Glyphosate in Cereals: You Can Trace It To The GMO Crops Spawned By Monsanto

John Phillips: Barbadian Bio-geneticist and nutrition specialist, links the glyphosate in cereals to GMO -based foods.


Barely four years ago,  a much publicized letter was put out by dozens of worried scientists, physicians. The letter began by stating:

"We the undersigned scientists, medical professionals, and researchers are writing to urge the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency not to register a double herbicide mix of 2,4- D and glyphosate - the 'Enlist DUO weed killer"

In the letter all the probable health risks were detailed, as noted in the first paragraph. In terms of the horrors of glyphosate and how it wreaks havoc on foods, I already discussed this in a previous post, including how consumption of glyphosate not only led to cancers by Alzheimer's disease (thanks to research by long time bio-geneticist John Phillips)  See e.g.   http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/03/alzheimers-epidemic-fro-eating-gmo.html

In that post I quoted  Mr. Phillips:

"Among other toxins and other health-disrupting contaminants, GMO foods contain glyphosate, a horrifically destructive chemical that saps nutrients from foods and quite literally makes them toxic to consume."

To the(then) FDA's credit it withdrew approval of 'Enlist DUO' in November, 2015. However the use of Roundup and glyphosate has continued unrelentingly and we know::

 - Seventy to Eighty percent of the foods we eat today contain GMOs.

- There are 1.1 billion pounds of pesticides used per year, primarily on GMO crops - because those crops are designed to survive the poisons.

 According to the January 2016 issue of the  Bulletin from 'Food & Water Watch' :

"GMO ingredients are hidden in 70 percent of processed food in this country. This is only a 'best guess'  because no one knows for sure as they are not labeled. Also, very little is known of the long term effects of what GMOs can do to your health because they've not been properly tested. But what facts we do have are alarming."

The Bulletin then references:

"Real lab rats fed GMOs have suffered kidney and liver damage, cancerous tumors and even premature death."

Wonder why so many people are now needing kidney and liver transplants? These hidden GMOs  may be one huge contributing factor.

This is now germane as the new food scare concerning excessive glyphosate found in a number of cereals has materialized.   But the corporate media failed to note the cereals were only a subset of the popular foods affected, all of them traced to GMOs or to excessive application of glyphosate on conventional crops. .   Independent testing on an array of popular American food products by the San Francisco-based Anresco lab found many samples contained residue levels of the weed killer glyphosate far in excess of safe thresholds.

 This led the nonprofit organization behind the testing to call for corporate and regulatory action to address consumer safety concerns. (Though the FDA routinely tests foods for other pesticide residues, it never tested for glyphosate until this year. The testing for glyphosate residues was recently suspended, however, under the orders of resident Trumpies committed to deregulation, i.e. removal of citizen protections.

To conduct its test Anresco Lab  used liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), a method widely considered by the scientific community and regulators as the most reliable for analyzing glyphosate residues.  The findings were shocking and as Mr. Phillips told me in an email, ought to "scare the socks off any American that consumes them".  Mainly because of possible liver and kidney issues, including cancers.

The Anresco Lab tests were done on 29 foods commonly found on grocery store shelves. Excess glyphosate residues were found in General Mills’ Cheerios at 1,125.3 parts per billion (ppb), in Kashi soft-baked oatmeal dark chocolate cookies at 275.57 ppb, and in Ritz Crackers at 270.24 ppb, according to the report. Different levels were found in Kellogg’s Special K cereal, Triscuit Crackers (a Janice favorite) and several other products.

The nonprofit behind the report noted that concerns about glyphosate comes as research shows that Roundup can cause liver and kidney damage in rats at only 0.05 ppb, and additional studies have found that levels as low as 10 ppb can have toxic effects on the livers of fish. The groups criticized U.S. regulators for setting an acceptable daily intake (ADI) at for glyphosate at much higher levels than other countries consider safe. The United States has set the ADI for glyphosate at 1.75 milligrams per kilogram of bodyweight per day (mg/kg/bw/day) while the European Union has set it at 0.3 mg per kg/ bw/day.

Question: Why is the European threshold nearly SIX times lower than that set by the U.S.? Well, because European states care more about the health, welfare of their citizens!  Thus they are more likely to adhere to the  precautionary principle  so that it is not anti-GMO activists who must prove the toxicity of the suspect culprit food, but rather the GMO producers (like Monsanto) to prove their products are safe.

