Podcast

rganicconsumers.org/

Dave Murphy: Will Monsanto's Loss Result In Less Poison In Our Food?

An update on the situation with glyphosate
Monday, September 10, 2018, 6:00 PM

In November 2016, a very concerning report -- Glyphosate: Unsafe On Any Plate -- was released by The Detox Project and Food Democracy Now!, raising the alarm of the high levels of glyphosate in the US food supply and the (deliberate?) low levels of awareness of its associated health risks.

Soon after its release, we brought Dave Murphy, executive director of Food Democracy Now!, on the podcast to explain the explosive findings within this report on the world's most-used herbicide (more commonly known by its retail brand: Roundup). We asked: Are we being poisoned in the pursuit of profit?

As happened in past decades with the alcohol and tobacco industries, the glyphosate report added compelling evidence that profits have indeed taken a priority over consumer safety in our food production system -- and as public health concerns mounted, Big Ag started circling its wagons and attacking the questioners rather than embracing open scrutiny.

But last month, the tables turned. In a landmark upset ruling, Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller was ruled to be carcinogenic, and the company's attempt to hide this fact from consumers made it guilty of acting “with malice or oppression”. Monsanto's new parent company Bayer was ordered to pay the plaintiff, a former school groundskeeper now dying of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, $289 million in damages.

Will this court ruling restrict the use of glyphosate going forward? Or will it be de-fanged upon appeal? What else has been learned about the health impacts of glyphosate in our food since the 2016 report? What is the latest science telling us?

To address these important questions and more, we welcome Dave Murphy back on the program.

When I look at the damages that glyphosate does to the human gut biome, I ask folks: What's worse: cancer or the destruction of your immune system?

There's eighteen to twenty million people in America that have gluten intolerance. And really, they're not gluten intolerant. What they're intolerant to is the pesticide glyphosate that's sprayed on wheat, oat and barley as a pre-harvest dessicating agent. Scientists have studied the gut microbiome – your stomach is your second brain. There's a gut-brain axis, and glyphosate really significantly disrupts the microbiome in humans just like it disrupts the microbiome of the soil.

So the ironic thing is while farmers are spraying Roundup on their fields to kill weeds, they're actually destroying their soil fertility over the long term. Scientists in the Midwest that have shown that Roundup and glyphosate are linked to serious crop diseases like sudden death syndrome in soybeans and also Goss's wilt corn which can lead to a 40-70% loss of those farmers' crops when it becomes widespread. The thing is, if it destroys the microbiome in the soil and it impacts those crops' health, it's also impacting the human gut microbiome of the folks who eat those crops.

A number of studies have come out since we last talked in 2016. One is by the Ramazzini Institute, which is a fairly famous cancer review agency in Italy. They just came out with a study linking EMFs in cell phone radiation to changes in human genes and being harmful to humans. Last fall they came out with a thirteen-week preliminary study that showed that in pregnant rats fed glyphosate, their rat pups' microbiome is disrupted while they're in the womb. For any mother whp's pregnant right now or who's eating food that's not organic, that should be very concerning.

And that corresponds to a study that was published last year in Indiana where the scientists did a cohort review of a hundred pregnant women in Indiana. They found that women who had the highest levels of glyphosate in their urine also had the worst birth outcomes. So that means they had still-births, miscarriages, and low birth weights. And when we interviewed one of the doctors who had been part of that study, he was absolutely flabbergasted that the U.S. government is allowing this chemical to be used in such a widespread way that endangers human health.

Click the play button below to listen to Chris' interview with Dave Murphy (45m:03s).

Transcript: 

Chris: Welcome, everyone, to this Peak Prosperity podcast. I am your host, Chris Martenson. and it is September 5, 2018. Today, we are going to, again, be talking about the chemical herbicide glyphosate, which is the main active ingredient in the more commonly known Roundup product. We last covered this extensively in a podcast in November of 2016, after the release a report by Food Democracy Now that showed ridiculously high levels of glyphosate in many common foods, including organic foods, which the highest levels found in Cheerios. Yes, those things you put in the bag in front of your toddler. That report has been followed by other findings about glyphosate; many of them quite disturbing and a high-profile court case that very recently went against Monsanto, which is now owned by Bayer.

As a quick reminder, Food Democracy Now, or FDN, is a grassroots community dedicated to building a sustainable food system that protects our natural environment and sustains farmers and nourishes families. From the FDN website we read, "Our food system is fundamentally broken. A few companies dominate the market, prioritizing profits over people and our planet. Government policies put the interests of corporate agribusiness over the livelihoods of farm families. Farm workers toil in unsafe conditions for minimal wages, and school children lack access to healthy foods, as well as, millions of Americans living in poverty. From rising childhood and adult obesity to issues of food safety, air, water, and pollution, worker's rights and global warming our current food system is leading our nation to an unsustainable future."

Yes, people, our food system – it is broken – and no, it doesn't have to remain that way. All of our interviews with Joel Salatin of Polyface Farm and the Keiser's of Singing Frog Farms, among many others, prove there is another way to farm that actually is in relationship to the earth, its' rhythms and all of life. Back with us and to tell us about glyphosate and the startling results of that recent court case is Dave Murphy, the founder and executive director of Food Democracy Now.

Dave has been called the most crucial and political savvy actor in the ongoing efforts to help move American agriculture into the 21st century. As a result of his Sustainable Dozen campaign which resulted in four candidates being placed in high level positions at the USDA and his efforts to reform food and agriculture under the Obama administration. Welcome back, Dave.

Dave Murphy: Thank you, Chris. Real pleasure to be here today on Peak Prosperity. Really enjoy being on your podcast.

Chris: Thank you. The pleasure is ours. So 2016 we last talked. Boy, so much has changed – new administration – don’t know if you noticed. Lots of things going on. But, Dave, let's start with the big news before we get to those other pieces. The court case brought against Monsanto by Dwayne Johnson which resulted in a $289 million verdict against Monsanto. Take us through the gates. What was the complaint and what was it that Monsanto actually lost in this case? How did they lose?

Dave Murphy: Well, this actually – thanks, that's a great question. This is really a landmark lawsuit. It really kind of opens a huge can of worms for Monsanto, and I guess I would say, you know, the corruption of science by corporations like the pesticide industry. You know, Monsanto has been the biggest bully on the block, and they are trying to protect their flagship product, Roundup. Dwayne Johnson is a former groundskeeper in the San Francisco Bay area, and I think he started working there in 2012. And he developed non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma as a result of being – as he was applying this to the grounds at a schoolyard basically, he was accidently sprayed with the product. He read the instructions; he thought it was perfectly safe.

