize non-toxic andleast-toxic alternative practices and products. Thestudies in the database show that our currentapproach to restricting pesticide use through riskassessment-based mitigation measures is notworking. This failed human experiment must beended. The warnings of those who have expressedconcerns about risk assessment, such as EPAAdministrator under Presidents Nixon and Reagan,William Ruckelshaus, have been borne out by threedecades of use and study. Mr. Ruckelshaus in 1984said, “We should remember that risk assessment datacan be like the captured spy: If you torture it longenough, it will tell you anything you want to know.”EPA’s risk assessment fails to look at chemicalmixtures, synergistic effects, certain health endpoints(such as endocrine disruption), disproportionate effectsto vulnerable population groups, and regularnoncompliance with product label directions. Thesedeficiencies contribute to its severe limitations indefining real world poisoning, as captured byepidemiologic studies in the database.An enlightened policy approach to proposed orcontinued toxic chemical use, in an age where theadverse effects have been widely and increasinglydocumented, is to first ask whether there is a less toxicway of achieving the toxic chemical’s intendedpurpose. Simply, “Is there another practice that wouldmake the substance unnecessary?” This approach doesnot preclude and should demand the prohibition ofhigh hazard chemical use, those chemicals that aresimply too dangerous.The alternatives assessment approach differs mostdramatically from a risk assessment-based policy is inrejecting uses and exposures deemed acceptable underrisk assessment calculations, but unnecessary becauseof the availability of safer alternatives.39-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013For example, in agriculture, where the database showsclear links to pesticide use and cancer, it would nolonger be possible to use hazardous pesticides, as it iswith risk assessment-based policy, when there areclearly effective organic systems with competitiveyields that, in fact, outperform chemical-intensiveContinued on page 40

Continued from page 39 – Wide Range of Diseases Linked toPesticidesagriculture in drought years. Cost comparisons must takeinto account externalities such as water pollution andwater utility expenses, associated with chemicalintensivefarming. The same is true for home and gardenpesticide use and defined integrated pest managementsystems with prescribed practices and only specificsubstances as a last resort.The database suggests clearly that we must take strategicaction to shift away from pesticide dependency. Publicpolicy must advance this shift, rather than continue toallow unnecessary reliance on pesticides. Regulatoryrestrictions must be tied to alternatives assessment thatmove chemicals off the market or prohibit theirmarketing as safer approaches and technologies emerge.About the DatabaseIn order to track the varying public health effects ofpesticide exposure, Beyond Pesticides has establishedthe Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, which tracksdiseases and other health issues linked to real worldpesticide exposure, providing access to published studiesand their findings. The database is housed on the BeyondPesticides website at www.beyondpesticides.org/health,as it requires periodic updating. The current database,which contains hundreds of studies, itself is preliminaryand will be added to over the coming months. We urgereaders to send studies to info@beyondpesticides.orgthat you think should be added to the database.Findings and Database EntriesAlzheimer’s DiseaseAccording to the Alzheimer’s Association, Alzheimer’sdisease (AD), the most common form of dementia, is aprogressive and fatal brain disease. As many as 5.3million Americans are living with Alzheimer’s disease.Alzheimer’s destroys brain cells, causing memory lossand problems with thinking and behavior severe enoughto affect work, lifelong hobbies or social life.Alzheimer’s gets worse over time, it is fatal, and has nocurrent cure.At publication, the database lists 4 studies linkingpesticides to Alzheimer’s disease. While many studieslink pesticides to neurological effects, research is justbeginning to make the link between pesticides and AD.A recent study of individuals from an agriculturalcommunity in Utah shows increased risks amongpesticide-exposed individuals for all causes of dementia(hazard ratio, HR, 1.38) and an even greater risk for AD(HR 1.42). The risk of AD associated withorganophosphate exposure is the greatest (HR 1.53)40-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013followed by organochlorines (HR 1.49). 1AsthmaSince the mid-1980s, asthma rates in the U.S. haveskyrocketed to epidemic levels, particularly in youngchildren. In the U.S. alone, around 16 million peoplesuffer from asthma. Asthma is a serious chronic disorder,and in some cases life-threatening disease, of the lungscharacterized by recurrent attacks of bronchialconstriction, which cause breathlessness, wheezing, andcoughing. Researchers have found that pesticide exposurecan induce a poisoning effect linked to asthma.Low-income populations, people of color, and childrenliving in inner cities experience disproportionately highmorbidity and mortality due to asthma. According to theNational Institutes of Health’s National Institute ofAllergy and Infectious Disease, African Americans arefour to six times more likely than whites to die fromasthma. Therefore, any time our policies allow regulatorsto permit uses of pesticides with known asthma effects,which is done daily, a disproportionate impact is felt in theAfrican-American community. Among other policies, thistoxics policy contributes to a cycle of poverty, as asthmais the leading cause of school absenteeism due to chronicillness.At publication, the database lists 41 studies linkingpesticides to asthma. Studies show that pesticides not onlytrigger asthma attacks, but are also a root cause of asthma.A landmark 2004 study finds that not only doenvironmental exposures lead to above-average asthmarates among children, but that timing of exposure is alsocrucial. Examining over 4,000 school-aged children inCalifornia, the researchers discovered that childrenexposed to herbicides during their first year of life are fourand a half times more likely to be diagnosed with asthmabefore the age of five; toddlers exposed to insecticides areover two times more likely to get asthma. 2Birth and Fetal DefectsIn 2005, the births of three babies born in Florida withsevere birth defects to mothers who all worked for Ag-Mart Produce, a company that produces chemicallytreatedtomatoes and other agricultural products, broughtthe connection between birth defects and pesticideexposure into the public consciousness.Birth defects are structural or functional abnormalitiespresent at birth that cause physical or mental disabilities,ranging from mild to fatal. Researchers have identifiedthousands of different types of birth defects. Currently,birth defects are the leading cause of death for infantsduring the first year of life.Continued on page 41

Continued from page 40 – Wide Range of Diseases Linked toPesticidesAt publication, the database lists 19 studies linkingpesticides to fetal and birth defects. A study published inthe April 2009 issue of the medical journal ActaPaediatrica reports that the highest rates of birth defectsfor U.S. babies arise when conception occurs during thespring and summer months, when pesticide use increasesand high concentrations of pesticides are found insurface waters. A strong association is found betweenhigher rates of birth defects, including spina bifida, cleftlip, clubfoot and Down’s syndrome, among women whoconceive while nitrates, atrazine and other pesticides areat the high end of their seasonal fluctuations. 3CancerThe link between pesticides and cancer has long been aconcern. While agriculture has traditionally been tied topesticide-related illnesses, 19 of 30 commonly used lawnpesticides and 28 of 40 commonly used school pesticidesare linked to cancer. Even with the growing body ofevidence linking environmental exposures to cancer inrecent years, a report released May 6, 2010 by thePresident’s Cancer Panel finds that the true burden ofenvironmentally-induced cancer is greatlyunderestimated. The Panel’s report, ReducingEnvironmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now,concludes that while environmental exposure is not anew front on the war on cancer, the grievous harm fromcarcinogenic chemical use has not been addressedadequately by the nation’s cancer program.At publication, the database lists 260 studies linkingpesticides to various forms of cancer (see specific typesof cancer below). While a number of published scientificstudies using animal toxicity data and human cells/tissuelaboratory studies show that pesticides are known orsuspected to be carcinogenic, epidemiologic studiesconfirm laboratory results. The review finds a significantassociation between cancer and pesticides used inagriculture and throughout the urban environment inhomes, schools, and public places.Brain Cancer – There are two main types of braincancer. Primary brain cancer starts in the brain.Metastatic brain cancer starts somewhere else in thebody and moves to the brain. According to the AmericanBrain Tumor Association, brain tumors are the mostcommon of the solid tumors in children, and the secondmost frequent malignancy of childhood. Brain tumorsare the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths inmales under 40 and the second leading cause of cancerrelateddeaths in females under age 20.At publication, the database lists 30 studies linkingpesticides to brain cancer. Researchers believe thatinsecticides that target the nervous system may play a rolein the development of brain tumors.A population-based, case control study of children tenyears of age or younger that analyzes functional geneticpolymorphisms and parents’ use of home insecticidetreatments suggests that exposure in childhood toinsecticides in combination with a reduced ability todetoxify them increases the risk of developing braintumors. Several studies show adults with brain cancer aremore likely to have been exposed to pesticides. 4Breast Cancer – Doctors estimate that one in eightwomen will be diagnosed with breast cancer in theirlifetime. It is the leading cause of death in North Americafor women 35 to 50 years old. Genetics can only accountfor five to ten percent of cases.According to the Breast Cancer Fund, a growing body ofscientific evidence suggests that exposures to toxicchemicals, including pesticides, in the environment arecontributing to high breast cancer rates.At publication, the database lists 11 studies linkingpesticides to breast cancer. Some pesticides are breastcarcinogens and others act by disturbing or mimickinghormones in the body, which can lead to breast cancer.(See Endocrine Disruption section.) A 2006 Long IslandBreast Cancer Study Project report demonstrates that selfreportedlifetime use of residential pesticides is associatedwith an increase in risk for breast cancer. The increase isfound for women who report the use of pesticides overall,specifically lawn and garden pesticides, and is particularlyhigh for households with professional applications. 5Leukemia – Cancer of the blood-forming cells of bonemarrow, leukemia is the most common childhood cancer,accounting for 33 percent of the incidence of all childhoodcancer and causing more deaths among children and adultsunder the age of 20 than any other cancer, yet strikes tentimes as many adults as children. Several publishedstudies show a “critical window of exposure” topesticides, whether used in the home or from parentaloccupational exposure, that are associated with leukemiain children, showing an especially high risk correlationwith pesticide exposure during the mother’s pregnancy.41-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013At publication, the database lists 40 studies linkingpesticides to leukemia. Studies link leukemia to bothresidential and agricultural exposure to pesticides, foradults, children and in utero. One case-control study inCalifornia finds household pesticide use can nearlyquadruple the risk of childhood leukemia (odds ratio, OR,3.8) and that garden pesticides increase the risk to oversix-fold (OR 6.5).6 Continued on page 42

Continued from page 41 –– Wide Range of Diseases Linkedto PesticidesA retrospective cohort mortality study of aerial pesticideapplicator pilots, finds a significantly elevated risk forleukemia (OR 3.35).7Lymphoma – Cancers that originate in the lymphsystem are referred to as lymphomas and includeHodgkin’s lymphoma (HL) and non-Hodgkin’slymphoma (NHL). Lymphomas are the most commontype of blood cancer in the U.S. It is the 7th mostcommon in adults and the 3rd most common cancer inchildren. The more common non-Hodgkin’s lymphomais a cancer of the immune system.The incidence of NHL has been increasing over the pastseveral decades and has doubled since the early 1970s.At publication, the database lists 46 studies linkingpesticides to lymphoma. According to the LymphomaFoundation of America, 75 out of all 99 epidemiologicstudies conducted on lymphoma and pesticides find alink between the two. The report states that data from theNational Cancer Institute show that people developlymphoma often in states and locations with the highestpesticide use. The report finds that farmers are at thehighest risk for lymphoma.8Dozens of studies in the database confirm the risk tofarmers and other pesticide applicators.Prostate Cancer – Cancer of the prostate, a gland of themale reproductive system, is the second most commoncancer among American men, with one in six mendiagnosed during their lifetime. It is also the secondleading cause of death for American men. Incidence anddeath trends show that prostate cancer has beenslightlydecreasing since 1994.At publication, the database lists 23 studies linkingpesticides to prostate cancer. Studies show elevated ratesof prostate cancer in Vietnam veterans exposed to AgentOrange and to farmers and others with occupationalpesticide exposure. A study published in 2003 in theInternational Journal of Cancer shows that individualswho have worked in agriculture have a 40% increasedrisk of having prostate cancer over the generalpopulation.9Other studies suggest that endocrine disruption is likelyto be a mechanism for developing this type of cancer.Soft Tissue SarcomaCancer that begins in the muscle, fat, fibrous tissue,blood vessels, or other supporting tissue of the body,known as soft tissue sarcoma, is uncommon, yet risk isincreased with exposure to certain chemicals, radiationtherapy and certain genetic diseases.At publication, the database lists 7 studies linkingpesticides to soft tissue sarcoma. A 1995 case-controlstudy of Denver children finds that yard pesticideapplications are linked to a four-fold increase in risk tosoft tissue sarcomas (OR 4.0).10Other studies associate living near agricultural areas withthe disease.Other Cancers – With so many pesticides on the marketand possible combinations for exposure, there are scoresof different types of cancers with scientific links topesticides. As the President’s Cancer Panel points out,“Approximately 40 chemicals classified by theInternational Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) asknown, probable, or possible human carcinogens, are usedin EPA-registered pesticides now on the market.”At publication, the database lists 105 studies linkingpesticides to other types of cancers. These include cancerof the bladder, bone, cervix, colon, eye, gallbladder,kidney/renal, larynx, lip, liver, lungs, mouth, esophagus,ovarian, pancreas, rectum, sinus/nasal, stomach, testiclesand thyroid, as well as melanoma (a form of skin cancer),multiple myeloma (cancer of the plasma cells of bonemarrow) and neuroblastoma (cancer of the nerve cells).Developmental and Learning DisordersRoughly one in six children in the U.S. has one or moredevelopmental disabilities, ranging from a learningdisability to a serious behavioral or emotional disorder.Scientists believe that the amount of toxic chemicals in theenvironment that cause developmental and neurologicaldamage are contributing to the rise of physical and mentaleffects being found in children. Studies show children’sdeveloping organs create “early windows of greatvulnerability” during which exposure to pesticides cancause great damage. In the U.S., requirements for testingpesticides and other chemicals for potential developmentaland learning disorders are minimal.A developing brain is much more susceptible to the toxiceffects of chemicals than an adult brain. Duringdevelopment, the brain undergoes a highly complex seriesof processes at different stages. Interference from toxicsubstances that disrupt these processes can havepermanent consequences. That vulnerability extends fromfetal development through infancy and childhood toadolescence. Research has shown that environmentaltoxicants, such as pesticides, at low levels of exposure canhave subclinical effects—not clinically visible, but stillimportant adverse effects, such as decreases in intelligenceor changes in behavior.Continued on page 4342-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 42 – Wide Range of Diseases Linkedto PesticidesAt publication, the database list 26 studies linkingpesticides to learning and developmental disorders .These include general developmental delays, attentiondeficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism. A2009 study published in the journal Pediatrics links amother’s exposure to urban air pollutants known aspolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), whichinclude pesticides, to a reduced intelligence quotient(IQ) in their children.11Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder – AttentionDeficit Hyperactivity Disorder is a neurobehavioraldevelopmental disorder that causes inattention,impulsivity, and hyperactivity. It is estimated thataround two million children in the U.S. have ADHD.At publication, the database lists 8 studies linkingpesticides to ADHD. In one study linking ADHD topesticide exposure, scientists from the University ofMontreal and Harvard University examine data fromthe National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey(NHANES), a program of studies designed to assess thehealth and nutritional status of adults and children. Thestudy shows that for children with a 10-fold increase inthe concentration of dialkyl phosphate metabolites intheir urine (an indicator of organophosphate exposure)the odds of ADHD increase by more than 50%. For thebreakdown product dimethyl triophosphate, the odds ofADHD almost double in kids with above-average levelscompared to those without detectable levels.12Autism – This complex developmental disorder, whichis on the rise in both prevalence and incidence, includesbehavioral problems with social interaction andcommunication. The symptoms range from mild to verysevere, appearing before the age of three and lastingthroughout a person’s life. Research has shown thatpeople with autism have certain irregularities in severalregions of the brain and/or abnormal levels of serotoninor other neurotransmitters in the brain, suggesting thatautism is associated with the disruption of normal braindevelopment early in fetal development.At publication, the database lists 5 studies linkingpesticides to autism.A study published in the October 2007 issue ofEnvironmental Health Perspectives shows that childrenborn to mothers living near agricultural fields, whereorganochlorine pesticides, specifically endosulfan anddicofol, are applied during their first trimester ofpregnancy, are six times more likely to have childrenthat develop autism.13DiabetesAccording to the American Diabetes Association, diabetesis a group of diseases characterized by high blood glucoselevels that result from defects in the body’s ability toproduce and/or use insulin. Type 1 diabetes is usuallydiagnosed in children and young adults. In type 1 diabetes,the body does not produce insulin. Type 2 diabetes is themost common form of diabetes and is most common incommunities of color and the aged population. In type 2diabetes, either the body does not produce enough insulinor the cells ignore the insulin. Pesticides and otherenvironmental factors are almost always linked to type 2diabetes.At publication, the database lists 6 studies linkingpesticides to diabetes. Several studies show that pesticidesand other pollutants can elevate the risk of type 2 diabetesby 20% to more than 100%. A study by the NationalInstitutes of Health (NIH) finds pesticide applicators withregular exposure to pesticides are at greater risk for type 2diabetes. Applicators that had used certain insecticidesmore than 100 lifetime days nearly doubled their diabetesrisk.14Parkinson’s DiseaseThe second most common neurodegenerative disease,Parkinson’s disease (PD) occurs when nerve cells in thesubstantia nigra region of the brain are damaged ordestroyed and can no longer produce dopamine, a nervesignalingmolecule that helps control muscle movement.People with PD have a variety of symptoms including lossof muscle control, trembling and lack of coordination.They may also experience anxiety, constipation, dementia,depression, urinary difficulties, and sleep disturbances.Over time, symptoms intensify. At least one millionAmericans have PD and about 50,000 new cases arediagnosed each year. With less than one percent of casescaused by genetics, researchers have been looking for thepotential risk factors for developing Parkinson’s disease(PD). The epidemiological and toxicological evidence isrepeatedly identifying exposure to pesticides, as well asspecific gene-pesticide interactions, as significant adverserisk factors that contribute to PD.At publication, the database lists 65 studies linkingpesticides to Parkinson’s disease. In a review of 40epidemiological case-control studies from 1983-2005published in the journal Environmental HealthPerspectives, researchers evaluated the relationshipbetween PD and pesticide exposure, finding sufficientevidence that an association exists and is strongest forexposure to herbicides and insecticides, and after longdurations of exposure.15Continued on page 4443-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 43 – Wide Range of Diseases Linked toPesticidesEndocrine DisruptionCommon household products –detergents, disinfectants,plastics, and pesticides– contain chemical ingredientsthat enter the body, disrupt hormones and cause adversedevelopmental, disease, and reproductive problems.Known as endocrine disruptors, these chemicals, whichinteract with the endocrine system, wreak havoc inhumans and wildlife. The endocrine system consists of aset of glands (thyroid, gonads, adrenal and pituitary) andthe hormones they produce (thyroxine, estrogen,testosterone and adrenaline), which help guide thedevelopment, growth, reproduction, and behavior ofanimals, including humans. Hormones are signalingmolecules, which travel through the bloodstream andelicit responses in other parts of the body.Endocrine disruptors function by: (i) Mimicking theaction of a naturally-produced hormone, such as estrogenor testosterone, thereby setting off similar chemicalreactions in the body; (ii) Blocking hormone receptors incells, thereby preventing the action of normal hormones;or (iii) Affecting the synthesis, transport, metabolismand excretion of hormones, thus altering theconcentrations of natural hormones. Endocrinedisruptors have been linked to attention deficithyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s andAlzheimer’s diseases, diabetes, cardiovascular disease,obesity, early puberty, infertility and other reproductivedisorders, and childhood and adult cancers.More than 50 pesticide active ingredients have beenidentified as endocrine disruptors by the European Unionand endocrine disruptor expert Theo Colborn, PhD.Endocrine disruption is the mechanism for several healtheffect endpoints. See the related sections (Cancer,Developmental and Learning Disorders, Parkinson’sdisease, Reproductive Health) for more information.Reproductive Health EffectsA robust body of literature details reproductive effects infish, amphibians, and reptiles related to exposure toendocrine disruptors. Evidence of these effects has alsobeen seen in wild mammals such as polar bears and seals.Environmental exposure assessments and wildlife,laboratory and epidemiologic studies show exposure tolow-level environmental contaminants, such as pesticidesand other chemicals, subtly undermines the ability toreproduce. The study of endocrine disruption is revealingmechanisms that show how specific environmentalcontaminants can alter fertility. Laboratory animalexperiments have confirmed these wildlife findings.At publication, the database lists 22 studies linkingpesticides to reproductive health effects. These includedecreased fertility in both males and females,antiandrogenic (demasculinizing) effects, increased ratesof miscarriage, altered sex ratios and altered maturity. A2006 study published in the journal Epidemiology hasfound inverse associations between pesticides and maletestosterone levels. The study found that high levels of theurinary metabolites of chlorpyrifos (TCPY) and carbaryland naphthalene (1N) correlate directly with low levels oftestosterone in male subjects.16A number of epidemiological studies and animallaboratory experiments that show strong associations orlinkages between infertility rates and exposure topesticides support the conclusions of this study.View Beyond Pesticides’ full Pesticide-Induced DiseasesDatabase at www.beyondpesticides.org/healthSelected Citations1 Hayden KM, et al. 2010. Occupational exposure to pesticidesincreases the risk of incident AD. Neurology, May1;74(19):1524-30.2 Salam, MT, YF Li, B Langholz, and FD Gilliland. May 2004.Early-life environmental risk factors for asthma: Findings fromthe children’s health study. Environmental Health Perspectives112 (6): 760-765.3 Winchester, P., et al. 2009. Agrichemicals in surface waterand birth defects in the United States. Acta Paediatrica, 98(4). 4Nielsen, S.S., et al. 2010. Childhood brain tumors, residentialinsecticide exposure, and pesticide metabolism genes.Environmental Health Perspectives 118(1):144-149.Continued on page 4544-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 44 - Wide Range of Diseases Linked toPesticides5 Teitelbaum, S.L., et al. 2007. Reported residential pesticideuse and breast cancer risk on Long Island, New York.American Journal of Epidemiology 165(6):643-651.6 Lowengart, R., et al. 1987. Childhood leukemia and parent’soccupational and home exposures. Journal of the NationalCancer Institute 79(1):39-46.7 Cantor, K.P. and Silberman, W. 1999. Mortality amongaerial pesticide applicators and flight instructors: Follow-upfrom 1965-1988. Am J Ind Medicine 36(2):239-47.8 Osburn, S. 2001. Research Report: Do Pesticides CauseLymphoma? Lymphoma Foundation of America. Anne Arbor,MI.9 Settimi, L., et al. 2003. Prostate cancer and exposure topesticides in agricultural settings. Int J Cancer 104(4):458-461.10 Leiss, J., et al. 1995. Home pesticide use and childhoodcancer: A case-control study. American Journal of PublicHealth 85:249-252.11 Perera, F. et al. 2009. Prenatal Airborne PolycyclicAromatic Hydrocarbon Exposure and Child IQ at Age 5Years. Pediatrics, DOI: 10.1542/peds.2008-3506.12 Bouchard, M. et al. 2009. Attention-Deficit/HyperactivityDisorder and Urinary Metabolites of OrganophosphatePesticides. Pediatrics DOI:10.1542/peds.2009-3058.13 Roberts EM, et al. 2007. Maternal Residence NearAgricultural Pesticide Applications and Autism SpectrumDisorders among Children in the California Central Valley.Environmental Health Perspectives 115(10).14 Montgomery et al. 2008. Incident Diabetes and PesticideExposure among Licensed Pesticide Applicators: AgriculturalHealth Study, 1993–2003. American Journal of Epidemiology.167(10):1235-1246.15 Brown, T.P., et al. 2006. Pesticides and Parkinson’sdisease – Is there a link? Environmental Health Perspectives114(2):156-164.16 Meeker, JD, et al. 2006. Exposure to NonpersistentInsecticides and Male Reproductive Hormones. Epidemiology.17(1):61-68.http://www.beyondpesticides.org/health/pid-database.pdf☻☻☻☻☻Continued from page 31 - Soy-Based Lunch kills22 Children in India: Have GMOs and Pesticidesbecome Instant Killers?After learning about the school's mismanagement of thesituation, many parents began rioting in the streets anddemanding answers. Protesting villagers reportedly setablaze four police vehicles out of anger, and policereinforcements had to be sent in from elsewhere to quellthe unrest. In the aftermath of the disaster, Bihar hasoffered to provide compensation of 200,000 rupees, orabout $3,500, per dead child to affected families.All government food programs, including those in US,a threat to childrenThough this incident took place in one of India's poorestregions, where corruption is rampant, the moral of thestory is that this type of situation could happen anywhere.In the U.S., for instance, where the federal government iscurrently seizing control of school lunch programsnationwide, children are being fed some of the very samesoy- and chemical-laden garbage for lunch.Just last year, prisoners in Illinois actually filed a lawsuitagainst the state for serving them too much soy, whichwas causing them to become seriously ill. And a districtcourt judge has since acknowledged the merits of thecase, recognizing that high amount of soy, andparticularly GM soy, can lead to severe gastrointestinalproblems, hypothyroidism, infections, and even death."In the U.S., we allow Big Agra to provide insecticidelaced GMOs for our children everyday," wrote oneconcerned and insightful commenter on a piece publishedby The New York Times (NYT). "We have no idea howmuch damage this stuff is doing to our children or the restof the humans who are being slowly poisoned for thebenefit of high profits and obscenely paid CEOS.""At least the Indian government intends to prosecute theones who did this. We (in the U.S.) put them at the headof the FDA and give them complete immunity throughspecially drafted legislation. This is our shame and ourtragedy."Sources for this article include:http://www.independent.co.ukhttp://india.blogs.nytimes.comhttp://www.naturalnews.com/034800_prisoners_lawsuit_soy.htmlhttp://www.riseearth.com/2013/07/soy-based-lunch-kills-22-children-in.html☻☻☻☻☻“We are circumvented today by environments moredangerous than those which circumvented otherpeoples in any other age. We are face to face withenvironments in a civilization that is highlydeveloped; a civilization that is competing withitself for its own destruction; a civilization thatcannot last, because it has no spiritual foundation;a civilization that is vicious, crafty, dishonest,immoral, irreligious and corrupt.”Marcus Garvey45-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

