Lawsuit Alleges that Monsanto Influenced the EPA’s Classification of Glyphosate

In 2015, the World Health Organization categorized glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. A new lawsuit, filed on behalf of cancer victims, claims the Environmental Protection Agency had the information to label glyphosate as carcinogenic two years earlier and instead chose to claim glyphosate was “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”

Marion Copley, now deceased, was a toxicologist at the EPA for 30 years. In 2013, she wrote a letter to Jess Rowland, the chair of the EPA’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC), listing 14 reasons to classify glyphosate as carcinogenic. Copley also alleged that Rowland and other select colleagues changed important reports to benefit companies like Monsanto.

The lawsuit is demanding the release of Jess Rowland’s communications with Monsanto during his time on the CARC and his involvement with the release of the EPA’s memo declaring glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”

Something Isn’t Adding Up

This is not the first time there have been questions surrounding the EPA and their treatment of glyphosate. A glyphosate risk report that found glyphosate was not likely to be carcinogenic to humans, a direct contrast to the WHO report, was released in 2016 on the EPA website on April 29, only to be taken down four days later. This is not the first time two different groups of scientists (the IARC and CARC) have taken a look at the same problem and come up with conflicting views. But the EPA sent officials to help conduct the IARC study. The discrepancy in results was enough for the House of Representatives Science Committee to request interviews with four different EPA officials, including Jess Rowland. While it makes sense for the chair of the CARC to be mentioned, the letter from Marion Copley makes the EPA’s findings seem more like a dictate from private interests than an independent government report.

Where is Monsanto in All of This?

It goes without saying that Monsanto is deeply invested in keeping glyphosate from being labeled as a health hazard. It’s easy to sound like a conspiracy theorist, accusing the EPA of being in Monsanto’s back pocket, that EPA scientists collaborated with the scientists who found that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen and then walked it back. Monsanto is now using the EPA’s official report to dispute the study that the found that glyphosate was harmful. In that light, Marion Copley’s allegations of changing study findings to favor industry are not so outlandish. Until we have a transparent system, we have to trust that government science has our best interests at heart. Do we matter more than Monsanto?

Related Reading:

 

Sources:


Fast Food Packaging Contains Dangerous Chemicals According to New Study – As If the Food Isn’t Bad Enough!

A new study reports that fast food packaging contains concerning levels of certain perfluoroalkyls and polyfluoroalkyls (PFAs), a relative of the chemicals used in non-stick pans, furniture, packing tape, and waterproof clothes. Among the items tested for PFAs were dessert and bread wrappers, sandwich and burger wrappers, paperboard containers, and paper cups. The dessert and bread wrappers were the biggest offenders, with 56% of them containing PFAs. Not only do these PFAs break down slowly in nature, but they’ve also been linked to higher cholesterol, higher rates of kidney and bladder cancer, weakened antibody responses to vaccines in children, and suppressed immune systems.

It’s Not Just the Wrappers

Fluorosurfactants come in many forms. They can be called PFAs, PFOA, PFOS, and PFCs. These chemicals are in the majority of stain-resistant, waterproof, non-stick, and fire-retardant items. The plethora of acronyms make it difficult to understand which ones have been banned. This creates confusion companies can use to their advantage.

The EPA has established a safety limit for these products, but the government doesn’t regulate them beyond that. The FDA did ban three PFCs found in pizza boxes and microwave popcorn bags in 2016, and a form of PFAs, known as long chain PFAs, was banned in the early 2000s. All PFAs found in products like fast food wrappers are now short chain PFAs, which are the long chain PFAs minus a set of carbon molecules.

The Slow Takeover

In 2013, the Environmental Health Perspectives Journal published a study linking PFOAs in Teflon pans to thyroid disease. Many scientists have called for companies to stop using non-essential PFAs, while the FDA has approved nearly 100 new PFCs to use in food packaging in the last decade. The speed at which new fluorosurfactants are being developed makes it unlikely that scientific concerns will be taken as seriously as they should be.

Since fluorosurfactants take so long to break down in nature, they have plenty of time to migrate to water sources, release into the air, and contaminate soil. After looking at 36,000 water samples from more than 4,800 public water sources in 2016, Harvard University found that 16 million Americans are drinking water with PFAs. Of those water sources, 66 of them had levels at or above what the EPA considers safe.