Monsanto has always claimed that Roundup is – and this is what they’ve gotten away with – it's really hard to believe, in the 21st century, Monsanto has gotten away with claiming that roundup and glyphosate is safer than table salt. So on the back of their product listing on the – basically, if you go to a Home Depot or any hardware store and you buy Roundup to spray weeds on your lawn or in your yard, it says that glyphosate is not harmful to humans because we don't have the shikimic pathway. So it's not harmful to humans and mammals because, allegedly, we don't have an shikimic pathway, which is a mode of action by which glyphosate works. It blocks, basically, the production of certain essential aromatic amino acids, and in the process, it shuts down the plant’s immune system.

So Monsanto has always claimed that. Well, the facts of recent scientist are showing that bacteria and viruses that are in our body, especially our microbiome, contain the shikimic pathway, and that's really being shut down by glyphosate. So Dwayne Johnson was exposed to this working while he thought it was a safe product. He developed a non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and he has some very alarming lesions on his skin, and it's very painful. So he sued Monsanto, basically claiming that their product was unsafe, and they either should have known about it and knew it, or should have known about it, that's it's dangerous.

And, I guess, just a few weeks ago a jury trial in San Francisco claimed that they held Monsanto responsible for negligent failure for either they should have known or they knew that this product was dangerous. And during this lawsuit hundreds, if not thousands of documents – I mean, technically hundreds of thousand of documents showed that behind the scenes Monsanto scientists were actually working to either intimidate or bully other scientists at academic institutions when they were claiming their products were unsafe, or they were actively ghost-writing studies that were claiming that glyphosate and Roundup were perfectly safe.

Chris: Now, when they were doing that, let's talk about that because in response to the jury verdict, Monsanto Vice President Scott Partridge said, "More than eight hundred scientific studies, the United States EPA, The National Institutes of Health, and regulators around the world have concluded that glyphosate is safe for use and does not cause cancer."

So he's got, apparently, a lot of data on his side, eight hundred studies – that sounds like a lot – let's go through what the Monsanto scientists were actually doing. Because, theatrically, if you have eight hundred studies that are all in agreement you don't have to do a whole lot behind the scenes to monkey around with anything or ghost-write or attempt to intimidate anybody. What exactly were the Monsanto scientists doing? What were they trying to hide in the background, given that we have eight hundred studies that all seem to be in agreement?

Dave Murphy: Well, a couple interesting facts. I think the first point of fact that needs to be pointed out is the United States Environmental Protection Agency, or the EPA, when a company submits an approval process for a brand-new chemical, a brand-new formula for a weed killer or a pesticide, they only have to submit safety studies on the active ingredients, the main active ingredient. So Roundup is a weed killer that's sprayed on fields. The active ingredient is glyphosate.

Technically, they only submitted studies in the 70s and 80s, trying to claim that glyphosate was perfectly safe. The problem is Roundup – glyphosate is never sprayed on a field or on a food crop by itself. It's always sprayed in a dynamic formula. In this case, Roundup was the most famous flagship product that Monsanto has. So these products have surfactants, and the surfactants are what allow the active ingredient to penetrate the plant cells walls or to penetrate the root system or to break into the leaf structure of that plant and actually kill it.

Most chemicals, most weed killers that they spray on plants are more caustic, but the way that glyphosate and Roundup actually work, it's kind of a unique product that it actually, I think I mentioned this earlier, it shuts down the shikimic pathway, which basically shuts down the plant's autoimmune system. So really what happens is it kills beneficial microorganisms in the soil and pathogenic microorganisms in the soil come up into the plants' immune system and kill it. That's how it actually dies.

So a fascinating thing, during this court discovery – I have a document right here – this is one of my favorite ones – it's from Monsanto's lead toxicologist. As she's being deposed by the plaintiff's attorneys, Dr. Donna Farmer recognized that Monsanto cannot say that Roundup does not cause cancer because we, Monsanto, have not done the carcinogenic studies with Roundup. She goes on to say that the EPA does not require those carcinogenic studies for Roundup, only for the active ingredient glyphosate.

So you have to understand, the American public really has to understand that the rules of our regulatory system, the rules of our democracy, have been rigged against us by pesticide and chemical companies, just like the tobacco industry did this forty and fifty years ago.

Chris: Well, Dave, I'm still confused. If the studies all show – if there's eight hundred studies proving that this stuff is safe, what were Monsanto's scientists actually doing?

Dave Murphy: Well, you know, it's interesting that there's eight hundred studies proving it's safe. I mean, I think that's really kind of slicing the deck a little close to the truth. Monsanto scientists – there's another study – there's a couple of studies that have come out, a couple of scientists and a couple of studies that have come out pretty famously. One is by Gary Williams, and he wrote a – in 2000, he published a paper basically, at that time, it was the largest cancer review, or carcinogenic review, of glyphosate.

And internal documents show that a Monsanto scientists actually helped him ghost-write that study. It says, "We ghost write the exposure toxicology and genotoxic sections. Recall this is how we handled Williams, Crow's and Monroe in 2000." So, basically, in these internal documents, internal emails, scientists – Monsanto scientists are really responding, kind of panicked, to the World Health Organizations IARC, or International Agency for Research on Cancer, review that came out in March of 2015 that declared glyphosate a probable human carcinogen, that is the opening salvo that really unleashed the lawsuits against Monsanto.

Finally, you had an international, respected scientific body claiming that glyphosate was probably carcinogenic to humans. It kind of put blood in the water, but also, what it did was Monsanto kind of tried to rally the troops behind the scenes. And all these internal documents that came out in the lawsuit are showing not only are they trying to attack World Health Organization's IARC, which is one of the most prestigious cancer review agencies on the planet, the internal document emails between Monsanto scientists and toxicologists, they actually tell each other that they ghost-wrote these scientific studies in 2000, and they also helped ghost-write the 2015 cancer review paper from Grime. That was a big response from the biotech industry from Monsanto when the IARC study came out.

Chris: And so, this sounds suspiciously like what was going on with tobacco industry for a long time, which is just simply you know you’ve got a product that's got some rough edges on it, you know that it's not completely safe, and so you have to do what you can to try and keep a lid on the information as best you can for as long as you can. And so what was it then, as I understand it, that in this court case that it wasn't that the jury found in that Roundup, or glyphosate, in this case, causes cancer. What they found was that – well, take us through that. What exactly did they find against Monsanto in this case?

Dave Murphy: Well, they found that they'd be aware of these risks, that glyphosate-based herbicides are carcinogenic or probably carcinogenic. So in a jury trial it's much different than an appeals court trial, which we can talk about later. The jury trial was really exposed to the back and forth between Monsanto scientists. They didn't rule that glyphosate causes cancer; they ruled that Monsanto should have known, or knew, and that they were negligent in allowing this product on the market. And because of that, they should be held liable in the court of public opinion.

