"Frankenfish Salmon" Coming Soon To A Restaurant Near You - And You Likely Won't Know

"Franken Salmon"(larger fish) compared to normal -natural sized salmon at same age.

The news in The Sunday Denver Post Business section that restaurants (along with university cafeterias) will be among the first to serve Franken fish salmon (late next year) ought to give pause to every serious citizen.  Unlike in Europe where governments are far more cautious, the U.S. under the Trumpies has Ok'd these genetically modified beasts for human consumption,  The primary provider is an outfit called 'Aquabounty' which also has performed a neat dodge in respect of telling those customers faced with this unnaturally large salmon,  According to Aquabounty CEO Sylvia Wulff:

"It's their customers not ours!"

Nice dump off!  So if any consumer gets ill for any reason, or has an allergic reaction, it's all on the secondary providers not the company that created these monsters. As far as how these entities are produced we are informed:

"To produce its fish Aquabounty injects Atlantic salmon with DNA from other fish species that make them grow to full size in about 18 months which is about twice as fast as regular salmon".

The company goes on to assert it's "a more efficient process given less feed is used", and so it's a lot cheaper to raise these mutants.   After the franken-salmon are created and lay eggs, they are shipped from the company's Canadian location "after first clearing regulatory hurdles".  We aren't informed what these hurdles are, but knowing the Trump swamp appointments,  they'd have to be minimal.  Thus, Trump signed an executive order last month directing federal agencies to "simplify" regulations for genetically engineered plants and animals.

It is also interesting this this order comes as companies are turning to a newer gene-editing technology (CRISPR) that makes it ,much easier to tinker with plant and animal DNA.  Think your chicken and fish are just fine, well maybe they are after the Norwegian rat DNA has been spliced into these.  In any case the use of such new technology is "blurring the lines around what should be considered a genetically modified organism."

How these creatures will affect human cells and metabolism we don't yet know. Stomach, pancreatic or liver cancers? We can't say..  All we know thus far is: a) several grocers including Kroger and Whole Foods will not sell the GMO fish, and b) there will be only minimal transparency.

In terms of the second, it may rival the application of differential calculus to know what exactly you are purchasing at the grocery in the years ahead.   It may not always be obvious what the heck you are buying.  For example, the disclosure regulation will start being implemented next year but mandatory compliance doesn't start until 2022.   That means some grocers may choose not to inform you of what's there, while others intend to bury the identity in the UPC code, and still others may just use an obscure coverall label such as "bio-engineered."

What does that mean anyway?  As Amy van Saun from the Center for Food Safety points out (ibid.):

"Nobody uses that term"

Adding that "genetically engineered" or "genetically modified" are more common.   But why use more common terms when you can baffle with bullshit?

Realizing this serious problem,  the Center is suing the U.S.  Food and Drug Administration over the approval of Aquabounty's version of salmon.  It is also among the groups asking grocers to pledge not to sell the unnatural fish.

The disclosure rules also don't apply to restaurants and similar food service establishments.  While most patrons may not mind what they eat as far as salmon, Greg Jaffe -  of the Center for Science in the Public Interest -   notes that "restaurants can make the information available to customers who want it."

Interestingly, Aquabounty's Wulff insists the company believes in transparency but "questioned why people would want to know whether the fish was genetically modified."   Well, for the same reason I want to know if the tomatoes I eat were produced using mouse genes, to enable longer shelf life.  But according to her:

"It's identical to Atlantic salmon except for one gene."

Well, then it's not "identical" to Atlantic salmon.  Besides, all these fussy people may just believe in the precautionary principle before they buy or consume a GMO entity.

By the precautionary principle it is not the activists who must demonstrate any negative or untoward effects attendant on consuming 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.

As the Post article notes, a 2015 AP- GfK pol found that two third of Americans support labeling of GMO ingredients on food packages.  If any company or establishment is resistant to such labeling one must then wonder what it is they have to hide.

Only a totalitarian state dismisses citizens' desire for more information, especially concerning what they will be putting into their bodies.

Sufficient Evidence Is In For The FAA To Ground Boeing's 737 MAX 8 In U.S. Of A.

