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.

Big Money Wins Out In New Bogus GMO Labeling Law

John Phillips: Bio-geneticist and nutrition specialist, has shown links between GMO foods and Alzheimer's.

Perhaps too many citizens are unaware that a new GMO labeling law has been passed, but it is littered with loopholes large enough to drive a metaphorical Mack truck through.  The cynical corporate and government masterminds behind it realized they had to provide some cover for themselves given the uproar in this country concerning the lack of GMO labeling. 

Thus,  multinational and corporate "big food" and its allies spent $100 million to get a bogus labeling law passed in order to counter the anti-GMO labeling movement.  Much of their effort was forced by Vermont's GMO labeling law - now rendered null - which would have spread  to other states had the bogus federal law not emerged  (After all, the M.O. in this country is whenever a serious political challenge or movement arises, create front groups to defuse the issues, the movement or both)

Millions have justifiably expressed concern at this tactic given that - as John Phillips (Barbadian bio -geneticist) has found, Glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide) is present in all genetically engineered foods. And it’s not something that can be washed off or taken out of the food by cooking or purification – it’s integrated into the plant on a fundamental level.   Monsanto- the maker-  was also a manufacturer of the pesticide DDT, which now has been conclusively linked to the development of Alzheimer’s, as well as many other degenerative diseases in humans.

Experts like Mr. Phillips now believe that glyphosate is even worse than DDT. It decimates beneficial bacteria in the gut, disrupts immune function, and has been correlated with shocking precision to the rise in autism and other cognitive diseases and conditions. 

But let's return to the bogus labeling law, which on the surface sounds legit. After all, as Mark Bittman in the NY Times has pointed out (9/10): "it mandates that the Department of Agriculture define what constitutes a genetically modified food ingredient and then requiring food manufacturers to label products that contain them". What's not to like?  Well, the loopholes and latitude allowed including (ibid.):

- As a label, food producers can substitute a "toll -free number" for consumers to call to get further information on their own.

- Or they can scan a UPC code using a smartphone to get the info needed

As Bittman puts it,  the message to the American consumer is "You deserve to know what's in your food", but to food producers, "Feel free to make the information as difficult to find as you'd like"

The FDA, as I noted before, has declared GMOs not to be harmful, hence no need for labeling. But the feds have still failed to apply the precautionary principle, that it is the GMO producers' job to prove their products are safe, not for outside observers to disprove it. Further, offering a simple declaration based on research done by those linked to Monsanto and other GMO producers, doesn't make the proof standard. As Bittman puts it: "Our system for declaring products safe leaves much to be desired" - which is putting it mildly.

Bittman goes on to note that while it is true GMO crops, like soybeans and corn, "have led to fewer applications of herbicides"  they have "also encouraged the growth of weeds that have become resistant to herbicides after years of exposure."

And most to the point:

"GMOs have become an indispensable crutch for the fertilizer and pesticide-dependent monoculture that is wrecking our land and water and generating the execrable excess of corn and soy-based junk food that is sickening our population and decreasing our life spans":

Which reinforces local Dem candidate Electra Johnson's recent take (Colorado Springs Independent, Aug. 18-19, p. 20 ):

"Our leaders are not looking after us....we are not cared for at the level of our very survival".

What are our leaders looking after? Well, the profits for the corporations - businesses that give them most of their political campaign largesse. God forbid these poltroons "bite the hand that feeds them".

Bitmann avers that now that we're "allowed" to know at least some of what's in our foods (if we dig deep enough) there are other questions we may have to ask including:

-  Where are the ingredients from?

- Were antibiotics routinely administered to animals?

- What pesticides and other chemicals were used?

- What farming practices were used?

- How much water was required?

Bittman acknowledges all this information and more could be made available and also that "some people may care while others don't" but the point is that whether maximal info content is used ought to be a choice of the consumer - not the product manufacturer.   As Bittman puts it at the end of his piece:

"Companies doing things well should seize the chance to put whatever they can on the package ...companies that don't disclose information could be assumed to have something to hide."

This is well put, and something all of us ought to seriously consider when we make our next food purchase, and as Bittman notes "we're long overdue for a transparency revolution"

Indeed!