What do Pesticides,Herbicides and Antibioticshave in Common?By Case AdamsJuly 22, 2013There are three natural catastrophes occurring withinnature in slow motion at the moment and they are ourfault. All three catastrophes stem from the same kind ofmistake made by human science and corporate greed.What are they and what are we doing wrong?The slow-motion catastrophes are:• antibiotic-resistant pathogenic bacteria – oftentermed 'superbugs'• pesticide-resistant pests – also called 'superbugs'• herbicide-resistant weeds – now termed 'superweeds'What do these three have in common?All three are the result of the application of synthetictoxicity within nature in an attempt to work outsidenature's normal processes. The application of toxinsmeant to inhibit certain organisms produces resistance,because living organisms by nature seek to survive,and will adapt to toxicity in order to continue theirsurvival.This ability to adapt has been studied for many yearsby scientists and is well known among biology andevolution science. It is one of the foundations ofbiology taught at the most fundamental levels ofinstruction for any beginning scientist.Yet the scientific community has failed to understandhow this most fundamental part of nature will interactwith the toxicity that we have introduced over the pastcentury. Did the scientists who developed thesesynthetic toxins really believe those toxins wouldprovide a permanent solution?We obviously ignored this most fundamentalunderstanding that living organisms will adapt totoxins. We forgot that organisms will develop defensemechanisms that will override deterrent toxins -producing a stronger organism in the process.Let's examine this aspect in all three cases:Antibiotics Produce Plasmid changesAntibiotics – or antibacterials – exist in nature, butmodern synthetic (static) antibiotics began theirdevelopment in the nineteenth century among earlymicrobiologists who discovered ways to combatdisease by inhibiting bacteria with either antisepticchemicals or infused antibiotics derived from othermicroorganisms. Their discoveries led to majoradvancements in knowledge regarding how to killbacteria. For example, the Italian Vincenzo Tiberiodiscovered that the Penicillium mold would removebacteria from well water.These of course were noble causes and their discoverieshave resulted in millions of lives saved from variousinfections. But is there a long-term cost of waging waragainst bacteria outside of nature's means - using statictoxins?Later scientists found that bacteria will produce what iscalled a plasmid – a term suggested by Joshua Lederbergin the early 1950s. A plasmid is a collection of geneticmaterial passed on during procreation and even peerexchangethat teaches a bacteria how to resist thatparticular antibacterial. Even a single bacterium maydevelop a plasmid change and then pass that plasmidchange on to others – both within and outside theirspecies. This passing on of plasmid changes allowsbacteria to teach others how to resist that particular toxicagent.We might compare this to warfare among humans. Oncewe began fighting with swords, the opponents developedshields. After humanity created missiles, the oppositiondeveloped anti-missile weapons. After we created nuclearbombs we created nuclear defense mechanisms and bombshelters.Bacteria are no different. They are also living organismswho want to survive, so they can learn how to evade anantibacterial agent.The only problem is that as this escalation continues,those who position themselves as enemies will now bedealing with a stronger organism. This is the case ofantibiotic-resistant species of bacteria such as MRSA(Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) andnumerous species that cause HAIs – hospital acquiredinfections.The same exact premise is taking place among weeds.Since 2000 the increasing application of glyphosate hasproduced a growing legion of superweed horseweeds andother types of herbicide-resistant weeds.The Growth of Superweeds from Herbicides andGMOsIn a recent paper by Food & Water Watch, the dramaticrise in the application of herbicides in the U.S. over thelast 10 years has led to a growing legion of superweeds.In the 2013 report, called Superweeds: How BiotechContinued on page 4746-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 46 - What do Pesticides, Herbicidesand Antibiotics have in Common?Crops Bolster the Pesticide Industry, found that thedramatic rise in the application of herbicides such asglyphosate between 2001 and 2010 has led to anexplosion of growth of herbicide-resistant weeds.From 2001 to 2010, toxic herbicide application grew by81 million pounds – 26 percent. But the application ofglyphosate to the three biggest genetically engineeredcrops skyrocketed from 15 million pounds in 1996 to150 million pounds in 2012 – this is a ten-fold rise in theapplication of glyphosate.Prior to the domination of glyphosate and geneticallymodified "RoundUp Ready" seeds, atrazine was theleading herbicide used. Both atrazine and glyphosatehave been linked to endocrine disruption, and atrazinehas been the subject of study by university researchersfor its causing mutations among frogs and fish.As a result of the growth of GMO herbicide-friendlyseeds, glyphosate-resistant weeds have been reported in21 states – up from zero states reporting prior to 2000.The resistant weeds began in the South and spread toother states. By 2012, 92% of Georgia farmers reportedglyphosate-resistant weeds, and states throughout theMidwest were being swamped by them.These resistant weeds include ragweed, amaranth,horseweed, bluegrass and waterhemp. Ragweed ofcourse is also a common hayfever allergen – andhayfever is also on the rise in the U.S.SuperPest Growth from Increasing Pesticide UseA similar problem is appearing as a result of the growingapplication of pesticides onto genetically modifiedcrops. Research from the University of Minnesota foundthat the corn rootworm is developing a resistance toGMO corn and the pesticides applied to it such as Bt and2,4-D. A recent interview with agronomist ToddClaussen from the Brownfield publication indicates thatIowa farmers are dealing with 40 to 50 times therootworm infection considered normal – and heattributes this to resistance to soil insecticides.What do these mistakes have in common? All three wereproduced by scientists forgetting the fundamentalbiology lesson that every living organism strives tosurvive and thus will adapt and develop resistance totoxins that attempt to interrupt that survival.And the consequences of these adaptations mirror theattempts to inhibit them. In the case of the application ofstatic antibiotics, we are running out of them as bacteriabecome resistant. In the case of the application of toxicchemicals onto pests and weeds, those pests and weeds arebecoming resistant to those toxic chemicals.There are two backlashes to these developments. The firstis that we have to increase the application of these toxinsin order to get similar results. This means that we becomeexposed to more toxins - as illustrated in all threeinstances: The rise in antibiotic use, pesticide use andherbicide use.The second backlash is that as these living organisms adaptthey become stronger. This means it becomes moredifficult to inhibit them by any means. (Rendering theadage: "I've created a monster!")Both of these consequences ruins it for other livingorganisms – including humans – which become threatenedby a combination of those stronger living organisms andthe increased exposure to toxins.Is there a Solution to our Toxic Science?The solution is to work within nature's means. This meansfinding those strategies that naturally inhibit thosepathogenic organisms. In the case of weeds and pests, croprotation and the feeding of organic biomass into the soil.This will enrich the soil and help strengthen the plants'own immunity against pests – can help resist pests, alongwith the utilization of natural predators that already exist innature. Naturally enriching the soil will also give rise tonatural stewards of plants such as earthworms – whichhelp combat other pests and help nourish plants with theirown waste production as they convert natural fertilizers.In addition to these, there are numerous natural substancesthat repel pests, including castor oil, extracts of mint, basil,garlic and other natural means that utilize evolution torepel pests.In the case of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, the solution liesin employing those natural agents – inclusive of manydifferent antibacterial herbs – that inhibit the growth ofbacteria. Another important tool are those probioticbacteria that are already living within our bodies and canproduce their own antibiotics that fight off pathogenicbacteria – as well as fungi and viruses.The other means to protect ourselves naturally comes inthe form of increasing our own natural immunity. Thiscomes by way of a better diet, plenty of exercise and ahealthy lifestyle in general.The bottom line is that scientists and humanity in generalmust become better skilled in observation. This meansobserving nature and its consequences.http://www.naturalblaze.com/2013/07/what-do-pesticidesherbicides-and.html☻☻☻☻☻47-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

African Traditional Herbal Research ClinicVolume 8, Issue 6 NEWSLETTER July 2013FEATURED ARTICLESNigeria: African Countries Adopt ControversialDeadly Chemical, DDT, for Malaria TreatmentBy Tobore Ovuorie17 July 2013"Exposure to DDT at amounts that would be needed inmalaria control might cause preterm birth and earlyweaning... "Amidst staggering mortality and morbidity rates due tomalaria in the African continent, African Heads of Stateand Government have adopted the use ofdichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), a controversialchemical, as the means of eradicating malaria in thecontinent, This came after several debates whichcommenced Wednesday July 10 at a meeting of HealthMinisters of various African countries; and continued atmeetings of Ambassadors and members of thePermanent Representative Council of the AfricanUnion on July 12.The final decision for DDT adoption was arrived atafter another round of debate on Tuesday July 16,during a meeting of the African heads of state andgovernment, which ended same day. However, longbefore its adoption by African leaders, concerns havebeen raised about the negative impact of the chemicalon the health of humans.DDT is a tasteless, colourless chemical that wassuccessfully used in the second half of World War II tocontrol malaria among civilians and troops. It was thenregarded as a contact poison against several arthropods;hence, was also used as an agricultural insecticide,while its production and use skyrocketed.The use of the chemical was first questioned by anAmerican biologist, Rachel Carson, who wrote aboutthe environmental impacts of the indiscriminatespraying of DDT in the United States and questionedthe logic of releasing large amounts of chemicals intothe environment without fully understanding theireffects on ecology or human health.The book, Silent Spring, published in 1962, suggestedthat DDT and other pesticides may cause cancer andthat their agricultural use was a threat to wildlife andplants. Its publication birthed the environmentalmovement, and resulted in a large public outcrywhich eventually led to DDT being banned foragricultural use in the U.S. in 1972. More than600,000 tonnes were applied in the U.S. before the1972 ban.The chemical was subsequently banned foragricultural use worldwide under the StockholmConvention, but its limited use in disease vectorcontrol continues till date, but remains controversial.Notwithstanding the controversies, 3314 tonnes wereproduced in 2009 for the control of malaria.In humans, medical researchers say it may affecthealth through genotoxicity or endocrine disruption.Genotoxicity involves the damage of the geneticinformation within a cell which then causesmutations, and which could lead to cancer. Furtherstudy results say it affects future generations of theprimary affected person.Endocrine disruption on the other hand involvesnegative interference of the hormone system inhumans. These disruptions, results of medicalresearches state, can cause cancerous tumors, birthdefects, and other developmental disorders. Thisspecifically, could lead to learning disabilities, severeattention deficit disorder, cognitive and braindevelopment problems; deformations of the body(including limbs); breast cancer, prostate cancer,thyroid and other cancers; sexual developmentproblems.Several African countries including Nigeria,however, argued that there were benefits in the use ofthe chemical. Continued on page 4948-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 48 - Nigeria: African Countries AdoptControversial Deadly Chemical, DDT, for Malaria TreatmentNigeria, South Africa others approveNigeria's Minister of Health, Prof. Onyebuchi Chukwu,during the Abuja meeting, emphasized that the WorldHealth Organization has cleared use of DDT in countrieswhere mosquitoes are resistant to other insecticide, notingthat the manner of usage is what matters."Some countries are using them. In the health sector, it's tobe used indoors, not outdoors. It is the Agricultural sectorthat doesn't need DDT. We are not here for rhetorics but toseek the way forward and the summit and African Union isprimarily for that purpose," he stated.Also, the South African representative reiterated that it isimportant for all African leaders to eliminate malaria inAfrica, thus, queried why DDT comes under attackannually whenever it is raised as a means of eradicatingmalaria."If we stop using it, we are sentencing our people to death.Every other continent used DDT to eradicate malaria, sowhy is our turn different in Africa?"He said that within five years, South African had a 600 percent increase in malaria rate from 1996 when the countrystopped using DDT."We had no choice but revert to it. DDT must remain hereuntil a more effective chemical is discovered. We want toemphasize that it must not be removed from our agreedagenda on how to eradicate malaria in Africa," he said.The Commissioner, Social Affairs of the African UnionCommission, Mustapha Kaloko, called for the inclusion ofDDT as the means of eradicating malaria in the region. Hehowever noted that it is not to be generally used whilefood items must be covered and kept away and "only wallsand ceilings are to be sprayed"."DDT will remain in the agenda as the major means forthe eradication of malaria in the continent," he said.Consequently, all African leaders except Central AfricanRepublic which sent no delegate adopted the inclusion ofDDT as the chemical to be used in eradicating malaria inthe region.Though DDT has been adopted by the African leaders asthe key to eradicating malaria in the continent, fear stilllingers even in Nigeria as well as other African countriesover its usage. Delegates who are against its usage werehowever scared of having their names in print whenPREMIUM TIMES spoke to them.One of the Nigerian delegates, who was against DDTbeing adopted, told PREMIUM TIMES that "I wantmalaria eradicated but I am really scared about thenegative impact this would have on the health ofAfricans.DDT is a renowned controversial chemical with grieveimpact on health of mammals; and humans are at theworst receiving end."Other delegates from countries like the Republic ofChad and Mozambique equally shared same views astheir Nigerian counterpart.Effects of DDT on human healthStudies from the United States, Canada, and Swedenlink DDT to diabetes; while the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency states that DDT exposure damagesthe reproductive system and reduces reproductivesuccess in humans. These effects, the agency says, maycause developmental and reproductive toxicity."Research has shown that exposure to DDT at amountsthat would be needed in malaria control might causepreterm birth and early weaning ... toxicologicalevidence shows endocrine-disrupting properties;human data also indicate possible disruption in semenquality, menstruation, gestational length, and durationof lactation" The Lancet- a science journal also states.According to epidemiological studies on humans,exposure to DDT could also lead to premature birthand low birth weight, and may even harm a mother'sability to breast feed.Recently, other researchers from the United States,Canada, and Australia argued that these effects mayincrease infant deaths, thus, offsetting any antimalarialbenefits.A study carried out at the University of California,Berkeley, in 2006 indicated that children exposedwhile in the womb have a greater chance ofdevelopment problems, while other studies havediscovered that even low levels of DDT at birth areassociated with decreased attention at infancy as wellas decreased cognitive skills.In other related researches from around the globe, itwas discovered that daughters of highly exposedwomen to this chemical may have more difficultygetting pregnant. This is called increased time topregnancy, TTP, in medical parlance. Similarly,women who are exposed to the chemical in their firsttrimester of pregnancy (first three months) may havebabies with retarded psychomotor development, whilethose who are unlucky could have a type ofmiscarriage called early pregnancy loss.Continued on page 5049-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 49- Nigeria: African Countries AdoptControversial Deadly Chemical, DDT, for Malaria TreatmentAlso, occupational exposure in agriculture and malariacontrol has also has been linked to neurological problemssuch as Parkinsons and asthma.More recent evidence from epidemiological studies, thatis studies in human populations, indicate that DDT causescancers of the liver, pancreas and breast, whilecontributing to leukemia, lymphoma and testicularcancer.DDT in the fight against malariaAmidst latest progress reports that malaria incidence hasreduced by one-third in Africa, the preventable but killerdisease remains a major public health challengeconfronting the continent. As a result of this, publichealth officials rely on DDT to fight the disease due toits 'wonder working power'.In the 1950s and 1960s, WHO's anti-malaria campaignrelied heavily on DDT and the results were promising,though temporary. Reviewing what went wrong, expertstied the resurgence of the disease to poor leadership,management and funding of malaria control programs;poverty; civil unrest; and increased irrigation.Like Nigeria's Minister of Health stated, the WHO in2006, reversed a longstanding policy against DDT byrecommending that it be used as an indoor pesticide inregions where malaria is a major problem. As of 2008,only 12 countries used DDT, including India and someSouthern African states, as well as Namibia. With theAfrican governments' adoption of the chemical onTuesday in Abuja, the number is expected to rise.Effectiveness of DDT against malariaWhen it was first introduced in World War II, DDT wasvery effective in reducing malaria morbidity andmortality. The WHO's anti-malaria campaign, whichconsisted mostly of spraying DDT, was initially verysuccessful as well. For example, in Sri Lanka, theprogram reduced cases from about three million per yearbefore spraying to just 18 in 1963 and 29 in 1964.Thereafter, the program was halted to save money andmalaria rebounded to 600,000 cases in 1968 and the firstquarter of 1969. The country resumed DDT vectorcontrol but the mosquitoes had acquired resistance in theinterim, hence, the country switching to malathion, whichthough more expensive, proved effective.Today, DDT remains on the WHO's list of pesticides.The world health body's policy has shifted fromrecommending it only in areas of seasonal or episodictransmission of malaria, to also advocating it in areas ofcontinuous, intense transmission.50-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013South Africa is one country that continues to use DDTunder WHO guidelines. In 1996, the country switched toalternative insecticides and malaria incidence increaseddramatically. Returning to DDT and introducing newdrugs brought malaria back under control.Making a case for the pesticide, Namibia's Minister ofHealth, Richard Kamwir, told PREMIUM TIMES that"DDT is effective against resistant mosquitoes.Mosquitoes avoid DDT-sprayed walls and this is whatwe used in my country. DDT is the best pesticide formalaria control as resistant mosquitoes avoid treatedhouses".He further argued that for the pesticide to be effective, atleast 80 percent of houses in any vicinity must besprayed if not, its effectiveness would be jeopardized."People don't like DDT because of the lingering smelland stains on the walls, but I can confidently tell you thatit worked for us" he added.When to use DDTMany global research experts however urge thatalternatives be used instead of DDT.An epidemiologist, Brenda Eskenazi, said "We knowDDT can save lives by repelling and killing diseasespreadingmosquitoes. But evidence suggests that peopleliving in areas where DDT is used are exposed to veryhigh levels of the pesticide. The only published studieson health effects conducted in these populations haveshown profound effects on male fertility. Clearly, moreresearch is needed on the health of populations whereindoor residual spraying is occurring, but in themeantime, DDT should really be the last resort againstmalaria rather than the first line of defense."Donor agencies against DDT usageAt the moment, the African continent is largelydependent on donor agencies for most of herprogrammes, including malaria control. As a result ofthis, there are fears that the decision to use DDT maywitness some challenges.It has been alleged that donor governments and agenciesshy from funding DDT spraying, or make aid contingentupon not using DDT.According to a report in the British Medical Journal, useof DDT in Mozambique "was stopped several decadesago, because 80 percent of the country's health budgetcame from donor funds, and donors refused to allow theuse of DDT."Before now, many countries had been under pressurefrom international health and environment agencies togive up DDT or face losing aid grants. Belize and BoliviaContinued on page 51

Continued from page 50 – Nigeria: African CountriesAdopt Controversial Deadly Chemical, DDT, for MalariaTreatmentadmitted to have given in to pressure on this issue fromUnited States Agency for International Development,USAID.The USAID has been the focus of much criticism. Butthe agency is currently funding the use of DDT in someAfrican countries, though it did not in the past.The Agency's website states that "USAID has never hada 'policy' as such either 'for' or 'against' DDT for IRS.The real change in the past two years (2006/07) hasbeen a new interest and emphasis on the use of IRS ingeneral - with DDT or any other insecticide - as aneffective malaria prevention strategy in tropical Africa."The website further explains that in many cases,alternative malaria control measures were judged to bemore cost-effective that DDT spraying, and so werefunded instead.The way forwardA WHO study released in January 2008 found that massdistribution of insecticide-treated mosquito nets andartemisinin-based drugs cut malaria deaths in half inRwanda and Ethiopia- two countries with high malariaburdens. DDT, the study states, did not play animportant role in mortality reduction in these countries.Vietnam as well has enjoyed declining malaria casesand a 97 percent mortality reduction after switching in1991 from a poorly funded DDT-based campaign, to aprogram based on prompt treatment, bed nets, andpyrethroid group insecticides.A review of 14 studies on the subject in sub-SaharanAfrica, covering insecticide-treated nets, residualspraying, chemoprophylaxis for children, chemoprophylaxisor intermittent treatment for pregnantwomen, a hypothetical vaccine, and changing front-linedrug treatment, found decision making limited by thegross lack of information on the costs and effects ofmany interventions, the very small number of costeffectivenessanalyses available, the lack of evidence onthe costs and effects of packages of measures, and theproblems in generalizing or comparing studies thatrelate to specific settings and use differentmethodologies and outcome measures. The two costeffectivenessestimates of DDT residual sprayingexamined were not found to provide an accurateestimate of the cost-effectiveness of DDT spraying;furthermore, the resulting estimates may not be goodpredictors of cost-effectiveness in current programs.However, a study in Thailand found the cost per malariacase prevented of DDT spraying ($1.87 US) to be 21 percent greater than the cost per case prevented of lambdacyhalothrin-treatednets ($1.54 US). Thus, casting somedoubt on the unexamined assumption that DDT was themost cost-effective measure to use in all cases. Thedirector of Mexico's malaria control program found similarresults, declaring that it is 25 percent cheaper for Mexicoto spray a house with synthetic pyrethroids than withDDT. However, another study in South Africa foundgenerally lower costs for DDT spraying than for nets.A comparison of four successful programs against malariain Brazil, India, Eritrea, and Vietnam does not endorse anysingle strategy but instead states, "Common successfactors included conducive country conditions, a targetedtechnical approach using a package of effective tools, datadrivendecision-making, active leadership at all levels ofgovernment, involvement of communities, decentralizedimplementation and control of finances, skilled technicaland managerial capacity at national and sub-nationallevels, hands-on technical and programmatic support frompartner agencies, and sufficient and flexible financing.http://allafrica.com/stories/201307180429.html?viewall=1☻☻☻☻☻Chlorinated PesticidesWhat are Chlorinated PesticidesChlorinated Pesticides are nerve agents used in agricultureas pesticides, around homes as termiticides, and in grainsas fungicides. These chemicals were designed to attack thenervous system of pests which leads to overstimulation ofthe nerves and eventually death. The most well knownchlorinated pesticide is DDT. Most chlorinated pesticideshave been banned for use in the United States since the1980s. However, some of these chemicals are still in use inother parts of the world, and as fat-soluble toxins, they arepersistent in the environment and the fatty tissue ofanimals and humans.A list of some chlorinated pesticides includes:• DDT• DDE• Dieldrin• Heptachlor Epoxide• Hexachlorobenzene• Mirex• Oxychlordane• Trans-nonachlorContinued on page 5251-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 51 – Chlorinated PesticidesHuman exposure occurs mainly through our diet,primarily from high fat foods such as, meat, poultry,dairy products, and fish, and leafy and root vegetablesfrom agricultural run-off. Other sources of exposure arefrom dust and soil that were contaminated with thesepesticides and termiticides.Chlorinated pesticides are fat-soluble toxins, whichmean they are stored in our body fat, and also in the fatof the animals we consume. Since these toxinsbioaccumulate, we pass them on to the next generation.Acute toxicity from chlorinated pesticides is rarely seensince they have been banned; however, their persistencein the environment and our bodies can cause a variety ofhealth problems that begin slowly. The effects of thesecompounds are most often seen in the neurological,immunological, and endocrinological systems, althoughthey can also affect the cardiovascular, respiratory,gastrointestinal, and other systems in the body.Exposure can result in adverse health effects such as:• Increased asthma and allergies• Parkinsonism• Chronic fatigue• Type II Diabetes• Higher risk of certain cancers• Fertility and reproductive issues• Cognitive disorders• Thyroid issues• Risk of atherosclerosis• Obesity• Autoimmune diseaseItems Containing Chlorinated PesticidesVegetablesVegetables, such as spinach, collard greens, summersquash, Hubbard squash, and cucumbers may be containchlorinated pesticides due to nutrient absorption fromcontaminated soil. It is recommended to buy organic, orchoose from the "Dirty Dozen" and "Clean Fifteen" listsprovided by Environmental Working Group(www.ewg.org).TermiticidesTermiticides are used in and around homes and otherbuildings. Exposure occurs through inhaling contaminateddust through furnace and air ducts and soil particlesthat are tracked indoors on our shoes.MeatChlorinated pesticides are stored in fatty tissues, and whenwe consume fatty meats, we are also consuming thesetoxins. Animals are exposed to pesticides in their naturalenvironment due to groundwater contamination andbioaccumulation. It is recommended to limit fatty meats inthe diet to lower chlorinated pesticide exposure.DairyDue to chlorinated pesticides being stored in fatty tissues,dairy products also contain these toxins. Animals areexposed to these pesticides in their natural environmentdue to groundwater contamination and bioaccumulation.FishA number of fresh water fish advisories have been postedin certain US lakes and rivers because of DDT and PCBcontamination of trout and other fish.FruitFruit may be contaminated with pesticides that are usedeither directly on them, or by chemical residues that attachto the fruit via dust particles in the environment. It isrecommended to buy organic, or choose from the "DirtyDozen" and "Clean Fifteen" lists provided byEnvironmental Working Group (www.ewg.org).http://www.everydayexposures.com/toxins/chlorinatedpesticides☻☻☻☻☻Persistent Organic PollutantsToxic, Persistent, and PervasiveWhat are POPs?Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) are toxic substancescomposed of organic (carbon-based) chemical compoundsand mixtures. They include industrial chemicals like PCBsand pesticides like DDT.They are primarily products and by-products fromindustrial processes, chemical manufacturing and resultingwastes. The existence of POPs is relatively recent, datingto the boom in industrial production after World War II.Why are POPs a threat?Today, POPs are found almost everywhere - in our food,soil, air and water. Wildlife and humans around the worldcarry amounts of POPs in their bodies that are at or nearlevels that can cause injury.POPs pose a particular hazard because of fourcharacteristics: they are toxic; they are persistent, resistingnormal processes that break down contaminants; theyContinued on page 5352-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 52 – Persistent Organic Pollutantsaccumulate in the body fat of people, marine mammals,and other animals and are passed from mother to fetus;and they can travel great distances on wind and watercurrents.Even small quantities of POPs can wreak havoc inhuman and animal tissue, causing nervous systemdamage, diseases of the immune system, reproductiveand developmental disorders, and cancers.Of the numerous POPs that are prevalent in ourenvironment, 12 of the most persistent, bioaccumulativechemicals have been identified for priority action.These 12 POPs are targeted in a new internationaltreaty. The Stockholm Convention on PersistentOrganic Pollutants will phase out and eliminate theproduction and use of those chemicals, as well as newones that would be added once the treaty is in force.The 12 targeted POPs include eight pesticides (aldrin,chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, mirex,and toxaphene), two types of industrial chemicals(polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs andhexachlorobenzene), and two chemical families ofunintended by-products of the manufacture, use, and/orcombustion of chlorine and chlorine-containingmaterials (dioxins and furans).All 12 targeted POPs are also endocrine disruptors,chemicals that can interfere with the body’s ownhormones. Endocrine disrupting chemicals can behazardous at extremely low doses and pose a particulardanger to those exposed in the womb. During prenatallife, endocrine disruptors can alter development andunderm ine the ability to learn, to fight disease, and toreproduce.http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/teacher_resources/webfieldtrips/toxics/our_chemical_world/pops/☻☻☻☻☻Organic Pesticides: Not anOxymoronBy Maureen LangloisJune 17, 2011It may seem counterintuitive, but foods that are grownto organic standards can contain commerciallymanufactured pesticides.A U.S. Department of Agriculture survey of producethat found nearly 20 percent of organic lettuce testedpositive for pesticide residues piqued our interest. Lotsof the lettuce contained quite a bit of spinosad, apesticide marketed by Dow Chemical under the brandname Entrust.So we called, Jeff Gillman, a professor of nurserymanagement at the University of Minnesota who haswritten about organic practices for lay readers. Right offthe bat he told us:When people are buying organic food, they often make theincorrect assumption that there are no pesticides. It's truethat organic production often uses fewer dangerouschemicals, but certain pesticides are allowed.It turns out that a key factor in chemicals being cleared foruse on organic crops is whether they occur naturally.Spinosad, for example, comes from the soil bacteriumSaccharopolyspora spinosa. It can fatally scramble thenervous systems of insects. It's also poisonous to mollusks.The USDA maintains an official list of substances that canand can't be used for organic farming. Other potent naturalextracts that have been approved for use as pesticidesinclude pyrethrin, derived from chrysanthemums, andazadirachtin, from the Asian neem tree, which was alsodetected on some samples of organic lettuce.All three of these substances are considered slightly toxicby the EPA.Synthetic compounds can also make it onto the list aspesticides, if they are relatively nontoxic combinations thatinclude minerals or natural elements, such as copper orsulfur. But some naturally occuring substances, such asnicotine and arsenic are off limits.Are naturally derived pesticides less toxic than syntheticones? The answer depends a lot on the dosage, saysGillman. "To control fire blight on the same acre of land,"he explains, "I could use a tiny amount of a potentsynthetic that has proved safe over the last 50 years, or amuch larger amount of an organic pesticide." He demurson saying which is better, saying, "I want people to knowthat there are definitely tradeoffs."In the USDA tests, there was ten times as much spinosadon organic lettuce than was found on conventionallycultivated fruits and vegetables.Gillman wasn't alarmed by the spinosad finding:It's a relatively new chemistry, relatively safe, andextremely effective against some pests. Now, if I heardabout high levels of copper being detected, I'd be morescared than for this stuff.Copper compounds are used to fight fungal and bacterialdiseases in plants. Copper isn't very toxic to humans, hesays, but it can accumulate in the soil and eventuallyContinued on page 5453-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 53– Organic Pesticides: Not anOxymoronbecome poisonous to plants and even worms at highconcentrations.The seeming contradiction between organic labeling andpotentially harmful pesticide practices may lie in therelative leniency of the USDA organic guidelines,Gillman says. Various organic certification agencies,such as the Oregon Tilth, have tighter rules. (Check outthis roundup of acceptable and forbidden pesticides.)Gillman says just because an organic farmer used someauthorized chemicals is no reason to shun the food. Butit's important for consumers to know what's going on.For him, the answer to the ambiguity around organiclabeling is to go local. "I go to the farmers market andtalk to the growers to see who is serious about reducingpesticide use," he says. "I'd rather buy food fromsomeone who used Roundup once than someone whouses organic pesticides all the time."http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/06/18/137249264/organic-pesticides-not-an-oxymoron☻☻☻☻☻Exposure to Pesticides inFood, Air and WaterIncreases Risk of Type 2Diabetes, Study FindsFeb. 5, 2013 — A study led by the University ofGranada reveals that there is a direct relationshipbetween the presence of Persistent Organic Pollutants inthe body and the development of type 2 diabetes,regardless of the patient's age, gender or body massindex.A study conducted at the University of Granada hasrevealed that there is a direct relationship betweenexposure to pesticides (Persistent Organic Pollutants,CPOs [POPs]) in food, air and water and prevalence oftype 2 diabetes in adults, regardless of age, gender andbody mass index. These substances tend to concentratein body fat, and they might be one of the reasons whyobese people are more likely to develop diabetes, sincethe more fat the higher the COP [POP] concentrations inthe body.In a paper recently published in the journalEnvironmental Research, researchers demonstrate thatpeople with higher concentrations of DDE -the mainmetabolite in the pesticide DDT- are four times morelikely to develop type 2 diabetes than other people.In addition, the risk of type 2 diabetes is also associated withexposure to β-HCH (beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane), which ispresent in the formula of the pesticide Lindano.A Study with 386 SubjectsTo carry out this study, the researchers analyzed theconcentrations of a specific group of COPs [POPs]in theadipose tissue of 386 adult subjects assisted at San Ceciliohospital, Granada, and Santa Ana hospital, Motril, Spain.According to the University of Granada and San Cecilioresearcher, Juan Pedro Arrebola, "human adipose tissue(commonly known as "fat") acts as an energy reservoir andhas an important metabolic function. However, adiposetissue can store potentially harmful substances, such aspersistent organic pollutants (COPs)[POPs]."This makes COPs [POPs] concentrations a useful marker ofa subject's exposure to COPs [POPs]. COPs [POPs] are agroup of chemicals with diverse characteristics which arepresent in pesticides, industrial waste and building materials.These compounds penetrate the body mainly through food,but also through air or the skin.According to professor Arrebola, "the mechanism of actionby which COPs [POPs] increases the risk of diabetes is stillunknown. However, some researchers have suggested thatCOPs [POPs] might cause an immunological response whenthey penetrate estrogen receptors in tissues associated withthe metabolism of sugars."The prevalence of diabetes in the world has significantlyincreased in the last decades. It is estimated that by 2030,4.4% of the world population have this metabolic disorder.This will have a severe impact on public health programs,since it is highly resource-consuming. The factors causingsuch increase in the prevalence of diabetes are not stillclearly understood.This research study was conducted by researchers at SanCecilio University Hospital, Granada, the University ofGranada and the Andalusian School of Public Health, SantaAna hospital, Motril, and the Hospital del Mard'Investigacions Mèdiques, Barcelona. According to theauthors of the study "we are an example of clinical researchfocused on common diseases with a high impact on health."Journal Reference:Juan P. Arrebola, José Pumarega, Magda Gasull, Mariana F.Fernandez, Piedad Martin-Olmedo, José M. Molina-Molina,María Fernández-Rodríguez, Miquel Porta, Nicolás Olea. Adiposetissue concentrations of persistent organic pollutants andprevalence of type 2 diabetes in adults from Southern Spain.Environmental Research, 2013; DOI:10.1016/j.envres.2012.12.001http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130205101415.htm☻☻☻☻☻54-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