Profile of a catastrophe: Using catastrophe theory, with ordinate denoting (g - L) or g force to attain takeoff, vs. L, load of plane. Abscissa denotes angle of attack which reaches "catastrophe" at 0.5 radians (About 28.6 deg.)  Before this (~ 27 deg) MAX 8 auto-correct system  (MCAS or similar) kicks in to drive nose downwards. If pilot does not disconnect and instead fights controls a series of perturbations (a o s,  b o s)  leads to cusp catastrophe.  Here a o  denotes reaction of pilot to auto-control nose dip, and  b o denotes response of MCAS to a o . Generally, catastrophe occurs after 4 (= s) perturbations near critical angle (0.5 rad.)

"Two pilots reported their aircraft unexpectedly pitched nose down after engaging autopilot following departure. Another pilot reported a “temporary level off” triggered by the aircraft automation. The captain of a November 2018 flight called part of the aircraft’s flight manual “inadequate and almost criminally insufficient.”

“The fact that this airplane requires such jury rigging to fly is a red flag,”  he wrote in a report to the federal Aviation Safety Reporting System. The captain added that part of the plane’s flight system is “not described in our Flight Manual.” -    From lead story 'From The Flight Manual To Automation, Why Pilots Have Complained About Boeing's 737 MAX 8'.  USAToday

----
The patter of PR from the FAA and its  Neoliberal enablers is that (WSJ today, p. A1):

"The investigation has just begun and to date we have not been provided data to draw any conclusions or take any actions."

Which is utter bollocks, and indeed in the wake of Britain and EU nations now taking action, i.e.  in the  former not only grounding its own MAX 8 flights, but barring others (from other nations) from entering- is less and less cogent as an excuse.  Not to mention after the Chinese aviation authority explained their grounding decision - of their entire fleet of MAX 8 jetliners- was based not only on the Ethiopian crash that took 157 lives. It was also based on (ibid.):

 "previously unreported incidents in which Chinese 737 Max pilots received unreliable readings from sensors used to ensure the aircraft is flying at the correct angle."

Let us also quickly note the same dismissal -what I call "first world chauvinism"-   cannot be invoked here, i.e. "this is just a training and culture issue, ya know black and brown people lack proper experience and training.".  It can't because nearly all Chinese commercial pilots are former military jet aircraft pilots with thousands of hours experience in all manner of conditions, weather etc.  That the sensors gave "unreliable" readings is also extremely concerning given a correct response to incorrect readings could well trigger the computerized MCAS   ("Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System')  that was tagged in the earlier Lion Air crash.  It is almost certainly implicated in the Ethiopian crash as well, given the observed steep angle and  difficulty reported in vertical attitude control.  Which suggests a factor directly connected to the plane's "angle of attack".

Another aspect: both crashes occurred soon after take off, within minutes, when the aircraft  was trying to attain a proper lift and ascent angle. This is also the interval when other factors most directly come into play, namely the plane's load (total weight) , as well as g- forces and how these combine to either enable sufficient liftoff speed, or - possibly in the case of the Ethiopian crash --  create too slow a speed,  interpreted as a stall by the MCAS.  In this case, the MCAS will automatically kick in to aim the jet nose downwards and affect vertical stability. 

 It can also kick in if the pilot is manually flying the plane and sensors detect the nose of the plane is too high, i.e. the angle of attack is too great.  In such an event the nose of the plane is automatically pushed down.. It is interesting here that in both the Lion Air and Ethiopian crashes the ends arrived in literal nose dives - one into the Java Sea, the other into land (leaving a crater).  This attests to the fact the MCAS was indeed responsible, for whatever reason.

Here is something to think about:  What if - as in the case of the Chinese pilots (who reported "unreliable readings from sensors") - the Ethiopian pilot beheld the sensors relaying  (mistakenly) that the angle of attack for takeoff as too low..  Then,  taking the sensors to be accurate, he attempted to correct the angle by manually pointing the nose upward?  Well, as noted before,  the MCAS would be triggered, forcing the nose downward.  The pilot at this point may panic, and make an even greater effort to force the nose upward - but be overridden by the MCAS.  (Most recent reporting in the WSJ (3/13, p. A13) disclosed that in fact Boeing since learned the Lion Air angle sensors gave incorrect readings. Hence, the pilot responding to such incorrect readings would have initiated a catastrophe such as depicted in the top graphic.)