Chris: So that Monsanto had some data, it's definitely not safe as table salt, they know this, and they’ve been working behind the scenes to hide it. These documents come out in the court case. The jury takes a look at this and says, gosh, a big corporation, look, you knew these things, you knew there were risks, you downplayed them on purpose. And so in that court case, $289 million sounds like a lot. As I understand it, $39 million of that went to compensate for pain and suffering because the non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is going to take Mr. Dwayne Johnson out very painfully fairly soon. So $39 million for that. $250 million punitive, meaning we're going to punish the corporation for their behavior.

I assume that $250 million was directed at this thing that we're discussing now, which was Monsanto's own scientists behind the scenes working to minimize, ghost-write, muddy the waters, and also, whatever internal documents they'd come forward with in findings they had about glyphosate. They didn't reveal those, as well. Those are the sorts of things I assume came out in the discovery process that represented at trial.

Dave Murphy: Yeah. Exactly. Ghost-writing studies – basically, corporate ghostwriting is – corporate scientists at Monsanto wrote – there's a very famous section that came out in the discovery documents where the lead toxicologist, Donna Farmer, the one that admitted they can't say Roundup – you know it's pretty bad when you're company's lead toxicologists says we can't say that Roundup doesn't cause cancer because we've only tested glyphosate.

So I think that kind of information along with the fact that they had successfully bullied or intimidated scientists, they essentially manipulated – they interfered with scientific journals when a scientific study came out showing that it caused genotoxic or probable carcinogenic responses in humans. Monsanto kind of unleashed like a mafia style attack on those scientists and those institutions.

One of the most famous ones is the Seralini study from September 2012. That was a two-year study that reproduced Monsanto's own study on a corn variety Mon-810. That's Monsanto 810. And basically, for a safety review – people need to understand this – for a safety assessment in the United States and in Europe, these companies, Monsanto only has to do a ninety-day safety assessment. So they test Monsanto's glyphosate on lab rats for ninety days. And a lab rats full life cycle is two years. So what Seralini did, this professor in France did, he and his team, did a two-year toxicology study duplicating the same study that Monsanto did. They used the same kind of rats – Sprague Dawley rats, which are commonly used in toxicology and cancer studies because they're prone to growing tumors.

And what Seralini's study showed, in 2012, after two years of being fed glyphosate and Roundup in their feed and also in their water, that they developed tumors at three to four times the rate of normal, these rats did, and they also died earlier. And Monsanto successfully debunked that study and got it retracted from the journal that it was originally published in. And they almost ended Seralini's career, they were so vicious in their attack on him.

Chris: And when they went after it, was it just a study design, or were they actually hinting that there was fraud or misconduct? What were they – how did they go after that? Do you know?

Dave Murphy: Well, they used what appear to be independent academics or independent public – like land grant scientists. There's a scientist of University of Florida, Kevin Folta, he was formerly the head of plant horticulture at the University of Florida. There's another one, Academics Review. I think the guys name is Bruce Chassy. He's from the University of Illinois. They used these scientists and they put them up in the public media as independent sources. And they attacked Seralini; they said the study was bunk; they said they didn't use enough lab rats. They claimed that it was a cancer study when the study, and Seralini never used the word cancer, it was actually a toxicology study. So you know this with a background in toxicology – toxicology studies that show harm and likely harm, are way different than cancer studies.

And so cancer studies require that you use a larger number of rats, and I think Seralini duplicated the Monsanto study, so they only used ten rats, male and female, so twenty rats per group. And so Monsanto really muddied the water in the media in the United States. And they also got away with claiming that Seralini used a rat that was prone to cancer. And everyone should know that Seralini set out initially to duplicate Monsanto's own safety assessment that with that product was accepted for approval in Europe.

He's done a number of other studies before this; he and a team had done a number of other studies. And they initially looked into Monsanto's claim that glyphosate and Roundup rapidly bio-degrades in the environment, and they found that to be absolutely false. And I think there's two landmark court cases, one in France, and one in New York State court, that showed that Monsanto had fraudulently marketed Roundup as safe or benign for the environment. And I think in the advertisements in France, they actually said that glyphosate cleans up the soil. That's a pretty ballsy statement, I have to say, pretty clever advertising. But they were saying that it rapidly degrades in the environment, that it doesn't stick around in the soil, which turns out to be absolutely false. It can stick around for anywhere from between six months to twenty years, depending on the soil type.

Chris: That's very persistent. Well, listen, we've got some basic data here. One study I'm looking at says that glyphosate, the core ingredient in Roundup, that the levels in human bloodstream have spiked by more than a thousand percent in the last couple of decades. We know that the idea behind Roundup Ready GMO plants was that it was going to actually reduce this herbicide use. In fact, herbicide use is up by nearly half a billion pounds since that point in time. So it's being used more and more. We have a lot of studies coming out saying there are significant public health concerns.

And, in particular, we're starting to discover the intersection, as you mentioned, the shikimic pathway, which is not found in mammalian cells, so technically glyphosate shouldn't be that harmful to mammalian cells, by I am not a mammalian cell. I am a collection of mammalian cells in symbiosis with a lot of beneficial gut bio biome bacteria and other things. And so those are impacted by – they do have the ischemia pathway, many of them, and so if they are impacted then my gut biome gets dysregulated and we know now that that can lead to all kinds of things. Enormously complex.

So, I just want to take this back for just a second because, you know, with my background in toxicology, I will tell you that I do not trust, not even for a skinny minute, any of the tox tests that come from these large corporations because one thing that we know about medical testing – this is even done under the careful auspices of the FDA, looking at a clinical phase three trial – this is in humans – we know that study results that come out that don’t support what the pharmaceutical companies wish often get rejected or chucked out or not looked at or don’t become part of the larger data set – this kind of stuff happens all the time.

But what you're talking about in this past study was somebody who was running a standard tox test where you might way well, let's say we have three different doses, low, medium and high, so many milligrams per kilogram, and we're going to have a fourth group with is placebo control. We're going to double blind this, so we're going to take all of our compounds, all the doses plus a placebo, put them in tubes so we can't identify what's what, administer them, track everything so, what, a total of eighty rats over two years. Hey, some of them don’t live all that time. So you're probably down to a sample size of, I going to guess, sixty-five, seventy.

Dave Murphy: I would just say the microbiome story – for me, when I look at this, what's worse cancer or the destruction of your immune system? In a lot of cases, there's eighteen to twenty million people in America that have gluten intolerance. And really, they're not really gluten intolerant, what they're intolerant to is the pesticide glyphosate that's sprayed on wheat, oat and barley as a pre-harvest destroying agent. As you mentioned, the microbiome, you know, the microbiome scientists have studied – your stomach is your second brain. There's a gut-brain access, and it really – glyphosate really, significantly disrupts the microbiome in humans just like it disrupts the microbiome in the soil.