Meanwhile, Monsanto has said repeatedly that there are no legitimate safety concerns regarding glyphosate when it is used as intended, and that toxicological studies in animals have demonstrated that glyphosate does not cause cancer, birth defects, DNA damage, nervous system effects etc.  But let us make it clear here that a multinational corporation can say anything for PR sake.  That does not meet the standard of proof.

Glyphosate is under particular scrutiny now because last year the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified it as a probable human carcinogen. Glyphosate is the world’s most widely used herbicide and is the key ingredient in Monsanto Co.’s branded Roundup.  The trick mastered by the GMO crop producers has been to make them "Roundup ready" so that the pesticide and now its glyphosate component are integrated into the very crops and hence the cereals from which they are obtained.  Further, these GMO crops can also be additionally treated, sprayed with the offending chemical  making them even more toxic to humans.

Beyond the usual GMO offenders (corn, soybeans, sugar beets, canola) we also know glyphosate is sprayed on many conventional crops such as wheat, oats and barley. In all glyphosate is used in some form on nearly 70 food crops, and all of them with levels far in excess of what the EU allows for its own citizens.  

 A further warning shot for Monsanto  transpired  last week with an award of $289 m to a terminally ill school groundskeeper (Dwayne Johnson) . With this award the miscreants at Monsanto ought ot be very worried given another 475 cases are pending against them. See e, g.

https://usrtk.org/pesticides/mdl-monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-case-key-documents-analysis/

Again, we know Monsanto's protestations and those of their hired gun whore "scientists" don't add up to diddly or squat.  We know this because the PR playbook to make poisons, toxic crap look good was exposed over 23 years ago, e.g.

Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | PR Watch

Other points Mr. Phillips wished to have pointed out for emphasis: 
 

·         Independent research links glyphosate to cancer (sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and it has been deemed a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s team of international cancer experts. The childhood cancer rate is steadily rising and experts say that they don’t know why. Why are they not taking a closer look at these facts?

• Research also indicates that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor, which disrupts hormones and leads to reproductive problems, early onset puberty, obesity, diabetes, and some cancers. When it comes to endocrine disruptors, very small exposures are the most damaging, so “the dose makes the poison” mantra does not apply! 

*  Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum antibiotic killing the good bacteria in your gut. Poor gut health is linked to inflammation and a whole host of diseases. As GMOs laced with glyphosate are commonly fed to farm animals, this could very well be contributing to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

It binds with vital nutrients in the soil (like iron, calcium, manganese, zinc) and prevents plants for taking them up. Glyphosate is thereby making food less nutritious.
 
As Mr. Phillips put it: Tell your readers they consume these foods at their own risk. If they don't wish to get kidney or liver cancer - such as struck down your youngest brother -  they had best avoid them. NO matter what the FDA, the EPA or your government says.


See also:

15 Health Problems Linked to Monsanto's Roundup - EcoWatch
 
 

USDA Mandating Of GMO Food Labeling Is Welcome - But Interpretations Will Be Necessary

John Phillips: Barbadian bio-geneticist and nutrition specialist, was one of the first to point out the links between consuming GMO foods and Alzheimer's.


First, let's dispel the nonsense that there is an "anti-science" agenda on the Left as much as on the Right (e.g. John Stossel,  "The War on Science Has A Surprising Source - The Liberal Left', Colorado Springs Gazette,  April 26).   In Stossel's case (he's long since been a shill for the libertarian, corporate Right though he began his career as a general debunker) he insists the Left is way worse than the Right's climate deniers e.g. bringing up the campus attacks on 'Bell Curve' co-author Charles Murray, e.g. "scientists can't even talk about whether genes affect intelligence".   But maybe Stossel never saw or read the excellent skewering of that sham treatise ('Behind the Curve', Review by Leon Kamin in The Scientific American, February, 1995, p. 99).  As Kamin concludes, "On close examination this scientific emperor is wearing no clothes."  In other words, it's plain old pseudo science which merits no respect.   See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2017/07/was-splc-wrong-to-educate-middlebury.html

Stossel also weighs in on GMO foods with such claptrap as:  "Some research on genetically modified foods became taboo because of protests from the left and may have prevented a second green revolution."  Which is horse manure.  In fact, the left activists mainly objected to cross-species genetic modification, i.e. inserting mouse genes into tomatoes to enhance shelf life. It was not an all- out protest to stop all research, and indeed John Phillips (see photo)has encouraged more work on other genetic modifications so long as the results conform to the precautionary principle. By the precautionary principle it is not the activists who must demonstrate "safety concerns" attendant on GMO foods,  it is the GMO food producers' job to prove their products are safe.  Up to now they have not done so, all the corporate media banter and baloney to the contrary.  This is why we have insisted on proper labeling of GMO foods, not an outright ban on them.  Every citizen is entitled to know what he or she is ingesting, and not merely taking the word of some "authority".

