Study shows 99.6% of Germans tainted by toxic glyphosate (GMO handmaiden)

[AxionExcel]

The toxic herbicide glyphosate can enter the body through food or drinking water.

A new study shows that the majority of Germans have been contaminated by the compound.

(Glyphosate is used on over 80% of GMO crops. Scientists are finding it in beer, tampons, and a wide range of other products. It's everywhere. Although this study was done in Germany, it is highly likely Americans are being contaminated by this toxin – handmaiden to the GMO industry - at a similarly high rate).

"A worrying three-quarters of the German population have in fact been contaminated by the controversial herbicide, according to a study carried out by the Heinrich Böll Foundation.

"The report analysed glyphosate residue in urine and it concluded that 75% of the target group displayed levels that were five times higher than the legal limit of drinking water. A third of the population even showed levels that were between ten and 42 times higher than what is normally permissible.

"Glyphosate residue was recorded in 99.6% of the 2,009 people monitored by the study. The most significant values were found in children aged from zero to nine and adolescents aged 10 to 19, particularly those individuals raised on farms..."



http://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/overwhelming-majority-of-germans-contaminated-by-glyphosate/

[Act_of_Reparation]

1. Wait, wait, wait. wait...

...you mean those giant machines aren't spraying salad dressing on my GMO crops???

[AxionExcel]

2. Yup, you are right. It's toxic crap, either herbicides or pesticides

and it might well be causing the epidemic of Parkinson's (among other serious diseases).

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/parkinsons-disease-and-pesticides-whats-the-connection/

[Act_of_Reparation]

8. It is pretty awful stuff.

But if the point of the image is to make you think about what you're eating, then it is decidedly off-message. The correlation between neurotoxic pesticides and PD is observed primarily in those who work directly with these chemicals (i.e., farmers) and people living in contaminated rural areas.

Eating a salad probably isn't going to give you PD.

[Humanist_Activist]

18. Not to mention its not related to Roundup, which hasn't been...

linked to Parkinson's.

In fact, most studies attempting to link glyphosate are usually lead by a team of people who aren't botanists, biologists or doctors, but rather computer scientists.

[pnwmom]

35. Computer scientists are in a good position to do epidemiological studies. n/t

[Humanist_Activist]

36. No, no they are not, they would be great at finding patterns that fit their...

preconceived notions, and, in addition, fail to provide evidence for causation, but for, at best, correlation, and even that is in dispute.

ON EDIT: That's why they were able to link glyphosate to everything from cancer to celiac disease, to autism and Parkinson's, etc. Apparently it causes all disease or something like that, its getting ridiculous.

[pnwmom]

37. And physician researchers without a strong statistical and computer background

are missing key correlations.

Computer scientists are a key part of epidemiological teams.

http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2004/02/computational-and-mathematical-epidemiology

Methods of mathematics and computer science have become important tools in analyzing the spread and control of infectious diseases. Partnerships among computer scientists, mathematicians, epidemiologists, public health experts, and biologists are increasingly important in the defense against disease. The field of computational and mathematical epidemiology is giving rise to many new and interesting career opportunities. This article will discuss the field, relevant mathematical methods, career opportunities, and related programs at the Center for Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science (DIMACS) at Rutgers University.

[Humanist_Activist]

39. The problem is the studies fail to provide a mechanism of action...

because the people leading the study aren't biologists, so don't know what they are talking about.

Is glyphosate genotoxic? If so, how?

Is glyphosate neurotoxic? If so, how?

Demonstrate how this particular molecule can damage genes or brains, cross the blood-brain barrier, or cause whatever, and then, maybe, biologists would be interested. In addition, the correlations found are disputed themselves, and may be an example of cognitive bias.

[pnwmom]

41. Without computer scientists and epidemiologists,

biologists often won't know how to target their research.

Because of the computer scientists' work on glyphosphate and Roundup, other researchers are studying the mechanism of action, and are producing studies that are yielding important results.

For example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257596/

Abstract
Roundup is a glyphosate-based herbicide used worldwide, including on most genetically modified plants that have been designed to tolerate it. Its residues may thus enter the food chain, and glyphosate is found as a contaminant in rivers. Some agricultural workers using glyphosate have pregnancy problems, but its mechanism of action in mammals is questioned. Here we show that glyphosate is toxic to human placental JEG3 cells within 18 hr with concentrations lower than those found with agricultural use, and this effect increases with concentration and time or in the presence of Roundup adjuvants. Surprisingly, Roundup is always more toxic than its active ingredient. We tested the effects of glyphosate and Roundup at lower nontoxic concentrations on aromatase, the enzyme responsible for estrogen synthesis. The glyphosate-based herbicide disrupts aromatase activity and mRNA levels and interacts with the active site of the purified enzyme, but the effects of glyphosate are facilitated by the Roundup formulation in microsomes or in cell culture. We conclude that endocrine and toxic effects of Roundup, not just glyphosate, can be observed in mammals. We suggest that the presence of Roundup adjuvants enhances glyphosate bioavailability and/or bioaccumulation.