So the ironic thing is, while farmers are spraying Roundup on their fields to kill weeds, they're actually destroying their soil fertility over the long term. And there are scientists in the Midwest that have shown Roundup and glyphosate are linked to serious crop diseases like sudden death syndrome in soybeans and also Goss's wilt in corn which pretty much – it can lead to a forty to seventy percent loss of those farmers crops when it becomes widespread. The thing is, if it destroys the microbiome in the soil and it impacts those crops' health, it is also impacting the human gut microbiome.

And so a number of studies have come out since we last talked in 2016. I mention the first one is a Ramazzini Institute, which is a fairly famous cancer review agency in Italy but also in Europe. They just came out with a study linking EMFs in cell phone radiation to changes in human genes and being harmful to humans. Last fall they came out with a study that showed that – there's a thirteen-week preliminary study that showed that pregnant rats fed glyphosate, their rat pups microbiome is disrupted while they're in the womb. For any mother that's pregnant right now or that's eating food that's not organic, that should be very concerning.

And that corresponds to a study that was published last year in Indiana where the scientists did a cohort review of, I think it was a hundred pregnant women in Indiana. And they found that women that had the highest levels of glyphosate in their urine also had the worst birth outcomes. So that means they had still births, miscarriages, and low birth weights. And when we interviewed one of the doctor's that had been a part of that study, he was absolutely flabbergasted that the U.S. government is allowing this chemical to be used in such a widespread way and also in ways that endanger human health.

So not only do we have studies showing that glyphosate is impacting baby rats in the mother's uterus while they're pregnant, there's a new study that came out, I think in May of this year, May of 2108, that says glyphosate-based herbicide exposure affects gut microbiome and it creates anxiety and depression like behavior in rats. I think for any parent hearing that, they should be very shocked because there's been a real spike in anxiety and depression, especially among millennials.

I was at a friend of mine's house a month ago and basically, she does a CSA in Los Angeles, community supported agriculture. She provides fresh fruits and vegetables from organic farms and biodynamic farms to customers in the LA area. And her daughter came down, and we were talking about glyphosate. And she goes, oh my God, do you think that could be causing anxiety and depression because all my friends have severe anxiety and depression. So I think there's really more to the story.

I would just say glyphosate does not just cause cancer; that's not the scariest aspect of it. If you have a chemical that's genotoxic and also causing a major disruption of the human gut microbiome, you have a product that is causing massive damage, not only in the environment, but in human health.

Chris: Well, absolutely. And I'm really glad you brought up that Ramazzini Institute study. I've looked at that one, and one of the report's authors, Danial Mandrioli clearly – this was the summary of the study. She said, "Disruption of the microbiome has been associated with a number of negative health outcomes such as obesity, immunological problems." To that list we could add some of things you just mentioned: anxiety, depression, things like that. And so this disruption of the microbiome is now being associated with a lot of things pretty conclusively.

What caught me was that Scott Partridge, again, Monsanto's VP for Global Strategy, in response to that, said this. "The Ramazzini Institute is an activist organization with an agenda that they have not disclosed as part of their crowdfunding efforts. They wish to support a ban of glyphosate, and they have a long history of rendering opinions that are not supported by regulatory testing agencies. This is not about genuine research. All of the research to date has demonstrated there is not link between glyphosate and cancer." I don’t believe that Danelle mentioned cancer once. They talked about disruption of the microbiome. So this quote doesn't really seem to be right up the center of the pike in terms of rebutting it, but it got run in all the newspapers I saw.

Dave Murphy: I would just say Monsanto is the master of manipulation. Masters of manipulation in terms of public opinion. They attack these scientists, like you said, it doesn't mention cancer, it mentions the microbiome. They know that this is a long – they probably know it's a long-term cancer study which is why they're trying to get out ahead of it, but it's pretty shocking. Look at this. Obesity, diabetes and immune disorders. Those are the health problems that have exploded in the United States and Europe in epidemic proportions in the last twenty years.

Now, what's the one thing that's changed in our food supply in the last twenty years? It's being sprayed with tons of pesticides. I would just say I have long advocated for labeling of genetically engineered foods because I believe that Americans have basically a democratic right to know what's in their food. I've also done a twelve-year review of the studies on GMOs. I would just say I am concerned about GMO safety for the environment and human and animal health, but I'm more concerned about pesticide impact on the environment like Roundup and like glyphosate.

The thing is, the first-generation GMO crops have failed. Now Roundup is being paired with Dicamba and 2,4-D. Dicamba and 2,4-D won't be sprayed on oats, wheat and barley. Those are not GMO crops. That's particularly just to dry that crop in the farmers field so it can be sold directly to the marketers faster for manufacturing. But we now have much more toxic chemicals to human health and to animal health being sprayed widespread over the environment. So I'm sure you're aware that the Dicamba, Roundup Ready Dicamba soybean disaster in rural American, basically, there's over three million acres that have been damaged because Roundup – Monsanto released a formulation of Roundup and Dicamba that had not yet been approved for the market, and it's really wreaked havoc in rural American, especially among soybean farmers.

Chris: I heard about that. It's led to suicides and deaths and all kinds of things. Temper's are high, I've heard.

Dave Murphy: And one murder. I can't remember if that was in Arkansas or South…

Chris: It sounds about right. Just to continue this, in the last twenty-five years sperm counts in humans have declined by about forty percent worldwide. And there's lots of evidence that we have sort of these environmental – there's a big ecological disaster unfolding. I happen to have my finger on neonicotinoids as a particularly nasty pesticide – I call it a biocide more than a pesticide – it kills everything pretty broadly. It's just brilliantly awful stuff.

And so as we look at this it's just overall death by a thousand cuts. Having some of these big bad things out there is not good. But, as you're talking about, when you're disrupting the microbiomes of soil, guts, things like that, you're really tinkering with something out of sight, out of mind, way too complex to understand except by what results from that. You can sort of see, oh, well, that was a bad idea. Look at the wilt disease showing up.

But I'm looking here now at a – it's a new peer reviewed study. It comes to us from King's College in London, lead by Dr. Michael Antoniou using profiling methods, looking at the molecular composition of livers of female rats, given an extremely low dose of Roundup weed killer over a two-year period in this long running study. And what they found was that these animals suffered from nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Big mouthful – I'll get to what that means in a second – but this is a causative link that's been demonstrated. It's an environmentally relevant level of Roundup consumption. I mean, these are tiny, tiny, ultra-low doses. Let me look at this. Yeah. Four nanograms per kilogram. Seventy-five thousand times below the E.U. limits. Four hundred thirty-seven times below the U.S. permitted levels, and still it resulted in this non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

What's so bad about that? Well, risk factors to having non-alcoholic fatty liver disease include being overweight, obese, having diabetes, high cholesterol, high triglycerides. Risk factor symptoms might include fatigue, weakness, weight loss, loss of appetite, nausea, abdominal pain, etcetera. So, it's not a great thing to have, and so here we've just got another study that comes out that says in the nanogram level they're beginning to find causative link. That's a really strong statement for a doctor to be saying it in this particular case.

Dave Murphy: Dr. Michael Antoniou is a great researcher. He is doing some really groundbreaking research in the UK. That study came out, and you're right, people should be alarmed. I'm not sure why the British government and the American government are not actively – I do understand why – the corporate influence of our regulatory system, the corporate influence of our elected officials. I would just say these are really massive public health epidemics. The fatty liver disease, I remember when that came out. I knew that it was going to come out, and I knew some of the findings were going to be pretty explosive. But these things blow over so quickly in the media.

The real problem is twenty five percent of the U.S. population, the same number in England, are now having non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and it's really a major disruption to a person's life. A government should really be asking themselves, if we're supporting food and pesticide companies that are creating health problems, the American taxpayer is actually paying for that in our healthcare system. The obesity epidemic and type II diabetes are estimated to possibly bankrupt U.S. government by 2030 or 2040. That's pretty scary. And it's kind of shocking that our regulatory agency and elected officials don’t take this stuff seriously .

Chris: Oh, it is. It really is. Now, Dave, I want to follow up. So your big study that came out from Food Democracy Now back in 2016, first, what other studies have followed and perhaps inspired to repeat, read, or maybe even refute your findings? You showed glyphosate in every product tested, including the so-called organic products in many cases. What sort of followed on since then and what's the blowback been? Has anybody came out and said you got this wrong, we didn't find any of this stuff here? And have any of these so-called regulatory agencies attempted to repeat your findings?

Dave Murphy: Well, I’ll just say, hilariously, no U.S. regulatory agency has made an effort to repeat our findings. I'm just saying they haven't publicly done this. There was some preliminary efforts behind the scenes, and they had been presented at USDA kind of public forums, but only that were for USDA scientists. And I think Cary Gillam, who is a former reporter from Reuters – and people should be familiar with Cary Gilliam's work – she's a former reporter for Reuters who was basically driven off the beat at Reuters because she was writing about GMOs, and she was actually quoting opponents of biotechnology. And Monsanto and the biotech industry found that offensive, so they basically got her fired.

She now writes for and works as a lead researcher for a public interest group called U.S Right to Know. And she's covered the science behind this pretty extensively, and she published a book last year called Whitewash. And if you're really interested in this story you should probably buy this book. It's a pretty fascinating read. Sorry to make a plug for it here, but Whitewash; the Story of Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science. But she has basically followed the story from start to finish and pretty much shown exactly what we've been talking about.

There's been a real corruption of the science behind the scenes. There's been a push in the regulatory agencies to bury any of the harm that has been found by independent scientists. And even is Europe, there's a fascinating – I don’t know if you have this on the agenda to talk, but I just want to insert it here – the corruption of science is so bad, while Europe was trying to review – do a fifteen year safety assessment of glyphosate, whether they're going to review it for fifteen years just like the U.S. EPA had to do, they discovered that basically EPSA, which is the European Food Safety Agency, they had actually cut and pasted dozens and dozens of pages of documents from a Monsanto lead glyphosate task force.

So it's so bad, basically, that these companies have rigged the regulatory agencies against us and get their scientists to basically allow a corruption of the public regulatory records.

Chris: So, this sounds fairly epidemic across the so-called democracies out there at this point. Is that true?

Dave Murphy: Yeah, it is.

Chris: I'm interested in the blowback to your study and whether any of the big so-called regulatory agencies have repeated your studies or if Monsanto has come after you, astroturfing or through the front door, either way? What's happened as a response to discovering all that glyphosate in our food?

Dave Murphy: That's a great question. I would just say the U.S. Federal government has not tried to duplicate our studies. I think there had been some early efforts in 2016 to try to look for where glyphosate was, and then under the Obama administration they stopped doing the testing. And also, under the Trump administration, there was some talk that they were going to restart it, but hilariously what's happened with Food Direction Now? Monsanto has not successfully debunked our study.

The real thing is we used an FDA lavatory, a laboratory that the FDA contracts with, so they really can't attack based on the science that – the scientific methods that we used. The did have on their Facebook page, within twenty-four hours, a response saying that this is not accurate, these are not unsafe levels. You would basically have to eat two hundred fifty times the amount of a bowl of cereal to have a negative impact.

One thing is, though, we've been hacked repeatedly. I'll just say within twenty-four hours of that report coming out in November 2016 I lost my first laptop to being hacked, my cell phone was hacked a week after that, and a month after putting out that report I lost my second laptop. And then 2017, we were hacked in March, April, and May. And July of 2017 we got hacked, and they went into our server and deleted our entire website from the internet.

Chris: What?

Dave Murphy: Seriously. So, our website was deleted from the internet for ten days, and my tech team had to try and put together a matchstick version of it. So, we've been under attack behind the scenes, but nothing publicly. They haven't been able to successfully debunk our study. They used basically like public interest scientists at land grant universities like Kevin Folta and Bruce Chassy to kind of throw some flack at our study. I think Kevin Folta tried to say you would have to eat a billion bowls of Cheerios to have a negative impact, which is just outrageous. Half a bowl of Cheerios will cause harm to a one-year old child's stomach, to a two-year-old child. It could negatively impact their microbiome.

Going back to the microbiome here, people should know that it's not only your immune system, but ninety five percent of your body's serotonin is found in your stomach. That is a neurotransmitter that helps to respond to happiness levels or anxiety levels. So, if you have a child at one or two years old being exposed to high levels of glyphosate on a regular basis, Cheerios is the most popular cereal that a mother will feed their child. And they'll do it for years because those children have little tiny fingers, and they like to grab a hold of those round-like oats, I guess is what you call them.

But since then, groups that have come out with some glysophate testing, I think Organic Consumers Association came out with some glyphosate testing in Ben and Jerry's ice-cream, and they found very low levels, I think like 1.5 or 2.5 parts per billion in their ice-cream, which is pretty low, but they did find it. and I know they have a campaign right now. Another group, Center for Environmental Health came out with a glyphosate residue study, and I think recently Environment Working Group came out with a review of cereals. And they basically confirm that our study, our findings, that Cheerios has glyphosate in it, but I think they found it was at much lower levels than we tested at.

Chris: So, let's talk to what people can do about this. So, Dave, how do you avoid glyphosate in your diet? And, if you do, how do you do that?

Dave Murphy: The best way to avoid glyphosate is to eat an organic diet. Some people claim that they can't afford it. There are a number of places on the internet; one is Thrive Market, and I'll put in a shameless plug for them just because they do offer organic and non-GMO products at 25 to 50 percent off. So anyone out there listening claiming the can't afford organic – I’ll just say this – I've had friends of mine that work on Wall Street tell me that organics is too expensive. I'm like, listen, if you were investing in blue chip stocks, you should really realize the most thing you're investing in is you and your children's health. And that starts with the food that you put in your body and the food that you feed to your children.

So listen, I avoid glyphosate at all costs. I even make sure when I travel I carry organic snacks with me. You know, I was diagnosed with leaky gut in 2014 and also SIBO last year, so I've had to heal myself from these autoimmune problems caused by glysophate. I lived less than three hundred yards from a GMO cornfield in Iowa for two years. I'm not saying that's what caused it, but it probably didn't help my health that much.

And the best way – listen, if you eat any wheats, oats or barley products, if you eat oatmeal, make sure you take the time to buy an organic version of that product. It is really worth a little bit of extra costs, a dollar extra per box, will save you from having gut dysbiosis or serious health problems.

Chris: I hate to go this far down into this rabbit hole, but would this potentially include specialty beers that are crafted with those same products?

Dave Murphy: You're right. That's a good thought there, a good question. In Germany, they tested beers, and ninety percent of their beers tested positive for glyphosate. I don’t think there's been any testing of U.S. beers or microbreweries. But if you can eat organic and drink organic beers, I would do that.

Chris: How about on the positive side of this story, I know that one of the chief ways that it ends up particularly in oats and barley is because of the use of Roundup or glysophate, more generically, as a desiccant, meaning you got your crops out there, they're still alive, you want them to die and begin to dry so you can get some of the drying done courtesy of the sun out in the field. Have any farmers begun to move away from using Roundup as a desiccant?

Dave Murphy: Actually, since we published our report in the fall of 2016, farmer's in Canada and also in the United States are moving away from spraying Roundup as a desiccant. There's actually, I can't remember the name of it, but there is at least one large grain mill in the Midwest that has said we will no longer accept any grain, any oats, wheats, or barley from farmers that use Roundup or glyphosate as a preharvest drying agent because they don’t want the legal liability of a lawsuit against them, especially with the IARCs ruling in 2015.

Chris: That's some good news then. Dave, you're doing incredible work. I'm really glad that you're study had a really nice impact. And it feels like the larger part of this story is really about corporate malfeasance and hiding and doing whatever they have to do to make another buck. But really, leaving or checking their morality at the door and just doing stuff that is, frankly, antisocial at best. I'll be kind and leave it there.

So thank you for that. Please tell people how they can follow your work and your excellent organization and whatever else you're up to.

Dave Murphy: Well, Chris, thank you so much for the interview. I really appreciate the follow up here. There's been a lot of important developments, as we've discussed. And your audience is a really dynamic audience. There are a lot of leaders in their field, so they should hear about this stuff. So up front, I would call Monsanto's basically like sociopaths with a science degree. That's a nice way to put it.

But if you want to follow our work you can go to fooddemocracynow.org. you can go to our website and sign up, or you can follow us on Twitter @ food democracy or go to our Facebook page a Food Democracy Now. And we post regular updates to the latest stuff happening, not just in glyphosate, not just in Roundup, but all of food and agriculture policy.

Chris: All right. Well, we've been talking with Dave Murphy of Food Democracy Now. Dave, thank you so much for your time today and the work that you're doing in the world. It's been a pleasure.

Dave Murphy: Thank you so much, Chris. Really a pleasure to be on your podcast again. I'm big fan a Peak Prosperity, so keep it up.

Chris: Thank you very much.

Endorsed Financial Adviser Endorsed Financial Adviser

Looking for a financial adviser who sees the world through a similar lens as we do? Free consultation available.

Learn More »
Read Our New Book "Prosper!"Read Our New Book

Prosper! is a "how to" guide for living well no matter what the future brings.

Learn More »

 

Related content

24 Comments

Mark_BC's picture
Mark_BC
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 30 2010
Posts: 515
Here is an interesting

Here is an interesting article I read a few weeks ago. It seems impartial and lays things out as they are. For years I've heard all these polar opposites about glyphosate, and it was hard to find unbiased facts. It seems that glyphosate remains basically non toxic to humans at typical concentrations, as originally suspected. It is mildly toxic to certain aquatic life. What is toxic is many of the other ingredients put in the Round-up formulation and similar mixtures from other companies. Ironically, these are more toxic than glyphosate, but because they aren't the active ingredients, companies don't have to test their toxicity or even list them as ingredients.

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/how-toxic-is-the-worlds-most-popular-herbicide-roundup-30308

I also saw a list of glyphosate concentrations in common foods (can't find it again) and Quaker was the highest if I recall. Kelloggs was down the list and Nature Valley and Kashi were at the bottom. So I have some Quaker oatmeal prepper food I know what I'll be doing with...

Uncletommy's picture
Uncletommy
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 3 2014
Posts: 621
Looking down the wrong end of the barrel?

This is our third year in the "Operation Pollinator" program and we are already begining to see some benefits of increased crop diversity in insect species on our 3 acre parcel. However, when  you are surrounded by mono-cropping plantings, the same cannot be said of the surrounding fields. Between herbicides, fungicides and crop dessicants, my neighboring fields will see the crop sprayers three to five times in a typical season. We have two colonies in the city and two in the country. The city honey stays liquid longer while the country honey will start to crystalize in the comb before we can start extracting(canola flowers). But it also means cutting a lot more weeds by hand to keep the weed inspector happy.

These issues are more about species diversity than just the threat of Roundup or honeybee decline. Industrial agriculture has produced an abundance of commodities for humans and animals, for which, our human species should be thankful. However, at what cost? When will we learn that we have to work with nature, if we hope to change the narrative. Human migrations are just the tip of the "environmental" iceberg and are setting the stage for severe conflict if we don't turn this bus around. It is time to roll up our sleeves, get our hands dirty and get connected with the world around you. If not; you do it at your own peril. 

https://beependent.wordpress.com/disease/

ezlxq1949's picture
ezlxq1949
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 29 2009
Posts: 257
Sociopaths with Science Degrees ...

... as Dave Murphy described them. If scientists have been co-opted and are betraying their professional principles, not just in the ag sector but more widely, and as the general public hear of this, is it any wonder that respect for science, scientists and scientism is declining? that simplistic, reactionary solutions are sought for the problems that surround us?

I am very cynical. To preserve their revenue streams, I fully expect Monsanto, and Bayer now, to appeal and appeal and appeal this decision, right up to the highest courts in the US and EU. They have deep pockets.

After all, innovations are always benign, aren't they? In the long term the good will outweigh the bad. Won't it? Technology will always save us. Won't it?

If Millennials are anxious and depressed, will they find the time, energy and motivation to feed themselves properly? To break out of The System will require dedication, even fright. Could be a tough assignment.

In my country (Oz), Monsanto and others have had great success in convincing our politicians that glyphosate is harmless. How else can we feed the people? Further, the general public has been educated over some decades that the only shopping criterion that matters is price, and the lower the better. Organics cost more and hence are not good value; the health aspect is secondary and probably mythological anyway. As the economic system degrades and incomes drop, where will people look for food supplies?

I can't avoid noticing another heresy here: "a study linking EMFs in cell phone radiation to changes in human genes and being harmful to humans." This concern has surfaced elsewhere and more than once, and has been quickly jumped on by the cell phone industry. Let's see: tobacco, sugar, lead in petrol, glyphosate, cell phones, some vaccinations.... Where does it end?

(BTW, the transcription software seems to have written "ischemic" for "shikimic".)

greendoc's picture
greendoc
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 23 2008
Posts: 149
deeper dive

Here is a nice explanation/deeper dive into the shikimate pathway/Round-up conseuquences for those interested. https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/06/09/monsanto-roundup-herbicide.aspx

I eat almost exclusively organic, but never thought about my beer! I wonder if mexican tequila farmers use round-up on their blue agaves?  Maybe time to switch to tequila.

Let's hope this case raises the public awareness about the absolute evil Monsanto spreads.

 

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5925
Fixed - Thanks
ezlxq1949 wrote:

(BTW, the transcription software seems to have written "ischemic" for "shikimic".)

Fixed - Thanks

As a reminder, we are always thankful for edit and typo catches.  

KugsCheese's picture
KugsCheese
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 2 2010
Posts: 1469
Website Down

https://www.fooddemocracynow.org website down for maintenance.  Great timing!

KugsCheese's picture
KugsCheese
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 2 2010
Posts: 1469
KugsCheese
KugsCheese wrote:

https://www.fooddemocracynow.org website down for maintenance.  Great timing!

Another hack of their website?

KugsCheese's picture
KugsCheese
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 2 2010
Posts: 1469
Restore Gut Supplement

Glyphosate residues were even found in organic products probably from field drift.   https://shop.restore4life.com this helps your gut fight it.   Podcast with Dr Zach Bush?

locksmithuk's picture
locksmithuk
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 19 2011
Posts: 133
Glyphosate cocktails

Like many others, I'd be skeptical on the impartiality of modern scientific findings. I'd be especially skeptical of them in relation to Monsanto's twinned organisation Bayer, with its gruesome Holocaustic WWII past. Two powerful poison companies in bed together does not bode well. Monsanto's record of extreme oppression of farmers & seed protection is terrifyingly disturbing, and to me is a clear indication of the lengths they will travel to inflict misery on the general population. On purely moral grounds I would not financially support them in any way whatsoever.

 

If apologists and lobbyists like Patrick Moore won't drink Monsanto's chemical cocktails then I don't see why the rest of us should:

 

ezlxq1949's picture
ezlxq1949
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 29 2009
Posts: 257
It's back!

... as of 08:43 AEST.

They get knocked down, but they get up again / Ain't nobody gonna keep them down!

Or maybe it was indeed a maintenance outage.

treebeard's picture
treebeard
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 18 2010
Posts: 626
We are ecosystems

As already pointed out, our bodies are ecosystems, mirrors of the larger ecology. Glyphosate has the same disruptive effect in our bodies that it does in the soil, though not directly toxic to our flesh. Thats why they can tell those half truths and confuse so many people. Industrial Ag, yet another system that needs to crash, oh so many that need to come to an end!

Science, if not set in a broader moral context is as corruptible as anything else.  I would even argue that a purely scientific approach to reality invariable must lead to nihilism and demoralization.  The disease of our times.  It is a self referential system that ultimately collapses in on itself, because it denies parts of realty that it own method proves true to itself.  But this is not something that anybody cares a whit about even though it is at the foundation so many misdeeds that are now coming back to haunt us.

Are we ready for the message we are the world and the world is us.  Not really, after the crash?  Still probably not. Probably need to wait a couple hundred generations more, but lots of small steps in the right direction. This podcast is one of them.

KugsCheese's picture
KugsCheese
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 2 2010
Posts: 1469
ezlxq1949 wrote: ... as of
ezlxq1949 wrote:

... as of 08:43 AEST.

They get knocked down, but they get up again / Ain't nobody gonna keep them down!

Or maybe it was indeed a maintenance outage.

As of 7:40 PM CDT its down.

Mark_BC's picture
Mark_BC
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 30 2010
Posts: 515
Patrick Moore is an

Patrick Moore is an interesting one. He comes from a small logging town on Vancouver Island, the same general area where I'm from. He has a PhD in ecology, a degree in forestry I believe, and was a founder of Greenpeace. Then for some reason something flipped inside his head and he turned. He would be an interesting case to study the psychology of denialism and political antagonism.

He uses his history with Greenpeace and as an ecologist to promote himself as an environmentalist, but ironically pretty much everything he says is anti-environment. He engages in rhetoric and makes little logical sense.

I studied forestry long ago and one day he was invited in for a talk and of course he rallied against environmentalists. True, some of the points he made had some merit but he then took this way out of proportion and extrapolated this to discredit the entire environmental movement; except, of course, what he would be branding as his own environmentalism, which wasn't environmentalism at all.

In studying forestry it was sometimes frustrating trying to address some of the claims made by the environmental movement, such as calls to ban clearcutting even though it is the best mimic for natural forest fires that were otherwise being suppressed, and many other similar claims that were based more on emotion (green religion) than logic, science, rationalism, and empathy. But overall, I would have to say that the environmental movement was correct more often than not and was fighting and exposing some very bad forestry practices, policies, and corruption within BC's forest industry.

I walked out of that talk by Dr. Moore shaking my head and swearing that he's just like the extreme environmentalists, but worse, and on the other side of the political spectrum. I find it intriguing how a person with such an apparently qualified background can say and believe some of the things he does (I'm not sure if he's still around saying this stuff; I haven't heard from him much lately.) I could have gotten on stage that day in a debate and quickly put him in his place (but I was just a timid little kid then), using mere logic and evidence to pick apart each of his statements and point out any validity that they may have, but showing how he is coming to improper concusions based on this.

Throughout my life I've been involved with, both personally and as part of social debates in the industries I have worked in, people who are not capable of separating emotion and rhetoric from rational consideration. It is a human foible to think in polarized terms; that something is either good or bad. If it's good then all things about it are good and vice versa; or that the innate "goodness" of a particular stance on an issue outweighs the bad stuff and therefore justifies doing otherwise horrible things -- see the current comical left vs. right political theater in the US. The perfect example in BC is the supposed need for economic growth and jobs, which was and still is seen as "good", and was used to justify the progressive industrial clearcutting of most of our forests to the exclusion of most other forest values. The alternative that I would suggest, ie. restructuring our economy so we no longer have a need for economic growth, and providing the middle class with the wealth of society so they don't have a need to go out and work 40 hours a week to support themselves, was never and still isn't being discussed as a solution to the need for "growth 'n jobs", but that doesn't require us to cut down all our forests. The logical conclusion that exponential growth is simply not sustainalbe didn't and still doesn't seem to factor into the rationalization for cutting down our forests to create jobs and economic growth.