 The observations of Col. Stephen Ganyard (USMC, Ret.) last night on ABC news, spoke to the tragic outcome: "What we know is that soon after takeoff the plane was porpoising, moving up and down'.

 The erratic motion described  indicates the pilot was definitely struggling for control, perhaps trying to keep the plane's nose up, even as the automated MCAS  kept driving the nose down - until the plane finally went into steep descent into the ground.    Rachel Maddow's exposure (last night, MSNBC) of a publicly accessible pilot database- where U.S. pilots report aircraft issues  - also blows the lid off the claim from the FAA that the problems are limited or not serious, see  e.g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUidpjr8Xzw

Indeed, the fact so many pilots reported vertical control issues is damned troubling, i.e. from one pilot: 

"On Day 3 of 3 departing in a MAX 8  after a long overnight I was well rested At departure we had strong cross winds directly off the right wing.  The aircraft accelerated normally and the Captain engaged the 'A' autopilot after reaching set speed.  Within 2 to 3 seconds the aircraft pitched nose down.  I called 'descending' just prior to the GPWS (safety system) sounding 'don't sink, don't sink'. The Captain immediately disconnected the autopilot and pitched into a climb.

The remainder of the flight was uneventful.  We discussed the departure at length and I reviewed in my mind our automation setup and flight profile but can't think of anything that would pitch nose down so aggressively."  

The pilot's report is chilling to say the least, because it evokes thoughts of what the Indonesian (Lion Air) pilot and Ethiopian pilot may also have confronted.  Some may then ask, "Why didn't they just disconnect the autopilot?"  Hold strain there.  One experienced American pilot on the NBC Evening News Monday night admitted he "might not remember"  to do that, especially in an emergency situation.

All of this suggests a major design flaw in the aircraft which - it is true - may only be manifested in 10 out of 10,000 flights. But even that is too many given we are now supposedly in an era of unrivaled safety for commercial aviation.  That is,  essentially zero crashes unless the piloting human goes "haywire" and acts to take the plane down himself. (The classic case was Andreas Lubitz, Germanwings pilot who crashed his jet into a mountain on Oct. 9, 2015.  A similar situation likely accounted for Malaysian Flight 370 which vanished in 2014.  Almost certainly one or both pilots deliberately flew the jet way out of its intended course - for whatever reason.)

 All of this is why the FAA is making a major error in not  immediately  following the advice of Sens. Diane Feinstein and Blumenthal to ground the jets   This is especially pertinent now as we learn European authorities have now grounded the planes, following earlier moves by aviation regulators in China, Indonesia, Singapore and Australia to prohibit the jets from flying. In all, more than half of the 737 Max 8 aircraft in the world have been pulled from use since an Ethiopian Airlines plane crashed on Sunday, killing 157 people.

The one country holding back?   The United States.  Why? Because it doesn't give two shits about its citizens' safety, only profits from share prices. The WaPo reported Monday night Boeing asked the FAA not to ground planes because share prices would sink $5 billion or more.  There you have the reason in a nutshell for the FAA's refusal to act.

As with the case of privacy sharing of all our data, not to mention GMO foods, the Neoliberal narrative is that money matters over all else.  Citizen security and safety is a secondary issue, if that. Profits uber alles! This is in direct contradiction to the precautionary principle, i.e. it is the duty of the manufacturer to prove his product is safe, not for others to try prove it isn't.  Invoking this principle in good faith, the FAA as a genuine regulator invested first in public safety would ground all MAX 8 planes until the current investigation is complete.  By continuing to fly these planes despite the cumulative incidents (including the Chinese reports of inaccurate sensor readings) the FAA's actions border on the reckless and criminal.  

Ok, maybe we can only go so far as to assert myopic - i.e. seeing only monetary losses when one of the mandates for the establishment of the agency was:  making and enforcing safety policy.  However, the other was:  to "promote the business of aviation."  But as air travel specialist Peter Greenburg put it, "they can't do both". Indeed. So we see the agency bowing to Boeing's scare tactics pressure re: loss of share value, loss of profits.

This shtick is not too dissimilar from the FDA's when they agreed to corporate pressure (see '60 Minutes' and the interview with former FDA commissioner David Kessler)  to change the label on Oxycontin and other opioids (in 2000) from "use only short term" to "approved for long term use" e.g.