Recall that in July, 2015  the House of Representatives - by a 275- 150 vote passed the 'Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act'.   Also known by anti-GMO activists as the DARK Act, it pre-empted all state and local labeling laws, such as those Vermont and Colorado had written. So even if your state happened to pass an amendment or referendum to mandate GMO food labeling, this specious law can overturn it. Welcome to Neoliberal democracy!

Earlier, in June, 2015,  the FDA rejected a citizens' petition by activist groups demanding mandatory  GMO labeling. The FDA response noted that the petition presented no evidence that "such foods present any different or greater concerns than foods developed by traditional plant breeding"   Of course, this merely shows the FDA to be another co-opted federal agency, more driven to uphold corporate profits than citizen welfare. But hell, don't take my word, do some of your own research.

Start with the well known study by Arpad Pusztai in which he fed lab rats potatoes that had been genetically engineered to contain lectin (from a snowdrop bulb to make them pest resistant). When he processed the results he found that the rats which consumed these high-tech potatoes showed evidence of organ (liver, stomach) damage and poor brain development. Pusztai's study went down as the very first independent study (i.e. one not sponsored by a biotech corporation) to examine the effects of bio-engineered foods. Tragically, Pusztai’s boss, the Director of the Rowett Institute, attempted to suppress the revelations in the GMO potato study. According to a report -article from In These Times (Jan. 10, 2000);

"He fired Pusztai, broke up his research team, halted the six other similar projects his team was then working on and seized his data"

Interested readers can read more on the expose of the PR peddlers and their hands in the Pusztai debacle here:  http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/24/03/bleifuss2403.html

Again, this tactic ought to come as no big mystery, considering that a multinational like Monsanto (the biggest GMO producer) has more power, heft than most nations

More recently, according to a 2016  Bulletin from 'Food & Water Watch' :

"GMO ingredients are hidden in 70 percent of processed food in this country. This is only a 'best guess'  because no one knows for sure as they are not labeled. Also, very little is known of the long term effects of what GMOs can do to your health because they've not been properly tested. But what facts we do have are alarming."

The Bulletin then references:

"Real lab rats fed GMOs have suffered kidney and liver damage, cancerous tumors and even premature death."

Among the other alarming facts is the horrific link to glyphosate as exposed by my long time friend and Barbadian geneticist and nutritionist John Phillips, who has noted:

"Among other toxins and other health-disrupting contaminants, GMO foods contain glyphosate, a horrifically destructive chemical that saps nutrients from foods and quite literally makes them toxic to consume."

 Phillips also tied the prevalence of glyphosate to the increasing numbers of people with Alzheimer's in the U.S. This disease destroys the brain and renders victims little more than zombies.  According to Phillips,  glyphosphates multiply the structures known as tangles in the brain. In concert with a sticky substance known as beta amyloids, the result can be Alzheimer's disease such as took out Janice's cousin Desmond, e.g.


And is now wreaking havoc with her sister-in-law, Krimhilde. 

By contrast, European incidence is lower per capita - attributed to their GMO labeling laws. Why the desperate refusal to label GMOs in the U.S.? Because it would cut into the profits of the biggest GMO producers like Monsanto which now rings up $11.8 billion a year in sales. 

Anyway, the latest news (NY Times, Sunday, 'What Will GMO Labels Tell Consumers?) is that the United States Dept. of Agriculture has mandated a new GMO labeling scheme to come into effect by 2020. The problem is that it will not carry the freighted letters "G.M.O," or "genetically modified".  The reasoning, according to the article is that the initials and words are "stigmatized".   Transl.  The terms G.M.O. and 'genetically modified'   are way too transparent and truthful so a more euphemistic, PR friendly substitute is needed. (As if we didn't already have enough mushy words in our language.)

The replacement term will be "bioengineered" (BE) .  It's bloodless, technical and relatively obscure, so will not likely make anyone squirm.  But be advised it still means genetically modified, and that means it still designates foods that have not met the standard of the precautionary principle.

In addition, it is well to point out the new labels will not apply to all genetically modified foods.  Thus, any foods that have been modified using the CRISPR technique will not have the "BE" label.  All such foods will have been introduced by maybe deleting a snippet of genetic information - or by inserting a more desirable trait from one breed into another. 

Labels will also be exempt from highly refined sugars and oils, such as made from genetically modified sugar beets and corn.  Not surprisingly, consumer groups oppose such a move which would drastically reduce the number of foods to carry any label.

