Roundup the weedkiller used on GMO crops proves deadly to human cells

[gyroscope]

Here's something you won't find in the MSM.

Weed-Whacking Herbicide Proves Deadly to Human Cells
Used in gardens, farms, and parks around the world, the weed killer Roundup contains an ingredient that can suffocate human cells in a laboratory, researchers say

Scientific American
Jun 23, 2009

Used in yards, farms and parks throughout the world, Roundup has long been a top-selling weed killer. But now researchers have found that one of Roundup’s inert ingredients can kill human cells, particularly embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells.

...Last month, an environmental group petitioned Argentina’s Supreme Court, seeking a temporary ban on glyphosate use after an Argentine scientist and local activists reported a high incidence of birth defects and cancers in people living near crop-spraying areas. Scientists there also linked genetic malformations in amphibians to glysophate. In addition, last year in Sweden, a scientific team found that exposure is a risk factor for people developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

....But some inert ingredients have been found to potentially affect human health. Many amplify the effects of active ingredients by helping them penetrate clothing, protective equipment and cell membranes, or by increasing their toxicity. For example, a Croatian team recently found that an herbicide formulation containing atrazine caused DNA damage, which can lead to cancer, while atrazine alone did not.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/


-------------

I don't know which is worse. The fact that,

1) (a) GMO crops are genetically modified.... (b) ....to be resistant to the widely used Roundup weedkiller, or
2) Glyphosate the primary ingredient in Roundup is shown to be toxic to human cells,
particularly in combination with the other compounds it is mixed with in Monsanto's Roundup product.


I think the general public is only aware of the first part (1a). But not aware of (1b) and (2).
Which is why I think anti-GMO activism maybe ought to be more focused on educating the public about the last two parts because the toxic effects to humans are easier to show. And people can more readily understand that the use of these chemical compounds on foods that we consume is probably not a good idea. Would you want to eat something that has been treated with the same weedkiller people use on their lawn?

[JohnyCanuck]

1. The ghost in the GMO machine - Toxic pesticide tests in Kaua'i's GMO fields endangers children

While independent research shows that Chlorpyrifos, a Dow Chemical insecticide used in Kaua‘i's GMO fields, can cause significant harm to children nearby, Dow is intent on convincing the EPA otherwise.

-- by Paul Koberstein, Cascadia Times

Spraying the fields (Image: Klayton Kubo)The bodies and minds of children living on the Hawaiian island of Kaua‘i are being threatened by exposure to chlorpyrifos, a synthetic insecticide that is heavily sprayed on fields located near their homes and schools.

For decades, researchers have been publishing reports about children who died or were maimed after exposure to chlorpyrifos, either in the womb or after birth. While chlorpyrifos can no longer legally be used around the house or in the garden, it is still legal to use on the farm. But researchers are finding that children aren't safe when the insecticide is applied to nearby fields.

Like a ghost drifting through a child's bedroom window, the airborne insecticide can settle on children’s skin, clothes, toys, rugs, and furnishings.

In fact, it's likely that the only people who needn't worry about exposure to chlorpyrifos are adults living far from the fields in which it is sprayed. That includes civil servants who work for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which regulates the stuff, and executives with Dow Chemical, the company that manufactures it.

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/10/12615/ghost-gmo-machine

[madokie]

2. If I understand it right

GMO and selective breeding are NOT the same thing as so many try to tell us it is. GM is splicing genes from another species to get a wanted result where selective breeding is nothing like that at all. Selective breeding is how they get hybrids. Genetically Modified is gene splicing, totally different processes altogether.

[BrotherIvan]

5. Yes, for the most part

But many are arguing that what they are splicing with is harmless as well, i.e. Bt corn. The argument that GMO is in the same galaxy as hybridization and selective breeding is one big fat giant lie. They are unleashing untested crops into the ecosystem with no idea what the long term effects will be for consumers or the land.

The problem is, the whole supply line being sold for GMO is the problem. The seeds are made to resist insecticides, so the farmers douse it in toxic poisons rather than using safer methods to control pests and weeds. They plant acres and acres of the same crop (in a recent DU post they were talking about an area the size of California planted in GMO soy) which means that if there is a blight or insect or resistant weed that harms that single crop, all hell is going to break loose and the world food supply will crash.

The whole agricultural business is corrupt to the core. It is about profits for giant corporations. It is NOT about the health of the people and animals that consume the product; it is NOT about the health of the ecosystem or soil. It is bad, bad news and it is killing our flora and fauna and is all a part of climate change (deforestation, worldwide shipping of crops, contamination of water, etc.).

[blackspade]

9. Completely correct!

[madokie]

10. That is what got me with

Tyson was saying GMO was the same thing as what they've been doing for years with selective breeding. That was just not my understanding of what is going on. I'm all for selective breeding or whatever its called but genetically modifying I'm not. F* that noise

[LawDeeDah]

12. Glad to see more people are catching onto that lie.

[Chathamization]

15. That's true, GMO proponents will often argue that GMOs are the only way we can get certain strands

and then tell you that GMOs are the same as other breeding techniques. But it should be kept in mind that many selective breeding techniques used now aren't traditional techniques. Some, for example, involve dosing tons of seeds with radiation to in induce mutation, indexing them, breading them while trying to pull certain traits, dosing them with radiation again, etc. There are some results you can get from mutation breeding and not GMOs, and my understanding is that there are regulations that prevent the two techniques from being used together (at least I read a golden rice scientist complaining about how they couldn't use radiation breeding).