Opioid epidemic: Did the FDA ignite the crisis? — "60 Minutes" - CBS ...

https://www.cbsnews.com › 60 Minutes › Newsmakers

This  "opened the floodgates" to the opioid crisis (in Dr. Kessler's words).

Thus, in each case -  FAA and FDA  -  we behold federal agencies rendered captives to corporate powers.  This is likely on account of the revolving door between corporate lobbies and the agencies - with employees of the latter constantly moving to the former and back again.  At least Sen. Elizabeth Warren seems to grasp the principle, as she said earlier today:

"The world has now witnessed the second tragic crash of one of these planes in less than six months. While we do not know the causes of these crashes, serious questions have been raised about whether these planes were pressed into service without additional pilot training in order to save money. Today, immediately, the F.A.A. needs to get these planes out of the sky.”

The UK civil  aviation authority also respects its citizens, as it announced as prelude to its grounding the planes:

"Given the similarity of the two accidents, it has been decided that as a precautionary measure that all” 737 MAX flights “should stop until appropriate safeguards are in place. This is needed to assure the  that the aircraft involved are fully compliant with internationally recognized standards.”

Look, if nearly 350 lives were lost to terror attacks on planes in two incidents the authorities would be on this like a ton of hot bricks. But since money is involved, they stonewall.

  We essentially KNOW the FAA will act  as well if there's another crash of the MAX 8, especially with an American- based airline.  But the question for many of us is: Why wait for that to happen?   Why not act now as a precautionary response, until  all the data come in?

Well, money is the answer, of course!  It's all about the Benjamins!

See also:

https://onemileatatime.com/faa-737-max/

Excerpt:

"Modern aviation is so incredibly safe, so to see two of the same types of new planes crash so close together should be concerning, if nothing else.

But at some point doesn’t the US (and to a lesser extent, Canada) come out of this looking ridiculous? Boeing is standing behind their plane. The FAA is standing behind Boeing. American and Canadian airlines are standing behind the plane. It’s the US and Canada against the world, it seems.

Are they actually 100% certain that there’s nothing systematically wrong with the 737 MAX, including the way pilots are trained to fly it? Do they think the concerns of every other relevant aviation authority in the world are unfounded? If they even have the slightest concern about the integrity of the plane, shouldn’t they put lives ahead of profits?"

Deformed Animals Highlight Risk Of Gene Editing Technology

Deformed piglet resulted from Chinese efforts to resist viral infection. (From WSJ, Dec. 15-16, p. C3)

Crispr - let's reference - stands for "clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats" - serves as the immune system of bacteria, and has been used to fend off viral attacks.  RNA or ribonucleic acid is a molecule found in all cells.  Like DNA, RNA is a polymer, but much simpler. This is because the latter’s ribose sugar molecules are smaller than DNA’s deoxyribose sugar molecules. So there are fewer monomer units in all to make polymer chains. At the same time, while there is only one type of DNA, there are three types of RNA:

- Messenger RNA or mRNA: really a complementary copy of a DNA segment that conveys information from cell nucleus to cytoplasm. Once there it acts as a template for synthesis of a protein molecule.

- Transfer RNA or tRNA: as the name implies, it couples information in the nucleic acid base sequence to the amino acid base sequence in synthesized proteins.

- Ribosomal RNA or rRNA: forms the ribosomes of cells, from which proteins are made.

The diagram below summarizes the process:






Back in October, 2017,  we learned that scientists had created a new Crispr- based system to edit RNA instead of DNA in human cells,. This offered  a way around some of the ethical and scientific challenges to do with editing the human genome.  This was first reported in the popular press  (WSJ Technology section, Oct. 26, 2017) and referenced a paper published in Science the day before in which the research was described. The new RNA -editing system was dubbed "Repair" by the researchers (based at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard)  and was designed to correct a common mutation known to play a role in a number of diseases.

This came on the heels of  attempts by Junjiu Huang  and colleagues to use CRISPR/Cas9 to fix a gene known as HBB, which causes  the blood disorder beta-thalassemia.   The work was done on 86 very early embryos that weren't viable, in order to minimize some of the ethical concerns. Only 71 of the embryos survived, and just 28 were successfully edited. But the process also frequently created unintended mutations in the embryos' DNA. 