African Traditional Herbal Research ClinicVolume 8, Issue 6 NEWSLETTER July 2013FEATURED ARTICLESGenetic Engineering: The Global Food andAgricultural CrisisBy Colin TodhunterJuly 16, 2013In 2012, Professor Seralini of the University of Caenin France led a team that carried out research into thehealth impacts on rats fed GMOs (geneticallymodified organisms) (1). The two-year long studyconcluded that rats fed GMOs experienced serioushealth problems compared to those fed non GM food.Now comes a new major peer-reviewed study that hasappeared in another respected journal. This studythrows into question the claim often forwarded by thebiotech sector that GMO technology increasesproduction and is beneficial to agriculture.Researchers at the University of Canterbury inthe UK have found that the GM strategy used inNorth American staple crop production is limitingyields and increasing pesticide use compared to non-GM farming in Western Europe. Led by ProfessorJack Heinemann, the study’s findings have beenpublished in the June edition of the InternationalJournal of Agricultural Sustainability (2). Theresearch analysed data on agricultural productivityin North America and Western Europe over the last50 years.Heinemann states his team found that the com-bination of non-GM seed and management practicesused by Western Europe is increasing corn yieldsfaster than the use of the GM-led package chosen bythe US. The research showed rapeseed (canola)yields increasing faster in Europe without GM thanin the GM-led package chosen by Canada. What ismore, the study finds that it is decreasing chemicalherbicide and achieving even larger declines ininsecticide use without sacrificing yield gains, whilechemical herbicide use in the US has increased withGM seed.According to Heinemann, Europe has learned togrow more food per hectare and use fewer chemicalsin the process. On the other hand, the US choices inbiotechnology are causing it to fall behind Europe inproductivity and sustainability.The Heinemann team’s report notes that incentivesin North America are leading to a reliance on GMseeds and management practices that are inferior tothose being adopted under the incentive systems inEurope. This is also affecting non GM crops.US yield in non-GM wheat is falling furtherbehind Europe, “demonstrating that Americanchoices in biotechnology penalise both GM andnon-GM crop types relative to Europe,” according toProfessor Heinemann.He goes on to state that the decrease in annualvariation in yield suggests that Europe has a superiorcombination of seed and crop managementtechnology and is better suited to withstand weathervariations. This is important because annualvariations cause price speculations that can drivehundreds of millions of people into food poverty.The report also highlights some grave concernsabout the impact of modern agriculture per se interms of the general move towards depleted geneticContinued on page 5655-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 55 - Genetic Engineering: The GlobalFood and Agricultural Crisisdiversity and the consequently potential catastrophicrisk to staple food crops. Of the nearly 10,000 wheatvarieties in use in China in 1949, only 1,000 remainedin the 1970s. In the US, 95 percent of the cabbage, 91percent of the field maize, 94 percent of the pea and 81percent of the tomato varieties cultivated in the lastcentury have been lost. GMOs and the control of seedsthrough patents have restricted farmer choice andprevented seed saving. This has exacerbated thisproblem.Heinemann concludes that we need a diversity ofpractices for growing and making food that GM doesnot support. We also need systems that are useful, notjust profit-making biotechnologies, and which provide aresilient supply to feed the world well.Despite the evidence, governments capitulateGiven the mounting evidence that questions theefficacy and safety of GMOs (3,4,5,6,7), it raises theissue why certain governments are siding with thebiotech sector to allow GMOs to be made available oncommercial markets. It is simply not the case thatcountry after country is accepting GMOs on the basis ofscientific evidence, as scientists-cum-lobbyists for theGM sector often state (8). If scientific evidence were tobe determining factor, few if any countries would havesanctioned GMOs.Part of the answer lies in the fact that the powerful USbiotech sector continues to forward its agenda thatGMOs are a frontier technology that will save humanityfrom famine and hunger. This is despite evidence thatmost of the world’s hunger is the product ofprofiteering industrial chemical agriculture and theglobal structuring of food production and distributionunder the banner of ‘free trade’ and ‘structuraladjustment’ (9,10), or as many of us know it browbeating and structural dependency.Yet, the mantra of GM as the saviour of humanitypersists courtesy of the GM sector’s puppet politiciansand regulatory bodies (11). The US is pushing for lopsidedbilateral trade agreements with other countries notonly to generally tie economies into US economichegemony in an attempt to boost its ailing economy andflagging currency, but more specifically to get nationsto ‘accept’ GMOs. Through behind-closed-door deals(12,13) coercion (14) or the hijack of regulatory bodies(15), there has been some success, and many think itcould be just a matter of time before other countries,not least India, capitulate to allow GM food crops ontothe commercial market.In fact, regardless of any legal statute, it may be andprobably is already happening in India, not least viacontamination (16). However, if contamination by meansof illegal planting and open field ‘testing’ fails to getGMOs on to the commercial market via the back door, theGM sector is attempting to cover all angles. Immediatelyafter a moratorium on BT Brinjal was announced in 2010,a Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI)Bill suddenly emerged. The BRAI Bill could not be passedin 2010 and 2011 because of objections, but it has surfacedagain as a 2013 Bill. Environmentalist VandanaShiva argues that it not so much constitutes a BiotechnologyRegulation Act, but a Biotechnology DeregulationAct, designed to dismantle the existing bio-safetyregulation and give the green-light to the GM sector topress ahead with its agenda in the country.By highlighting the GM sector interests behind theproposed legislation, Shiva says that the goal is to givethe sector’s corporations immunity by freeing them ofcourts and democratic control under India’s federalstructure. For those who follow such developmentsin India, it doesn’t take a great deal of imagination toappreciate that the future of Indian agriculture is in thewrong hands. Certain key scientists and top politicianshave already been ideologically (or otherwise) ‘boughtand paid for’ by proponents of the ‘Green Revolution’ andmore recently the GM sector (7).On a global level, with reports of wheat (17), rice (18) andmaize (19) having been widely contaminated with GMOs,there seems to be a conscious ploy to contaminate so muchof the world’s crops so that eventually GMOs take overregardless and render the pro/anti GM debate almostacademic (20).It seems that secretive trade deals, the hijack of officialbodies designed to ensure the ‘public interest’ andbullying or intimidation are not enough. Contaminationstrategies are but one more way of achieving throughclosed and non-transparent methods what could not bepossible by transparent and democratic means – simplybecause hundreds of millions of people do not wantGMOs.A generation down the line (or much sooner), will welooking at the health and environmental consequences ofGMOs in the same way we now regard the impacts of theoriginal ‘Green Revolution’?“There are very good reasons why we have neverintroduced a Green Revolution into Africa, namelybecause there is broad consensus that the GreenRevolution in India has been a failure, with Indian farmersin debt, bound to paying high costs for seed and pesticides,Continued on page 5756-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 56 – Genetic Engineering: TheGlobal Food and Agricultural Crisiscommitting suicide at much higher rates, and resultingin a depleted water table and a poisoned environment,and by extension, higher rates of cancer.” PaulaCrossfield, food policy writer/activist (21).We don’t have to take Paula Crossfield’s word for it,though. Punjab was the ‘Green Revolution’s’ originalposter boy, but is fast becoming transformed from afood bowl to a cancer epicenter and now reels under anagrarian crisis marked by discontent, debt, watershortages, contaminated water, diseased soils and pestinfested cops (22,23,24).In the meantime, big ‘ag’ in collusion with big pharmawill continue to control our food and define ourhealthcare by pushing their highly profitable ‘miraclesolutions’ for the health and environmental problemswhich they conspired to create in the first place. It is allpart of the wider corporate-elite agenda to colonise andcontrol every facet of human existence.Notes1) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S02786915120056372) http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14735903.2013.806408#tabModule3) http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/new-study-confirmswheat-autism-link-04) http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/it-time-acknowledgeroundup-herbicide-contraceptive5) http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers6) http://vidarbhatimes.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/maharashtra-reports-btcotton-failure-in.html?m=17) http://www.globalresearch.ca/india-genetically-modifiedseeds-agricultural-productivity-and-political-fraud/53282278) http://www.deccanherald.com/content/311963/ban-gmcrops-imperil-indian.html9) http://www.globalresearch.ca/our-hungergames/530260310) http://cchronicle.com/2010/10/focus-on-hungerinterview-with-vandana-shiva/11) http://rense.com/general33/fd.htm12) http://www.global-sisterhoodnetwork.org/content/view/799/76/13) http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-eu-free-tradeagreement-a-corporate-stitch-up-by-any-othername/533978914) http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/20/us-retaliation-listgm-crops-cablegate/15) http://www.globalresearch.ca/stench-of-eu-corruption-inmonsanto-gmo-whitewash/531629416) http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-death-of-rice-inindia/956217) http://rt.com/news/monsanto-wheat-japan-exports-026/18) http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org/index.php?content=nw_detail219) http://www.scidev.net/global/gm/news/mexico-confirmsgm-maize-contamination.html20) http://www.nwrage.org/content/2005-was-very-good-yearbiotech-food-industry21) http://civileats.com/2009/07/10/g8-promises-15-billion-inagricultural-aid/22) http://www.deccanherald.com/content/309654/punjabtransformation-food-bowl-cancer.html23) http://sagarmediainc.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/punjabindias-grain-bowl-now-reels-under-agrarian/24) http://www.amazon.com/The-Violence-Green-Revolution-Agriculture/dp/0862329655Sources: Global Researchhttp://truththeory.com/2013/07/16/genetic-engineering-theglobal-food-and-agricultural-crisis/☻☻☻☻☻GM Crops: Campaigners inGhana accuse US of PushingModified FoodFrom farmers to MPs, debate over seed ownership andthe role of foreign influences on agriculture is causingdivisions in GhanaBy Afua Hirsch24 July 2013Guardian.co.UukThe US embassy in Accra held a roundtable onbiotechnology this month. The discussion, designed topromote candid dialogue between biotechnologysupporters and sceptics, was attended by experts andcampaign groups on both sides of the GM foods debate.But one Ghanaian campaign group refused the invitation."Our call for a moratorium on GM foods was met with aninvitation to a closed-door discussion," said Duke Tagoe,of Food Sovereignty Ghana, which campaigns for greatertransparency about GM foods.Continued on page 5857-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 57 – GM Crops: Campaigners inGhana accuse US of Pushing Modified Food"We are deeply worried about what seems like animposition of genetically modified foods on the goodpeople of Ghana without any meaningful publicdiscourse, compounded by attempts to stifle anyopposition."Food Sovereignty Ghana and other domesticorganisations accuse the US and other foreign donors ofpromoting GM foods to west African countries, andtying aid to implementation.According to a leaked cable, the US government washeavily involved in drafting Ghana's 2011 Biosafety Act,which provided a framework for the introduction of GMfoods. The US aid department provided technicalassistance and some funding.The cable said biotech products were being sold inGhana and GM seeds from neighbouring countries werelikely to have migrated over its borders. US companieshave begun requesting permission to conduct trials.The US embassy in Accra declined to respond to arequest by the Guardian to comment on its stance on GMfood in Ghana, but claims about the arrival of GM aresupported by public officials.Duke Tagoe of Food Sovereignty Ghana. Photograph: JoyNews TV"GM foods are used in agriculture. This is somethingyou cannot wish away because it has come and it is inpractice," said John Odame Darkwa, acting chiefexecutive officer of Ghana's Food and Drugs Authority(FDA). "We ensure that any food imported into thecountry is safe."But campaigners say trials of GM foods, which the FDAadmits have been carried out in Ghana, are a violation ofthe law, which states trials require the written approvalof a new body, the National Biosafety Authority. Theproblem, they say, is that this authority does not existyet."Trials are being conducted, but there isn't anyframework in place," said Kweku Dadzie, from FoodSovereignty Ghana. "We are calling for a ban on theimportation, cultivation, consumption and sale ofgenetically modified foods and crops, until the people ofGhana are satisfied that such an important andirrevocable decision is a sound and proper one to make."Dadzie points to a lack of public debate surrounding thepassing of the Biosafety Act. Maxwell Kofi Jumah, MPfor Asokwa, recently admitted on local radio thatministers lacked understanding of the issues.Many opponents of GM crops have pointed to the role ofmultinational companies that sell GM "hybrid" seeds thatdo not self-pollinate, compelling farmers to buy newseeds from the same companies each year, as well as theirpesticides and herbicides.Tagoe said: "Farmers in Ghana have had their own wayof keeping seeds year after year. If these policies areallowed to manifest, Ghanaian farmers will have tochange money into foreign [currency] in order topurchase seeds from overseas firms. The economicimpact on the lives of the farmers will be disastrous. Theorigin of food is seed. Whoever controls the seed controlsthe entire food chain. These seeds are not owned by anyAfrican entity, they are owned by American companies."However, experts say there are advantages to thetechnology. The chief executive of CGIAR Consortiumon agricultural research, Dr Frank Rijsberman, said:"Private companies could develop self-pollinating seedsthat also provide higher yields, but they don't because it'snot profitable."But at the same time, the quality of seeds that pollinatethemselves is often not that great. It can be difficult forfarmers to select the best seeds. The job of seedcompanies is to select seeds that will have a biggeryields. The best hybrid rice, for example, produce about20% better yields than the best self-pollinating seeds."Some say that, instead of looking at yield increasesthrough GM, the focus should be on improving access tomarkets for the crops that are already being grown bygreater investment in extension services and lowtechnologyimprovements in farming."There is huge potential to increase yields using low-costand existing technologies," said Kanayo Nwanze,president of the International Fund for AgriculturalDevelopment, speaking at the Africa Agricultural ScienceWeek in Accra last week. "In Africa, only about 6% ofthe total cultivated land is irrigated … It is estimated thatirrigation alone could increase output by up to 50% inAfrica. Continued on page 5958-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 58 - GM Crops: Campaigners inGhana accuse US of Pushing Modified Food"Small increases in fertiliser use in sub-Saharan Africacan produce dramatic improvements in yields. Postharvestgrain losses in sub-Saharan Africa average $4bnevery year. This is food that could meet the nutritionalneeds of around 48 million people."Rijsberman said farmers needed better seeds, but alsorequired better access to inputs, access to markets,farming systems and livelihood strategies. "These thingswould go a long way to improving yields and incomes ina country like Ghana," he added.http://www.guardian.co.uk/globaldevelopment/2013/jul/24/gm-crops-ghana-us-geneticallymodified-food☻☻☻☻☻Water in Pesticide SprayLikely Source of Cyclosporain OutbreakFebruary 10, 1997FOOD CHEMICAL NEWSA field investigation in Guatemala conducted by theCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) hasindicated that the water used in pesticide solutions is themost likely source of the parasite Cyclosporacayetanensis that caused a multistate outbreak offoodborne illness last summer.Pesticides are mixed with water, then applied toraspberry plants by spraying the mixture onto the soil ordirectly onto the plant. The water used for mixing maycome from wells, reservoirs, and in a few cases, rivers orsprings. In investigating the ten farms implicated in theoutbreak, it was found that two farms obtained waterfrom a river and underground spring and three othersused water stored in reservoirs, some of which wereopen and could easily have become contaminated. Filtersused for the water were not small enough to filter outCyclospora oocysts.The investigation looked at sources of water becauseother investigations of Cyclospora cayetanensis havereported water as the mode of transmission. ThoughCDC investigators concluded that water sprayed onraspberries during pesticide application is the most likelymode of transmission of the parasite, they admitted thatother possibilities cannot be completely ruled out.The CDC report made several recommendations forways to prevent similar outbreaks in the future. One59-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013such recommendation advised that any water used tomix pesticides should meet the standards for potablewater as defined by World Health Organizationguidelines.The report also urged continued cooperation betweenCDC and the Guatemalan exporters' association,GEXPRONT, to help in preventing or tracking anyfuture outbreaks.http://www.ext.colostate.edu/safefood/newsltr/v1n4s03.html☻☻☻☻☻Parasite Sickens 250 inMidwest; Fresh ProduceSuspectedJuly 22, 2013NBC NewsBy JoNel AlecciaInfections caused by the rare parasite cyclospora havesickened about 250 people in several U.S. states, federalhealth officials said Monday. Here, four round oocysts werefound in a fresh sample of human stool.More than 250 people have been sickened, mostly in theMidwest, by a rare parasite that may have contaminatedfresh produce shipped across state lines, said federalhealth officials, who’ve stepped in to help coordinatethe growing outbreak.At least 118 cases of cyclospora infection have beenreported in Iowa, another 65 in Texas and 68 inNebraska, state officials said. Four more cases also havebeen reported in Wisconsin and one each in Illinois andKansas, although the Illinois case may have originatedin Iowa.At least eight people have been hospitalized, the Centersfor Disease Control and Prevention reported Monday.Continued on page 60