In general I think humans should move very slowly when they introduce new organisms into the ecosystem or new food products into our bodies. Our history Our history with these things has mostly been one of screwing up, a lot. Others argue that we shouldn’t be so careful because…actually, I don’t know. Besides going around and yelling “Science!” the GMO proponents never really explain why we have such a dire need to produce crops that can be doused with even increasing amounts of Roundup.

[madokie]

16. I had a bunch of dandelions in our yard

so last spring I purchased a gallon of ready mix round up and declared war on them. after about a week of that my throat got so sore that I couldn't hardly eat and then it dawned on me that the round up was the only thing I've done differently so I quit spraying it and in a few days my throat wasn't hurting so much. I use a homegrown mix now and it works just as good. One gallon of cleaning vinegar (6%,) 1/2 cup epson salt and 1/2 cup dawn dishwashing liquid, the blue kind. Spray it on the dandelions and it kills them without trying to kill me too. I think it works better in fact.

Organic is the way to go

[ZombieHorde]

3. I hope more scientists examine Roundup in the very near future.

Would suck if something so useful turned out to be shitty, but that would be very handy information to have.

[blkmusclmachine]

4. ,

,

[enough]

6. k&r (nt)

[JohnyCanuck]

7. Biotechnology and the Agrarian Crisis: Streams of Profit, GMO and Rivers of Poison

Biotechnology and the Agrarian Crisis: Streams of Profit, GMO and Rivers of Poison
By Colin Todhunter

SNIP

Big Agritech is based on short-termism. Its predator corporations are engaged in managing and thus profiting from the crises they themselves have conspired to produce with their destruction of traditional agriculture and local economies and their chemical inputs and genetic engineering. By its very nature, this type of agriculture is designed to stumble from one crisis to the next. And it will do so by hiding behind the banners of ‘innovation’ or ‘research and development’ as it wrecks the natural ecology and attempts to arrogantly beat nature into submission.

With each new ‘fix’, with each technology, with each new pesticide, herbicide, GM innovation, we become further removed from with (sic) nature as powerful corporate entities attempt to dominate it with some or other biotechnology that further damages both ourselves and the environment. But, it’s all good business. And once peasant economies are destroyed and remaining farmers are forced onto the treadmill of chemical inputs and GMOs, it can be difficult to get off. There’s always money to be made from a continuous state of crisis management (aka ‘innovation’ and bombarding farmers with a never-ending stream of new technologies).

Ramon J Seidler is a former Senior Scientist at the Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development. In a recent article, he writes that chemical companies that historically have produced DDT, PCBs, bovine growth hormone, Agent Orange, glyphosate products and, more recently, neonicotinoids have inserted themselves squarely into the seed crop production component of the world’s food supplies.

He argues:

“These corporations have a clear conflict of interest when it comes to reducing the numbers and concentrations of chemicals on crops, because any such reduction has an immediate impact on their financial bottom line. There is also a clear conflict of interest when it comes to altering farm management to avoid insect and weed resistance if it results in using fewer chemicals. As University of Nebraska entomologist Lance Meinke says, “economics are driving everything.”

[3]

http://www.cjournal.info/2014/09/28/biotechnology-and-the-agrarian-crisis-streams-of-profit-gmo-and-rivers-of-poison/

[bananas]

8. There's also (3) GMOs Could Destroy the Global Ecosystem

Risk Expert Nassim Taleb: GMOs Could Destroy the Global Ecosystem
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101689073

"So, finally, after our Precautionary paper, a GMO lobbyist seems to be after us" - Taleb
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016100087

[JohnyCanuck]

11. The GMO Biotech Lobby’s Emotional Blackmail and Bogus Claims: Monsanto’s Genetically Modified Crops

The GMO Biotech Lobby’s Emotional Blackmail and Bogus Claims: Monsanto’s Genetically Modified Crops Will Not Feed The World
by Colin Todhunter

SNIP

Proponents of GM crops claim that we need such technology to address hunger and to feed a growing global population. We are told by the GM biotech sector that GM crops are essential, are better for the environment and will provide the tools that farmers need in a time of climate chaos. It claims that GM crops provide higher yields and higher incomes for farmers around the world.

The Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN) has just released a fully referenced report [4] that dissects each of these claims and dismisses them one by one. Readers are urged to consult the full report, but its main findings are presented below.

Hunger is caused by poverty and inequality. People are generally hungry not because of insufficient agricultural production but because they do not have money to buy food, access to land to grow food or because of complex problems like food spoilage, poor food distribution systems and a lack of reliable water and infrastructure for irrigation, storage, transport and financing.

If these deeper problems are not addressed and as long as food is not reaching those who are hungry and poor, increased agricultural production will not help reduce food insecurity.

http://ahaadotme.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/the-gmo-biotech-lobbys-emotional-blackmail-and-bogus-claims-monsantos-genetically-modified-crops-will-not-feed-the-world/

The CBAN report mentioned in the excerpt above is available here:
http://www.cban.ca/Resources/Topics/Feeding-the-World

[Jim Beard]

13. Just a guess

but the increased use of Round UP correlates with the increases in Autism. I was shocked when I saw a multitude of empty 50 gallon barrels of Roundup at farm supply stores and spray companies.

[Jim Beard]

14. We had

a lot of Round Up resistant weeds this year. Maybe Monsanto can blame the environmentalist for its demise???????????? They know it is no longer killing all the weeds so they can start blaming someone else.