Subsequently, Marcy Darnovsky of the Center for Genetics and Society, a watchdog group, wrote in an email :

"This paper demonstrates the enormous safety risks that any such attempt would entail, and underlines the urgency of working to forestall other such efforts. The social dangers of creating genetically modified human beings cannot be overstated. No researcher should have the moral warrant to flout the globally widespread policy agreement against modifying the human germline,"

George Daley, a stem cell researcher at Harvard, agreed, asserting:

"Their data reinforces the wisdom of the calls for a moratorium on any clinical practice of embryo gene editing, because current methods are too inefficient and unsafe," he wrote in an email. "Further, there needs to be careful consideration not only of the safety but also of the social and ethical implications of applying this technology to alter our germ lines."   

These concerns have not been proffered without justification, as we've since learned of other misfires in the gene editing arena  - most of which concern deformed animals unexpectedly generated by the work. (cf. 'Deformities Shadow Gene-Editing Research', WSJ, Dec, 15-16)

What were some of these misfires? As reported in the WSJ piece:

- When Chinese researchers deleted a gene that limits muscle growth in mammals the creations exhibited enlarged tongues.

- Similar experiments on Chinese pigs led a number of them to develop  additional vertebrae.

- Gene-edited calves died prematurely in Brazil and New Zealand. 

- Merino sheep edited to try to generate new coat colors came out spotted like typical Pandas.

In the case of the deformed piglet highlighted in the image the Chinese scientist - Dr. Kui Li-  didn't even use CRISPR (preferred because it's more economical than older techniques) but an older editing method. That involved deleting a gene called MSTN from Chinese pigs in the embryonic stage. The edited cells were then infused into eggs, chemically fertilized in a lab an implanted into the womb of a surrogate.

The experiment did produce leaner pork (up to 12 percent leaner if both copies of the MSTN gene were deleted) but also 1 in 5 pigs that developed an extra thoracic vertebra.  According to Dr. Li, lab tests showed that the meat of the deformed animals was still safe to eat. Maybe, but I'd warrant you'd have a hard time convincing my Bajan biologist friend John Phillips of that! E.g.  

 He will not even touch any genetically modified plant-based foods especially those which include glyphosate.  John still cites a particular paragraph in the Bulletin of the Food & Water Watch, from 2016:

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

So there's no doubt he wouldn't look twice at genetically modified pork, especially coming from deformed animals.

This then goes to the other effort, conducted at Nanjing Agricultural University - to use CRISPR to edit MSTN out of rabbits to make them meatier.   The unexpected result? 14 of the 34 engineered offspring were born with enlarged tongues. Would John Phillips eat any of these?  "No way, not now or ever!"

The bizarre result led the participating scientists to warn of "abnormalities"  from gene editing in a 2016 research paper on their project as cited in the WSJ piece. As the authors wrote:

"Safety issues need to be addressed in future studies before the technology can be utilized."

To be sure, these Chinese scientists weren't worried about humans getting enlarged tongues if they ate the rabbits. But rather the potential effects from consuming meat from an animal that had been "genetically messed up" to use Mr. Phillip's parlance.  As Phillips put it in a recent email: 

"Would you eat a flying fish I produced from Crispr/Cas9 gene editing that had two heads, two stomachs, and no scales?  How about just one head, but no dorsal fin and crossed eyes? No, I didn't think so! So why eat pork from a genetically-edited  deformed pig, never mind it's just one additional vertebra?"

Still, the beat goes on, and the WSJ article reports that globally "at least a dozen gene -edited livestock projects are aiming to reach consumer markets."

There is also a very good chance we won't know exactly what the condition of the animals was (in terms of deformities)  when their meat is  offered for the markets. After all, in the piglet experiment that went awry the Chinese scientist (Dr. Li) insisted it "was safe to eat".   But what does that mean? Safe in terms of not causing kidney or liver disease, say like glyphosates in GMO foods?  What about the precautionary principle? Is that embraced? (I.e. it is the responsibility of the creators to prove their meat is safe, not for consumers to prove it isn't.)


So I guess we should just  take his word for it,  being a geneticist and all.  As for me, I believe I will stick to the non-gene edited meats,  originating from non-deformed pigs, chickens, beef etc.  - which I am sure will disappoint the Neoliberal market mavens. The same lot who assert Americans need to have many more babies, never mind they can't afford them.

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