Persistent Waste Creates Persistent Problems

One wonders where the ever growing number of PFAs will end up when they run out of space. No one seems to be clear on how they got in our water, and it doesn’t seem likely that anyone is going to step up and regulate them. PFAs continue to resist decomposition and mysteriously leach into water supplies and the food they are wrapped around unchecked, leaving us with a higher likelihood of thyroid disease, certain cancers, infertility, and developmental disorders in children. At some point, the advice to avoid fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn, and nonstick cookware will only minimize the exposure to PFAs. True avoidance will no longer be an option.

Related Reading:
Sources:


Textile Industry’s Health and Environmental Impacts – What Are You Wearing?

Amid today’s discussion of the renewable energy crisis and the impacts of fossil fuel harvest and consumption, many people are forgetting one major industry that is fed by the oil rigs – the textile industry.

This sleeping giant is responsible for greater environmental contamination and more waste than any other industry, and due to the unawareness of the general population, its demand is ever-increasing.

The discussion surrounding carbon emissions and fuel consumption is a worthwhile one to be had, for sure, but the silence surrounding the flagrant disregard for environmental safety in the textile industry is one that has gone on long enough.

It’s time to bust this can of worms wide open and acknowledge what many of us have wondered the extent of for some time – the vast and unconscionable lapse in ethics and environmental concern in the textile industry.

The Rise of Man-Made Fibers

Once upon a time, things were made with pretty simple materials, but the process was very time and labor intensive, and as the industry grew, one of the first areas it took hold in was in textiles. We went from small farmers hand-spinning wool to gigantic factories mass-producing fabrics by the ton.

As the manufacturing process expanded and was refined, modern “improvements” were made. Chemicals were added to the fabrics to help prevent wrinkles and shrinkage. The fabrics were soaked in great vats of artificial dyes and flame retardants, and soon the factory workers had to wear masks to compensate for the health hazards associated with working with these chemicals.

Then came the advent of a petroleum-based textile that many forget is a product of the big oil industry – polyester. This cheap fiber was much more cost-effective to produce than natural fibers like wool and cotton and could be made in any color or elasticity. Its versatility quickly contributed to its rise with every major clothing and textile retailer in the world. Polyester began its reign.

The Effects on Your Health

First, let’s scale things down a bit and focus on how the modern textile industry’s functionality is directly affecting you. After all, there’s no greater way to tug on the heartstrings of a populace and compel them to give a damn than to show them how it directly affects them, so let’s engage in a little shameless emotional manipulation here.

With their convenience and cost-savings, these artificial fibers and manufacturing methods brought a host of problems that, for the most part, still remain quietly under the rug. We’re surrounded by fabrics all the time, and most of us never give a second thought as to how those textiles came about or the consequences of their production.

Polyester is essentially a plastic – a petroleum-based product that’s the result of a long, toxic manufacturing process. Plastics themselves have been found to cause hormonal disruption and are strongly linked to the formation of breast cancer cells1.

The connections between health concerns and polyester and plastic are still being studied. Though polyester and plastic are derived from the same chemical compound, the finishing process creates a much different product. However, it has been discovered that polyester emits phytoestrogens3, which are known endocrine system disruptors and, are again, strongly linked with breast cancer.

The bottom line is, we’re still studying and understanding the long-term health effects of artificial fibers like polyester and the finishing processes that go into them. The textiles themselves are only the tip of the iceberg, and many printed clothes use PVC for screen printing – a compound that is considered so dangerous to human health, it’s been banned from use in water supply pipes and is on its way to being regulated out of the children’s toy industry4.

Flame retardant chemicals pose another threat entirely. Since synthetic fibers burn much more quickly than natural ones, manufacturers have taken to using a host of flame retardants decrease the flammability of these textiles. The result has certainly been effective at making products more fire safe, but the effects and health concerns linked to flame retardant chemicals are well known2, and many government regulation bodies are taking a stand against their use.

…levels of the chemicals in the blood of North Americans appear to have been doubling every two to five years for the past several decades.”

Acting on growing evidence that these flame retardants can accumulate in people and cause adverse health effects — interfering with hormones, reproductive systems, thyroid and metabolic function, and neurological development in infants and children — the federal government and various states have limited or banned the use of some of these chemicals, as have other countries.” ~Elizabeth Grossman, Yale Environment 360

Despite this knowledge, there is no blanket ban in the U.S. for flame retardant chemicals, and a staggering number of companies and manufacturers are still using chemical cocktails that run the gamut, from electronics to baby bedding. The result?