[Humanist_Activist]

43. So you link to Seralini, who has already been caught using poor statistical analysis in his papers..

and is an anti-GMO activist?

The study you are actually citing is one of the ones criticized for poor methodology.

[pnwmom]

44. He is considered anti-GMO because of his research. But he wasn't involved

in this research, which the EU is taking very seriously.

http://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/detection-of-glyphosate-residues-in-animals-and-humans-2161-0525.1000210.php?aid=23853%2522%253Estudy%255B/url

[Humanist_Activist]

48. That's simply not true, he's been outspoken about being Anti-GMO since at least 1997...

he's also a pro-alternative "medicine" and promotes "detox" products.

[Major Nikon]

54. Nonsense

Nobody who knows shit from beans takes anything from omicsonline seriously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMICS_Publishing_Group

[HuckleB]

45. Seralini: A True Industry Shill.

http://www.science20.com/genetic_literacy_project/the_industry_funding_behind_antigmo_activist_gilleseric_seralini-156197

[HuckleB]

46. Next we'll hear from the shill known as Benbrook.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/06/us/document-benbrook.html?_r=0

[closeupready]

58. Most consumers aren't asking for all that; they simply want labeling.

[HuckleB]

59. They've been conned by bad corporate propaganda.

Once they recognize the reality that labeling tells them nothing, how do you think people will feel?

[closeupready]

63. Well, at that point, they'll decide labels don't matter and make

purchases, going forward, using that knowledge.

[Humanist_Activist]

60. But the labels are useless at doing the thing I would assume they would want it to do...

inform customers with accurate information about the real world risks of all the ingredients in food.

[closeupready]

64. Risks? No. Pork genes in tomato products? Yes.

I think THAT is what people want to steer clear of, in many cases.

Health risks are still a concern, but a secondary one, IMO.

[Humanist_Activist]

66. See, that's the thing, saying things like "Pork genes in tomato products" just makes you sound...

ignorant.

In fact, more than that, it demonstrates that you are ignorant of biology. Do you even know what the hell "pork genes" are? Can you identify them, or what makes them pork? No, of course not, its a fucking nonsensical statement, yet here you are, more interested in putting your ideology above even the most basic of facts about genetics and biology.

So instead, you want to spread your ignorance by purposefully misrepresenting the technology and science in general, again, for ideological reasons.

Are you being honestly ignorant here or disingenuous?

[closeupready]

67. I have no time for you, sorry. You've shown

that you aren't someone who is worth getting a hide for - HuckleB is, because while he's tenacious in defending the Monsanto arguments, he also refrains from condescension. And further, there's no need for getting into it with him today.

So have fun talking in your echo chamber, because I'm done with you.

cheers!

[Humanist_Activist]

72. You literally proclaim you have a closed mind, yet I'm the one in the echo chamber?

How does that make sense?

I'm assuming you are being disingenuous. No honest person can be this willfully ignorant of biology and be proud of that fact.

[closeupready]

75. You aren't worth the hide. You really aren't. But keep trying.

You can try to be Socrates, or you can try to be Johnie Cochran. But not both.

[Humanist_Activist]

77. Not sure why you keep saying that. Not even sure why you think this warrents...

A post that would end up getting hidden. If you do have an open mind I would recommend reading some books on biology, evolution and genetics. You need to learn about the subject you so voraciously attack, otherwise your attacks become ineffectual.

[Major Nikon]

62. "Most consumers" don't even know what GMO is

[closeupready]

68. Yeah, that's likely correct. So what?

[HuckleB]

74. So a label is meaningless on a whole different level.

Sheesh.

[AZ Progressive]

3. Sociopathy is the biggest threat to the human race

If everyone cared about things, there wouldn't be this kind of madness in the world.

[Kip Humphrey]

4. Unfortunately I think, untreated, it has now devolved into psychopathy.

Research suggests that, “psychopaths are a stable proportion of any population, can be from any segment of society, may constitute a distinct taxonomical class forged by frequency-dependent natural selection, and that the muting of the social emotions is the proximate mechanism that enables psychopaths to pursue their self-centered goals without felling the pangs of guilt. Sociopaths are more the products of adverse environmental experiences that affect autonomic nervous system and neurological development that may lead to physiological responses similar to those of psychopaths. Antisocial personality disorder is a legal/clinical label that may be applied to both psychopaths and sociopaths” (Walsh & Wu, 2008).

...other differences between psychopathy and sociopathy, aside from origin, have been cited. The capacity to feel attachment and empathy towards another and to feel guilt and shame after doing something wrong is not associated with psychopathy; however it is suggested that sociopaths can emotionally attach to others, and feel badly when they hurt those individuals that they are attached to. The sociopath will still lack empathy and attachment toward the greater society and will not feel guilt in harming a stranger, or rebelling against laws, but does not lack empathy entirely, as is typical with the psychopath.

Perhaps one can argue that republicons are of the realm of the psychopathic and Democrats are of the realm of the sociopathic. I no longer argue this.

[Act_of_Reparation]

5. Sociopathy and Psychopathy are different terms for the same thing.

Sorry to ruin your metaphor.

[pbmus]

10. Read this before sputtering nonsense

http://psychologia.co/psychopath-vs-sociopath/

[AxionExcel]

81. !

[KT2000]

6. children are not smaller adults

they are still completing their maturation process that includes the mechanisms to detoxify toxins. It is criminal.

[chapdrum]

23. Yep, it's criminal all right,

but in the "real" world, it isn't.

Situations like this, and the one in Flint with drinking water, should not have the moral component routinely ignored.

Interesting how that's the case, though.

Good thing most of these overlords have religious affiliations.

[KT2000]

31. good point - when our

county point man was fighting to allow a pulp mill to keep polluting, a friend asked him if he went to church. When he said yes, she said "then shame on you."

[AxionExcel]

82. +1

[Person 2713]

7. It's not even GMO that's the thing people don't get. Hey, even the list in the OP focuses on GMO

It's on plenty of non GMO now . Plenty of reasons to avoid many GMO but if you don't want Roundup in your diet, it is beyond that list, although that is a good start

For instance avoid GMO beets most likely because you want to avoid glyphosate but did u know they are starting to use it on cane sugar?

Also one of the biggest uses is on wheat right before harvest .
http://roundup.ca/_uploads/documents/MON-Preharvest%20Staging%20Guide.pdf
Read it and weep
There are plenty of articles on glyphosate in our diet but I would never link on this site so look on your own if you don't like the guide above

[jalan48]

9. Big money in this though I would imagine.

[Archae]

11. Big money is in this, but not what you think.

The organic industry is big business.

And they got big by overcharging for their "natural" food.

[jalan48]

17. Who is this "their" in the organic industry? You mean the small farmers?

[Archae]

21. Go to your local supermarket.

Look in the dairy aisle.

Store brand milk...$2.70 a gallon.

Organic milk, (no difference in the two,) $6 a *HALF* gallon.

[AxionExcel]

25. Many mothers glad they can get milk without synthetic chemical crud in it

Please don't tell me you think they are "stupid," in the way you label the people who want clean food. Your ad hominem attacks do nothing but debase your arguments.

[Archae]

27. Milk producers can use antibiotics same way other dairy farmers do.

And most of them do.

[Major Nikon]

56. Pro-tip: Using fallacies to make false allegations of fallacies is the epitome of "stupid"

For further reading see....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

[Humanist_Activist]

24. There aren't many "small farmers" left, most food production is industrialized...

there's little difference between regular and organic farmers except in the type of fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides used. Additionally, there is more risk with some of these issues, for example, increased risk of e coli contamination using organic fertilizers than non-organic feetilizers.

[KT2000]

34. oh right -

the big money is on organic products! Not true unless you are referring to the watered down products big corp. is pushing now.
Yes it costs more to produce organic because it is on a smaller scale from growing, through transportation and marketing. Take a look at the organic process to find out how different it really is from industrialized chemical farming. One of the best operations is near my house and it is quite different than a Con-Agra site.

[blondie58]

12. I need to read the article, but I thought that

Most of the Europeans did not like
GMO crops.
I hate the stuff and the evil that Monsanto has brought to our country.

I attended a lecture a couple of years ago by Jeffrey Smith- author of Genetic Roulette.
It made me a lifelong anti-GMO convert.

[Archae]

28. Even if the lecture was free...

You got suckered.

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2014/09/1157-jeffery-smith.html

[AxionExcel]

38. Your endlessly repeated Drumphian Logic is perfect. First, throw ad hominem poo

Then call people who want to know what's in their food "STUPID."

Are you trying to earn your way to the head of the Drumph Apprentice Class? You're doing great.

[Major Nikon]

42. Using ad hominem to finger wag about ad hominem

[Person 2713]

40. Glyphosate is not just on GMO products. Wheat is a big one people overlook

http://roundup.ca/_uploads/documents/MON-Preharvest%20Staging%20Guide.pdf
See my post up thread

[Botany]

13. Thanx for reminding me that I need to buy some more round up

n/t

[pansypoo53219]

14. because plant poison should only kill plants. WEEEEEeeeeeee. better living thru chemistry! NOT!

clearly organic food is a waste of money. never mind the tumor on my leg.

