Monsanto’s RoundUp Poison 125 Times More Dangerous than Regulators Admit
It seems that the herbicide Roundup may be 125 times more toxic than glyphosate, the main toxic ingredient found in the herbicide.
The study is another in a long line questioning the validity of Monsanto’s claims that Roundup is ‘safe.’ Will it be the one to finally break the false ‘safe’ barrier?
The chemical is prevalently used on crops across the nation and world. Friends of the Earth Europe, says that more than 650,000 tonnes of glyphosate products were used over five years ago, with the amount being used increasing each year.
The study, published in the journal Biomedical Research International reveals that despite the still reputation of agrochemicals being relatively harmless, formulations like Roundup herbicide are far more toxic than regulators have previously revealed.
It details how Big Ag deceives the public about the true toxicity of these chemical formulations using semantics. By focusing on only one chemical at a time, they can ‘isolate’ the results and claim that they are ‘safe.’
This, even though in isolation, a chemical like glyphosate is already toxic in the parts-per-trillion range. You can imagine what happens when other toxic chemicals are then added to the mixture.
So – either they already knew this and refused to share it with the public, or some of them just had no idea how powerfully debilitating these chemicals could be when used together.
Many regulatory agencies administer tests to look at isolated chemicals to determine in what parts per million they become toxic to humans and the environment. Far too many chemicals are used than the agencies have the capability and funds to actually test for any length of time to determine their true interaction with other chemicals already in the environment.
But this study goes even further, and determines that Roundup – and its combined chemical ingredients – are 125 times more toxic than glyphosate alone.
Isolating a chemical completely loses the synergistic effect of the compound interactions that take place between multiple chemicals, and therefore does not give an accurate picture of what the chemical(s) can do. Any biologist or chemist could tell you this.
The study, titled “Major pesticides are more toxic to human cells than their declared active principles,” looks at the ‘inert’ chemicals, or the adjuvants, in 9 major chemical groups that are used globally in agricultural practices due to Big Ag monopolies: 3 herbicides, 3 insecticides, and 3 fungicides.
Read: Brazil Demands Glyphosate Ban
If you’ve ever made a batch of cookies, you can understand what happens to a recipe if just one thing is slightly off, or you add too much of one thing, or not enough of another. Instead of a delicious batch of chocolate chip cookies, you can end up with dough that can bounce, or concrete-hard cookies that no one would want to eat.
Apply these same principles to herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides, and you get the idea – only we aren’t dealing with benign ingredients like eggs and organic flour. We are talking about highly volatile, toxic elements.
As the paper details, it isn’t one ‘active principal’ which is poisoning us, it is a complex formulation that is killing us all at a level determined ‘an acceptable level of harm’ based on the FDA’s ridiculous daily-intake levels:
“Pesticides are used throughout the world as mixtures called formulations. They contain adjuvants, which are often kept confidential and are called inerts by the manufacturing companies, plus a declared active principle (AP), which is the only one tested in the longest toxicological regulatory tests performed on mammals.
This allows the calculation of the acceptable daily intake (ADI)—the level of exposure that is claimed to be safe for humans over the long term—and justifies the presence of residues of these pesticides at “admissible” levels in the environment and organisms.
Only the AP and one metabolite are used as markers, but this does not exclude the presence of adjuvants, which are cell penetrants.”
Furthermore, researchers found that the chemical adjuvants can make a single chemical 10,000 times more toxic than the chemical alone.
So maybe you could be exposed to glyphosate by itself and be fine after 100 exposures as a farmers, but when you add everything together, you are playing dodge ball with disease. The secondary side effects that overshadow the main ingredient cannot be overlooked.
Dr. Kelly Brogan, MD commented on this phenomena in connection with the study recently on her blog:
“Similar to the non-placebo-controlled trials on vaccines, adjuvants and preservatives are considered innocent bystanders in the consideration of risk profile.” According to Dr. Brogan, an understanding of toxicant synergy has exploded the simplistic supposition that “the dose makes the poison.”
If regulators don’t do something about this now, all we can do is assume that they meant for this to happen. Killing people by the millions with chemical warfare isn’t a new game. It’s been around for ages, but it stops. . .NOW.
Read: 7 Nasty Effects of Pesticides
Monsanto’s #1 Herbicide Directly Linked to Chronic Disease Spike
Another correlational study published in the Journal of Organic Systems linked glyphosate to an enormous increase in chronic diseases across the United States.
This increase in use is contributing to the development of diseases such as diabetes, obesity, lipoprotein metabolism disorder, Alzheimer’s, senile dementia, Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, autism, and cancer.
The report details how there is a direct correlation between the incidence of these diseases and glyphosate use.
According to the study:
“Within the last 20 years there has been an alarming increase in serious illnesses in the US, along with a marked decrease in life expectancy (Bezruchka, 2012). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that the cost of diabetes and diabetes-related treatment was approximately $116 billion dollars in 2007.
Estimated costs related to obesity were $147 billion in 2008 and cardiovascular diseases and stroke were $475.3 billion in 2009. Health care expenditures in the US totaled 2.2 trillion dollars in 2007 (CDC, 2013a). The onset of serious illness is appearing in increasingly younger cohorts.
The US leads the world in the increase in deaths due to neurological diseases between 1979-81 and 2004-06 for the 55-65 age group (Pritchard et al., 2013).”
The study points out that, “these findings suggest environmental triggers rather than genetic or age-related causes,” especially since chronic diseases are showing up in younger and younger individuals.
“During this same time period, there has been an exponential increase in the amount of glyphosate applied to food crops and in the percentage of GE food crops planted (Benbrook, 2012). We undertook a study to see if correlations existed between the rise of GE crops, the associated glyphosate use and the rise in chronic disease in the US.”
The bottom line?
“The significance and strength of the correlations show that the effects of glyphosate and GE crops on human health should be further investigated.”
The sum is the equal of all its parts, not just bits and pieces, and the FDA should know better. But they are just the FDA which stands for Federal Dumb As, we already know.
The question has to come to mind, are these herbicides and pesticides, that kill most weeds and many insects, worth the health and lives of humans and our environment? The answer should be ideally, NO! But it is not about health, safe food, or the survival of humans, bees, etc; for it is all about selling chemicals and making money at all cost.
Monsanto, Dow and the like are chemicals companies who have a propitiatory interest in selling their wares, and should not be telling anyone, especially the FDA, as to what is safe, and not safe, for all of us to eat.
We don’t need commercialized food production anymore; if every fourth (for instance) household had a small aquaponics setup, you could source all the veggies and greens necessary for at least half a healthy diet within yards of your neighbors; and it would mean a good income for people who want to do it, or are unable to do other jobs.