“Many infants are in physical contact with products treated with these chemicals 24 hours a day.”

It’s a scary thought that some of our most fragile, precious lives are the ones most frequently and consistently in contact with these items, but it’s the humbling truth, and it doesn’t appear to be changing anytime soon.

Though legislation has been passed by a few state governments, the bottom line is that manufacturing of products drenched in these chemicals is still widespread, and the process isn’t likely to change until new formulations that are safer, but still effective at slowing fires, are developed.

How Do You Avoid Flame Retardant Chemicals?

The issue with flame retardant chemicals is a challenging one. We don’t want to expose ourselves and our children to chemicals that have been proven to be detrimental to our health, but in a world full of petroleum-based products that burn quickly and easily, it’s essential to protect ourselves from these highly flammable materials.

Companies have done some experimenting, but ultimately, what comes back is almost always another version of the same product with many of the same health concerns. The industries argue that these chemicals are saving lives, and who can debate that when the products they are treating are so highly flammable?

The solution is simple. We need to stop using highly flammable textiles in the first place. It all comes full circle back to petroleum-based products, and that’s where the majority of the issues lie. By sourcing products made from natural fibers, which burn much more slowly, we avoid the need for flame retardant chemicals.

We’re Poisoning Our Planet for Fabrics

It sounds sensationalist, but that’s as simple and cut and dried as it gets. The textile industry is responsible for a whopping 20% of industrial water pollution7, with many of the compounds being permanent fixtures in our world’s water supply. Cancer-causing endocrine disruptors and synthetic chemical compounds that won’t ever break down are now a part of our water supply, and there’s little hope of changing that.

Aside from the chemical cocktails that frequently pollute our water supply, there is a massive energy input needed for modern man-made textiles and a tremendous amount of waste in those industries. Most synthetic fibers are direct products of the petroleum industry, where a tremendous amount of energy is needed just to harvest the raw materials, let alone convert it to fabric.

The process of turning petroleum into polyester is a nasty one. Factory workers, many of them children, often experience horrible work conditions and face a host of health issues. The superheating of the materials needed to create polyester is horribly energy-intensive, and the by-products are known to cause lasting, long-term, and often debilitating health effects.

Textile Safety and Sustainability – Even Natural Fibers Aren’t Exempt

Despite the stunning array of health and environmental concerns associated with man-made fibers and their chemical processes, it’s only fair to shed light on another issue that’s similarly troubling – the impacts of conventional agriculture on the natural fiber industry.

It’s an unfortunate fact that the cotton industry accounts for 6.8% of worldwide pesticide use and 16% of insecticide use, despite being grown on only 2.5% of the world’s agricultural lands5. Conventional cotton farming methods are far from sustainable. And the worst part? Those chemicals are in your clothes.

The health risks associated with the use of pesticides for humans is well-known and documented with the primary concerns being for neurological issues, endocrine system disruption, respiratory problems, and even cancer6.

Healthy Alternatives to Toxic Textiles

In a market so rampantly saturated with the use of pesticides, the best thing you can do for your health and safety is to source organic cotton and wool products whenever possible. Organic cotton is grown without the use of synthetic pesticides and is typically grown in areas with greater regulation for worker safety – not factories and child-labor powered institutions.

Wool is a fantastic material as well that is often produced by small farmers, so purchasing it is a great way to support them. Organic mattresses often use a combination of organic wool and organic cotton. Natural latex options are a great way to avoid polyesters in furniture and mattresses, and there are even some manufactured foam products that are made without the use of nasty chemicals like formaldehyde and parabens. Of course, organic cotton and wool are also a great choice for mattresses, pillows, and furniture cushions.

Take a good hard look around your home, and you’ll see that petroleum-based products dominate our lives. From plastics to polyesters, these products seem unavoidable, but the health effects and environmental concerns are too far-reaching to overlook.

It’s time to start making better product selections. Get started with the area of your home where your skin makes the most contact with synthetic fibers every day – your bed. Natural mattresses are a crucial stepping stone to putting your foot down and saying no to the toxic, unsustainable practices of the textile industry.

OEKO-TEX: The Easy Way to Spot Safe Materials

If you’re buying lots of manufactured items like baby toys, bedding, and equipment, OEKO-TEX maintains a fabulous standard for vetting products and materials for safety compliance. This third-party testing system consists of an international group of scientists and laboratories who offer their certifications to products meeting their stringent standards and objective test criteria.

