Glyphosate kills, very slowly. This should be well noted – not hidden or glossed over. It kills;
1. By interfering with the shikimate pathway in the billions of bacteria in our gut, thereby slowly depriving the human body of certain specific effects of bacterial action called for by the brain.
2. By chelating with trace metals in our bodies and thereby seriously interfering with metabolic processes promoted by them. Our bodies rely on many trace elements for proper functioning.
3. By possibly trying to chelate with the metal component of enzymes thereby interfering with the catalytic action of the enzymes in accelerating metabolic processes. There is proof that it interferes with the action of a large family of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes.
4. By interfering with the endocrine system – the group of glands that produce hormones that regulate metabolism, growth and development, tissue function, sexual function, reproduction, sleep, and mood, among other things. The “dose makes the poison” saying does not apply to endocrine disruptors, which wreak havoc on our bodies at extremely low doses.
As shown by Professor Seralini, this killing goes on even with dilutions of 0.1 parts per billion [ppb] in water. Glyphosate kills little by little about seven times a day, with food and water intake – over a shortened life. These actions are magnified by the other components in the GFs.
The WHO/IARC Report does not merely say that glyphosate is “a probable human carcinogen”. It clearly states that “glyphosate exposure caused DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells, as well as genotoxic, hormonal and enzymatic effects in mammals.
1. The IARC’s conclusion and the Risk Review of the Institute of Risk Assessment [BfR]
What Professor Mathew says here does not come out as fair comment. The International Agency for Research on Cancer [IARC] of the World Health Organization sets up Working Groups [WGs] of eminent, independent, expert, international scientists to study specific subjects, every year. The IARC is very careful not to include any scientists with ties to industry. The WGs are required to study all published peer-reviewed research information on the nominated subject during the year, and meet at the IARC for an eight-day discussion to arrive at a conclusion. The Report on glyphosate was made by a WG of 17 scientists.
The IARCs reports are much more than Risk Reviews. They are “Advisories” for precaution. They are the bases for Risk Reviews made by others.
The report by Germany’s BfR is not strictly a general Risk Review. It is a Renewal Assessment Report made for the specific purpose of enabling the European Commission to decide whether or not to renew the license for glyphosate use after 30th June 2016. The scientists panel included persons connected to industry and the literature reviewed included unpublished papers which were not made available to others.
A renowned German toxicologist Dr. Peter Clausing has trashed the BfR Report, and the reports of the European Food Safety Authority [EFSA] and the European Chemicals Agency [ECHA] both of which are substantially based on the BfR Report.
Dr. Clausing firmly says “The evidence that glyphosate is carcinogenic is so overwhelming that it should be banned.” and, “What surprised me most was how obviously and widely the authorities violated their own rules. Seeing this made me angry. The authorities should be made accountable for their failure.”
2. Use of Glyphosate in developed countries
In the light of the above-mentioned opposition, Professor Mathew’s comment that “It is very obvious that developed countries do not consider that the commercial use of glyphosate is harmful to humans” is an incomprehensible conclusion. The support for GFs is not from the people but from governments, powerful corporations in the industry and their paid lobbyists and tame trolls and scientists. The powerful corporations are very powerful. A few examples are Monsanto, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Syngenta and Bayer.
The contribution by agriculture to the economy of these countries is very high as exports more than as food. The power to control others through food is also very attractive because that is very much cheaper and more convenient than military intervention. This vastly extended use in developed countries is not due to popularity alone but due to the cultivation of GM crops in the mistaken belief that they will be always profitable and the need of export earnings. Soy bean is the main crop. Others are maize, cotton and sugar beet. Almost the entire output of soy bean, with very high residues of GFs, is used for animal feed. We eat the meat and dairy products as well as the soy TVP. In the USA, Canada, the European Union and even the not so developed countries like Brazil and Argentina, people are leaking GFs in their solid and liquid excreta and breast milk. They have it in their blood too.
The scenario with the consumers is far more pathetic and hazardous than their governments are willing to admit. Regulatory bodies are waking up only now to consumer protests. Up to now they have been using safety assessment standards more than 30 years old. So have we – swallowing all the gobbledygook put out in favor of GFs. They are now updating with better equipment, testing methods and standards - all after the recent exposure of Monsanto’s deceitful business practices.
3. Pollution
Professor Mathew theorizes that water pollution is very low. Not so, but we’ll not debate about strong pollution here – only low pollutions.
The EU’s Maximum Residue Level [MRL] is in acknowledgement of research that GFs are hazardous even in high dilutions of a few parts per billion. The EU MRL shown above is 0.1 ppb!
In that context, how can science justify the other MRLs? Australia’a MRL is 100 times more, Canada’s MRL is 2800 times more and the USA’s MRL is 7000 times more than the EU’s. Do the latter countries have superhumans? No! but certainly they are paying for it, silently and helplessly. They take a lot of trouble to find and eat safe organically grown food. They go to farmers’ markets and even grow whatever food they can. Those who could not will now wake up and sue Monsanto.
4. Metabolites of Glyphosate
The major metabolites of glyphosate are aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) and sarcosine. However, AMPA has been classified as more persistent in soils than glyphosate, with a typical half-life of 151 days, but varying from 76 to 240 days depending on field conditions. The longer persistence of AMPA might result in higher toxicity risks compared to glyphosate, although very little information is available concerning AMPA toxicity. Anyway, it has not been declared as safe and the safety of AMPA too has yet to be studied properly by independent scientists.
Their toxicity is not important if Glyphosate is banned.
5. The past and the present
People did not have weedicides in the past. They used other methods that were cumbersome. Yet they prevailed and did not starve. They too worked long hours in the hot sun with little water. They too drank hard water. They too got dehydrated. But they did not develop chronic kidney diseases. The advent of CKDu coincides with the start of the “Green Revolution” in Sri Lanka when poor quality fertilizers and agrochemicals like Roundup were introduced with the aim of increasing food production.
Admittedly glyphosate is convenient but that use is homicidal.
The death of 20,000 people and the affliction of 400,000 people with CKDu in Sri Lanka alone are more than adequate to drive us to take precautions. The latter group is awaiting kidney transplants. Not even five percent will get new kidneys. Others will surely die – all for the sake of convenience!
Those who have transplanted kidneys may not live much longer either. It is quite possible that they will be overcome by endocrine disruptions. We just cannot say yet. Research is still very far behind.
Add new comment