[Humanist_Activist]

16. The Certified organic industry uses herbicides, many that are far more toxic than...

roundup, so not sure what the point of your post is.

[pansypoo53219]

19. that it. no more food then.

[Humanist_Activist]

22. Here's something for you to think about then, many plants produce...

their own pesticides naturally, many of which we consume regularly. So, due to you fear of chemistry, I would recommend attempting to live off sunlight, but that is far more carcinagenic than glyphosate. Not to mention the whole starving to death thing.

[avaistheone1]

26. What herbicides are those?

[Humanist_Activist]

30. Here's the big list from the government.

Includes Pesticides and I believe herbicides, I think they combine them:

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7

[knightmaar]

15. So their urine would be illegal as drinking water?

"The report analysed glyphosate residue in urine and it concluded that 75% of the target group displayed levels that were five times higher than the legal limit of drinking water."

Grammar. How does it work again?

[chapdrum]

20. Corporate rights uber alles

[valerief]

29. Probably the same percentage of Americans, too. nt

[Dont call me Shirley]

32. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!FUCKING MONSANTO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Rex]

33. How is someone zero years old?

They mean from one month old to 9 years? I don't think a person can be zero years old.

[Major Nikon]

47. More shit research

Notice how the "study" was conveniently left out of the link?

Probably because the publisher is listed on Beall's list for producing complete shit masquerading as science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMICS_Publishing_Group

[HuckleB]

49. So this is two-years-old, but being promoted as if it's new and alarming information?

Hmm.

[Major Nikon]

50. Don't worry, it's still in the news cycle over at NaturalNews®, Mercola, et al

[AxionExcel]

51. Nope. You are wrong again, as usual. It's being promoted as important information.

You can check out the scientific difference between "new" and "important" at this
scientifically approved, peer-reviewed link:

http://www.merriam-webster.com

[HuckleB]

53. So you got caught promoting something old, and unreliable, and you double down?

And claiming others are wrong when they're right is not really cool at all.

[Major Nikon]

55. Sure, promoted by NaturalNews®, Mercola, Moms Across America, et al

[Major Nikon]

61. It's not as if High Quality Junk Science comes out every day

At some point it has to be recycled in hopes that people will forget the last round of debunking.

[petronius]

69. That does not appear to be it, the 'study' described in the OP really doesn't

match the content at the link. As far as I can find, this new document isn't published anywhere--not even in a fake journal--but seems just to be described in a variety of places, perhaps all based on a press release or similar from this Heinrich Böll Foundation. (If it is publicly available, I'm guessing it's in German and buried somewhere at that foundation website)...

[HuckleB]

70. So where is the "study" in the OP published?

Even the person who posted the OP seems to think this is the " study" in question.

[petronius]

71. As I said, I have no idea where it is (if it's available at all)...

[HuckleB]

73. So it may be completely imaginary?

Hmmm.

[petronius]

76. Could be. Whatever it is, I can't find it...

[Major Nikon]

78. The article in the OP is pretty shitty

Besides being obviously one-sided and biased, it doesn't give you the name, a link, or anything else besides the author and the subject to identify the study. The author and the subject exactly matches the one provided. Even if there is another study, and I'm not convinced there is, this one tells you all you need to know about the author. Even if you ignore the fact that it's published in a predatory pay-to-play journal which is telling enough, a quick glance at the "study" shows that the author cites her own work along with twice citing widely discredited Seralini.

[petronius]

80. I agree: the research(er) is unreliable, the study you linked is gibberish, and the

article cited by the OP is deficient at best. All I'm saying is that the new study, if it exists, is not the same as the old one...

[nationalize the fed]

52. 64 other countries in the world have no problem with informing their citizens

what the hell is in the food



Green: Mandatory labeling Red:Ban on import and cultivation of GMOs 64 countries as of 10 May 2015. Source: Center for Food Safety
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/international-labeling-laws#

Obama in 2007: "We'll let folks know whether their food has been genetically modified because Americans should know what they're buying"

Sneaking things into someone's food is criminal

[Ilsa]

57. That Senate bill died, thankfully.

The bill replacing state regulation with a federal one saying the food companies don't have to say they are gmo died yesterday.

[bhikkhu]

65. I'm pro GMO

and anti glycophosphate. One with a technology with a massive potential, the other is a weed killer that's overused.

[AxionExcel]

79. Always surprising to see how many ENTITIES support toxic glorp in the human body - passionately

DU has way more hotly passionate supporters of Toxic Glorp infesting the human body than just about anywhere on the planet, outside Luisiana'a Chemical Corridor. Isn't that just the funniest thing?