There is no data manipulation, no conflict of interest – just the information you need to make an informed purchase decision. If a product has met their standards for testing, they won’t be quiet about it. Look for the label or a mention of this certification in product descriptions.

It gets pretty technical, but if you’d like to take a look for yourself, dive into the OEKO-TEX guidelines here. Now we recommend you clean out your closet and check out Holistic Guide to Healing the Endocrine System, and make sure you’re sleeping on a nontoxic mattress like the ones below.

Related Products:
Recommended Reading:
Sources:

 



Sustainable DIY Laundry Solutions: The Secrets Detergent Companies Don’t Want You To Know

Living a life that’s light on the planet is important to you. Why else would you be on this site? You probably buy organic whenever possible and reject gas-guzzling SUVs in favor of eco-friendly engine options. Perhaps you only permit planet-safe products to join you in the shower by choosing natural body washes. However, one glaring area of the American lifestyle has been grotesquely missed by the natural living trend. If you’re like most people, there’s a really good chance you don’t think twice about the chemicals your clothes keep close to your skin every day.

Few possessions are more intimately used than the clothes on your body. Doesn’t it make sense to keep toxic chemicals far away from them?

Laundry Detergent? It Can’t Be THAT Bad… Can It?

Oh, but it can. Take the time to read the ingredients list on your regular detergent sometime. How many terms do you recognize? While smart sounding scientific names aren’t always a sign that a product is loaded with toxins, in the case of most detergents this isn’t far from the truth.

In fact, research has shown that the laundry room is usually one of the most polluted rooms in your entire house. Detergents are to blame. These prettily packaged products are filled with as many as 25 volatile organic compounds- seven of which have been shown to be toxic to breathe in. For this reason, the EPA considers the air inside your home to be as much as five times more polluted than the great outdoors. Yikes.

Detergent’s Cost to the Natural World

The danger in detergents comes from their scents. Far removed from their natural-sounding names, most laundry fragrances are actually a cocktail of chemicals designed to degrade as slowly as possible to give you a “just been cleaned” feeling all day long.

Your mind might associate these scents with pleasant vistas and spring fed streams, but the truth is that these chemicals are actually actively destroying the places they make you reminisce about. The status quo for the EPA is to let the vast majority of these chemicals pass through the cracks of their testing every year, assuming that the majority of their chemical creations are “safe until proven otherwise”. This makes the detergent-buying population into non-consenting guinea pigs happy to smell like a mountain spring, unaware of the damage they are unintentionally doing to these same sacred wild spaces.

When you do a load of laundry, you are fouling our limited water supply with toxic chemicals that eventually make their way into rivers and ponds. The soap in detergents actually “cleans off” the natural mucous on fish scales, making it easy for fish to absorb any of the 80,000 different chemicals used commercially in the United States directly through their skin. These chemicals have a range of impacts, from reducing the effectiveness of breeding to killing fish eggs and even causing widespread deaths throughout vast swatches of water. Worst of all, this chemical damage works its way right up the food chain and stricken seabirds, larger fish, and even the humans who eat them.

The Sinister Effects For Your Health

Unbeknownst to most people, skin is your body’s biggest organ. This stretchy layer of cells actually operates as a semi-permeable barrier that lets plenty of microscopic substances shift in and out. This is great news for aromatherapy adherents and smokers relying on nicotine patches, but not so good if you look too closely at your detergent label. Each of these chemicals, 4-dioxane, benzoxazolyl, polyalkylene quaternium-15:, can be found in most detergents. They are a big cause for concern if you care about your reproductive health, staving off allergic reactions, and staying cancer free.

Worst of all, these chemicals aren’t something you are exposed to only on laundry day. Instead, they come with you wherever your clothes go. Traces of these chemicals create fumes you constantly breathe in, and even tiny amounts can agitate your breathing and cause headaches, neurological problems, and allergy flare-ups.

If that’s not enough to scare you off, keep in mind that the long-term effects of these combinations of chemicals are almost completely unknown.

Sustainable Alternatives to Commercial Detergents

Unless you shed your layers and opt to join a nudist colony instead, washing your clothes is probably not optional. However, you have plenty of control over the kinds of chemicals you expose your cotton to. Below are some of my all-time favorite detergent alternatives that will keep your clothes clean without putting your health or the environment at risk.

Toss aside your dreadful detergent bottle and try one (or all) of these clothes cleaning methods instead! Trust me, you won’t be going back.

