Kidney, Liver Damage Linked to Chronic, Low-Dose Glyphosphate Exposure

[flamingdem]

(Beyond Pesticides, September 1, 2015) A research study published in the journal Environmental Health links chronic, ultra-low dose exposure to glyphosate in drinking water to adverse impacts on the health of liver and kidneys. The study, Transcriptome profile analysis reflects rat liver and kidney damage following chronic ultra-low dose Roundup exposure, is the latest in a string of data showing unacceptable risks resulting from exposure to glyphosate and products formulated with the chemical, like Monsanto’s Roundup.



Researchers conducted the study by exposing rats to minute (0.1 parts per billion) doses of Roundup in drinking water for a period of 2 years. After noting tissue damage and biochemical changes in the blood and urine of exposed animals that was indicative of organ damage, the authors attempted to confirm their findings by analyzing changes in gene expression within liver and kidneys. Of 4,447 gene transcript clusters analyzed by scientists, 4,224 showed some alteration. Compared to non-exposed rats, “[t]here were more than 4,000 genes in the liver and kidneys whose levels of expression had changed,” said Michael Antoniou, PhD, senior author of the study to Environmental Health News.

Authors indicate that the changes in gene expression observed in the study are associated with the type of organ damage observed in the rats. “The findings of our study are very worrying as they confirm that a very low level of consumption of Roundup weedkiller over the long term can result in liver and kidney damage. Our results also suggest that regulators should re-consider the safety evaluation of glyphosate-based herbicides,” said Dr. Antoniou.

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2015/09/kidney-liver-damage-linked-to-chronic-low-dose-glyphosate-exposure/

[AtheistCrusader]

1. Someone made a mistake.

One tenth of one part per billion is effectively non-existent.

Ah, open access journal. Can anyone see the peers that reviewed it? Study won't load for me.

Edit; loads now. I don't see a single reviewer does anyone else?

[Eko]

3. Ha!

One tenth of one part per billion! Even Arsenic would do absolutely nothing there. Here is some context "An even smaller concentra-
tion measurement is parts per billion (ppb). One ppb is one part in 1 billion. One drop of ink in one of the largest tanker trucks used to haul gasoline would be an ink concentration of 1 ppb". Either they made a typo or they are hilariously wrong., I'm would bet the latter.

[bananas]

6. .023 ppb crude oil spill affects fish

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-exxon-valdez-spill-is-still-making-fish-suffer-26-years-later

The Exxon Valdez Spill Is Still Making Fish Suffer 26 Years Later

Written by Becky Ferreira
September 8, 2015 // 04:00 AM EST

<snip>

Now, 26 years later, scientists have found that the spill was even more ecologically catastrophic than originally predicted. In a study published this morning in Scientific Reports, researchers led by NOAA toxicologist John Incardona show that even very low levels of oil contamination can disrupt normal development in salmon and herring.

Incardona and his colleagues exposed Alaskan-sourced salmon and herring embryos to varying degrees of crude oil contamination, ranging from a low dose of .023 parts per billion (ppb) to a high dose of 45 ppb. In the months after the fish hatched, the team observed a sliding scale of growth problems and heart defects in them, proportional to the oil exposure level.

This is because oil literally gets under the skin of these developing fish through absorption during the pivotal embryonic stage. Even the lowest doses prevented a healthy population from emerging. Given that there are still about 21,000 gallons of oil dispersed throughout Alaska’s Prince William Sound—and lingering contamination hundreds of miles beyond it—it’s no wonder that salmon and herring populations have not significantly recovered.

"These juvenile fish on the outside look completely normal, but their hearts are not functioning properly and that translates directly into reduced swimming ability and reduced survival," said Incardona in a statement. "In terms of impacts to shore-spawning fish, the oil spill likely had a much bigger footprint than anyone realized."

<snip>

[Eko]

7. I think you missed a part.

"Incardona and his colleagues exposed Alaskan-sourced salmon and herring embryos to varying degrees of crude oil contamination, ranging from a low dose of .023 parts per billion (ppb) to a high dose of 45 ppb." High dose of 45ppb.

[bananas]

10. "Even the lowest doses prevented a healthy population from emerging."

You missed a part.

[Eko]

11. I saw that part.

I even went to the original study to see what they meant by that phrase. Here is the link to the original study http://www.nature.com/articles/srep13499 (I wish people would post this along with the article they have posted) and here is the supplemental graphs http://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/srep/2015/150904/srep13499/extref/srep13499-s1.pdf If you go to page 9 of the supplemental graph it shows 0% pericardial edema at the lowest dose among salmon and 1.2 ± 1.2 among herring. It also shows 1% for yolk sac edema among salmon and 0% among herring at the lowest dose. For hemorrhage it was 0 for both types of fish at the lowest dose. That is statistically 0 for all those. Page 5 and 6 in the supplemental is where they seem to come up with the healthy population part. You notice that there is very little change in the control and the lowest dose, there is some but it is very little. Page 8 was the most interesting, the lowest dose showed an increased length of the salmon ventricles but a shortened width compared to the control. That is pretty damming to my position so I will accede that very low doses introduced to a species while in the yolk for a long duration can affect the outcome of a healthy position. As for the original post I will investigate it more.

[Eko]

9. We are also talking about an animal

that is constantly in that environment. We are not swimming in Glyphosphate 24-7.

[bananas]

4. Two reviewers

http://www.ehjournal.net/content/14/1/70/prepub

[NuclearDem]

12. Dr. Greenback of the Ka-Ching Institute.

This is just the nonsense Seralini paper being republished in a pay-to-play journal.

[SunSeeker]

2. They market this shit for dads to spray on driveways.

Where their kids play.

[Eko]

5. Very misleading.

From the study "Roundup-treated female rats showed 3 times more anatomical signs of pathology (15 in 8 rats) than the control group (6 in 4 rats)." First of all, that is not 3 times, not even close. We would have to extrapolate because they didnt use the same numbers of subjects (bad science) so it would turn out to be 15-8 and 12-4 or 53% and 33%, how is that 3 times? And from one of the reviews "7. Pg 14, “Our analysis also indicates the presence of cell growth.” I may have missed something, but what do the authors mean by “cell growth”? And which data do they think are consistent with growth? I would caution the authors against extrapolating from “proliferation-related” gene expression to actually showing effects on proliferation. Similarly, the discussion section on proliferation vs apoptosis seems unnecessary, as I do not see the data to support a discussion of these cell-based phenomena when they haven’t actually been demonstrated. http://www.ehjournal.net/imedia/1372605922176586_comment.pdf

[pinboy3niner]

8. I have a better idea of what my liver damage is linked to

And I'll ioast to that!