Continued from page 59 - Parasite Sickens 250 in Midwest;Fresh Produce SuspectedSo far, there’s no clear source for the illnesses, whichwere reported from mid-June through July, said Dr.Barbara Herwaldt, a medical epidemiologist with theCDC’s division of parasitic diseases and malaria centers.“Nothing has been implicated yet in a formal sense,”Herwaldt said. “No food item has been identified as thesource of the outbreak.”But officials in Nebraska and other states suggest thatfresh vegetables may be the source, based on interviewswith people who got sick. Tainted produce could havebeen shipped across state lines, accounting for theillnesses in multiple states, Herwaldt said. More than onefood source could be behind the outbreak andcontaminated water used in growing practices could be aculprit.Cyclospora is a microscopic protozoan parasite excretedin human stool. Protozoa are tiny, one-celled animals thatbreathe, move and reproduce.Symptoms of infection can include weeks or months ofwatery diarrhea -- but the infection is treatable withcommon antibiotics, Herwaldt said. She encouragedpeople who have unexplained stomach troubles to seekmedical help and to ask whether a test for cyclosporainfection might be necessary. Such tests are not routinelyperformed, and have to be requested.Other symptoms can include fatigue, loss of appetite,weight loss, bloating, intestinal gas, stomach cramps,nausea, vomiting, muscle aches and low-grade fever.There’s no known natural source in the U.S. ofcyclospora. That raises the possibility that importedproduce could be behind the outbreak, Herwaldt added.Indeed, raspberries imported from Guatemala wereresponsible for a 1996 outbreak that sickened 1,465people in the U.S. and Canada, and also for a 1997outbreak that made more than 1,000 people ill, CDCrecords show. Other foods considered potential culprits inother outbreaks include fresh herbs and lettuce.Cyclospora infections must be reported in 39 states, plusNew York City and Washington, D.C., Herwaldt said.CDC encourages other states to report infections as well,both in order to help treat individual people and to helpstop the future spread of the parasite.Consumers should wash their hands well when handlingfresh produce and scrub it well, if possible. Refrigerationseems to slow the parasite’s ability to infect people,Herwaldt said.It’s possible that the contaminated produce has made itsway through the food supply in the past month, but it’sstill too soon to tell, she said.“What we don’t know yet is whether the transmission orspread of the parasite is ongoing,” she said.http://www.nbcnews.com/health/parasite-sickens-250-midwest-fresh-produce-suspected-6C10709186☻☻☻☻☻What is the Connectionbetween Pesticides andBreast Cancer?A growing body of scientific evidence suggests thatexposures to toxic chemicals, including pesticides, inthe environment are contributing to high breast cancerrates. Pesticides used in and around the home and inagriculture are used to control pests like weeds(herbicides), fungus (fungicides), insects including fleasand ticks on pets (insecticides) and rodents(rodenticides).Pesticides are just one of many daily toxic exposures.We can be exposed to unsafe chemicals through the useof pesticides in our yards, on our pets, in public parks oron the food we eat as well as from certain plastics,cosmetics and pharmaceuticals.Even though some pesticides have been banned, theyremain in the body and the environment for decades.DDT, perhaps the most studied pesticide, was banned inthe U.S. in 1973 but can still be found in household dustsamples and in the body fat of humans and animals andin human breast milk and placenta. Not all pesticideslinked to breast cancer act the same.Some pesticides are breast carcinogens. Carcinogenicchemicals are found widely in our environment andcause direct damage to breast cell DNA or change thecell’s ability to respond to internal or externalchallenges.Ten of the 216 animal mammary carcinogens listed bySilent Spring Institute in 2007 are pesticides.Other pesticides disrupt hormones in the body. Manypesticides are endocrine disruptors. Endocrine disruptorsare chemicals that disturb or mimic normal biologicalprocesses like the actions of hormones including androgens, estrogens and thyroid hormone. Chemicals thatmimic estrogen are of particular concern becauseexposure over time to natural estrogen—or syntheticchemicals that act like estrogen—increases the risk ofbreast cancer. Continued on page 6160-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 60 - See Table for a list of pesticides linked to breast cancer, whether they are carcinogens orendocrine disruptors and common sources of exposure.Pesticide1,2‐Dibromo‐3‐chloropropane2,4‐Dichlorophenoxyacetic acidAtrazine (a TriazineHerbicide)AnimalMammaryGlandCarcinogen*√CarcinogenicHumanCarcinogenicRiskClassification†IARC Posible NTPReasonablyanticipatedDisruptsHormonesDisruptsEndocrineSystem/Estrogenic‡√Source of Exposure/Scope of UsePesticide, air pollution, ingestion ofpreviously contaminated food and water,banned as soil fumigant in 1985Pesticide: herbicideIARC Not√Pesticide: herbicide, air pollutant, foundwidely in water bodies, exposure throughingestion of food or water, banned in√ClassifiableEuropean Union in 2005, 75 million poundsused annually in U.S. mainly on corn andsorghumCaptafol √ IARC Probable Pesticide: fungicide, not currently registeredfor use in U.S.Chlordane √ √Pesticide: insecticide (ticks and mites),veterinary pharmaceutical, air pollutant,use as insecticide has been banned, persistsin meat, fish, and found in household dustChloropyrifox √ Pesticide: insecticide (ticks and mites)Clonitralid√Cypermethrin √ Pesticide: insecticideDDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)NTP ReasonablyanticipatedDichlorvos √ IARC PossibleDieldrin, Aldrin,Endrin (‐drinpesticices)FenvalerateHeptachlor√IARC NotClassifiableIARC Possible√√√Pesticide, exposure through dermal contactor ingestion of water treated withclonitralid (for water snail and sea lampreycontrol) or contaminated fishLindaneNTP Reasonablyanticipated√Malathion √ Pesticide: insecticideMethoxychlor√Pesticide: contact insecticide, banned inmany countries, used for malaria control inothers, DDT and metabolite DDE still foundin body fat of humans and animals thoughbanned in U.S. in 1973Pesticide, air pollutant, inhalation or air anddermal contact with no‐pest strips, spraysor flea collars, ingestion of foodprepared where dichlorvos has been usedPesticide: insecticide, 1950s to 1970sdieldrin and aldrin used on corn and cotton,1987 both were banned, stillpersist in environmentPesticide, landscaping/yard products, petcare productsPesticide: insecticide, used for termitecontrol through 1980s in U.S., agriculturaluse continued until 1993 (especially onpineapple), affects liver’s processing ofestrogenPesticide: insecticidePesticide: insecticide, veterinarypharmaceutical61-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 61 – What is the Connection between Pesticides and Breast Cancer?Nifurthiazole √ IARC Possible PesticidePesticide: insecticide (termites), woodPentachlorophenol√ preservativePermethrin,Pesticide: insecticideSumithrin√Pesticide, air pollutant, widely used toSimazine (a Triazine √IARC Notcontrol weeds in food crops and in ponds,Herbicide)Classifiablealgae control in pools and fountains,detected at low levels in air, rainwater andsurface waterSulfallateToxapheneTributyl Tin(chloride)Vinclozolin√IARC Possible;NTP ReasonablyanticipatedNTP Reasonablyanticipated√√√Pesticide: herbicide, used until early 1990sin U.S., exposure through ingestion ofresidues in food cropsPesticide: insecticidePesticide: biocide, rodent repellentPesticide: agricultural fungicide, used invineyardsBreast Cancer Fund ~ www.breastcancerfund.org 10/11/07* Silent Spring Institute’s Science Review published in Cancer in 2007 includes information on 216 animal mammarygland carcinogens.†International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) carcinogenic risk classification is based on evaluation ofpotential tumor development at all sites, not only breast/mammary tissue. Categories include: Known, Probable,Possible and others. The National Toxicology Program (NTP), within the National Institute of Environmental HealthSciences of the National Institutes of Health, provides carcinogenicity ratings based on scientific evidence in bothanimals and humans. Categories include: Known, Reasonably Anticipated, and others. (Report on Carcinogens,Eleventh Edition; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National ToxicologyProgram.) Not all chemicals have been rated by IARC or NTP.‡To date, neither the NTP nor IARC have classified most endocrine disruptors as carcinogens in humans. List ofendocrine disruptors from: Brody JG, Rude l RA (2003). Environmental pollutants and breast cancer. EnvironmentalHealth Perspectives 111: 1007-1019.What can we do about pesticides?Support organic agriculture at home and in the schoolsto reduce exposure to hormonally-active pesticideresidues and find alternatives to pesticide use in yourdaily life.Visit www.panna.org for more information.Support bans of the cosmetic – purely aesthetic – useof pesticides, meaning, where the weed or pest posesno danger to human health, the environment orproperty. The cities of San Francisco and Oakland inCalifornia have banned the use of pesticides in theirparks for years and Canadians are actively pushing forbans in municipalities. What about your town?Pesticides may disrupt the endocrine systems of childrenduring critical stages of development and contribute tolater-life breast cancer risk or to the early onset ofpuberty, also a risk factor for breast cancer.Visit www.breastcancerfund.org/pubertyreport to learnmore.http://www.pureprevention.org/documents/pesticides_and_breast_cancer_2007.10.11.pdf☻☻☻☻☻62-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Biological cause of BlackWomen's Deadly CancerSeptember 6, 2007A new study gives a possible explanation for why breastcancer is more deadly in black women: They are morelikely to have tumors that do not respond to the hormonebasedtreatments that help many others with the disease.The study is the largest yet to link a biological factor tothe racial disparity, which also has been blamed on blackwomen getting fewer mammograms and less aggressivetreatment.“This puts biology more to the forefront,” said Dr. JulieGralow, a cancer specialist at the University ofWashington School of Medicine familiar with the work.“It’s not just access to care, access to treatment and otherfactors that have been implicated in the past.”The study was led by Dr. M. Catherine Lee of theUniversity of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Centerand is to be presented at a conference starting Friday inSan Francisco, organized by the American Society ofClinical Oncology and other cancer groups.Breast cancer is the most common cancer in Americanwomen. An estimated 178,480 new cases and 40,460deaths from it are expected in the United States this year.More likely to dieBlacks are less likely than whites to develop breast cancerbut are more likely to die from it, doctors have longknown. Blacks also are diagnosed at younger ages and atlater stages of disease.Researchers for the first time used the National CancerData Base, a tumor registry maintained by the AmericanCollege of Surgeons, to explore these issues, using morethan 170,000 cases diagnosed in 1998. Ten percent werein black women.The study focused on the 95,500 women whose cancerswere invasive rather than still confined to a milk duct.About 39 percent of such tumors in black women wereestrogen receptor-negative, or ER-negative, comparedwith 22 percent of those in white women.Estrogen helps tumors grow. Drugs that block thishormone, like tamoxifen and a newer class of medicationscalled aromatase inhibitors, work against these cancers.ER-negative tumors are resistant to such therapies andharder to treat. Other tools like chemotherapy, radiationand targeted biological drugs then become moreimportant for such women, and doctors should considerthis when they evaluate black women with the disease,63-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013Lee said.In the study, ER-negative tumors were more common inblack women at every stage of disease and at all ages.For example, only 17 percent of early stage tumors inwhite women were ER-negative, but 31 percent in blackwomen were. Of the most advanced cancers, 31 percentin whites and 46 percent in blacks were ER-negative.Cancer more advanced when diagnosedEchoing previous research, the new study found thatblack women were diagnosed at younger ages — anaverage of 57 years old versus 62 for white women —and with more advanced disease: Only 29 percent hadearly stage tumors versus 42 percent of white women.They also had larger tumors and more cell traits that aresigns of a poor prognosis.Smaller studies have suggested biological differencesbetween breast cancer in blacks and whites. Earlier thisyear, the Carolina Breast Cancer Study found that youngblack women were more likely to have an aggressiveform called the basal-like subtype.Last fall, two studies by researchers from the Universityof Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center found thatblack women were more likely to have larger, laterstagetumors and lower survival rates than Hispanic andwhite women given similar treatments.But these findings do not mean that differences inscreening and health care are not contributing to thetrend, especially in certain parts of the country, said Dr.Wendy Woodward, a breast cancer specialist at M.D.Anderson.“You really have to kind of go at the problem from allangles. If you solve the access problem and womencome in and you don’t have an adequate therapy forthem, you haven’t taken a step forward,” she said.Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer of theAmerican Cancer Society, agreed. Racial disparity inbreast cancer survival did not appear until the mid-1980s, suggesting that much of it is due to lack ofscreening mammograms and access to care, he said.http://www.nbcnews.com/health/biological-cause-blackwomens-deadly-cancer-1C9468040☻☻☻☻☻

African Traditional Herbal Research ClinicVolume 8, Issue 6 NEWSLETTER July 2013FEATURED ARTICLESUproar over Killing of Rare BirdsBy Flavia LanyeroDaily Monitor, July 25, 2013Quelea birds fly over a rice field recently at the KibimbaRice Scheme in Bugiri District. PHOTO BY DAVIDAWORIIn SummaryMinistry of Tourism officials say the decision toindiscriminately spray the quelea birds with poisonhas negative impacts on both the environment andtourism.KampalaWhen the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industryand Fisheries was on Monday faced with thechallenge of quelea birds eating rice at Kibimba RiceScheme, their immediate remedy was to kill them byspraying.This has spurred fury among bird lovers andconservationists who say this was not only a breach ofwildlife laws, but also endangering to other animalspecies not targeted by the spraying.In an interview with the Daily Monitor, the actingpublic relations officer, ministry of Tourism, Wildlifeand Antiquities, Mr Akankwasah Barirega, said theministry is worried that other non-target species,especially pollinators like bees and butterflies, couldhave ended up dying which could pose a threat tofuture food production.“While we agree with the need to control the birdsfrom destroying crops and causing losses tofarmers, the unilateral action taken toindiscriminately spray poison without dueconsultation and or conducting any environmentalimpact assessment is not only in breach of theNational Environment Act Cap 153, but also hasserious ramifications for environment, tourism andhence national economy,” Mr Barirega said.1.8 Million KilledThe Ministry of Agriculture in partnership withthe Desert Locust Control Organisation of EastAfrica on Monday carried out a pest controlexercise at Kibimba Rice Sheme in Bugiri District,spraying dead about 1.8 million quelea birds thatwere destroying an estimated 15 tonnes of rice aday.Section 15 of the Uganda Wildlife Act, Cap 200requires an environmental impact assessment forany activity likely to have significant impact onany wildlife species or community, and section 96of the National Environment Act criminalisesconducting such activities like aerial spray orintroducing new pesticides without conducting anenvironment impact assessment.The Ministry of Agriculture did not, however,conduct an environmental Impact assessmentbefore carrying out the aerial spray. Mr StephenByantwale, the Principal Agriculture Inspector inthe Ministry of Agriculture, said the exercise wasaimed at controlling more than 2 million queleabirds that had migrated into the county and werecausing destruction.Mr Acheles Byaruhanga, the executive director ofNature Uganda and a bird’s researcher, said theoption of killing birds is an indication of poorplanning on the side of the Ministry of Agricultureand that it does not solve the problem.Continued on page 6464-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 64 – Uproar over Killing of Rare BirdsMr Byaruhanga said the quelea birds are a native ofUganda which breed in swampy areas and do not movein huge numbers of millions as agriculture officialsclaim.“First these birds’ habitats has been destroyed and theyneed to look for means of survival. Secondly these birdsfeed on cultivated crops during breeding seasonstherefore the Ministry of Agriculture should advicefarmers on when cultivation should be which should notbe during the birds’ breeding season to minimise loses,”Mr Byaruhanga said, adding that the poisonous spraycould easily find its way into the soil.Bird havenUganda is globally known as the bird haven of Africaand birding is one of the biggest tourism products for thecountry. According to the Ministry of Tourism, Ugandagenerates more than $6 million annually from birdingtourism alone.Mr Barirega said other methods like mist trapping,scaring, aerial spray but after careful planning andfollowing an environmental Impact assessment andspraying hot water without using poisonous chemicalscould have been deployed.http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Uproar-overkilling-of-rare-bird/-/688334/1925534/-/kl41ay/-/index.html☻☻☻☻☻Honey Bees in Trouble?Blame Farm Chemicals,Study saysBy John RoachJuly 25, 2013NBS NewsHoney bees rented to out pollinate crops from apples towatermelons return to their hives with pollen containingan array of agricultural chemicals that make the insectsmore vulnerable to infection by a lethal parasite,according to a new study.While other research has shown certain pesticides,including insecticides known as neonicotinoids andothers used to fight parasitic mites, can compromise beehealth, the new study shines a light on the impact ofsprays used to kill fungi and molds."Fungicides, which we didn't expect to harm insects,seem to have a sub-lethal effect on bee health," DennisvanEngelsdorp, an entomologist at the University ofMaryland and senior author of the new study, told NBCNews."And that is important, of course, because there is not alot of regulation for fungicides when they are beingapplied to flowering plants … so this suggests that weneed to rethink and reevaluate how we write label lawsfor some fungicides," he added.The study, published online Wednesday in the journalPLoS One, is the first to analyze the real-worldconditions honey bees encounter as they pollinate crops.The analysis revealed which flowering plants were thebees' main pollen sources and what agriculturalchemicals were commingled with the pollen.On average, the pollen samples contained nine differentagricultural chemicals, including fungicides,insecticides, herbicides and miticides. Sub-lethal levelsof multiple agricultural chemicals were present in everysample. One contained 21 different pesticides.The most common pesticides were the fungicidechlorothalonil, which is used on apple and other crops,and the insecticide fluvalinate, which is used bybeekeepers to control Varroa mites, a honey bee pestthat a government backed study released earlier thisyear fingered as the leading cause of honey bee decline."Varroa mites are beekeepers number one problem andso the treating with miticides … is a little bit likechemotherapy; it is bad for the bees, we know it is badfor the bees, but we know that not treating is muchworse for the bees," vanEngelsdorp said.The researchers only found neonicotinoids, which otherstudies have shown to be toxic to pollinators, in honeybees that were pollinating apples, suggesting theinsecticide is just one part of a complex problem.This chemical-laden pollen was fed to healthy bees,which were then tested for their ability to resistinfection with Nosema ceranae, a parasite of adulthoney bees that has been linked to the overall problemof honey bee decline.The biggest surprise, according to the researchers, isthat bees fed pollen containing the fungicidechlorothonatil were nearly three times more likely to beinfected by Nosema than bees that were not exposed tothese chemicals."It suggests that we really have to look broadly atpesticides and look at ways of reducing pesticideexposure, including fungicides," vanEngelsdorp said.The finding jives with earlier studies pointing tointeractions between various factors as a cause forContinued on page 6565-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 65 – Honey Bees in Trouble?honey bee decline, noted Olav Rueppell, a biologist andbee expert at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro,who was not involved in the new research."But this study is particularly nice because it takesactually the pollen that bees bring into the hive … tocompromise honey bee immunity," he told NBC Newsin an email. "Therefore, many substances are involvedand seem to have an effect."And since the problem of honey bee decline appearsmultifaceted, added vanEngelsdorp, "the solutions areprobably multifaceted."http://www.nbcnews.com/science/honey-bees-troubleblame-farm-chemicals-study-says-6C10736740☻☻☻☻☻Nigeria: FG Begins AerialSpray of Locusts in Bauchi14 July 2013The VanguardBauchi — The Federal Government has begun theaerial spray against quelea birds and grasshoppers in 10local government areas of Bauchi State.The state Commissioner for Agriculture, Alhaji TasiuAbubakar, said this at the beginning of the exercise inBauchi.He said that the state government had donated 750litres of pesticides for the exercise.Abubakar said it would curb the menace of pests andensure the realisation of mass food production byencouraging peasants to take to farming.He, however, warned farmers within the affected areasto stay indoors during the period to avoid inhaling thepoisonous insecticides.It gathered that the exercise was being conducted bythe Federal Ministry of Agriculture and RuralDevelopment in conjunction with the state government.The Coordinator, North-East Zonal Office of theministry, Mr Johnson Waziri, observed that one of thegreatest challenges facing agriculture was pest control.Waziri said the exercise was in line with thegovernment's Agricultural Transformation Agendatoward ensuring sustainable food security.He said that it would be conducted every morning andevening, adding that the period coincided with the"nesting time for the pests".The coordinator commended the state government forgiving top priority to agriculture.The Chairman, Global Apex Air, the company handlingthe exercise, Capt. Gbenga Bankole, who conducteddignitaries round the aircraft, said the organisation wasusing a new technology to do the exercise.Bauchi, Alkaleri, Kirfi, Misau, Giade, Ningi, Shira,Gamawa, Jama'are and Zaki local government areas arebeneficiaries of the exercise. (NAN)http://allafrica.com/stories/201307150399.html☻☻☻☻☻Tanzania: Herbicide EffectsExtend Beyond PlantsBy Anne Outwater13 May 2012Tanzania Daily NewsColumnHERBICIDE tolerant crops, developed through geneticengineering, were supposed to control weeds, and Btcrops were intended to control insect pests.In fact one of the most potent promises made aroundgenetically engineered crops was that pesticide usewould decrease. This is a seductive goal since pesticidesare dangerous for human beings and the environment.However, the opposite has happened.Instead of controlling insect pests and weeds, geneticallyengineered crops have led to the emergence of insectsand weeds resistant to the usual insecticides andherbicides .... A few weeks ago we examined theproblem of increased insecticide use; this week we willexamine the picture emerging around increasingherbicide use.The purpose of inserting the gene to make a cropherbicide resistant is so that the crops can then beweeded by using that particular herbicide (in order todecrease the involvement of human labor). The cropsthemselves become resistant because of the gene that wasinserted into them. So even when the herbicide is killingall around it, the crop with the inserted gene will stilllive.Monsanto, the company who is believed to own 90% ofgenetically engineered seeds, has made most of themdependent on the herbicide Roundup, which they alsosell. These crops are called Roundup ready. Roundup isthe most widely used herbicide in the history of theContinued on page 6766-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 66 – Tanzania: Herbicide EffectsExtend Beyond Plantsplanet. The name of the herbicide used in Roundup isglyphosate. Let's look at glyphosate for a moment.It is described as a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide.It is a non-selective herbicide that ills grasses, broadleafed,and woody plants. Nonselective is a warningword here; non-selective means it can kill everythingaround it. Just by hearing that type of description, wecan be alerted that this kind of chemical is working at avery fundamental level.According to Iowa State University AgronomyDepartment, glyphosate inhibits a pathway (through theShikimate pathway enzyme) that is responsible formany things including biosynthesis of amino acids andbiosynthesis of many different plant compounds. Thechemical is readily absorbed through the foliage of aplant and accumulates in areas of active growth.Plants cannot metabolize or detoxify the chemical.Glyphosate inhibits protein synthesis. The plants stopgrowing and slowly degrade due to lack of proteins.The plant ultimately dies from dehydration anddesiccation.According to Dr Robert Kremer, microbiologist withthe USDA Agricultural Research Service, whoconducted a 15-year study on glyphosate's effects onplants and root microbiology, it also removes importanttrace minerals, "Glyphosate is a chelator, which willbind with elements such as manganese and calcium,and those sorts of nutrients, and immobilize them... Inother words, it will make them unavailable for plantuptake."A review of the toxilogical data on Roundup (Giesy,Solomon, Dombson, 2000) concluded that glyphosateproduces functional abnormalities in fetuses andpregnant rats. As well it interferes with testosteroneproduction in mouse cultures, and estrogen biosynthesisin cultures of human placental cells.There are great dangers to aquatic organisms especiallyamphibians. A study in 2010 (Paganell, Gnazzo,Acosta, Lpez, and Carrasco) incubated the embryos ofAfrican clawed frogs (a species often used in research)with a 1:5000 dilution of a commercial glyphosatesolution. They discovered found that glyphosate causedneural defects, and craniofacilal malformations;in addition, the frogs also suffered diminution of bodysize, alterations in brain morphology, reduction of theeyes, and many neural system abnormalities.These same horrifying basic abnormalities also occur-red in experiments with chicken embryos. There is noreason to think these types of things would not happen tohuman embryos - that is, babies in the womb. It isethically difficult to conduct research on such poisonsdirectly on human beings. But in Great Britain and theUnited States glyphosate incidents are the highest reportedof all pesticides. People experience skin irritation andgastrointestinal corrosive effects - mouth, throat.Kidney and liver impairment are frequent. In humanbeings Roundup - and its most active ingredientglyphosate - leads to rashes, nausea, headaches, and alsoto seizures, convulsions, and death. Ingestion of 85milliliters leads to "significant toxicity" even death in ahuman being. The United States and China are the leadingproducers of this broad-spectrum, nonspecific poison.Imagine... putting something like that out on the market.Imagine again...engineering basic crops so that more of itwill be used... It is almost beyond imagining, but there itis.http://allafrica.com/stories/201205130180.html☻☻☻☻☻South Africa: DevelopingGuidelines for 'Roundup' inSouth Africa23 January 2013By Alan AndersonPaul Kojo Mensah, a SSAWRN student at RhodesUniversity in South Africa, has tackled and completed aproject of great value and considerable complexity: testingthe effects of herbicide use on aquatic organisms in theEastern Cape region, and developing guidelines forherbicide use based on the responses of those organisms.Paul's interest in this topic grew out of his discovery thatthere were no such local guidelines in place, andconsiderable reason for concern, given the increasing useof herbicides by farmers, private land owners, publicagencies, and the flourishing wine industry.Paul, who was born in Ghana, has always dreamed ofusing his biological training to help protect theenvironment. When he was studying biology as anundergraduate at the University of Cape Coast in his homecountry, he hoped to move on to graduate school so thathe could become a marine biologist and a universityprofessor. After graduating with honors in 2001, however,he was unable to find sponsorship for his master's studieslikemost other science graduates in Africa. He had noContinued on page 6867-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 67 – South Africa: DevelopingGuidelines for 'Roundup' in South Africachoice but to enter the job market, and was fortunate tofind work teaching in a secondary school in Ghana.After four relatively unproductive years, he moved toSouth Africa in 2005 to try his luck in a newenvironment. Again, he supported himself by teachingin secondary school, enrolling at the same time in thenew Walter Sisulu University in the Eastern Cape,recently formed by a merger of three other institutions.He saved as much money as he could from his teachingsalary, and by 2006 was able to begin his MSc studiesin zoology, working also as a teaching assistant at theuniversity.By 2008, he had completed his MSc and began trying tofind a supervisor and support for PhD studies inecotoxicology, an interest he had acquired at WSU.While searching the Web, he came across the name ofDr. Nikite Muller at Rhodes University's Institute forWater Research in Grahamstown. He emailed her, andshe suggested that he apply to the RISE program as wellas to Rhodes. In November 2008 he received an emailedacceptance from both programs.Working with Dr. Muller and her colleague Prof. TallyPalmer, both members of the Institute for WaterResearch (IWR) at Rhodes, he had access to manypotential research ideas. He would not be working inmarine biology, as he had earlier planned, but he soonlearned that he might be able to make a substantialcontribution in freshwater biology. He heard about aproblem that was receiving virtually no researchattention in South Africa - the growing presence of toxicchemicals in waterways and the effects of thesechemicals on aquatic organisms. Both of his mentors,who had long experience in the field of ecotoxicology,encouraged his interest and helped guide his researchplanning.As he learned about the regional use of herbicides tocontrol weeds and invading aquatic species, he was notsurprised to find that the most widely used chemicalwas glyphosate, most commonly sold under thecommercial name Roundup and liberally usedthroughout the province. He was surprised, however, tofind that South Africa had no water quality guidelinesfor glyphosate that were based on indigenous species,unlike the United States, Australia, Canada, and theEuropean Community - even though it has been foundin high concentrations since the 1990s in the Hex RiverValley, an intensive grape-farming area in the WesternCape Province.There were reasons for urgency in creating sciencebasedguidelines. One is that glyphosate is commonlyused near and even on rivers and other waterways,draining into them when it rains. As an aquatic biologist,Paul knew that many species of aquatic animals aresensitive to chemical pollutants, and he saw the need toprotect populations of economic and ecological value.Also, he learned that weed species in South Africa andelsewhere are quickly developing resistance toglyphosate, prompting some users to increase theirapplication rates.The action of glyphosate was discovered in 1970 byJohn Franz, an American chemist employed byMonsanto, and glyphosate was introduced commerciallyin 1974. Franz and his team discovered that theglyphosate molecule interferes with an enzyme vital to acritical biochemical pathway in virtually every plant,bringing farmers a powerful new tool in their war withweeds. And unlike its predecessors DDT and 2,4-D,glyphosate seemed to bring little or no risk to humans orother animals, in which this pathway is not present. Formany years before Paul began his work, glyphosate wasviewed by many agricultural researchers as the "perfectherbicide" - a broad-spectrum, systemic agent that killedvirtually every weed and invasive species, broke down inthe environment, and posed little risk to users.Over the next two decades, glyphosate's popularity grewsteadily but slowly. Farmers used it to spray fieldsbefore planting, but they could not use it after cropsemerged. In 1996, however, this all changed whenmolecular geneticists succeeded in moving a glyphosateresistantgene from a soil bacterium into ordinary crops.This meant that every major "world crop," from corn torice to wheat, could be shielded from the danger ofglyphosate, which could now be applied directly to thecrops themselves and the weeds among them. Monsantodeveloped seeds for these resistant strains and watchedthe use of glyphosate soar around the world. Within adecade, some 90 percent of all major crops were grownwith the Roundup Ready system, which included boththe spray and the seeds. From then until now, about halfof Monsanto's revenues have been generated by thissystem.Recently, however, the Roundup picture has cloudedsomewhat. Persistent use of glyphosate has spurred theemergence of resistant weed strains, including some"superweeds" that dominate as the weeds around themsuccumb. And evidence is accumulating that theRoundup system is not quite as safe as it was thought tobe. Numerous studies have found evidence that it doesindeed harm some organisms, such as the nitrogen-Continued on page 6968-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 67 – South Africa: DevelopingGuidelines for 'Roundup' in South Africafixing bacteria in soil and many species of frogs, whichare commonly viewed as the aquatic equivalent of "thecanary in the coal mine."While the glyphosate molecule itself is thought to besafe, it must be mixed with "adjuvant" chemicals, suchas surfactants, that enhance its application or activity. Itis these glyphosate formulations that appear to threatensome animals, often through changes in reproductive,endocrine, nerve, or developmental functions. Studieshave also suggested that the formulations can alter thenatural biota and nutrient availability of soil anddamage human DNA, among other effects.These assertions are disputed by Monsanto, and theheavy application of glyphosate has continued inregions worldwide, including the Eastern Cape. Paul'sprimary objective has been to evaluate its safety and todesign evidence-based guidelines for use. In order togain perspective for his work he began by examiningother countries' guidelines. Then he began testing thesensitivity of local aquatic organisms.Many of them showed some degree of sensitivity toglyphosate exposure, but he began by looking for asingle reliable biomarker, or indicator species, that wasboth common and sensitive to herbicides. Through theIWR, he worked closely with the Department of WaterAffairs at sites along the Swartkops River to plan hisresearch strategy. He found what he needed in Caridinanilotica, a common fresh-water shrimp occurringthroughout the continent, from the Nile to South Africa.He found that this shrimp is both sensitive to herbicidepollution and exhibits a range of responses that can bereadily observed.One was that Roundup depressed the activity of a vitalenzyme, acetylcholine esterase (AChE); the higher theconcentration of herbicide, the greater the depression ofAChE activity. AChE is essential to the transmission ofnerve signals, especially at nerve-muscle junctions andin the brain.A second behavior of C. nilotica caused by glyphosatewas lipid peroxidation (LPx), a process which results inthe degradation of the fats in cell membranes. Paultested this behavior by exposing post-hatch shrimps tohigh concentrations of Roundup for 96 hours to measureacute toxicity; he also exposed them to smaller amountsof herbicide over a much longer 21-day period.Biochemical testing showed that LPx was significantlyhigher in animals exposed to Roundup than in controlanimals.Finally, he assessed the toxicity of Roundup using threedifferent life stages of the shrimp: neonates (less thanseven days after hatching), juvenile (more than sevendays and fewer than 20 days post-hatching), and adult(more than 40 days post-hatching). All were exposed tovarying concentrations of the herbicide in 48- and 96-hour tests. All three life-stages of the shrimps that wereexposed to herbicide responded with erratic and slowmovements, with neonates showing the most irregularbehavior. This indicated that even low levels of Roundupmay adversely affect the health and survival of C.nilotica.For his ultimate goal of suggesting guidelines for bothshort-term and long-term exposure to glyphosate, Paulchose to examine the responses of eight species oforganisms belonging to five taxonomic groups: insects,crustaceans, mollusks, fish, and green algae. Hemeasured the effects of both high-level, acute exposure,such as might be caused by spills and surface runoff, andto low-level, chronic exposure, as might be caused bygradual, steady seepage of herbicide from soil intonearby waterways.He found wide variations in sensitivity among the testspecies. For example, the water flea, Daphne pulex, wasabout nine times more sensitive to glyphosate than themidge, Tanytarsus flumineus. For the algal species,Chlorella sorokiniana was found to be 10 times moresensitive in a 48-hour exposure than C. protothecoides,and 200 times more sensitive in a 72-hour exposure.Arthropods and fish were the least sensitive of thegroups tested. Based on analysis of his data on speciessensitivity, he was able to recommend water qualityguidelines that can help avoid both severe effects duringacute, transient events (such as spills) and long-termexposure. In general, he concluded that the herbicideshould be carefully managed to minimize any negativeimpact on non-target freshwater organisms, andsuggested the amount of herbicide that can be usedsafely. To date, Paul and his co-authors have publishedfour papers on these results. He based his PhD thesis onthis work, and it has been successfully completed.Meanwhile, Paul's circle of connections in the world offreshwater management has expanded with the departureof Dr. Muller from Rhodes University. She left in 2010to become an environmental officer with Amatola Water,a water services provider to municipalities in the EasternCape. She remains his co-supervisor, along with Prof.Palmer.He now hopes to continue his study of the herbicide as apostdoctoral fellow if he is able to find support for hisContinued on page 6969-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 69 - South Africa: DevelopingGuidelines for 'Roundup' in South Africawork. Much remains to be done, as the use of glyphosatein the Eastern Cape continues to be heavy. The provincialgovernment has been cooperating with Monsanto since2005, when the companybegan providing farmers withGM seed and the Roundup regimen. "One result is thatthe farmers are using too much Roundup," said Paul."They believe that 'If some is good, more is better.' Theyare also using more no-till farming, which requires lots ofherbicide. Ours is still the only field work beingconducted on this issue, and we have the responsibility tocommunicate what we have found."http://allafrica.com/stories/201301240929.html☻☻☻☻☻Zimbabwe: ParaquatHerbicide Faces Ban18 January 2013The HeraldZIMBABWE will work towards exhausting all stocks ofthe paraquat herbicide in line with China's researchfindings that the chemical is highly toxic and thereforeunsuitable for continued use.Principal director in the Department of Research andSpecialist Services, Mrs Danisile Hikwa, said althoughChina's research findings had not been officiallycommunicated to all countries, it was critical for thecountry to take a cue and phase the chemical out.The Chinese government announced that the countrywould halt all production and use of liquid paraquat by2016 after Chinese researcher Sun Jing and othermembers of the Pesticide Eco-Alternatives Centre inChina learned that local farmers were mysteriouslyfalling ill and dying from effects of the chemical.Sun suspected this had something to do with theherbicide paraquat that farmers were using. The farmershad no idea what a deadly chemical they were handlingevery day.Paraquat is an acutely toxic weed killer. The chemicaldestroys green plant tissue on contact and is also toxic toanimals. Direct contact on the skin causes death. Longtermexposure can result in Parkinson's disease and skincancer.China is the world's largest producer of paraquat,manufacturing 100 000 tonnes per year. Sun and hercolleagues researched the chemical. "If there isinformation like that coming from China, it will soon beshared so that we look for alternative chemicals to use inweed control without endangering the lives of thefarmers, biodiversity and other plants. Paraquat is not aselective herbicide and kills everything in its path oncontact."It should not be a problem when it is phased out. Wewill just look for alternatives. There are conventionsguiding the use of chemicals and Zimbabwe has ratifiedsome of them so we have to conform.The Rotterdam Convention for instance, which regulatesthe trade of chemicals and the Stockholm Convention thatis concerned with the disposal of chemicals are some ofthe conventions to which Zimbabwe is a signatory andhas to abide," said Mrs Hikwa.She said it was now the prerogative of different countrieseither to stop the use of the chemical at once or to phaseit out gradually. "There are stocks of the chemical in thecustody of farmers out there and it will take time for allof them to be exhausted so we shall see how it goesbefore we can even think of setting our own deadline forthe total ban of the chemical," she said.Mrs Hikwa said paraquat was part of the chemicals thatbear the purple label and were dangerous andtraditionally not allowed to be handled by smallholderfarmers without supervision from trained personnel.Other chemicals the country banned because of their hightoxicity include methylbromide and dichloro-diphenyltrichloroethane(DDT). Mrs Hikwa's comments come inthe wake of reports that several years ago, GlobalGreengrants Fund supported their work from thebeginning and sustained it over several years.http://allafrica.com/stories/201301180994.html☻☻☻☻☻Kenya: FAO Gives Sh42Million for Pest Control22 June 2013The StarThe Food and Agricultural Organisation will spend Sh42million to implement a pest management programmewith the Pests Control Products Board.FAO programme associate Stanley Kimereh said the twoyearfunding will improve the PCPB's laboratory capacityto analyse pesticides.Kimereh was speaking at the PCPB offices in Nairobiyesterday when he joined Israeli ambassador Gil Haskelon a courtesy call on the board's director Gladys Maina.Continued on page 7170-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 70 - Kenya: FAO Gives Sh42 Millionfor Pest ControlThe three discussed ways in which FAO and the Israeligovernment can help build the capacity of PCPBlaboratories and train field staffs to ensure only effectivepesticides are used.http://allafrica.com/stories/201306240104.html☻☻☻☻☻Africa: Governments Urgedto Limit Weed Killer Found inHumans17 June 2013Washington DC / Brussels (belgium) — Friends of theEarth International today urged governments around theworld to limit the use of the weed killer glyphosate, afterlaboratory test results released last week showed thatpeople across 18 European countries have traces of theweed killer in their bodies. [1]Media briefing on glyphosate and reasons for concernavailable at: www.foeeurope.org/glyphosate-reasons-forconcern-briefing-130613The unprecedented tests carried out by Friends of theEarth Europe revealed that 44% of samples from 182volunteers in 18 European countries contained traces ofthe herbicide [2].Glyphosate is one of the most widely-used weed killers inthe world, used by farmers, local government andgardeners, and is sprayed extensively on geneticallymodified crops.In the United States and Latin America, farmers are usingincreased amounts of pesticides, -including glyphosateduelargely to the heavy adoption of genetically modifiedcrops. [3]The biggest producer of glyphosate is US biotech giantMonsanto which sells it under the brand name"Roundup".Lisa Archer, Food and Technology Program Director ofFriends of the Earth US said:"Discovering traces of glyphosate in Europeans raisesserious questions. How did it get there? Why aren'tgovernments testing for it? And is it also present inAmericans citizens? Unlike Europe, the US grows vastamounts of glyphosate-resistant crops, which haveresulted in a massive application of herbicides andsuperweeds.. Some of them are already out of control.Monsanto's unauthorised genetically modified wheatrecently discovered in US fields is the latest alarm belland confirms the need for stricter controls onagribusiness."In May 2013 a strain of genetically-engineeredglyphosate-resistant wheat was found on a farm inOregon, USA. The wheat was developed by Monsantowhich tested it between 1998 and 2005. The wheat hasnever been approved nor marketed. Trading partners havesince introduced restrictions or testing of US wheatimports. [4]Adrian Bebb, spokesman for Friends of the Earth Europesaid:"Agribusinesses that promote GM crops and pesticideslike to pretend they have things under control - butfinding this weed killer in peoples' urine suggests we arebeing exposed to glyphosate in our everyday lives, yetdon't know where it is coming from, how widespread it isin the environment, or what it is doing to our health.""Governments around the world need to limit glyphosateuse, step up their investigations, and ensure that peopleand the environment are put before the interests of a fewagribusiness corporations," he added.According to 2010 figures, 70% of all the corn that wasplanted in the United States had been geneticallymodified to be herbicide resistant; as well as 78% ofcotton and 93% of all soybeans. [5]In Europe there has been widespread opposition to GMcrops, with only one GM crop grown commercially,although there are 14 applications currently beingconsidered by the EU to grow glyphosate-resistant crops.In Argentina, 200 million litres of glyphosate-basedpesticides are used yearly on soy plantations alone[6]NOTES[1] This is the first time monitoring has been carried outacross Europe for the presence of the weed killer inhumans. All of the volunteers who gave samples live incities, and none had handled or used glyphosate productsin the run up to the tests.http://allafrica.com/stories/201306181375.htm☻☻☻☻☻Tanzania Told to Sever Linkwith Monsanto27 June 2013Pambuzuka NewsBy Nizar VisramContinued on page 7271-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 71 – Tanzania Told to Sever Link withMonsantoTanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete is an enthusiasticsupporter of Monsanto, but now pressure is mounting onhis government to reject GMO technologies as solutionsto end hungerNormally Tanzanian lawmakers would 'prove' theirradicalism by blasting rival parties, state authorities,public corporations or ministers for shoddy work done ormillions that go missing. They would hardly ever take aswipe at a multinational corporation, much less anAmerican one.Yet that is what happened recently when Hon HalimaMdee (Chadema) called upon the government to sever itsrelations with the international seed company Monsanto,which is a major stakeholder in the country's campaignfor a green revolution.She reminded the government that the firm had causedfarmers misery and suffering in many countries,including the US, where it is based.The company, known for the production of geneticallymodified seeds, has been blacklisted in India, Argentina,Chile and eight European countries because the seeds itsells to farmers at high prices have been a disaster,prompting some nations to institute legal action against it,Ms Mdee said.'Last year the company committed $50 billion toproducing seeds for Africa, but the firm is known aroundthe world as a major producer of genetically modifiedseeds, which are harmful to farmers and the environment,'she cautionedMs Mdee suspected that given the company's badreputation, President Jakaya Kikwete might have beenmisinformed by his aides. 'This is because we know thatthese large multinationals have a tendency to use theirfinancial muscle to compromise government leaders.'Shadow Agriculture Minister Rose Kamili noted thatIndia has banned the use of cotton seeds produced byMonsanto after research established that they were athreat to farmers and the environment.In fact more than 1,000 farmers had committed suicide asa result of debts resulting from buying seeds fromMonsanto at high prices.The points brought up by the two ladies hardly triggeredany reaction or rejoinder. Probably the lawmakers werenot well informed of the subject matter, or they were nottoo keen to irritate the conglomerates who promotegenetically modified organisms (GMO) and the donoragencies that back them.72-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013Yet the debate is no doubt raging within the civil society,among groups that are running concerted campaignsagainst GMO. But they are not having an easy ride, forMonsanto is applying pressure in the country foramendment to regulations so as to allow GMO.They are using local scientists and researchers as well asstate bigwigs. The firm reportedly provides all the means,from laboratory to foreign travels. In the course of doingthis, they manage to get local spokespersons andmouthpieces.Tanzania Alliance for Biodiversity is not among them.This is a joint coalition that is trying to maintainagricultural biodiversity for food sovereignty andsecurity. It aims at sustainable development, promotingself-determination and facilitating exchange ofinformation and experiences among farmers.Alliance members are convinced that the introduction ofGM crops or animals is not the right solution to povertyand hunger as claimed by the likes of Monsanto.They are concerned that while Tanzania has so far beenGM free, the country has now opened the door to GMbiotechnology.The Alliance has collected various campaigners,including African Centre for Biodiversity, ActionAidInternational Tanzania, Biolands, BioRe, BioSustain,Envirocare, PELUM Tanzania, Swissaid, and TanzaniaOrganic Agriculture Movement.They join similar movements in South Africa, Zambia,Kenya, and Uganda, to resist the pressure from the USdrivenbiotech industry.On the other side, agribusiness corporations try their levelbest to promote what they claim to be high-tech miracleseeds for solving the problem of African food insecurityand poverty.One supporter they apparently managed to bag is noneother than President Jakaya Kikwete himself who, inMarch this year, came out in defence of Monsantos,heaping the blame on those who challenge them, sayingthey are 'uninformed' and so need to educate themselves.He called for a transformation of the 'negative mindset'on the adoption of GM technology in the country,challenging scientists in the country to conduct researchto establish the 'practicality of the technology', stressingthat as long as there are 'no proven major negativeimpacts', he saw no logic in opposing the application ofthe technology.His prime minister, Mizengo Pinda, also accused thosewho oppose GMO of being 'slow in accepting theContinued on page 73

Continued from page 72 - Tanzania Told to Sever Link withMonsantoopportunity' offered by the technology, claiming thatKenya and Uganda are 'far ahead of us in its application'.Thus, at the official level Tanzania supports the plan toconduct research on genetically modified crops in thecountry. The agriculture minister said that Tanzania wasaimed at keeping up with the new technology in order tomodernise agriculture and promote balanced economicgrowth. He said the time for being rigid on the use ofGMOs was over.Nothing is being said about the decision taken by theEuropean Union, who banned GMO crops on groundssuch as pesticide resistance and threats to biodiversity orpotential negative effects on the environment.What the Tanzanian and African apologists of GMO haveto keep in mind is that traditionally the seed and itscontrol has been the foundation of their agriculturalsector. After all some 80% of seed comes from local andcommunal resources and is adapted to local conditions. Itis thus an integral part of the communal food security andagricultural integrity. With the onslaught of GMO thistraditional system is undermined.This is what happens when commercial interests,supported by the World Bank, together with frontorganisations and self styled philanthropists, attempt toalienate this crucial resource.This is done by giant multi-national seed and pesticidecompanies that are promoting hybrid and geneticallymodified seed. While they claim to assist thedevelopment of African agriculture, the end result isdisastrous.One example is the South African seed industry - thebiggest in Africa - whose deal was recently sealed whenthe country's court permitted the sale of its lastremaininglarge seed company, Pannar, to the US multinationalPioneer, a subsidiary of DuPont. With this the US firm isto take over Pannar's African network.It means South Africa's valuable seed industry is grabbedby world's two largest US seed compan ies th at are to useSouth Africa to gain inroads into Africa, with seriousconsequences for indigenous seed networks.Meanwhile, organisations like the Alliance for a GreenRevolution in Africa (AGRA) claim that new seed beingdeveloped for Africa will be freely distributed tosmallholder farmers.What happens is that these giant seed corporates transferthe experience of South America to Africa. In SouthAmerica the herbicide-resistant GM soya that was73-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013patented by Monsanto was surreptitiously encouraged.When the soy industry became widespread, Monsantostarted to claim royalties on all the soy grown, since itestablished the right to its intellectual property. Luckilythe attempts in Brazil were overruled in the courts andMonsanto was ordered to refund billions of dollars tofarmers.When the soy industry became widespread, Monsantostarted to claim royalties on all the soy grown, since itestablished the right to its intellectual property. Luckilythe attempts in Brazil were overruled in the courts andMonsanto was ordered to refund billions of dollars tofarmers.It is practice such as this that prompted the onlinecampaign run by Avaaz for a global petition aiming atexposing Monsanto's worldwide grip, cautioning that themega-company is gradually taking over our global foodsupply, poisoning our politics and putting the planet'sfood future in serious danger.The petition shows how Monsanto develops pesticidesand genetically modified seeds, patents the seeds,prohibits farmers from replanting their seeds year to year,then sends undercover agents out to investigate and suefarmers who don't comply.The firm spends millions lobbying US governmentofficials, contributing to their political campaigns, thenworks with them to push Monsanto goods into marketsacross the world.Monsanto is trampling small farmers and smallbusinesses as vast 'monoculture' farms of single cropsleech the land of nutrients, diminish genetic diversity, andcreate dependency on fertilizers, pesticides and otherchemicals.'Monsanto's power in the US gives them a launch pad todominate across the world. But brave farmers andactivists from the EU, to Brazil, to India and Canada areresisting and starting to win,' Avaaz proclaims.The online petition shows how farmers are lured intomulti-year contracts, then seed prices rise, and they haveto buy new seed each season and use more herbicides tokeep out 'super weeds'. In India, the situation is so direthat one cotton area has been called 'the suicide belt', astens of thousands of the poorest farmers have taken theirlives to escape crippling debt.It is not surprising, therefore, that, at the end ofNovember 2012, Kenya banned the importation ofgenetically modified food on health grounds.A stormy public 'debate' ensued. There were those on theContinued on page 74

Continued from page 70 - Tanzania Told to Sever Link withMonsantoside of 'modernity' and 'science', denouncing the lack of'scientific evidence' among their opponents.Such defence of GMO is not surprising. The ConsultativeGroup on International Agricultural Research providesUSD $25 million annually to biotechnology researchglobally. At the same time bilateral aid agencies -especially from the United States - provide 60 per cent ofresearch funding for biotechnology.Private philanthropic foundations are also involved infunding the research. They include the Howard BuffetFoundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation andthe Rockefeller Foundation. Multinational biotechnologycompanies, including Monsanto and Syngenta, also chipin.In so doing they try to stymie the debate that is going onglobally. However, they only succeed in extending thebattle against GMO to Africa, where farmers are puttingup a strong resistance to so-called modernity.http://allafrica.com/stories/201306280948.html☻☻☻☻☻Another win for Monsanto:US raises allowable Levels ofCompany’s Pesticide inCropsJuly 23, 2013Biotech giant Monsanto has been awarded yet anothervictory by the federal government thanks to a recentEnvironmental Protection Agency decision to allowlarger traces of the herbicide glyphosate in farm-grownfoods.Despite a number of studies linking exposure to thechemical with diseases including types of cancer, theEPA is increasing the amount of glyphosate allowed inoilseed and food crops.The EPA announced their plans on May 1 and allowedcritics two months to weigh in and object to the ruling.Following little opposition, though, the EPA is on path tosoon approve of levels of glyphosate being found in cropsseveral times over the current concentration.Glyphosate, a weed-killing chemical developed byMonsanto in 1970, is the key ingredient in the company’s“Roundup” label of herbicides. In the decades since,Monsanto has created and patented a number ofgenetically-modified organisms and genetically-engi-neered crops resisted to glyphosate that are soldworldwide under the company’s “Roundup Ready”brand. Those GMO products are then planted in fieldswhere glyphosate, namely Roundup, is used en masse toeliminate weeds from taking over harvest. With scientistslinking that chemical to cancerous diseases, though,critics decry the EPA decision and caution it could domore harm than good.Through the EPA’s new standards, the amount ofallowable glyphosate in oilseed crops such as flax,soybeans and canola will be increased from 20 parts permillion (ppm) to 40 ppm, which GM Watchacknowledged is over 100,000 times the amount neededto induce breast cancer cells. Additionally, the EPA isincreasing limits on allowable glyphosate in food cropsfrom 200 ppm to 6,000 ppm.Just last month, The Cornucopia Institute concluded astudy by finding glyphosate “exerted proliferative effectsin human hormone-dependent breast cancer.” A similarstudy released in April concluded that “glyphosateenhances the damaging effects of other food bornechemical residues and environmental toxins.”“Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifestsslowly over time as inflammation damages cellularsystems throughout the body,” independent scientistAnthony Samsel and MIT’s Stephanie Seneff concludedin the April study. “Consequences are most of thediseases and conditions associated with a Western diet,which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity,diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility,cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.”Dr. Don M. Huber, emeritus professor of plant pathologyat Purdue University, found in yet another examinationthat “Glyphosate draws out the vital nutrients of livingthings,” in turn removing most nutritional value fromGMO foods.A press release issued by the group Beyond Pesticidescriticized the decision as well. “Given that alternativemethods of growing food and managing weeds areavailable, like those that exist in organic agriculture, it isunreasonable for EPA to increase human exposures toRoundup,” they wrote.In the past, Monsanto has long-defended their use of thechemical. “We are very confident in the long track recordthat glyphosate has,” Jerry Stainer, Monsanto’s executivevice president of sustainability, stated previously. “It hasbeen very, very extensively studied.”http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-glyphosate-roundup-epa-483/☻☻☻☻☻74-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

African Traditional Herbal Research ClinicVolume 8, Issue 6 NEWSLETTER July 2013FEATURED ARTICLESIs Genetically Modified Food Making Us Fat?By Lisa Collier CoolMay 29, 2013A weed killer sprayed on 80 percent of geneticallymodified foods—including corn, soybeans, sugarbeets, and cottonseed—could be linked to obesity,digestive diseases, and other chronic disordersincluding diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and even cancer,according to a new Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology (MIT) paper published in the journalEntropy.Without genetic modification, herbicides woulddamage crops, making them susceptible to incectsand disease. To solve this issue, genes within theseeds of various produce have been tweaked to betolerant of the herbicide, thus protecting them fromthe mouths of hungry bugs. The downside,according to the study, is that the herbicides used toprotect the plants are harmful to humans.The peer-reviewed paper reports that residues ofglyphosate—the active ingredient in the world’smost widely used herbicide, Roundup—areubiquitous in the main foods of the Western diet.Glyphosate is the most common agriculturalchemical in the US, with 185 million tons sprayedon American crops in 2007—more than double thetotal for 2001, the EPA reports.'Damages Cellular Tissue' in the Body“Glyphosate in our food is making us fat and sick,”says Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., coauthor of the paperand senior research scientist at MIT. “It’s thenumber one cause of obesity in this country andrates of obesity have shot up in tandem withincreasingly heavy use of this herbicide.”What’s more, “glyphosate ... may in fact be the mostbiologically disruptive chemical in ourenvironment,” the paper states. “Negative impact onthe body is insidious and manifests slowly over timeas inflammation damages cellular systemsthroughout the body.”However, the EPA, which set a new rule in Aprillimiting the amount of Roundup residue allowed invarious foods—from cereal grains to carrots, oil seeds,sugar cane, beef byproducts used for hot dogs andschool lunches, and potatoes, among many others—contends that, “there is reasonable certainty that noharm will result to the general population . . . or childrenfrom aggregate exposure to glyphosate residues.”Monsanto, manufacturer of Roundup, has longmaintained that Roundup and GM food are safe. Whenasked about the MIT paper, Jerry Steiner, Monsanto’sexecutive VP of sustainability told Reuters that, “We arevery confident in the long track record that glyphosatehas. It has been very, very extensively studied.”So who’s right? Here’s a closer look at the paper andother new research exploring the health effects ofgenetically modified organisms (GMOs) in our food.Is Roundup really dangerous?The agricultural industry has argued that althoughRoundup is designed to kill plants, it’s relativelynontoxic to people, because glyphosate acts on abiological pathway that’s not found in humans oranimals.Furthermore, the amounts found in food are very small,with the EPA setting limits ranging from 0.2 parts permillion (ppm) for avocados to 30 ppm for cereal grainsand 85 ppm for safflower seeds. Feed for farm animalscan contain up to 400 ppm.Based on a wide-ranging review of published research,including animal studies, the paper argues that amountsas low as 0.1 ppm can affect both our health andweight, says co-author Anthony Samsel, a retiredscience consultant from Arthur D. Little. “Even tinyamounts set off a cascade of harmful effects and alsomagnify the toxic effects of other chemicals in our foodand environment.”Continued on page 7675-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 75– Is Genetically Modified FoodMaking Us Fat?He adds, “It’s like slow poisoning with small amounts ofarsenic. At first, you feel fine, but over time, the toxinbuilds up in your body and does more and more damage.”What’s the link with obesity and illness?The paper reports that eating foods that containglyphosate sets off a chain reaction. First, the chemical,which is known to have antibiotic effects, kills off goodbacteria in our gut, which contains 70 percent of the cellsthat comprise the immune system.“Two papers discussing gut bacteria in chickens andcows show that glyphosate—which is frequently found inanimal feed—causes an overgrowth of pathogens,” saysDr. Seneff. “This results in several problems, since thegut can’t absorb nutrients in food properly and the body’sability to get rid of toxins and defend against diseases isreduced.”Additionally, says Samsel, “there’s a disruption inproduction of three essential amino acids, includingtryptophan, the precursor to serotonin, a brain chemicalthat helps regulate appetite, satiety, and insulin levels.This creates a vicious cycle in which people don’t feelfull and overeat, leading to weight gain and obesity.”Is there any other evidence linking GM food to weightgain?Last year, a long-term international study reported thatwhen rats were fed GM corn, they were fatter after 90days than a control group of rats that ate non-GM corn.Researchers found that the same thing occurred when ratsate fish that, in turn, had consumed GM corn.GM corn is one of the more common crops specificallydesigned to withstand Roundup. The international studyalso looked at the effects of GM food on salmon. Fish feda GM diet seemed to be outwardly healthy, but werelarger and ate more than fish that didn’t receive GM food.Fish on a GM diet also were less able to digest proteinsand had alterations in their immune system and gut notfound in the salmon on a non-GM diet. Subtle changes inother organs, including the kidneys, liver, pancreas, andreproductive organs were also observed.Which foods contain Roundup residues?“If you are eating the typical Western nonorganic dietthat includes anything made from corn, soy, canola,wheat, sugar (both cane and sugar beet), cottonseed oil,sunflower, carrots, okra, potatoes, lentils, beans, andpeas, or meat, then you’re almost certainly consumingglyphosate,” notes Samsel.There are three ways that this chemical gets in our food.Monsanto developed Roundup in 1974 as a weed-killer.It’s most commonly used on crops that are geneticallymodified to be Roundup Ready, meaning that the plantshave had their DNA altered to withstand a chemical thatwould otherwise kill them.“In addition, the EPA allows much higher levels ofglyphosate in animal feed than it does in human food,which is how this chemical gets in meat, chicken, andeggs,” adds Samsel.He notes that Roundup is also used to dry out certaincrops, such as wheat and potatoes, so they are easier toharvest.How to Avoid the Health Effects of RoundupResidueIf you’re concerned about glyphosate in your food, trythese strategies to limit exposure, protect digestivehealth, and maintain a healthy weight, suggest Seneffand Samsel:• Go organic. Certified organic foods are free ofpotentially hazardous chemicals and additives. Inaddition, strict labeling and production rules bangenetically modified organisms (GMOs) asingredients.• Look for the Non-GMO Project Seal. Foodslabeled “Non-GMO Project Verified” have beenchecked by the Non-GMO Project, a nonprofit thatrequires testing of all ingredients to make sure theydon’t contain GMOs. The Non-GMO Project has afree shopping app for the iPhone, iPod Touch, andiPad that’s searchable by brand name and producttype.• Avoid risky ingredients. Foods most likely tocontain glyphosate include sugar, wheat, soy,canola, cottonseed oil, corn, non-organic meat, andcertain processed foods. About 75 percent of theprocessed foods on supermarket shelves contain GMingredients, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) reports.• Consider going soy-free. The USDA reports that90 percent of the soybean samples it testedcontained glyphosate. In addition, 12 differentpesticides were detected. However, all residueswere below the EPA’s limits.• Buy locally grown produce. Since GMO crops aretypically grown on large industrial farms, it's muchless likely that the small farmers who participate infarmer's markets or food coops will be producingthese foods. To make a smart shopping decision,Continued on page 7776-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 76 – Using Natural Pesticidesask the farmers about their cultivation methods, andwhich chemicals—if any—they use on their fruitsand vegetables.• Take probiotics. These “good” bacteria found inyogurt, fermented foods, and supplements supportdigestive health. There’s also evidence that they mayaid weight loss. Researchers report that probioticshelp obese people drop pounds weight more quicklyafter gastric bypass surgery.• Eat foods that are rich in tryptophan. SinceRoundup residue may interfere with tryptophanproduction, it may help to add more sources of thisessential amino acid to your diet. Among the bestdietary sources of tryptophan, which helps elevatemood, improve sleep, and regulate appetite, arechicken, tuna, turkey, salmon, shrimp, lamb and cod.http://health.yahoo.net/experts/dayinhealth/geneticallymodified-food-making-us-fat☻☻☻☻☻Melanin-ConcentratingHormone found to beinvolved with InsulinProductionJanuary 28, 2007A new Joslin Diabetes Center-led study has shownconclusively that a neuropeptide, melanin concentratinghormone (MCH), found in the brain and known for itsrole in increasing appetite in people, plays a role in thegrowth of insulin-producing beta cells and the secretionof insulin.This finding has the potential to spur the development ofnew treatments for diabetes that stimulate the productionof insulin-producing beta cells in the pancreas. This latestresearch, conducted with researchers at Beth IsraelDeaconess Medical Center in Boston and otherinstitutions, will appear in the February 2007 issue ofDiabetes.An earlier Joslin-led study examined the connectionbetween obesity and MCH, which plays a critical role inenergy balance and appetite, observing an increase in thenumber of beta cells when MCH levels are high. Thiswas a new finding that had not been observed before.Although MCH's role in appetite control is well known,its effects on the secretion of endocrine hormones has notbeen fully understood."It's a very logical connection," says Rohit N. Kulkarni,M.D., Ph.D., investigator at Joslin Diabetes Center andAssistant Professor of Medicine at Harvard MedicalSchool, who led the study. "Whenever you eat food,your body needs more insulin. When MCH inducesappetite, it simultaneously increases insulin secretionfrom beta cells and enhances growth of beta cells. If theproteins that mediate the growth mechanism can beidentified, it could lead to the development of newdrugs that would enhance beta cell growth to treat type1 and type 2 diabetes."In type 1 diabetes (insulin-dependent) diabetes, whichaccounts for 5 to 10 percent (between 700,000 and 1.4million people) of diabetes cases in the United States,an autoimmune process has destroyed the insulinproducingislet cells in the pancreas. In type 2 diabetes,the far more common form of the disease, the bodydoesn't produce enough insulin and/or can't use insulinproperly (insulin resistance). Both diseases couldbenefit from treatments that stimulate beta cells in thepancreas to produce insulin.In the first study, in which mice were geneticallyengineered to over-express MCH, Dr. Kulkarni and hiscolleagues observed changes in beta cell mass out ofproportion with the degree of obesity, suggesting thatMCH had a direct effect on islets. To build on theseprevious findings, the researchers focused this study ongaining a deeper understanding of how MCH and itsreceptors influence growth of beta cells.The investigators first confirmed that MCH and itsreceptors are indeed expressed in islet cells of mice andhumans. They then treated human donor or mousepancreatic islet cells with MCH and found that itincreased insulin secretion, compared to islet cellswithout MCH, which did not show the same effect.In the next phase, the researchers examined geneticallyengineeredmice that did not produce MCH andconsequently had abnormally small islets. "Thisindicated to us that MCH is important for growth ofislets," says Dr. Kulkarni.The next step in the research process is to pinpointexactly how MCH is regulating the growth of beta cellsand identify which proteins are involved in this growthprocess. "We know MCH is having an effect on bothgrowth and function likely by recruiting differentproteins. It will be worth exploring which proteins arebeing activated by MCH to cause the growth effect,"Dr. Kulkarni explains.A follow-up study has been designed and is currentlyContinued on page 7877-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 77 - Melanin-Concentrating Hormonefound to be involved with Insulin Productionawaiting funding. It will look at how MCH interacts withglucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), a hormone involved inbeta cell growth. An analogue of GLP-1 hormone hasalready been approved by the FDA for treating type 2diabetes. The goal is to understand how GLP-1 and MCHcan work together to promote beta cell growth.http://www.joslin.org/http://www.news-medical.net/news/2007/01/28/21502.aspx☻☻☻☻☻Melanin ProductionDiscovered In Fat Tissue MayProtect Some Individualsagainst Chronic DiseasesAssociated With ObesityScienceDaily (Nov. 7, 2008) — A two-year studyconducted by researchers at George Mason University,INOVA Fairfax Hospital and the National CancerInstitute may open the door to new therapies forcombating chronic diseases associated with obesity, acondition that affected more than 33 percent of Americanadults in 2005-06 according to the Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention.While analyzing samples taken from morbidly obesepatients undergoing weight loss surgery, the researchersdiscovered that substantial quantities of melanin—apigment that gives the skin, the hair and the iris of the eyetheir natural color—were being produced in the studyparticipants’ fat tissue.Ancha Baranova, assistant professor in George MasonUniversity’s Department of Molecular and Microbiologyand the paper’s lead author, explains that melaninproduction has never before been identified in fat tissue.She believes that the antioxidant, which has been shownto have anti-inflammatory properties, could be the body’snatural defense against obesity-related conditions such astype 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, fatty liverdisease, polycystic ovary syndrome and some cancers.“Stockpiling extra calories is difficult even forspecialized fat cells; having too much lipid moleculestakes its toll on the fat cells, producing oxidative stress,”says Baranova. “It’s not unthinkable that these cellswould adapt and produce melanin as a form of selfprotection.As a side benefit, melanin may suppressinflammatory properties of the extra pounds of the fat.”Baranova notes that a larger study is needed in order to78-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013confirm the role that the body’s production of thiscompound plays in fat tissue. However, the discoverysuggests that melanin-based therapies may one day beused to reduce the incidence of chronic diseases amongthe morbidly obese.“This opens an entirely new avenue for medicalinterventions because the process of biosynthesis ofmelanin is relatively easy to meddle with,” saysBaranova. “We hope that this study will spur thedevelopment of preventive medications aimed atcurtailing devastating metabolic complications in obeseand overweight populations.”The paper was co-authored by Manpreet Randhawa, TomHuff and Vikas Chandhoke of George Mason University;Julio C. Valencia and Vincent J. Hearing of the NationalCancer Institute; and Zobair Younossi of INOVA FairfaxHospital. The study was funded by the Thomas F.Jeffress and Kate Miller Jeffress Memorial Trust and bythe Intramural Research Program of the National CancerInstitute at the U.S. National Institutes of Health.Journal reference:Randhawa et al. Evidence for the ectopic synthesis ofmelanin in human adipose tissue. The FASEB Journal,2008; DOI: 10.1096/fj.08-116327http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081106164818.htm☻☻☻☻☻☻New Drug Target in Obesity:Fat Cells Make Lots ofMelaninScienceDaily (Oct. 30, 2008) — As millions ofAmericans gear up for the Thanksgiving holiday, a newresearch report published online in The FASEB Journal,may provide some relief for those leery of having asecond helping. In the report, researchers describe adiscovery that may allow some obese people avoidcommon obesity-related metabolic problems withoutactually losing weight: they make a common antioxidant,melanin, in excess.Even more promising is that some of the antioxidantdrugs that can mimic the melanin effect are FDAapprovedand available. This availability would greatlyspeed the development of new treatments, should theyprove effective in clinical trials.The researchers made the unexpected discovery--fat cellsin obese people produce melanin in excess--when theywere comparing fat cells of obese people to those ofContinued on page 79

Continued from page 78 – New Drug Target in Obesity: FatCells Make Lots of Melaninpeople with normal weight. After the comparison, theyfound that the gene responsible for making melanin wasworking in "overdrive" in the fat cells of obese people.The finding was then confirmed using additionallaboratory tests. Melanin is a common antioxidantresponsible for skin and eye color.Ancha Baranova, one of the study's researchers fromGeorge Mason University and INOVA Fairfax Hospitalsays, "Most scientific efforts aim at making obeseindividuals lose weight, but this has proven difficult.Hopefully, this study will lead to a drug that keeps obeseindividuals healthy, reducing the cost-burden to societyas well as some of the stigma associated with thiscondition."According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control andPrevention, the prevalence of obesity in 2005-2006 wasabout 1 in 3 for men and women. Obesity increases therisk of diseases and health conditions, such as high bloodpressure, osteoarthritis, dyslipidemia, Type 2 diabetes,coronary heart disease, stroke, gallbladder disease, sleepapnea and respiratory problems, and some cancers."No pill can replace a healthy diet and exercise, yet," saidGerald Weissmann, MD, Editor-in-Chief of The FASEBJournal, "but this could be a major advance for physicianslooking for a safe drug target in their search to keepobese patients healthy while their weight becomesnormal."Journal reference:Manpreet Randhawa, Tom Huff, Julio C. Valencia,Zobair Younossi, Vikas Chandhoke, Vincent J. Hearing,and Ancha Baranova. Evidence for the ectopic synthesisof melanin in human adipose tissue. FASEB J., 2008DOI: 10.1096/fj.08-116327 .http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081029121812.htm☻☻☻☻☻☻Why are Obese People atRisk of Type-2 Diabetes?By India.com HealthFebruary 6, 2013Regardless of a person’s age, gender or body mass index,pesticides in food, air and water may be directly linkedwith the development of type 2 diabetes, a new Spanishresearch study has found.These substances tend to concentrate in body fat, andthey might be one of the reasons why obese people aremore likely to develop diabetes, since the greater the fat,the higher the pesticide concentrations in the body,researchers from the University of Granada found.Researchers demonstrate that people with higherconcentrations of DDE – the main metabolite in thepesticide DDT – are four times more likely to developtype 2 diabetes than other people, the journalEnvironmental Research reports. In addition, the risk oftype 2 diabetes is also associated with exposure to I-HCH (beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane), which is present inthe formula of the pesticide Lindano, according to aGranada statement.Researchers analyzed concentrations of a specific groupof pesticides in the adipose tissue of 386 adult subjectsat San Cecilio hospital, Granada, and Santa Anahospital, Motril, Spain. Granada researcher Juan PedroArrebola said: ‘Human adipose tissue (fat) acts as anenergy reservoir and has an important metabolicfunction. However, adipose tissue can store potentiallyharmful substances, such as persistent organic pollutants(POPs-pesticides).’ POPs are a group of chemicals withdiverse characteristics which are present in pesticides,industrial waste and building material. These compoundspenetrate the body mainly through food, but also throughair or the skin.The prevalence of diabetes in the world has significantlyincreased in the last decades. It is estimated that by2030, 4.4 percent of the world population will live withthis metabolic disorder. Source: IANShttp://health.india.com/news/why-are-obese-people-at-risk-oftype-2-diabetes/☻☻☻☻☻☻The Effects of PersistentOrganic Pollutants (POPs) inWeight Loss and How toMitigate ThemSummaryResearch now indicates that a patient's levels ofpersistent organic pollutants (POPs) should be evaluatedprior to weight loss. Because POPs are stored in bodyfat, weight loss can generate significant releases oftoxicants into the body. Elizabeth Redmond, PhD,MMSc, RD and Terry Pollock, MSDetailsA 40-year-old overweight patient goes to the doctorbefore she starts a weight loss program. What should thedoctor check? Continued on page 8079-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 79 – The Effects of PersistentOrganic Pollutants (POPs) in Weight LossAdipose Tissue: A Storage Site for PersistentOrganic Pollutants (POPs)Research now indicates that the doctor should evaluatethe patient’s levels of POPs prior to weight loss. Thisevaluation is especially important in middle-aged andolder adults since toxins accumulate with age.Persistent organic pollutants, such as polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs), hexachlorobenzene (HCB), andp,p'-dichlorophenyldichloroethylene (DDE) areubiquitous microcontaminants that are lipid solubleand accumulate in stored fat. A type of fat known aswhite adipose tissue (WAT) constitutes 15 to 25% ofbody weight and can increase greatly in the morbidlyobese.1 This tissue serves as a depot for lipophiliccontaminants like POPs. 1 Weight loss can facilitatesignificant releases of these toxicants, often leading toan increase of symptoms which may prevent further oroptimal loss of fat. 2, 3 Though banned, these POPs arean ever-increasing problem that may affect theendocrine, nervous and immune systems; storing themin adipose tissue may be a defense mechanism. Due tothese issues the CDC has expanded their evaluation ofthese toxic compounds in the National Health andNutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). 4 TheNHANES is a program of studies designed to assessthe health and nutritional status of adults and childrenin the United States. Physicians need to be aware oftheir patient’s levels of POPs, how these toxiccompounds are released during weight loss, thepossible effects they can have, and ways to amelioratetheir release. Answering these questions and treatingthese issues may help patients complete weight lossprograms and avoid regaining weight, with thesignificant advantage of reduced toxic burden.Testing Toxin LevelsThe measurement of chemicals and biomarkers hasrevolutionized the field of exposure assessment. TheCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)published the The National Report on HumanExposure to Environmental Chemicals, whichprovides an ongoing assessment of 148 chemicalsfound at detectable levels in the U.S. population usingbiomonitoring. The blood and urine samples werecollected from a statistically representative sample ofthe U.S. population during NHANES.5 The CDC hastherefore established 95th percentile reference limitsfor many of these organic pollutants, allowingphysicians to compare their patients’ levels against anational standard. 4,6 Certain of these organotoxins cannow be analyzed using private laboratories. 7Current, and anticipated, scientific advances can permitbroader toxicity testing coverage of the universe ofpotentially toxic chemicals to which humans may beexposed. By 2010, it has been predicted that the CDC willbe monitoring nearly 1000 chemicals,8 a significantadvance, yet small considering the estimated 80,000chemicals in use.Main Sources of POPsContrary to common belief, there is still a body burden ofbanned chemicals due to the persistence of thesecompounds in the environment, to their continued use inother countries 9 and to the fact that animal feeds are themain source of POPs in the human food chain. 10 Studiesby LaRocca have shown that the majority of humanexposure to PCBs, for example, is derived from foods ofanimal origin. 11 Storage of these compounds can result inincreased concentrations in fatty tissues, muscles andorgans, which can induce various adverse health effects.In addition to foods of animal origin, POP’s are alsofound in pesticides, building materials, plastics, cosmeticsand perfumes. In other words, most sources surround usin our homes, offices and schools.Toxic Effects of Exposure to POPsThe potential of these pollutants to impair immuneresponses and trigger autoimmune disease is of growingconcern. POPs show structural similarity to thyroidhormones. 12 Some effects of exposure includedevelopmental and reproductive toxicity, dermal toxicity,endocrine effects, hepatotoxicity, carcinogenesis, and theinduction of diverse phase I and phase II drugmetabolizingenzymes. 13-16 Endocrine effects of organicpollutants seem to occur through mimicking the body’snatural steroid hormones, and by interfering with theadipocyte phenotype. 1 Mullerova and Kopecky havedescribed plausible mechanisms for POP interference infat metabolism via modulation of estrogen-regulatedgenes, disordered estrogen biosynthesis in WAT,inhibition of peroxisome proliferator-activating receptors(PPARs) and disruption of other aspects of the fat cell1, 17transcription machinery.Emerging evidence has also demonstrated thatpolyhalogenated aromatic hydrocarbons (PHAH),particularly polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE), alterthyroid hormone homeostasis and cause thyroiddysfunction. Release of organochlorines were found toimpair thyroid status, which may reduce resting metabolicrate (RMR) and decrease in serum T(3), furtherexacerbating weight loss issues. 18Toxicants and Weight LossWeight loss has been shown to mobilize PCBs and otherContinued on page 8180-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 80 – The Effects of PersistentOrganic Pollutants (POPs) in Weight LossPOPs from lipid stores producing an increase in bloodconcentrations of these potentially toxic organochlorines.2 The level of plasma organochlorine andpesticide compounds is related to total weight lost. 19Thus weight loss strategies that produce significant orquick decreases in weight have been shown to lead togreater increases in plasma organotoxin levels. There isa measured and persistent release of toxins shown inplasma up until a change in BMI greater than 14 kg/m2,when blood concentrations jump sharply. It is thereforeadvisable to calculate a patient’s anticipated change inBMI. An increase in organotoxins may explain whysome patients begin to feel like they are being poisonedduring the first part of a weight loss program, possiblycontributing to the difficulty of sticking with a programor why patients regain weight so quickly. Cliniciansworking in the field of bariatrics encountering weightloss resistance in their patients have speculated that itmay be the result of a toxic interference. 19Minimizing Exposure to POPsMitigating the toxic effects of exposures to POPs (or toany toxic substance) necessitates avoiding orminimizing overall exposure to such compounds.Minimizing exposure to POPs is more efficient,effective and economical than eating /storing/eliminating them from our bodies. High fat animalproducts are a primary contributor to POP intakes.Dairy products, processed foods, and meat are majorcontributors of PCB and dioxin accumulation. 20Consuming fewer animal products and cleaner sourcesare prudent measures. Industrial, toxicant-promotingagricultural practices such as CAFOs contributesignificantly to the increase of toxins in our foodsupply. 10 Lower toxin levels are found in vegans andvegetarians, as well as those who consume greaterquantities of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, nuts,seeds, beans and wild caught young fish. 21Epidemiological research has consistently shown thisdiet to be healthier in many catagories. 22Detoxification ApproachesWith regard to established detoxification programs, theAyurvedic approach has been investigated by morethan 600 studies. 9 Most programs include saunas,supplements, massages, and dietary inclusions andrestrictions. Research has evaluated the levels of PCBsin patients before and after such a detoxificationprogram, and compared levels to controls. Sometechniques have been found very successful atincreasing excretion of organotoxins. Many of thesesteps can be easily included into weight loss programsand provide significant reductions of toxins. Thus it isimportant that clinicians advising their patients on weightloss assess serum toxin levels prior to beginning aprogram. Patients with higher levels of these toxins couldbe advised to add more detoxification protocols to theirweight loss program to promote their increasedelimination during weight loss.References1. Mullerova D, Kopecky J. White adipose tissue: storageand effector site for environmental pollutants. Physiol Res.2007;56(4):375-381.2. Chevrier J, Dewailly E, Ayotte P, Mauriege P, DespresJP, Tremblay A. Body weight loss increases plasma andadipose tissue concentrations of potentially toxicpollutants in obese individuals. Int J Obes Relat MetabDisord. Oct 2000;24(10):1272-1278.3. Redgrave TG, Wallace P, Jandacek RJ, Tso P. Treatmentwith a dietary fat substitute decreased Arochlor 1254contamination in an obese diabetic male. J Nutr Biochem.Jun 2005;16(6):383-384.4. Ruiz P, Faroon O, Moudgal CJ, Hansen H, De Rosa CT,Mumtaz M. Prediction of the health effects ofpolychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and their metabolitesusing quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR).Toxicol Lett. Sep 2008;181(1):53-65.5. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers forDisease Control and Prevention. Third National Report onHuman Exposure to Environmental Chemicals.http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/thirdreport.pdf.2005.6. Ferriby LL, Knutsen JS, Harris M, et al. Evaluation ofPCDD/F and dioxin-like PCB serum concentration datafrom the 2001-2002 National Health and NutritionExamination Survey of the United States population. JExpo Sci Environ Epidemiol. Jul 2007;17(4):358-371.7. Krewski D, Andersen ME, Mantus E, Zeise L. Toxicitytesting in the 21st century: implications for human healthrisk assessment. Risk Anal. Apr 2009;29(4):474-479.8. Paustenbach D GD. Biomonitoring: is body burdenrelevant to public health? Regul Toxicol Pharmacol.2006;44(3):249-261.9. Herron RE, Fagan JB. Lipophil-mediated reduction oftoxicants in humans: an evaluation of an ayurvedicdetoxification procedure. Altern Ther Health Med. Sep-Oct 2002;8(5):40-51.10. Walker P, Rhubart-Berg P, McKenzie S, Kelling K,Lawrence RS. Public health implications of meatproduction and consumption. Public Health Nutr. Jun2005;8(4):348-356.11. La Rocca C MA. From environment to food: the case ofPCB. Ann Ist Super Sanita. . 2006;42(4):410-416.Continued on page 8281-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 81– Using Natural Pesticides12. Schell LM, Gallo MV, Ravenscroft J, DeCaprio AP.Persistent organic pollutants and anti-thyroidperoxidase levels in Akwesasne Mohawk young adults.Environ Res. Jan 2009;109(1):86-92.13. Charlier C, Desaive C, Plomteux G. Human exposure toendocrine disrupters: consequences of gastroplasty onplasma concentration of toxic pollutants. Int J ObesRelat Metab Disord. Nov 2002;26(11):1465-1468.14. Imbeault P, Chevrier J, Dewailly E, et al. Increase inplasma pollutant levels in response to weight loss isassociated with the reduction of fasting insulin levels inmen but not in women. Metabolism. Apr 2002;51(4):482-486.15. Pelletier C, Imbeault P, Tremblay A. Energy balanceand pollution by organochlorines and polychlorinatedbiphenyls. Obes Rev. Feb 2003;4(1):17-24.16. Salay E, Garabrant D. Polychlorinated biphenyls andthyroid hormones in adults: a systematic reviewappraisal of epidemiological studies. Chemosphere. Mar2009;74(11):1413-1419.17. Mullerova D, Kopecky J, Matejkova D, et al. Negativeassociation between plasma levels of adiponectin andpolychlorinated biphenyl 153 in obese women undernon-energy-restrictive regime. Int J Obes (Lond). Dec2008;32(12):1875-1878.18. Pelltier C, Doucet E, Imbeault P, Tremblay A.Associations between weight loss-induced changes inplasma organochlorine concentrations, serum T(3)concentration, and resting metabolic rate. Toxicol Sci.May 2002;67(1):46-51.19. Hue O, Marcotte J, Berrigan F, et al. Increased plasmalevels of toxic pollutants accompanying weight lossinduced by hypocaloric diet or by bariatric surgery.Obes Surg. Sep 2006;16(9):1145-1154.20. Patandin S DP, Mulder PG,. Dietary exposure topolychlorinated biphenyls and dioxins from infancy untiladulthood: A comparison between breast-feeding,toddler, and long-term exposure. Environ HealthPerspect. 1999;107(1):45-51.21. Dagnelie PC, van Staveren WA, Roos AH, Tuinstra LG,Burema J. Nutrients and contaminants in human milkfrom mothers on macrobiotic and omnivorous diets. EurJ Clin Nutr. May 1992;46(5):355-366.22. Craig WJ, Mangels AR. Position of the AmericanDietetic Association: vegetarian diets. J Am Diet Assoc.Jul 2009;109(7):1266-1282.http://www.metametrix.com/learningcenter/articles/2010/organic-pollutants-in-weight-loss☻☻☻☻☻☻Home Pesticides Could MakeYou FatBy Emily MainA new study points to a potential effect of pesticideson your weight.RODALE NEWS, EMMAUS, PA—Among the manydangers of pesticides already known are cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and Parkinson's disease. Now youcan add obesity and type 2 diabetes to the list. A new studypublished in the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry finds thata certain class of chemical pesticides used on lawns caninfluence your body's secretion of insulin, which couldhave a long-term impact on your waistline.THE DETAILS: The researchers used human tissue cellsto see how they were influenced by two classes ofchemicals, phenoxy herbicides and fibrates. Phenoxyherbicides are a large class of chemical pesticidesencompassing 2,4-D, the most widely used pesticide in theU.S. and the active ingredient in most "weed and feed"fertilizers and products like Ortho Weed-B-Gone; fibratesare cholesterol-lowering drugs. They found that bothphenoxy herbicides and fibrates block the body's receptorsof a particular hormone, T1R3, found on your tongue andin your pancreas, that regulates your body's ability to sensesweet tastes. It also influences your body's ability toproduce insulin.The reaction is similar to what might happen if you go on ahigh-carbohydrate diet, says study coauthor BedrichMosinger, MD, PhD, a geneticist and researcher at theMonell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia. "Highcarbdiets stimulate your pancreatic cells, and insulinreleases more quickly," he says. That, in turn, lowers yourblood sugar and makes you crave, and eat, more food."Chronically, when you do that, it depletes the body'sability to produce insulin. Eventually, people cannot makeenough insulin to sustain blood glucose levels, and thatresults in type 2 diabetes."WHAT IT MEANS: A test-tube study doesn't prove thatthe same thing would happen in the human body. But thechemical pesticides you use on your lawn may beinfluencing your body's ability to regulate insulinproduction, and the potential for it to lead to biggerproblems like obesity and type 2 diabetes is very real, saysDr. Mosinger. "Anything that can disturb your body'shormonal regulation can have a significant effect," he says.He's currently studying how these chemicals work onhuman bodies, not just tissue.Continued on page 8982-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

African Traditional Herbal Research ClinicVolume 8, Issue 6 NEWSLETTER July 2013FEATURED ARTICLESNatural Pesticides from PlantsBy Wesley GibbingsJanuary 13, 2013INTRODUCTIONSeveral pressures have accelerated the search formore environmentally and toxicologically safe andmore selective and efficacious pesticides. Mostcommercially successful pesticides have beendiscovered by screening compounds synthesized inthe laboratory for pesticidal properties. The averagenumber of compounds that must be screened todiscover a commercially viable pesticide hasincreased dramatically, so that new discoverystrategies must be considered. Increased emphasis onreduced-tillage agriculture will make adequatecontrol of weeds more dependent on chemicalcontrol. New herbicides will be needed to fully meetthis challenge. The increasing incidence of pesticideresistance is also fueling the need for new pesticides.Furthermore, most synthetic chemicals that have beencommercialized as herbicides are halogenatedhydrocarbons with relatively long environmentalhalf-lives and more suspect toxicological propertiesthan most natural compounds. Thus, naturalcompounds have increasingly become the focus ofthose interested in discovery of pesticides.Tens of thousands of secondary products of plantshave been identified and there are estimates thathundreds of thousands of these compounds exist.There is growing evidence that most of thesecompounds are involved in the interaction of plantswith other species-primarily the defense of the plantfrom plant pests. Thus, these secondary compoundsrepresent a large reservoir of chemical structures withbiological activity. This resource is largely untappedfor use as pesticides. This review will provide anoverview of those compounds from plants that havebeen utilized for pest control, examples of somecompounds with pesticidal potential, and a discussionof considerations in development of natural plantcompounds for pesticidal use.PLANT-DERIVED COMPOUNDS WITHPESTICIDAL POTENTIALHerbicidesInhibition of plant growth and production ofphytotoxic symptoms by certain plants and theirresidues is a well established phenomenon. Insearching for potential herbicides from plants,screening of compounds known to function in plantplantinteractions is a logical strategy. All plantsproduce secondary compounds that are phytotoxic tosome degree. However, in only a relatively few caseshas it been established that particular compoundsprovide the producing species a competitive advantageover other species that are less tolerant to thecompound. Only a few of these allelochemicals havebeen actively pursued as herbicides and, in thesecases, the natural compound has been modified. Aderivative of the terpenoid allelochemical 1,8-cineole(Fig. 1), with the common name of cinmethylin (Fig.1), is being commercially developed. Toxaphenereg.,a mixture of chlorinated camphene derivatives, wassold as a herbicide and an insecticide, but wasremoved from the market in 1982 by the EPA. Othervery weakly phytotoxic compounds from plants suchas benzoic acids can be made much more herbicidallyactive by halogen substitutions. Several benzoic acidderivatives such as dicamba (3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid) are widely used as herbicides.A few highly phytotoxic plant-produced compoundshave been discovered. However, none have beendeveloped as herbicides. The sesquiterpenoid lactone,artemisinin from Artemisia annua L., was found toinhibit plant growth as well as the commercialherbicide cinmethylin. Other compounds, such as 2,4-dihydroxy-1,4-benzoxazin-3-one are as active as plantgrowth inhibitors as many herbicides. Plants producemany photodynamic compounds, such as hypericin(Fig. 1), that are strongly phytotoxic, provided theyContinued on page 8483-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 83 – Natural Pesticides from Plantscan be introduced into the plant cell. These compoundsare unlikely to be developed as pesticides because, in thepresence of light, they are toxic to all living organisms.However, any plant can be caused to generatephytotoxic levels of photodynamic porphyrincompounds by treating the plant with both d-aminolevulinic acid (Fig. 1), a natural porphyrinprecursor, and 2,2'-dipyridyl, a synthetic compound.This relatively safe combination of compounds is beingdeveloped as the "laser" herbicide. Several classes ofcommercial herbicides have recently been shown to actby causing target plant species to accumulate phytotoxiclevels of protoporhyrin IX a photodynamic chlorophylland heme precursor. Thus, a natural product, not thesynthetic herbicides is the acutely toxic compound inthese cases. Application of protoporhyrin IX alone toplant issues, however, is not effective, apparentlybecause it does not reach the proper cellularcompartment in sufficient quantity.A problem with plant-produced phytotoxins as potentialherbicides is that in the native state, they are generallyonly weakly active compared to commercial herbicides.Most known allelochemicals would have to be applied atrates of more than 10 kg/ha to achieve significant weedcontrol whereas, most recently marketed herbicideswould achieve the same level of control at levels threeorders of magnitude smaller. This is not unexpected,because production of highly phytotoxic compoundswould lead to strong autotoxicity unless the producingplant develops metabolic or physical mechanisms tocope with its own phytotoxins. Some of the more potentallelochemicals are toxic to the producing species andthis autotoxicity has been implicated in vegetation shifts.Microbial conversion of relatively non-phytotoxiccompounds in the soil to highly phytotoxic derivativeshas been documented.Plants have been much more successfully exploited assources of pesticides for pests other than weeds. This isprobably due to several factors. The selection pressurecaused by pathogens and herbivores has probably beenmore acute and intense than that caused by plantcompetitors. A plant species can effectively competewith plant foes in many ways other than by poisoningthem and having to cope with autotoxicity. Pathogensand herbivores have many potential physiological andbiochemical sites of action for pesticides that the plantdoes not share. Biosynthesis of a compound to affectone of these sites reduces the chance of autotoxicity.Thus, the chemical option is generally a more attractiveoption in responding to a herbivore or pathogen that canrapidly devour or invade the plant than it is in respondingto a plant competitor.InsecticidesThroughout history, plant products have been successfullyexploited as insecticides, insect repellents, and insectantifeedants. Probably the most successful use of a plantproduct as an insecticide is that of the pyrethroids. Theinsecticidal properties of the several Chrysanthemumspecies were known for centuries in Asia. Even today,powders of the dried flowers of these plants are sold asinsecticides. After elucidation of the chemical structures ofthe six terpenoid esters (pyrethrins) responsible for theinsecticidal activity of these plants, many synthetic analogshave been patented and marketed. Synthetic pyrethroidshave better photostability and are generally more activethan their natural counterparts.Another plant terpenoid, camphene (Fig. 2), was a verysuccessful herbicide in its polyhalogenated form. Sold asToxaphrenereg, this product was the leading insecticide inthe United States before it was removed from the market.Although this product was a mixture of over two hundredchlorinated forms of camphene, certain specificcompounds in the mixture were found to be much moreactive than the mixture on a unit weight basis. Many otherterpenoids have been demonstrated to have insecticidal orother insect-inhibiting activities. For instance, azadirachtinand other terpenoids of the limonoid group from thefamilies Meliaceae and Rutaceae are potent growthinhibitors of several insect species.Nicotine (Fig. 2) and nornicotine, components of severalmembers of the genus Nicotiana, have been usedcommercially as insecticides. N. rustica is the chiefcommercial source. Other natural analogues of nicotinehave been shown to have significant insecticidal propertiesand one, anabasine or neonicotine (Fig. 2), has beenproduced as an insecticide from the shrub, Anabasisaphylla, in the Soviet Union. Synthetic variations ofnicotine such as 5'-methylnornicotine have beendemonstrated to be effective insecticides. Ryanodine, analkaloid from the tropical shrub, Ryania speciosa, has beenused as a commercial insecticide against European cornborer. Physostigmine, an alkaloid from Physostigmavenenosum was the compound upon which carbamateinsecticides were designed. Furo-quinoline and betacarbolinealkaloids such as dictamine and harmaline,respectively, are potent photosensitizing compounds thatare highly toxic to insect larvae in sun light. The relativehigh cost toxicity to mammals, and limited efficacy havelimited the use of natural alkaloid insecticides.84-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013Preparations of roots from the genera Derris,Lonchocarpus, and Tephrosia, containing rotenone (Fig.Continued on page 85

Continued from page 84 – Natural Pesticides from Plants2), were commercial insecticides in the 1930s. Rotenoneis a flavonoid derivative that strongly inhibitsmitochondrial respiration. No other phenolic compoundhas been used commercially as an insecticide, althoughthe content of certain phenolic compounds in planttissues have been correlated with host plant resistance toinsects and many have been demonstrated to be stronginsect growth inhibitors and antifeedants.As in plants, delta-aminolevulinic acid (ALA), incombination with 2,2'-dipyridyl, can cause accumulationof toxic levels of photodynamic porphyrin compounds.Larvae of several insect species, when fed thesecompounds and exposed to light were rapidly killed.Protoporphyrin IX the same compound caused toaccumulate in plants by certain photobleachingherbicides, is the prophyrin responsible for the toxicityof these compounds to insects. Other photodynamiccompounds from plants such as polyacetylenes areacutely toxic to insects, however, their general toxicitywould probably preclude them from commercial use.Control of insects can be achieved by means other thancausing rapid death. Plants produce many compoundsthat are insect repellents or act to alter insect feedingbehavior, growth and development ecdysis (molting),and behavior during mating and oviposition. Most insectrepellents are volatile terpenoids such as terpenen-4-ol.Other terpenoids can act as attractants. In some cases,the same terpenoid can repel certain undesirable insectswhile attracting more beneficial insects. For instance,geraniol will repel houseflies while attracting honeybees. Compounds from many different chemical classeshave been reported to act as insect antifeedants. Thus,polygodial a sesquiterpenoid from Polygonumhydropiper, is a potent inhibitor of aphid feeding.Several plant-derived steroids that are close analogues ofthe insect molting hormone, ecdysterone, prevent insectmolting. Other chemically unrelated terpenoids inhibitmolting by unknown mechanisms. Plant terpenoids thatact as locomotor excitants, biting or piercingsuppressants, ovipositioning deterrents, or matingbehavior disruptants have been described. More than adozen plant-produced terpenoid juvenile hormonemimics have been found to effectively sterilize insects.Plants contain a myriad of compounds with potential forcommercial development in controlling insects.FungicidesWithout an immune system to combat pathogenicmicroorganisms, plants rely primarily on chemicalprotection with secondary compounds. Compounds thatinhibit the establishment of and growth of plantpathogens are termed phytoalexins. Many of thesesecondary compounds have been chemically characterizedand proof is developing that these compounds have such arole in plant disease prevention and control. In fact, there issome evidence that certain synthetic fungicides used inplant protection act by inducing the production ofphytoalexins in plants.Several plant-derived compounds have been demonstratedto be strong elicitors of phytoalexins. For instance, certainoligosaccharide components of cell walls from stressed ordying higher plant cells will act as elicitors. Furtherknowledge of plant-derived phytoalexin elicitors couldlead to their use as fungicides. Several isoflavonoidcompounds, such as glyceollin, phaseolin, and pisatin (Fig.3) in soybean, garden bean, and pea, respectively havebeen implicated in protection of these crops frompathogens. Many other confirmed or suspectedphytoalexins have been identified. Some of thesecompounds have demonstrated utility against fungi underfield conditions. Foliar application of the phenolic lactonejuglone (Fig. 3), a product of several walnut species,provides better protection of bean seedlings from rust thansome commercial fungicides. Terpenoid phytoalexins) andfungicides are known and some have been tested forcommercial efficacy. Wyerone, an acetylenic acidderivative produced by legumes as a phytoalexin has awide fungicidal spectrum against plant pathogens and hasbeen successfully tested against fungal infection of cropplants. Despite a repertoire of many antifungal andantibacterial compounds, plant products have not beenused to any significant extent in the development ofantimicrobial pesticides.Nematicides and MolluscicidesMany plant species are known to be highly resistant tonematodes. The most well-documented of these includemarigolds (Tagetes spp.), rattlebox (Crotalariaspectabilis), chrysanthemums (Chrysanthemum spp.),castor bean (Ricinus communis), margosa (Azardiractaindica), and many members of the family Asteraceae(family Compositae). The active principle(s) for thisnematicidal activity has not been discovered in all of theseexamples and no plant-derived products are soldcommercially for control of nematodes. In the case of theAsteraceae, the photodynamic compound alpha-terthienyl(Fig. 3) has been shown to account for the strongnematicidal activity of the roots.The plant-derived saponins are generally highly toxic tosnails. Cyanogenic glucosides are responsible forresistance of certain legumes to snails and slugs. No plantderivednatural products are commercial products areavailable for control of snails and slugs.Continued on page 8685-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 85 – Natural Pesticides from PlantsRodenticidesPlants produce a myriad of compounds that arepoisonous to mammals. Some of these, such asstrychnine (Fig. 3), are used in commercialrodenticides. The chronic poison warfarin and severalanalogues are coumarin derivatives, This chemistry ledto discovery of indanediones and 4-hydroxy-2H-1-benzopyran-2-ones as rodenticides.FACTORS INFLUENCING DEVELOPMENT OFNATURAL PESTICIDESDiscoveryThe secondary compounds of plants are a vastrepository of compounds with a wide range ofbiological activities. This diversity is largely the resultof coevolution of hundreds of thousands of plantspecies with each other and with an even greaternumber of species of microorganisms and animals.Thus, unlike compounds synthesized in the laboratory,secondary compounds from plants are virtuallyguaranteed to have biological activity and that activityis highly likely to function in protecting the producingplant from a pathogen, herbivore, or competitor. Thus,a knowledge of the pests to which the producing plantis resistant may provide useful leads in predicting whatpests may be controlled by compounds from aparticular species. This approach has led to thediscovery of several commercial pesticides such as thepyrethroid insecticides. Isolation and chemicalcharacterization of the active compounds from plantswith strong biological activities can be a major effortcompared to synthesizing a new synthetic compound.However, the assurance of biological activity andimprovement in methods of purification and structuralidentification is shifting the odds in favor of naturalcompounds.Considering the probability of plant secondaryproducts being involved in plant-pest interactions, thestrategy of randomly isolating, identifying, andbioassaying these compounds may also be an effectivemethod of pesticide discovery. Biologically activecompounds from plants will often have activity againstorganisms with which the producing plant does nothave to cope. Many secondary compounds described inthe natural product, pharmacological and chemicalecology literature have not been screened for pesticidalactivity. This is due, in part, to the very small amountsof these compounds that have been available forscreening.The discovery process for natural pesticides is morecomplicated than that for synthetic pesticides (Fig. 4).Traditionally, new pesticides have been discovered bysynthesis, bioassay, and evaluation If the compound issufficiently promising, quantitative structure-activityrelationship-based synthesis of analogues is used to optimizedesirable pesticidal properties. The discovery process withnatural compounds is complicated by several factors.First, the amount of purification initially conducted is avariable for which there is no general rule. Furthermore,secondary compounds are generally isolated in relativelysmall amounts compared to the amounts of synthesizedchemicals available for screening for pesticide activity.Therefore, bioassays requiring very small amounts ofmaterial will be helpful in screening natural products fromplants. A number of published methods for assaying smallamounts of compounds for pesticidal and biologicalactivities are available in the allelochemical and naturalproduct literature. At some point in the discovery process,structural identification is a requirement. This step can bequite difficult for some natural products. Finally, synthesisof the compound and analogues must be considered. This isgenerally much more difficult than identification. Despitethese difficulties, modern instrumental analysis andimproved methods are reducing the difficulty, cost and timeinvolved in each of the above steps.DevelopmentFew pesticides that are found to be highly efficacious intesting are ever brought to market. Many factors must beconsidered in the decision to develop and market a pesticide.An early consideration is the patentability of the compound.A patent search must be done for natural compounds as withany synthetic compound. Prior publication of the pesticidalproperties of a compound could cause patent problems.Compared to synthetic compounds, there is a plethora ofpublished information on the biological activity of naturalproducts. For this reason, patenting synthetic analogues withno mention of the natural source of the chemical familymight be safer than patenting the natural product in somesituations.The toxicological and environmental properties of thecompound must be considered. Simply because a compoundis a natural product does not insure that it is safe. The mosttoxic mammalian poisons known are natural products andmany of these are plant products. Introduction of levels oftoxic natural compounds into the environment that wouldnever be found in nature could cause adverse effects.However, evidence is strong that natural products generallyhave a much shorter half-life in the environment thansynthetic pesticides. In fact, the relatively shortenvironmental persistence of natural products may be aproblem, because most pesticides must have some residualactivity in order to be effective. As with pyrethroids,Continnued on page 8786-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 86 – Natural Pesticides from Plantschemical modification can increase persistence.After promising biological activity is discovered,extraction of larger amounts of the compound for moreextensive bioassays can be considered. Also, analoguesof the compound should be made by chemicalalteration of the compound and/or chemical synthesis.Structural manipulation could lead to improvement ofactivity, toxicological properties, altered environmentaleffects, or discovery of an active compound that can beeconomically synthesized. This has been the case withseveral natural compounds that have been used as atemplate for commercial pesticides (e.g., pyrethroids).Before a decision is made to produce a naturalpesticide for commercial use, the most cost-effectivemeans of production must be found. Although this is acrucial question in considering the development of anypesticide, it is even more complex and critical withnatural products. Historically, preparations of crudenatural product mixtures have been used as pesticides.However, the potential problems in clearing a complexmixture of many biologically active compounds for useby the public may be prohibitive in today's regulatoryclimate. Thus, the question that will most probably beconsidered is whether the pure compound will beproduced by biosynthesis and purification or bytraditional chemical synthesis.Before considering any other factors, there are twoadvantages to the pesticide industry to industrialsynthesis. They have invested heavily in personnel andfacilities for this approach. Changing this approachmay be difficult for personnel trained in disciplinesgeared to use it. Secondly, in addition to the patent foruse, patents for chemical synthesis often further protectthe investment that a company makes in developmentof a pesticide.However, many natural products are so complex thatthe cost of chemical synthesis would be prohibitive.Even so, more economically synthesized analogueswith adequate or even superior biological activity maytip the balance toward industrial synthesis. If notbiosynthesis must be considered. There are a growingnumber of biosynthetic options.The simplest method is to extract the compound fromfield-grown plants. To optimize production, the speciesand the variety of that species that produce the highestlevels of the compound must be selected and grownunder conditions that will optimize their biosyntheticcapacity to produce the compound. Geneticallymanipulating the producing plants by classical orbiotechnological methods could also increase productionof some secondary products. For instance, low doses ofdiphenyl ether herbicides can cause massive increases inphytoalexins in a variety of crop species.Another alternative is to produce the compound in tissue orcell culture. With these methods, cell lines that producehigher levels of the compound can be rapidly selected.However, genetic stability of such traits has been aproblem in cell culture production of secondary products.Cells that produce and accumulate massive amounts ofpossibly autotoxic secondary compounds are obviously at ametabolic disadvantage and are thus selected against undermany cell or tissue culture conditions. A technique, such asan immobilized cell column that continuously removessecondary products can increase production by decreasingfeedback inhibition of synthesis, reducing autotoxicity, andpossibly increasing generic stability. Other culture methodsthat optimize production can also be utilized. For instance,supplying inexpensively synthesized metabolic precursorscan greatly enhance biosynthesis of many secondaryproducts. Also, plant growth regulators, elicitors, andmetabolic blockers can be used to increase production.Genetic engineering and biotechnology may allow for theproduction of plant-derived secondary products by genetransfer to microorganisms and production byfermentation. This concept is attractive because of theexisting fermentation technology for production ofsecondary products. However, it may be prohibitivelydifficult for complex secondary products in which severalgenes control the conversion of several complexintermediates to the desired product.Genetic engineering might also be used to insert thegenetic information for production of plant-producedpesticides from one plant species to another species to beprotected from pests. However, such transgenicmanipulation of the complex metabolism of a higher plantmight be extremely difficult. A simpler alternative mightbe to infect plant-colonizing microbes with the desiredgenetic machinery to produce the natural pesticide, as hasbeen done with bacterial-produced insecticides.THE FUTUREPlants contain a virtually untapped reservoir of pesticidesthat can be used directly or as templates for syntheticpesticides. Numerous factors have increased the interest ofthe pesticide industry and the pesticide market in thissource of natural products as pesticides. These includediminishing returns with traditional pesticide discoverymethods, increased environmental and toxicologicalconcerns with synthetic pesticides, and the high level ofreliance of modern agriculture on pesticides. Despite theContinnued on page 8887-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 87 – Natural Pesticides from Plantsrelatively small amount of previous effort indevelopment of plant-derived compounds as pesticides,they have made a large impact in the area ofinsecticides. Minor successes can be found asherbicides, nematicides, rodenticides, fungicides, andmolluscicides. The number of options that must beconsidered in discovery and development of a naturalproduct as a pesticide is larger than for a syntheticpesticide. Furthermore, the molecular complexitylimited environmental stability, and low activity ofmany biocides from plants, compared to syntheticpesticides, are discouraging. However, advances inchemical and biotechnology are increasing the speedand ease with which man can discover and developsecondary compounds of plants as pesticides. Theseadvances, combined with increasing need andenvironmental pressure, are greatly increasing theinterest in plant products as pesticides.Fig. 3. Some plant-produced compounds with fungicidalnematicidal and rodenticidal activity. I-pisatin IIjuglone,III-alpha-terthienyl, IV-strychnine.Fig. 1. Some plant-produced compounds and derivativeswith herbicidal activity. I-1,8-cineole, II-cinmethylin,III-hypericin, IV-delta-aminolevulinic acid.Fig. 2. Some plant-produced compounds withinsecticidal activity. I-camphene, II-nicotine, IIIanabasine,IV-rotenone.88-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013Fig. 4. Pesticide discovery strategies for synthetic versusnatural products.REFERENCES• Arnason, T., G.H.N. Towers, B.J.R. Philogene andJ.D.H. Lambert 1983. The role of naturalphotosensitizers in plant resistance to insects. Amer.Chem. Soc. Symp. Ser. 208:139-151.• Duke, S.O. 1985. Biosynthesis of phenolic compounds—Chemical manipulation in higher plants. Amer. Chem.Soc. Symp. Ser. 268:113-131.• Duke, S.O. 1986. Naturally occurring chemicalcompounds as herbicides. Rev. Weed Sci 2:15-44.• Duke, S.O. 1986. Microbial phytotoxins as herbicides-aperspective. p. 287-304. In: Putnam, A.R. and C.S. Tang(eds.). The science of allelopathy Wiley, New York.• Duke, S.O. and J. Lydon. 1987. Herbicides from naturalcompounds. Weed Technol. 1:122-128.• Duke, S.O., R.N. Paul, and S.M. Lee. 1988. Terpenoidsfrom the genus Artemisia as potential pesticides. Amer.Chem. Soc. Symp. Ser. 380:318-334.• Duke, S.O., KC. Vaughn, E.M. Croom, Jr., and H.N.Elsohly 1987. Artemisinin, a constituent of annualwormwood (Artemisia annua), is a selective phytotoxin.Continued on page 89

Continued from page 88 – Natural Pesticides from PlantsWeed Sci 35:499-505.• Grainage, M. and S. Ahmed. 1988. Handbook of plantswith pest-control properties. Wiley-Interscience, NewYork.• Green, M.B., G.S. Hartley, and T.F. West 1987.Chemicals for crop improvement and pest managementPergamon, New York.• Jacobson, M. 1986. The neem tree: natural resistancepar excellence. Amer. Chem Soc. Symp. Ser. 296:220-232.• Klocke, J.A. 1987. Natural plant compounds useful ininsect control. Amer. Chem Soc. Ser. 330:396-415.• Lydon, J. and S.O. Duke. 1988. Porphyrin synthesis isrequired for photobleaching activity of the p-nitrosubstitued diphenyl ether herbicides. Pestic.Biochem. Physiol. 31:74-83.• Lydon, J. and S.O. Duke. 1989. Pesticide effects onsecondary metabolism of higher plants. Pestic. Sci.25:361-373.• Lydon, J. and S.O. Duke. 1989. Potential of plants forpesticide use. Herbs, spices and medicinal plants: Recentadvances in botany, horticulture, and pharmacology. Vol.4:1-40. Oryx Press, Phoenix AZ.• McLaren, J.S. 1986. Biologically active substances fromhigher plants: status and future potential. Pestic. Sci.17:559-578.• Mandava, N.B. (ed.). 1985. Handbook of naturalpesticides: Methods. Vol. I Theory practice, anddetection. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.• Matringe, M. and R. Scalla. 1988. Studies on the mode ofaction of acifluorfen-methyl in non-chlorophylloussoybean cells: Accumulation of tetrapyroles. PlantPhysiol. 86:619-622.• Putnam, A.R. and C.-S. Tang (eds.). 1986. The science ofallelopathy. Wiley-Interscience, New York.• Rebeiz, C.A., J.A. Juvik, and C.C. Rebeiz. 1988.Porphyric insecticides 1. Concept and phenomenologyPestic. Biochem. Physiol. 30:11-27.• Rebeiz, C.A., A. Montazer-Zouhoor, H.J. Hopen, andS.M. Wu. 1984. Photodynamic herbicides: 1: Conceptand phenomenology. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 6:390-401.• Rebeiz, C.A., A. Montazer-Zouhoor, J.M. Mayasitch B.C.Tripathy, S.-M. Wu, and C.C. Rebeiz. 1988.Photodynamic herbicides and chlorophyll biosynthesismodulators. Amer. Chem. Soc Symp. Ser. 339:295-328.• Rice, E.L 1983. Pest control with nature's chemicals.University of Oklahoma Press, Norman OK.• Rice, E.L 1984. Allelopathy. 2nd Ed. Academic Press, NewYork.• Russell, G.G. 1986. Phytochemical resources for cropprotection. New Zealand J. Technol. 2:127-134.• Yang, R.Z. and C.S. Tang. 1988. Plants used for pestcontrol in China: A literature review Econ. Bot. 42:376-406.http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/proceedings1990/v1-511.html☻☻☻☻☻☻Continued from page 82 - Home Pesticides CouldMake You Fat"What we're finding is that the sweet receptors on yourtongue are also on many endocrine cells," he says, andthese endocrine cells play a large part in how your bodyregulates hormones, including insulin and thyroidhormones that influence weight.Used to some degree in agriculture on wheat and ricecrops, 2,4-D and other phenoxy herbicides are morewidely used on lawns and gardens, where they wash offinto storm drains and eventually into rivers and streamsthat feed drinking-water supplies. As with mostpharmaceuticals, fibrates end up in water after they passthrough your system and go down the toilet. "Many ofthese herbicides and fibrates are not removed by watertreatment," Dr. Mosinger says. Studies have also foundthat 2,4-D can blow into homes and linger in householddust that you inhale. "The concentrations that arecurrently in the environment are in the parts-per-billionrange, not extremely high," he says, adding that theconcentrations at which long-term damage can be doneare unknown at this point. "An acute exposure probablywould not make that much of a difference," he says, "butchronic exposure can have an impact on type 2 diabetes."Used to some degree in agriculture on wheat and ricecrops, 2,4-D and other phenoxy herbicides are morewidely used on lawns and gardens, where they wash offinto storm drains and eventually into rivers and streamsthat feed drinking-water supplies. As with mostpharmaceuticals, fibrates end up in water after they passthrough your system and go down the toilet. "Many ofthese herbicides and fibrates are not removed by watertreatment," Dr. Mosinger says. Studies have also foundthat 2,4-D can blow into homes and linger in householddust that you inhale. "The concentrations that arecurrently in the environment are in the parts-per-billionrange, not extremely high," he says, adding that theconcentrations at which long-term damage can be doneare unknown at this point. "An acute exposure probablywould not make that much of a difference," he says, "butchronic exposure can have an impact on type 2 diabetes."Continued on page 9089-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 89 – Home Pesticides Could Make YouFatProtect yourself and your blood sugar levels by takinga few steps to limit your exposure:• Get a water filter. Standard faucet-mount or pitcherfilters that use carbon or charcoal are sufficient to remove2,4-D from your water. There's some evidence that theyalso remove pharmaceuticals, such as fibrates, althoughtheir effectiveness on those compounds isn't fully knownat this point.• Switch to organic lawn care. Weed control doesn'trequire dousing your grass with pesticides. In fact, yourweeds are probably trying to tell you about a problemyou can fix without toxic chemicals. For instance, cloveris a sign that your lawn is too low in nitrogen, and browngrass means you're mowing too much, not that it needsmore fertilizer. For other organic solutions, check out ourstory on chemical-free fixes for common lawn problems.http://www.rodale.com/dangers-pesticides?☻☻☻☻☻☻Natural Pesticide AlternativesNatural pesticide alternatives. Realize the hazardsassociated with the use of Pesticides. Learn about naturalalternatives to pest control that really work.Pest control is an ongoing problem for all of us. Foryears, we have depended on the use of pesticides toeliminate unwanted pest. Pesticides are harmfulchemicals that have been linked to illness and disease.Think about it, each time you use a pesticide, some of itwill be consumed by you. When we spray a pesticide,small particles are released in the air, making their way toour lungs. When farmers spray crops, the pesticides enterthe soil and water. We eat plants that grow in this soil.We eat the fish that live in the waters, and the animalsthat feed from the plants and drink from polluted lakesand streams. Health and environmental professionals areconcerned with the long term effects of pesticide use.Many forms of illness long term effects of pesticide use.Many forms of illness and disease are linked topesticides, including cancer. There are some naturalalternatives to the use of pest control. If these are used ona continuous basis, they can be very effective for thehome. Here are a few suggestions:1. Cockroaches: These have to be the worst. Don't youhate opening the cabinet and seeing several cockroachesscurrying across your dishes? For me, this results in aninstant' "LOSS OF APPETITE"! These little devilsscamper, hurriedly throughout our home, infesting everything they touch. What's frightening, is seeing little tinybabies, then you know they are reproducing, multiplying,and taking up homestead in your home. They couldeasily be labeled, the peskiest pest of all. The key is toblock the cockroach's point of entry. Prepare your homeagainst cockroach invasion. Fill in all cracks aroundbaseboards, cabinets, shelves, sinks, bathtubs, and inpipes. Sprinkle Borax around each point of entry. Boraxis a crystalline salt used to manufacture detergents andsoaps. It is also used as a water softener and mildantiseptic. Borax has been proven to be very effectiveagainst cockroaches.2. Ants: It should not be difficult to locate the ants' pointof entry. They will be in a line formation, resembling anarmy of soldiers marching off to war. These little soldiersare dedicated, hard working, and find their strength ingreat numbers. They are persistent, but can be forced toturn and retreat. You have several options of combatweapons to use. Try sprinkling talcum powder in the areaof entry; you can also use cayenne pepper, damp coffeegrounds, bone meal, charcoal, or chalk. Another strategyis to squeeze lemon juice in this area, and leave thelemon peeling behind. Ants may have the reputation ofbeing honorable soldiers, but watch them turn and flee.Oh the shame, of leaving your fellow soldiers on thebattle field to die alone. But don't you feel proud. Youhave accepted the challenge, defeated the enemy, and justthink you didn't even have to engage in chemicalwarfare.3. Flies: There's nothing more refreshing then awakeningto a bright, sunny, morning, flinging open the windows,and smelling the crisp, morning air. A perfect day for afamily picnic, and the favorite time for the fly to take tothe air and explore. A fly simply cannot resist an open,sunny, window. Before you get the coffee brewing andthe bacon frying, you have a kitchen full of flies, landingon every utensil and morsel of food they can find. Whatdo you do? You pull out the trusty, old, fly swat and goabout the kitchen swatting frantically, in a fit of fury. Bythe time the husband and the kids awaken, you are as illand short-tempered as a hornet. Hence, the ruining of aperfect day. This could all have been avoided by justkeeping the windows closed. Another trick is to tryhoney on yellow paper. The fly will be attracted to thehoney, land and stick, never to fly again. So, hang upyour fly swat, keep the windows closed, try a littlehoney, and greet your family with a smile each new day.4. Ticks and Fleas: Ticks and fleas usually enter thehome, by way of the family pet. A pet loves and shouldbe able to spend time in the home, interacting with thefamily. Ticks and fleas can make your pet miserable, andare certainly unwanted in the home environment.Continued on page 9190-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 89 - Natural Pesticide AlternativesThe approach must be directed at keeping the pet freeof pest. A routine bath should do the trick, with a littlehelp from an herbal rinse you can prepare. It's simple,bring two pints of water to a boil, add twotablespoons of Rosemary, and let soak twentyminutes. Drain and allow cooling. Wash the pet withsoap and warm water. Towel dry the coat, then applythe herbal rinse. Apply this to the pet with a spraybottle or sponge, do not rinse or towel dry. Let thisdry thoroughly, on its own. Please do not let the petgo outdoors until the coat is dry. If this is done on acontinuous basis, you should not have a problem withticks and fleas. Your pet, and your family, will behappy with the results.Be aware of the risk and hazards, related toPesticides. Try these suggestions for naturalalternatives, and protect the health of yourself, andyour family.http://www.essortment.com/natural-pesticide-alternatives-54007.html☻☻☻☻☻☻Introduction to CitronellaOil:Citronella oil is a volatile oil which is distilled usingsteam from the greenish blue, lemon-scented leavesand stem of the plant Cymbopogon nardus (Ceyloncitronella) or Cymbopogon winteratus (Java typecitronella) and the main constituents being citronellaland geraniol. In trade, citronella oil is categorised intotwo types:1) Ceylon citronella oil - obtained from Cymbopogonnardus Rendle, (inferior type)2) Java citronella oil - obtained from Cymbopogonwinterianus Jowitt, (superior type)The Ceylon citronella oil was the more widelyproduced citronella oil, until the beginning of thiscentury. However, the Java citronella oil slowlybegan to show dominance in the market because of itshigher yield of oil.Characteristics Of Citronella Oil:Citronella oil is a colourless or light yellow liquidwith a characteristic woody, grassy or lemony odour.It is flammable and if the vapours are inhaled, thiscould cause an initial stimulation followed bydepression of the central nervous system.Citronella oil may be harmful if ingested in quantityand may irritate the skin and eye. However, it is notbelieved to be hazardous to humans, including children andthose with sensitive skin, if used according to labelinstructions. Citronella oil has been widely used since the1950s without any adverse effects which may causeconcern.Citronella oil has minimal or no risk to wildlife andenvironment due to its toxic levels being low and its usebeing limited. Therefore, it can be used around the homewith no expected adverse effects.The fumes of citronella oil are said to be potentially toxic tobirds; however, this is because it is often used inconjunction with other essential oils in air fresheners –therefore, the potential to cause toxicity.Uses Of Citronella Oil:1) Insect repellent:Citronella oil repels insects such as mosquitoes, black flies,fleas and ticks, therefore, preventing its bites. It is used onhumans and their clothing – in the form of an oil, liquid andpatch. Citronella oil is a natural, non-toxic alternative tochemical insect repellents such as DEET , therefore, isusually the preferred choice. Also available are solidproducts such as citronella oil insect repelling candles andcartridges. Citronella oil is also used in a tablet or pelletform in recreational or outdoor household areas and aroundtrees and shrubs. In addition, there are animal collars andtags containing citronella oil for pets and other domesticanimals to repel fleas. A combination of the citronella oiland cedarwood virginian oil also helps to repel mosquitoes.2) Aromatherapy:Citronella oil, an essential oil, possesses activating andwarming qualities both physically and mentally.The aromais said to be like its relatives lemongrass and palmarosa.However, citronella oil is overlooked in aromatherapybecause of its association with insect repellency. Whencitronella oil is diluted properly in a base oil and is appliedto skin, it produces a mild sensation of warmth – whichrelieves painful muscles and joints. Mentally, the aroma ofcitronella oil may help with nervous fatigue due to itsclarifying properties. It can also ease pressure of migrainesand headaches. Citronella oil blends well with cedarwood,orange, geranium, lemon and bergamot - however, youshould only use essential oils under those specialised in thefield. It is safer to consult a qualified aromatherapist if everin doubt.3) Astringent:Citronella oil is an astringent and if used correctly it mayhelp with oily skin areas. Use a single drop of citronella oilon the skin (usually inner forearm) to test for irritation.Continued on page 9291-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 91 – Introduction to CitronellaApply two or three drops of citronella oil to a cotton balland gently wipe off the excess oil. Then complete yourregular facial routine.4) Perfume Industry:The Java citronella oil is one of the most widely usedperfume oils and is often used as a starting point forperfume materials, as its constituents citronellal andgeraniol are important and widely used perfume buildingblocks.http://citronella-oil.blogspot.com/☻☻☻☻☻☻Continued from page 96 – Botanical Insecticidesother insects. Limonene has low oral and dermal toxicityto mammals, birds and fish, although it can cause skinirritation or sensitization in some people.Pesticide products containing limonene are used for fleaand tick control on pets, insecticide sprays, outdoor dogand cat repellents, mosquito larvicides, and insectrepellents. Many products containing limonene arelabeled as safe for use in areas near food. Limonene is theactive ingredient in Ortho Home Defense Indoor InsectKiller, Concern Citrus Home Pest Control, and inproducts made by Orange Guard. Safer Fire Ant Killerand Citrex Fire Ant Killer also contain d-Limonene.Capsaicin is the material that makes chili peppers hot. Itcan be used on ornamentals outdoors and indoors forcontrol of aphids, spider mites, thrips, whitefly, lace bugs,leafhoppers, and other pests. It is important to note thatcapsaicin containing products are primarily used to repelinsects, rather than to kill existing infestations.To date there is limited research showing theeffectiveness of capsaicin products as insecticides,although they appear to be effective at repelling certainanimal pests such as rabbits, deer and squirrels.Pyrethrum is made from the finely powdered flowers ofa species of daisy. The word pyrethrum is the name forthe crude flower dust itself, and the term pyrethrins refersto the insecticidal compounds that are extracted frompyrethrum. Pyrethroids are not botanical insecticides, butsynthetic pesticides that are very similar in structure to thepyrethrins.Pyrethrum is a contact insecticide and must be applieddirectly to the insect to be effective. Pyrethrum rapidlyparalyzes pests, but may not kill them. Pyrethrum andpyrethrins are often formulated with another insecticide toensure that paralyzed insects do not recover and onceagain become pests.Because the pyrethrum mammalian toxicity is very low,it can be applied to food crops close to harvest.Pyrethrum has high contact toxicity for commonbeneficial insects.Garlic is marketed in several products intended to repelinsects, much as capsaicin does. Products are labeled torepel a wide variety of pests on ornamental plants, butgarlic may also repel beneficial insects. To date there islittle research showing effectiveness of garlicinsecticides.Rotenone is one of the most toxic of the commonlyusedbotanical insecticides. Rotenone acts as a nervoussystem poison. It is highly toxic to fish and other aquaticlife and is commonly used as a fish poison. Rotenonecan be toxic to mammals through inhalation and maycause skin irritation. Rotenone will also kill manybeneficial insects and should only be used to controlsevere insect infestations. In most cases, other, saferpesticides should be used in preference to rotenone.Sabadilla & Ryania are older botanical insecticides thatare rarely available. No sabadilla or ryania productscould be found that are currently registered for use inSouth Carolina.Nicotine derived from tobacco, is one of the most toxicbotanicals. It is a fast-acting nerve toxin and is highlytoxic to mammals. It is easily absorbed through the eyes,skin, and mucous membranes. Because of its hightoxicity it is no longer registered for use as a pesticide.Home brewed nicotine preparations can also be quitetoxic. Less harmful products will produce equal results.Essential OilsA variety of pesticides based on essential oils orcomponents of essential oils have come on the market inthe last few years. Essential oils are volatile, highlyconcentrated substances extracted from plant parts. In1996 the EPA established that certain ingredients thatpose minimum risk to users no longer require EPAapproval to be marketed as insecticides. A number ofthese ingredients are essential oils, including the oils ofcedar, cinnamon, citronella, citrus, clove, eugenol (acomponent of clove oil), garlic, mints, rosemary, andseveral others. As insecticides, these work mostcommonly as contact killing agents only, so re-treatmentmay be needed. Most essential oils used as pesticideswork by disrupting an insect neurotransmitter that is notpresent in people, pets, or other vertebrates.Eugenol is a component of clove oil. It is a fast actingcontact insecticide that is effective on a wide variety ofhousehold pests such as cockroaches, ants, dust mites,Continued on page 9392-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 92 - Botanical Insecticidesflies, wasps, spiders, crickets, and fleas. It is also used onsome ornamental plant pests such as armyworms, thrips,aphids and mites.Eugenol has little or no residual activity, although thescent of cloves will linger. Products based on eugenol areconsidered minimum risk pesticides with very low risk ofdamage to the environment or user. Internet☻☻☻☻☻☻Continued from page 3 - Tombs of Buganda Kingsat Kasubispiritual values. The site is a major spiritual centre for theBaganda and is the most active religious place in thekingdom. The structures and the traditional practices thatare associated with the site are one of the exceptionalrepresentations of the African culture that depict acontinuity of a living tradition. The site's mainsignificance lies in its intangible values of beliefs,spirituality, continuity and identity of the Bagandapeople. The site serves as an important historical andcultural symbol for Uganda and East Africa as a whole.Criterion (i): The Kasubi Tombs site is a master piece ofhuman creativity both in its conception and itsexecutioCriterion (iii): The Kasubi Tombs site bearseloquent witness to the living cultural traditions of theBaganda.Criterion (iv): The spatial organization of the KasubiTombs site represents the best extant example of aBaganda palace/architectural ensemble. Built in the finesttraditions of Ganda architecture and palace design, itreflects technical achievements developed over manycenturies.Criterion (vi): The built and natural elements of theKasubi Tombs site are charged with historical,traditional, and spiritual values. It is a major spiritualcentre for the Baganda and is the most active religiousplace in the kingdom.Integrity (2010)The boundary of the land on which the tombs are locatedis clearly marked with the traditional bark cloth tree(Ficus sp.) and coincides with the 1882 traditionalboundary. The live markers have been useful in keepingaway land encroachers for housing construction and otherdevelopments, thus maintaining the original land size.The architectural palace design that comprise of theplacement of the buildings, and tombs/ grave yards ofmembers of the royal family around the Muzibu-Azaala-Mpanga reflecting the traditional palace structure is stillbeing maintained in its original ensemble.Although the recent fire tragedy, that destroyed the maintomb building, means that one key attribute is nowmissing, the cultural traditions associated with buildingin poles, spear grass, reeds and wattle are still vibrantand will allow the recreation of this tomb building.The other traditional structures are still in place and thekey attributes related to traditional ceremonial andreligious practices and land tenure and land use practicesare still being maintained.Authenticity (2010)The authenticity of the Tombs of the Kings of Bugandaat Kasubi is reflected in the continuity of the traditionaland cultural practices that are associated with the site.The original burial system of the Kabakas of Buganda isstill being maintained. The placement of Muzibu-Azaala- Mpanga in the middle of other buildings aroundthe large central courtyard (Olugya), with a forecourtcontaining the drum house and entry gate house, are atypical ensemble of the Buganda Kingdom palace. Thepractice of using grass thatched roof resting on structuralrings of palm tree fronds is still being maintained as wellas the internal elements and finishing materials such asthe long wooden poles wrapped in bark cloth decoration.Although the authenticity of the site has been weakenedby the loss to the fire of the main tomb structure, thebuilding's traditional architectural craftsmanship and therequired skills are still available to allow it to berecreated. This factor, coupled with the extensivedocumentation of the building, will allow an authenticrenewal of this key attribute.Protection and management requirements (2010)Managed by the Buganda Kingdom, the property wasgazetted a protected site under Statutory Instrument No.163 of 1972 and under Historical Monument Act (Act 22of 1967). This legal status was further strengthened bythe National Constitution (1995). The HistoricalMonument Act protects the Kasubi Tombs fromresidential encroachment or any other purposeinconsistent with its character. The land that hosts theTombs is titled under the Land Act (1998). The land titleis registered in trust of the Kabaka (King) on behalf ofthe Kingdom.The protection of the site is further strengthened by thevarious Tourism Policies of Uganda. The site has anapproved General Management Plan (2009 - 2015). ASite Manager is in place.The greatest threat to the site is fire. There is a need todevelop a detailed Risk Management Plan to address thisthreat, in particular, and to ensure that site documented isas complete as possible and securely stored.Continued on page 9493-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 93 - Tombs of Buganda Kings atKasubiIn order to ensure that the traditional building processesassociated with the site are maintained over time, thereis an on-going need to train young educated people.There is a need to ensure that the principles guiding therecreation of the main tomb building are agreed by allthe key stakeholders - the UNESCO World HeritageCommittee, the Buganda Kingdom and the Governmentof the Republic of Uganda, and that the process ofrecreating the building is systematic, based on evidenceand adequately recorded.Long DescriptionThe Kasubi site bears eloquent witness to the livingcultural traditions of the Baganda. The spatialorganization of the Tombs represents the best extantexample of a Baganda palace/architectural ensemble.Built in the finest traditions of Ganda architecture andpalace design, it reflects technical achievementsdeveloped over many centuries. The built and naturalelements of the tombs are charged with historical,traditional, and spiritual values. It is a major spiritualcentre for the Baganda and is the most active religiousplace in the kingdom.The Baganda belong to the Bantu-speaking people anddate their political civilization from about the 13thcentury AD. Today, the Baganda are the major ethnicgroup in Uganda. The present tomb structure dates toaround 1882. Muteesa I became a very powerfulKabaka, the first to be influenced by foreign cultures.He adopted some Islamic religious practices learnt fromivory and slave traders from Zanzibar. He also showedinterest in Europe after acting as host in 1862 to JohnHanning Speke, the first European visitor. Somesurviving artefacts reflect this pivotal period in localhistory when the Baganda were first exposed to Arabtraders and European explorers.When Muteesa 1st died in 1884 he was buried in hispalace, Kasubi, establishing Kasubi as an importantburial place of the Kabakas of Buganda. Afterindependence in 1962 Muteesa II became president,with his own prime minister. Kasubi was stormed in1966 and the president went into exile, but when he diedin 1969 his remains were returned and buried at Kasubiin 1971. Four successive Kabakas of Buganda weretherefore buried in the same tomb house at Kasubi, thebuilding which is at the core of this World Heritage site.Each prince and princess who is a descendant of the fourKabakas is also buried there behind the main shrine.Kabaka Ronald Mutebi II was crowned as the Kabaka ofBuganda, and in 1997 the Kasubi tombs were returned tothe Buganda kingdom. Buganda is today one of fourkingdoms in Uganda.The Kasubi Tombs site is situated on a hill withinKampala. It consists of three main zones: the main tombarea, located at the western end of the site on top of thehill; an area located behind the main tombs containing anumber of buildings and graveyards; and a large area onthe eastern side of the site used primarily for agriculturalpurposes.The structure was constructed of wooden columns andinvisible walls of fired brick. Beyond is a smallcourtyard containing a circular building with the royaldrums.The D-shaped main courtyard (Olugya) lies through agap in a reed fence. This fence encloses the courtyardand links nine buildings, five of them houses for thewidows of the Kabakas, the other four respectively atwins' house, two tombs, and a mortuary.Beyond the Olugya is scattered a large number ofbuildings - houses, royal tombs and ones for agriculturalpurposes - and a royal cemetery. The whole area issacred and is not open to visitors.Since 1938 the building has suffered several processes ofrestoration and modification, primarily to meet threats ofstructural failure. It was completely reconstructed in1938-40, when modern materials were introduced, suchas some concrete columns. During the 1990s, changesincurred by most of the buildings have slightly changedthe architectural value of the site; which suffers badlyfrom rain, drainage problems, and termites, with aconstant threat of fire.Most of the smaller buildings show deficiencies. Onebuilding burnt down in 1998 has been rebuilt but iswithout a thatch roof for lack of funds. The original reedfence around the whole site has long since disappeared;the living fence of bark-cloth trees around the site hassuffered quite badly as an obvious target in the endlesssearch for firewood. The site has, nevertheless, to anextent been preserved out of fear and respect for itssacred and religious nature. Source: UNESCO/CLT/WHCHistorical DescriptionThe Baganda belong to the Bantu-speaking people anddate their political civilization from about the 13thcentury AD. Today, the Baganda are the major ethnicgroup in Uganda, their 6 million people constitutingabout 28% of the population. The Buganda region coversabout 66,350km². From Kintu, the first legendaryKabaka, to Muteesa I there were 35 Kabakas. PreciseContinued on page 9594-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Continued from page 94 - Tombs of Buganda Kings atKasubidates, however, are known only from Suuna II (1836-56), who established his palace at Kasubi. He wassucceeded by his son Muteesa I who did likewise,constructing the present tomb structure as his palace in1882. He became a very powerful Kabaka, the first tobe influenced by foreign cultures. He adopted someIslamic religious practices learnt from ivory and slavetraders from Zanzibar. He also showed interest inEurope after acting as host in 1862 to John HanningSpeke, the first European visitor. In 1875 he askedHenry Morton Stanley, the explorer, for teachers ofEuropean learning and religion. Some remainingartefacts reflect this pivotal period in local history whenthe Baganda were first exposed to Arab traders andEuropean explorers.When Muteesa I died in 1884, he broke two traditions:his body was buried whole and it was buried in hispalace, Kasubi, not somewhere else. This practice wasfollowed when, in 1910, the remains of his successor,Mwanga II (ob. 1903), were brought back from theSeychelles and also buried there, establishing Kasubi asan important burial place of the Kabakas of Buganda.This status was reinforced when his son and successor,Daudi Chwa II, died in 1939 and was also buried atKasubi.His son and successor, Edward Muteesa II, was first inconflict with Britain and then, after independence in1962 when he became President, with his own PrimeMinister. Kasubi was stormed in 1966 and the Presidentwent into exile, but when he died in 1969 his remainswere returned and buried at Kasubi in 1971. Foursuccessive Kabakas of Buganda were therefore buriedin the same tomb house at Kasubi, the building which isat the core of this nomination. Each prince and princesswho is a descendant of the four Kabakas is also buriedthere behind the main shrine.Between 1967 and 1993 the site was controlled bycentral government, but the traditional institutions ofkingship were restored in 1993. Kabaka Ronald MutebiII was crowned as the Kabaka of Buganda, and in 1997the Kasubi tombs were returned to the Bugandakingdom. Buganda is today one of four kingdoms inUganda. The site is now not only the most importantcultural shrine for the Baganda but also the mostattractive tourist site in the country.http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1022☻☻☻☻☻☻SUFFIX “Cide” – TO KILLWe are the only species on this planet that knowingly orunknowingly commit suicide and knowingly commitgenocide. We are creatures of melanin; a living moleculethat can protects us from the environment to a certainextent. Pesticides and insecticides are designed have an“affinity for” or to attack melanin in pests and insects.But doesn’t this also lead to an attack on the melanininherent in humans and animals. When our melaninbecomes toxic, we have reached our body burden ofdangerous chemicals. When melanin becomes toxic,there is no barrier to disease. The idea, of incorporating aman-made pesticide in living plants so that damage frominsects will not affect the monetary value of our crops,having no regard for people or animals that are forced toeat this garbage, is to risk our health for corporate greed.It does seem a bit farfetched doesn’t it? Is it greed thathas doomed humanity? This is genocidal. There aremany pleasures in life. Eating good food is one of them.We must eat to exist. But does it mean we will eatanything? This is suicidal. Africa is now posed to useDDT, the granddaddy of all poisonous pesticides toeliminate malaria. It behooves us to understand whywhen we have a treasure trove of organic herbs andplants that can be used in malarial control. It only takes alittle research, people. This is what we are seeing. Weare a diseased species. We are suffering from digestiveand heart diseases, high blood pressure, diabetes,obesity, cancer, infertility, autism, neurological,respiratory, kidney and reproductive diseases, genderchanges, pollution in our waters, our soil, the air webreathe, killing bees and contributing to the loss inbiodiversity. Did we know we would be hurtingourselves? We know now. The answer is not more“cides”, but less. To be greedy you must be selfish.Everything has its degrees, its limitations, and itsaspirations. The idea to make our harvests free of insectdamage so we can feed a more populous world was goodin a very naïve way, but this idea has been hijacked forother ideas of world domination. The idea was good butthe means is terrible. We must “stand our ground”against corporate greed, callousness and these genocidaltendencies to kill every man, woman and child on theplanet. It is up to us to stop it. “The black man shall notbe a creature of the past, but a full-fledged man of thepresent and a power to be reckoned with in thefuture.” Marcus GarveyBlackherbals – A Marcus Garvey Pan-AfricanUniversity’s Community Site of Knowledge95-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013

Mission StatementOur aim at The African Traditional HerbalResearch Clinic is to propagate and promote theawareness in Afrikan peoples at home and abroad oftheir health, biodiversity, history and culturalrichness. We gather pertinent information on theseissues and disseminate these freely to our people inUganda, the rest of the continent, and anywhere inthe Diaspora where Afrikans are located…. One ofthe main ingredients for increasing poverty, sickness,exploitation and domination is ignorance of one'sself, and the environment in which we live.Knowledge is power and the forces that control ourlives don't want to lose control, so they won't stop atanything to keep certain knowledge from the people.Therefore, we are expecting a fight and opposition toour mission. However, we will endeavor to carryforward this work in grace and perfect ways.“Where there is no God, there is no culture.Where there is no culture, there is noindigenous knowledge. Where there is noindigenous knowledge, there is no history.Where there is no history, there is no scienceor technology. The existing nature is madeby our past. Let us protect and conserve ourindigenous knowledge.”☻☻☻☻☻☻Afrikan Traditional Herbal Research Clinic54 Muwafu Road, P.O. Box 29974Ntinda, Kampala, Uganda East AfricaPhone: +256 (0) 702 414 530Email: clinic@blackherbals.comrglent@blackherbals.comhttp://www.blackherbals.comhttp://www.facebook.com/blackherbalsHerbs of the MonthBotanical InsecticidesBotanical insecticides are naturally occurring toxinsextracted from plants. There are several advantages tousing botanical rather than synthetic insecticides. Plantderived insecticides breakdown quickly in the environment,resulting in little risk of residues on food cropsand less risk to beneficial insects. Some materials can beused shortly before harvest. Most botanicals are rapidacting and most, but not all botanicals are of low tomoderate toxicity to mammals. Because most botanicalinsecticides must be eaten by the insect pest, they areprimarily harmful to these pests and do little harm tobeneficial insects.There can also be disadvantages to using these products.Rapid break down, while less risky to health andenvironment, often creates a need for precise timing ormore frequent applications. Several botanicalinsecticides are quite toxic and should be handledaccordingly. Some botanical insecticides can be difficultto find in local stores.Neem is a relatively new and promising botanicalinsecticide made from extracts of Neem tree seeds. It isused to control a wide variety of insects includingleafminers, whiteflies, thrips, caterpillars, aphids,mealybugs, spider mites, scale crawlers, and beetles.Neem is most effective against actively growingimmature insects.Azadirachtin, the active ingredient in neem extracts, hasa very low mammalian toxicity. It acts as an insectfeeding deterrent and growth regulator. Neem does notproduce a quick knockdown and kill, but stops insectfeeding. The treated insect usually cannot molt into itsnext life stage and dies without reproducing.Many commercial neem products exist, includingAzatin XL, Neemix, SouthernAg Triple Action NeemOil and Safer BioNeem. These products are labeled foruse on ornamentals, foliage plants, trees, shrubs andfood crops. Many neem products and formulations arealso effective as a fungicide against powdery mildew.Limonene (also known as d-Limonene) is producedfrom citrus oils extracted from oranges and other citrusfruit peels. It is used as a contact insecticide againstants, roaches, palmetto bugs, fleas, silverfish and manyContinued on page 9296-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013