Soap Nuts

Why use detergent at all? In truth, soap nuts are an out of the box way to clean your clothes that still manages to be shockingly effective. As the fruits of the Mukorossi tree, soap “nuts” are native to the Himalayas, though they are grown in arid climates around the world. The Mukorossi tree’s gift to the world is that its berries are filled with a natural surfactant called saponin that naturally interacts with water in a way that agitates dirt off clothing, binds dirt particles to soap molecules, and makes it simple to wash these particles directly down the drain.

Besides their effectiveness for keeping clothes clean, there’s a lot to like about soap nuts. Not only do they thrive in areas ill-suited for other kinds of agriculture, they also prevent erosion on the steep mountain slopes where they grow best. They are a perfect option for gray water systems because the nuts are 100% biodegradable and actually act as a natural form of fertilizer wherever they end up. Best of all, soap nuts require minimal packaging and often come in eco-friendly boxes that are a cinch to recycle.

At first glance, these nuts may seem confusing to use, but in truth, the process couldn’t be simpler. All you need to do is place five nuts in a drawstring bag (normally included with your nut purchase) and toss it into the washing machine. No need to fret about pulling the nuts about before the start of the rinse cycle; they can stay right in until the very end! You can also say goodbye to fabric softeners and other detergents, as these simple nuts will do it all. In most cases, you can get five to ten washes out of your nuts before they become papery thin and translucent. At this point, it’s time to toss them in the compost bin and start again.

Looking to buy some soap nuts? They can be found online through many organic distributors like Eco Nuts.

Homemade Detergents

If you’re looking to stick with cleaning solutions a little more familiar, there are plenty of ways to make your own homemade detergents that get your clothes as clean as any chemical-laden commercial product. Not only will you be making your health a priority, you’ll also be saving money and becoming more self-sufficient in the process.

Here are some simple tips to make eco-friendly swaps in your laundry routine.

Switch out your fabric softener and add a ½ cup white vinegar to the rinse cycle.

Baking soda is a great way to scrub away stains and brighten colors. Just make a simple pre-treatment with baking soda, water, and washing soda to get a deep cleanse for your clothes.

Ditch your dryer sheets by making your own. All it takes is a few drops of essential oil added to a damp rag that’s thrown right in with your sodden laundry. You can also use recycled wool dryer balls to fluff up your clothes while reducing static.

Homemade Liquid Laundry Detergent

This simple recipe is so easy it will quickly replace all your commercial detergent needs. Best of all, you can change the scent based on what type of soap you choose to use.

All you need to do is combine one bar of grated soap with 2 quarts water, and slowly heat the mix until the soap has fully dissolved. Next, add 4.5 gallons of piping hot tap water to a five-gallon bucket, and stir in 2 cups each of washing soda and borax. Pour in your stove top soap mixture and stir everything together. Cover the container and let it sit overnight before pouring it into easy to use containers. To use, all you need to do is add a half cup per medium load and your clothes will soon be clean and fresh.

If you have trouble finding washing soda at the store, you can make your own.

Homemade Laundry Powder

Why rely on liquids when powdered detergents are so much simpler to use? Not only are they easier to store, they also don’t need any preservation agents to keep them safe. You can make your own top quality laundry detergent by mixing three cups of Borax with two cups each of washing soda, grated, all natural soap (like Ivory Soap) and baking soda. Blend everything together and store it in an airtight container. To use, all you need to do is measure out two tablespoons for a medium sized load.

Homemade All-In-One Laundry Pods

If you can’t help your preference for convenient laundry solutions, you don’t have to forgo your favorite laundry pods if you’re committed to natural solutions. Instead, you can make your own single-use laundry pods with ease by following these instructions. Simply blend 1 ½ cups washing soda with a grated bar of natural soap and 2 Tbsp Epsom salts. After thoroughly mixing, and 3 Tbsp of hydrogen peroxide and ¼ cup vinegar. When mixed, add 15-20 drops of your favorite essential oil.

Once everything is blended together, it should resemble wet sand and clump well together. Cover a cookie pan with parchment paper and measure out rounded tablespoons of the mix, tapping them against the side of the bowl to ensure they clump together. Let these pods dry for eight hours before storing them in airtight containers. When it’s time to do a load, simple toss a pod right in with your clothes.

So, What Did We Learn?