Another polarizing issue he waded into and further polarized was fish farming. It was and is being criticized for spreading diseases and parasites to wild fish, and creating large concentrations of fish waste under the pens. His predictable sound byte on this debate was to the effect of, "fish have been pooping in the seas for millions of years with no ill effects". Yes, Patrick, they have, but the issue here is that they have never been pooping in such high concentrations as in the sea pens, never had such antibiotics pumped into them, and never been so close to wild salmon stocks that are otherwise threatened by overfishing. His justification for fish farming would certainly go along the lines of providing jobs and needing to produce food to feed the world's hungry growing population, blah bah blah, the usual stuff, that avoids having to rationally consider all the aspects of the issue to really understand it and the broader social and economic problems it is a symptom of.

I don't think this polarized thinking has anything to do with scientists per se as was suggested by a comment above; it is more of an interesting human reaction to having beliefs challenged, and being faced with uncomfortable aspects about our society. Scientists are people too, not immune to this and I think that their limited scope of specialization sometimes makes them more vulnerable to this type of thinking. Some people respond to this cognitive dissonance by maturing and growing their wisdom. Others just become more closed minded, bitter, militant and irrational; regardless of what position they take on an issue since I've seen it in people from all sides politically. I also think it involves a little bit of intellectual laziness in that people don't want to put in the effort to understand and learn.

That's why I strive to separate rhetoric from fact when it comes to glyphosate. I personally am not a fan of it, but I don't want that to be based on a belief that it is somehow carcinogenic or causing other major harm to my body, because all evidence clearly shows that it isn't. But the topic is broader than simply whether glyphosate is toxic to my body (what a self-centric view of the world to think otherwise); and it is because of these larger social and ecological issues that I do not support Roundup and its use in industrial agriculture, and all the things that go along with it.

ezlxq1949's picture
ezlxq1949
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 29 2009
Posts: 257
Yep, down again

As of 17:02 AEST. The thick plottens.

richcabot's picture
richcabot
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 5 2011
Posts: 226
Glyphosate IS carcinogenic
Mark_BC wrote:

That's why I strive to separate rhetoric from fact when it comes to glyphosate. I personally am not a fan of it, but I don't want that to be based on a belief that it is somehow carcinogenic or causing other major harm to my body, because all evidence clearly shows that it isn't. 

On pages 79-82 of "The World According To Monsanto" Marie-Monique Robin cites several studies which demonstrate the link.  She writes "a Canadian study published in 2001 by the University of Saskatchewan showed that men exposed to glyphosate more than two days a year had twice the risk of developing non-Hodgkins lymphoma of men never exposed" (McDuffie et al in Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention November 2001 pp 1155-1163)  Similar results were obtained by Hardell et al in Sweden (Leukemia and Lymphoma v43 2002 pp1043-1049) and in the US by DeRoos et al (Occupational and Environmental Medicine v60 n 9 2003)  She goes on to describe disturbing results from animal studies.  

It does appear from her descriptions that the tests did not attempt to separate the effect of glyphosate from the carrier chemicals it is normally mixed with so perhaps pure glyphosate (which is never used) is not harmful.  However that's like saying guns aren't dangerous if you don't put bullets in them.

ezlxq1949's picture
ezlxq1949
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 29 2009
Posts: 257
Fish farming fiasco

Don't forget the fish needed to feed the fish. In Tasmanian salmon farms, these I think are Peruvian pilchards. The pilchard input outweighs the salmon output.

But it's all jobs 'n growth, innit! Mammon be praised!

ezlxq1949's picture
ezlxq1949
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 29 2009
Posts: 257
Still down as of 18:31 AEST.

Later tonight I will check what's in the Wayback Machine.

VeganDB12's picture
VeganDB12
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 18 2008
Posts: 755
carcinogens

are complicated. asbestos is a carcinogen that becomes much more potent in the presence of smoking (much higher rates according to www.cancer.gov). alcohol causes more stomach cancer with the right genetics and in the presence of smoking.  certain kinds of tea only cause cancer if they are very very hot when you drink them. 

look at the funding sources to interpret ANY data on this. ref: big tobacco research

KugsCheese's picture
KugsCheese
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 2 2010
Posts: 1469
Food Democracy Now website

Food Democracy Now website STILL down as of 7:58 A.M. CDT

kleymo's picture
kleymo
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 28 2012
Posts: 16
(BTW, the transcription software seems to have written "ischemic

Thank you for the correction,ezlxq1949. That was my bad. I am not familiar with many scientific terms and should have looked that word up. I have corrected the text and it should be put up soon, I imagine.

 

For the curious, the transcripts go to a service, and then one of us reads over and corrects. It is a real bear when the speaker has a non-standard accent:)

 

 

 

ezlxq1949's picture
ezlxq1949
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 29 2009
Posts: 257
Food Democracy down but accessible

The site is still down as at 03:14 AEST (or 12:14 US Central Time).

But the Wayback Machine (https://archive.org/web/web.php) has made 1,032 captures of the website, from 10/12/2008 to 5/9/2018. I've had a browse around. Not sure what material there is unavailable elsewhere, but Dave Murphy's experience suggests that malevolent forces seek to make his website unavailable regardless. Every little bit of suppression helps, I guess.

Now, will the Wayback Machine suffer a mysterious outage? Or even PP? I am a bit nervous about making this report and it's easy for me to be brave with someone else's resources. But here goes.

Mohammed Mast's picture
Mohammed Mast
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 17 2017
Posts: 198
Beer and wine

https://www.ecowatch.com/glyphosate-wine-beer-testing-2553632957.html

Btw it has been shown that no amount of alcohol consumption is safe

Markhemp's picture
Markhemp
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 29 2013
Posts: 21
Seeds of Destruction

book by F William Engdahl

Covers how this all came to be, changed me and the way I think about everything.

and it's a fascinating read.

thanks Chris for a brilliant website 

 

Markhemp's picture
Markhemp
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 29 2013
Posts: 21
Monsanto

Monsanto owns uk government. Dr Rosemary Mason has been campaigning for years in the uk and Europe about Roundup, the media treat her like she has plargue. they have a large factory in Wales and dumped thousands of tons of Agent Orange!! in quarries there that has seeped in to the water supply. according to Dr Mason Welsh children are the worst performers in the Uk also local nature reserve has collapsed since local spraying by council oh and she has Cancer- obviously just a coincidence!

have a nice day

http://independent.academia.edu/RosemaryMason

 

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments