Banishing Glyphosate

Recommendations

Info

16 Banishing Glyphosate 2 Marked Deterioration of Public Health Parallels Increase in GM Crops & Glyphosate Use, US Government Data Show The steep rise in incidence of 22 chronic diseases in the US correlates strongly with the increase in GM crops and the application of glyphosate-based herbicides Prof Peter Saunders Ample evidence of glyphosate toxicity already exists Despite what the manufacturers say, there is ample evidence to show that glyphosate, the active ingredient of Monsanto’s Roundup, Syngenta’s Touchdown, Dow’s Durango and many other herbicides, is highly toxic and a serious hazard to human and animal health. There is documentation of miscarriages, birth defects, carcinogenesis, endocrine disruption, DNA damage, neurotoxicity, and toxicity to liver and kidney at levels well below recommended agricultural use (See Chapters 1 and 5). Several countries, among them Denmark, The Netherlands, France, El Salvador and Sri Lanka have recognised the dangers imposed total or partial bans on the use of glyphosate (see Chapter 6). Other countries, especially those with large chemical and biotech industries and/or a major commitment to industrial farming, take a totally different view. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently increased the permitted tolerance levels for glyphosate residues in food. The European Food Safe Agency (EFSA) has recommended the re-approval of glyphosate for use in Europe with an increase in acceptable daily intake (ADI) from 0.3 to 0.5 mg per kg body weight. It is not surprising that EFSA reached this decision; the review was in fact carried out by a ‘Glyphosate Task Force’ (GTF) made up of a consortium of chemical companies including Monsanto, and based its conclusions largely on reports submitted by the manufacturers (see Chapter 11). The industry does its best to keep evidence of glyphosate toxicity out of the public’s view and the public record. The recent improper unilateral retraction of a published paper by Séralini and his group (see [1], [2] Support Séralini Team for New GMO and Pesticide Risk Research, [3] Retracting Séralini Study Violates Science and Ethics, SiS 61) is a case in point. It followed the appointment by the journal of a former Monsanto employee to a newly created editorial post. Unusually, it was done in the open. We know of other cases that were not made so public, and possibly many more that we have not even heard about. That’s not all. Confidential papers obtained from the US EPA by Moms Across America under the Freedom of Information Act contain studies carried out by industry showing that glyphosate is lethal to shrimps, fish, oysters and canaries after 96 hours, and at concentrations of
17 beyond doubt that neither GMOs nor glyphosate are hazardous to health [5]. This is obviously a totally unscientific statement; because there has been no GM labelling in the US, it is impossible to tell how much GM food anyone has eaten. Nevertheless, physicist and former scientific adviser to the US Navy Nancy Swanson realised that it is possible to examine the health status of the nation before and after the introduction of GM food and the sharp increase in glyphosate herbicides that went with it. What she and her colleagues found was devastating. Over the past fifteen or twenty years there has been a large increase in the number of Americans suffering from a whole range of chronic diseases. This is the same period over which there has been a very large increase both in GM crops and in the use of glyphosate-based herbicides [6]. The team have made use of the best available government data from the Centres for Disease Control (CDC) for the incidence of diseases, and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) for GM crops grown and glyphosate herbicide used. Because there are records for each year, it is possible to compare how both GMOs and glyphosate on the one hand and the various diseases on the other have changed over time. And the results are striking. Graph after graph showed the same parallel increases over time. On example is given in Figure 1 for liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer. Note that the increase in liver cancer incidence rises sharply above the long term trend that goes back to the 1970s. In other words, while liver cancer had been increasing for some time, the rate of increase accelerated at about the same time that GM crops appeared and glyphosate use rose more sharply. The incidence is now about double what it would be if it had continued to rise at the pre-1990 rate. Table 1 shows the correlation coefficients between each of the conditions and the amount of glyphosate used, and % of GM maize and soya. None of the 44 correlation coefficients falls below 0.8 - the conventional minimum level for a correlation to be called ‘strong’ - and all but seven are greater than 0.9. There is clearly a strong correlation between the conditions on the one hand and GMOs and glyphosate use on the other. This does not by itself prove there is a causal relationship, but it is certainly evidence in favour of one. When we add to it the evidence that glyphosate has led to birth defects in humans, that it has been found to harm laboratory rats, cattle on farms, and other animals as well, that it interferes with an important metabolic pathway in animals, that it adversely affects beneficial gut bacteria, that it acts as an endocrine disruptor, and more Table 1 Pearson correlation coefficients between the incidence in the US of 22 chronic diseases since 1995 and (a) the amount of glyphosate applied to maize and soy (b) the percentage of maize and soy planted that was GM (from [6]) Condition Glyphosate use %GM Hypertension 0.923 0.961 Stroke 0.925 0.983 Diabetes prevalence 0.971 0.983 Diabetes incidence 0.935 0.955 Obesity 0.962 0.962 Lipoprotein metabolism disorder 0.973 0.955 Alzheimer’s 0.917 0.937 Senile dementia 0.994 0.918 Parkinson’s 0.875 0.952 Multiple sclerosis 0.828 0.876 Autism 0.989 0.933 Inflammatory bowel disease 0.938 0.812 Intestinal infections 0.974 0.901 End stage renal disease 0.975 0.958 Acute kidney failure 0.978 0.967 Thyroid cancer 0.988 0.938 Liver cancer 0.960 0.911 Bladder cancer 0.981 0.945 Pancreatic cancer 0.918 0.841 Kidney cancer 0.973 0.940 Myeloid leukaemia 0.878 0.889 There is clearly a strong correlation between the conditions on the one hand and GMOs and glyphosate use on the other. This does not by itself prove there is a causal relationship, but it is certainly evidence in favour of one. When we add to it the evidence that glyphosate has led to birth defects in humans, that it has been found to harm laboratory rats, cattle on farms, and other animals as well, that it interferes with an important metabolic pathway in animals, that it adversely affects beneficial gut bacteria, that it acts as an endocrine disruptor, and more besides, the case against glyphosate becomes very strong indeed besides, the case against glyphosate becomes very strong indeed (see Chapter 1). To conclude There have been all too many examples in the past of substances where there was compelling evidence that they were dangerous to health or the environment or both and yet they continued to be produced and used because of pressure from the manufacturers and weak regulators and governments. These include tobacco, asbestos, lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), benzene, and many more [7, 8]. If governments continue to rely on advice from the industry and ignore the growing body of evidence, glyphosate will be yet another example of serious harm that could have been avoided. www.i-sis.org.uk
Page 3 and 4: Banishing Glyphosate Authors Dr Eva
Page 5 and 6: 5 widespread GM soy cultivation. Th
Page 8 and 9: 8 Banishing Glyphosate 1 Converging
Page 10 and 11: 10 Banishing Glyphosate Box 1 Evide
Page 12 and 13: 12 Banishing Glyphosate Box 2 Evide
Page 14 and 15: 14 Banishing Glyphosate Health of A
Page 18 and 19: 18 Banishing Glyphosate 3 Devastati
Page 20 and 21: 20 Banishing Glyphosate The toxic a
Page 22 and 23: 22 Banishing Glyphosate Table 1 Sum
Page 24 and 25: 24 Banishing Glyphosate Figure 1 Ag
Page 26 and 27: 26 Banishing Glyphosate Rising Ca 2
Page 28 and 29: 28 Banishing Glyphosate data show s
Page 30 and 31: 30 Banishing Glyphosate prostate ca
Page 32 and 33: 32 Banishing Glyphosate Figure 2 In
Page 34 and 35: 34 Banishing Glyphosate a thyroid c
Page 36 and 37: 36 Banishing Glyphosate Figure 3 Cy
Page 38 and 39: 38 Banishing Glyphosate of cancer c
Page 40 and 41: 40 Banishing Glyphosate plants and
Page 42 and 43: 42 Banishing Glyphosate Glyphosate
Page 44 and 45: 44 Banishing Glyphosate 7 Changing
Page 46 and 47: 46 Banishing Glyphosate Figure 1 Ra
Page 48 and 49: 48 Banishing Glyphosate Figure 1 In
Page 50 and 51: 50 Banishing Glyphosate Figure 3 St
Page 52 and 53: 52 Banishing Glyphosate Box 1 Some
Page 54 and 55: 54 Banishing Glyphosate (Bradyrhizo
Page 56 and 57: 56 Banishing Glyphosate ciencies is
Page 58 and 59: 58 Banishing Glyphosate Box 1 Extra
Page 60 and 61: 60 Banishing Glyphosate crickets at
Page 62 and 63: 62 Banishing Glyphosate Glyphosate
Page 64 and 65: 64 Banishing Glyphosate 11 Scandal
Page 66 and 67:
66 Banishing Glyphosate The entire
Page 68 and 69:
68 Banishing Glyphosate Group 3: Un
Page 70 and 71:
70 Banishing Glyphosate study (Sér
Page 72 and 73:
72 Banishing Glyphosate References
Page 74 and 75:
74 Banishing Glyphosate tion of fem
Page 76 and 77:
76 Banishing Glyphosate http://www.
Page 78 and 79:
78 Banishing Glyphosate oads/2015/0
Page 80 and 81:
80 Banishing Glyphosate 12. Cohort
Page 82 and 83:
82 Banishing Glyphosate Chapter 6 1
Page 84 and 85:
84 Banishing Glyphosate 15. Fernand
Page 86 and 87:
86 Banishing Glyphosate 310(6):591-
Page 88:
88 Banishing Glyphosate About The I
show all

Banishing Glyphosate

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?