If you’ve been thoughtless with your laundry habits in the past, the time has come to make a change for the better. Commercial detergents may make your clothing squeaky clean, but they come at a significant cost to health for you and the planet.

A better option? Turn towards sustainable laundry solutions and try out soap nuts or some homemade detergents to keep your clothes clean. You’ll save money, reduce the amount of obnoxious packaging ending up in landfills, and keep the planet in better shape for future generations to enjoy.

Clearly, swapping out your commercial detergent for a more sustainable solution is a change well worth making.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:


Blood Lead Levels – Standards Up For Review

Every four years, the Center for Disease Control analyzes blood lead levels of children. Children under six whose blood levels test above 5 milligrams of lead per deciliter have enough lead in their body for the CDC to recommend a public health response.  Before 2012, the level causing concern was twice as high as today’s. The level change expanded the potential number of children needing treatment from 150,000 to 535,000. With a new National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey from 2016, there are rumors that the CDC will again lower the reference blood lead levels from 5 mg of lead per deciliter to 3.5 mg.

How Does the Lead Get There?

Lead exposure is declining in the U.S. Levels of lead in children’s bloodstream have fallen over 90% since the use of lead in paint and gasoline was banned almost forty years ago. So where is the lead coming from? The majority of the children above the reference levels of lead are primarily exposed to lead in their homes. In addition to older homes with lead-based paints and toxic soil, contaminated water is becoming common (Flint, MI is only the most publicized case).

Lead does not belong in the body. The fact that the reference level for lead in children’s blood may be lowered again is a good thing, as raising awareness and preventing lead exposure whenever possible is incredibly important. Awareness is good, but for this potential level change, local government follow-through will be likely be limited. The CDC doesn’t actually have any regulatory power with this issue, and local labs and lead testing devices are rarely accurate around the new proposed levels, 3.5 mg.

There is also the issue of cost. Lead safety programs around the country last year were allocated a 17 million dollar budget, which resulted in understaffing and an inability to handle the cases already present. The last time the lead references levels were lowered, the number of children affected by that change almost tripled. If another shift like that occurs without a corresponding budget change, it’s likely communities will be unable to rise to the challenge set by the CDC.

What Can You Do at Home?

The average blood lead level in children 1-5 years old is from 1 to 1.3 mg. Even if you or your children aren’t exposed to lead-based paint on a regular basis, the likelihood of lead being in the body is very high (if only at low levels). While the CDC is raising awareness among medical health and government officials, they are less clear on how you can help yourself.

There are ways to remove lead and other heavy metals from the body (called chelation) by adding common, healthy foods like garlic and cilantro to the diet. The higher the blood lead levels, the more likely a medical professional needs to intervene. You can address your lead level every day before it becomes a toxic overload by doing something as simple as sprinkling raw garlic on your salad or dinner.

Recommended Reading:

 

Sources:


GMO Study Finds Altered Amino Acids May Increase Histamine Reactions

One of the criteria the Food and Drug Administration considers when deciding whether or not to approve a GMO is called “substantial equivalence.” This means the nutritional profile and toxicity levels of the modified plant are within the same range as a non-modified plant. When a new strain of corn is similar enough to the original to demonstrate substantial equivalence, the product is free to pass to market with fewer safety checks. A new study looking more closely at the differences between a specific variety of GM corn, Monsanto’s NK603, and the non-modified corn it is derived from is challenging that principle.

Substantial equivalence is a standard practice in the industry. The GM crop database notes that

…small statistical differences between NK603 and control lines were observed only in: six amino acids (alanine, arginine, glutamic acid, histidine, lysine, and methionine) as measured in grain from European trials (no differences were observed in material from U.S. trials); and stearic (C18:0) acid levels. Overall, these differences were not consistent across all trial sites and they were considered to reflect random variation. All compositional results were within the ranges observed for commercial non-transformed lines.”

Peer reviewed research from Dr. Michael Antionou at King’s College in London has found that the differences in those amino acids are more important than Monsanto has considered or is disclosing.

Amino Acid Differences May Increase Allergic Reactions

In the words of Dr. Antionou,

Our study clearly shows that the GM transformation process results in profound compositional differences in NK603, demonstrating that this GMO corn is not substantially equivalent to its non-GMO counterpart. The marked increase in putrescine and especially cadaverine is a concern since these substances are potentially toxic, being reported as enhancers of the effects of histamines, thus heightening allergic reactions, and both have been implicated in the formation of carcinogenic nitrosamines with nitrates in meat products.”