If you're not satisfied with this labeling rubric now is the time to weigh in (at the USDA site). The public has until July 3rd to comment on the proposed guidelines.

Labeling Of GMO Foods Is Not 'Calling Anyone's Bluff'

John Phillips: Barbadian bio-geneticist and nutrition specialist, was one of the first to point out the links between consuming GMO foods and Alzheimer's.

Well, it's becoming ever clearer that the Neoliberal food consortium is determined to prevent any useful GMO food labeling. We already know that in July last year the House of Representatives - by 275- 150- passed the 'Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act'.   Also known by anti-GMO activists as the DARK Act, it would pre-empt all state and local labeling laws. So even if your state happens to pass an amendment or referendum to mandate GMO food labeling, this specious law can overturn it. Welcome to Neoliberal democracy!

Then, in June last year, the FDA rejected a citizens' petition by activist groups demanding mandatory  GMO labeling. The FDA response noted that the petition presented no evidence that "such foods present any different or greater concerns than foods developed by traditional plant breeding".  But the FDA has it ass-backwards. By the precautionary principle it is not the activists who must demonstrate "safety concerns" attendant on GMO foods,  it is the GMO food producers' job to prove their products are safe.

There are many reasons why it needs to be the GMO food manufacturers' responsibility.

According to the Bulletin from 'Food & Water Watch' :

"GMO ingredients are hidden in 70 percent of processed food in this country. This is only a 'best guess'  because no one knows for sure as they are not labeled. Also, very little is known of the long term effects of what GMOs can do to your health because they've not been properly tested. But what facts we do have are alarming."

The Bulletin then references:

"Real lab rats fed GMOs have suffered kidney and liver damage, cancerous tumors and even premature death."

Wonder why so many people are now needing kidney and liver transplants? These hidden GMOs  may be one huge contributing factor.

Among the other alarming facts is the horrific link to glyphosate as exposed by Barbadian geneticist and nutritionist John Phillips, who has noted:

"Among other toxins and other health-disrupting contaminants, GMO foods contain glyphosate, a horrifically destructive chemical that saps nutrients from foods and quite literally makes them toxic to consume."

 Phillips also ties the prevalence of glyphosate to the increasing numbers of people with Alzheimer's in the U.S. This disease destroys the brain and renders victims little more than zombies.  By contrast, European incidence is lower per capita - attributed to their GMO labeling laws. Why the desperate refusal to label GMOs in the U.S.? Because it would cut into the profits of the biggest GMO producers like Monsanto which now rings up $11.8 billion a year in sales.

All this is germane now as we learn that Campbell's Soups is "ready to bet on the good sense of consumers and their faith in the scientific consensus" . This is despite its soups being labelled as "having GMO ingredients" (Denver Post editorial, 'Opposing GMOs Just Got Harder', Jan. 18, p. 18A)

According to the Post editorial:

"As Campbell's chief executive freely acknowledged to the New York Times, three fourths of her company's products include GMO corn, canola, soy beans or sugar beets"

The Post editorial goes on to note that Campbell's obviously expects consumers to go on buying the products and "if so the decision (to openly label) will go a long way toward ending the shrill GMO labeling wars"  adding:

"The anti-GMO movement, fueled by the organic food industry and anti-corporate activists, has maintained for years that all it wants is to provide the public with more information. Campbell Soup is about to call their bluff."

Actually, there is no 'bluff to be called. Campbell's Soup,  as a responsible and judicious corporate citizen,  is simply doing what we've asked all food manufacturers to do: label their foods, including GMO ingredients. Whether this in fact translates into a consumer 'no purchase'  decision is up to the consumer not "activists". No one I know, including John Phillips, is out to shut GMO producers down, any more than the cigarette or tobacco snuff makers. They only ask that the products be properly labeled to at least leave buyers with an informed decision.

Nor does Campbell's decision to label nullify the precautionary principle.

The Post, by insisting GMO labeling activists' have conspiracy motives, simply discredits its whole case. Also, failing to realize that Campbell's success in selling its GMO-labeled soups and other products isn't "calling activists'  bluff" but merely proving what we've said all along: that labeling will not adversely impact GMO food makers unless consumers make that conscious choice. It will not happen by the mere presence of a label!

Never mind. The Campbell's experiment - whichever way it goes- will be unlikely to alter the anti-labeling bunch who are determined to shove these foods down our gullets whether we want them or not. All this, just in time to devour GMO-engineered chickens, approved by the FDA last month.