GMOs have been cited several times as a factor in the increase in allergies worldwide, though many scientists and researchers have remained firm in their conviction that GMOs do not contain any known allergens. The differences in amino acids found in this study suggest that while NK603 may not be derived from a substance known to cause allergies, the specific amino acids it enhances increase the likelihood of allergies occurring. Both putrescine and cadaverine are considered toxic in large doses. One could argue that GMO corn has such small amounts that it doesn’t matter, but does that argument take into account the amount of those compounds accumulating in the body over time? Without knowing the quantity of GMOs being consumed on a daily basis and the amount of chemical compound build up, it’s impossible to rule out the NK603 as a cause in increased allergic reactions.

GMO Regulation is Missing a Big Puzzle Piece

Getting a GMO approved in the United States involves three different government agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It’s a tremendous undertaking, with the average development and approval process from four years ago costing 136 million and taking 13 years. Once the company presenting the product has proved “substantial equivalence” though, it is assumed that the crop is safe and ready for market. From that point, there is no longer any incentive to continue safety testing and research. These companies are fundamentally altering the building blocks of the food we eat. Valid, peer-reviewed studies showing the negative effects of these manipulations continue to appear. Saying a product has been safety tested before its initial release is different from saying something is safe when released with incomplete information and saying that it is safe after more than a decade of data has suggested otherwise.

The companies seeing billion dollar profits from the product are left to correct the negative long term effects, often to the detriment of profits. What company is willing to do that? Regulatory systems are allowing one of the necessities of life to be irrevocably altered. A system that does not force a company to at least acknowledge (let alone fix) that alteration and its negative effects is a broken system.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:


Roundup Resistance is a Growing Problem and Syngenta Offers a Problematic Solution

Tolerance to things is built up over time, although some tolerances develop more quickly than others. The development of Roundup resistance in weeds is a quick one, in large part due to the popularity and frequent usage of the chemical. From the release of Roundup in 1974, it took 15 years for the first documented case of Roundup-resistant weeds to appear. The response to that resistance didn’t actually address the problem. The introduction of genetically modified, Roundup resistant crops allowed farmers to increase the amount of the herbicide sprayed, therefore increasing the opportunities for naturally resistant weeds to thrive and pass on their wayward genes. The growth of Roundup-resistant weeds is upon us, and Big Agriculture needs an answer.

Paraquat – A Potential Answer

Paraquat is a controversial product. While one of the most popular herbicides in the world, it has been banned in the European Union due to its toxicity. Paraquat is so toxic to mammals that it’s often said, “just one sip will kill you.” It has been used to commit suicide in many third world countries due to its easy availability and low price. Despite the fact that it has been banned in the European Union, the herbicide is still manufactured there. The E.U. is not the only country that has reservations regarding paraquat, as China is also in the process of phasing out paraquat for agricultural use. Countries like the U.S. and Australia are still using the herbicide, as it’s a fast-acting product that kills a wide range of weeds.

The Herbicide Always Knocks Twice

If one is good, two must be better…or something like that. One of the suggested uses of paraquat is to use it as a clean up herbicide after glyphosate. This is known as the “double knock” system, and it’s commonly used in Australia. Many scientists and insiders have predicted that this system has the potential to double the amount of time before herbicide resistant weeds appear again. While this system might be ideal from the manufacturer’s standpoint (twice as many products bought), the health and environmental concerns are more worrying.

Everyone Agrees That Paraquat is Toxic

The E.P.A. has classified paraquat as category I, the highest level of toxicity. So we know it’s toxic. That itself is not up for debate. What is in debate is whether or not paraquat causes Parkinson’s. And by debate, that is to say Syngenta is not willing to publicly accept the role of paraquat in increasing the rates of Parkinson’s and the company has subsequently funded studies refuting that link.

But Seriously, Everyone Knows

Syngenta continues to defend paraquat in the face of 20 years of studies presenting increasing links between the herbicide and Parkinson’s. As the number of glyphosate-resistant weeds continues to increase, the agricultural market is looking for the next option in herbicides. With nature as it is, who knows how long before that herbicide will cease to work and the next chemical in line will step up?

One of the advantages of paraquat is the fact that it is partially inactivated once it hits the ground. But what about the part that isn’t? Imagine the rings of a mature oak tree. At what point will we be able to tell the age of our soil by the layers of herbicides and pesticides built up throughout?

Recommended Reading:
Sources: