EPA (Flawed) Draft Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments for Glyphosate.

The US EPA has finally completed its (pseudo) Draft Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments for Glyphosate. Tragically but unsurprisingly, the EPA (Every Poison Allowed) concludes that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans; the EPA writes:

"The Agency’s assessment found no other meaningful risks to human health when the product is used according to the pesticide label. The Agency’s scientific findings are consistent with the conclusions of science reviews by a number of other countries as well as the 2017 National Institute of Health Agricultural Health Survey.

EPA’s human health review evaluated dietary, residential/non-occupational, aggregate, and occupational exposures. Additionally, the Agency performed an in-depth review of the glyphosate cancer database, including data from epidemiological, animal carcinogenicity, and genotoxicity studies.

The ecological risk assessment indicates that there is potential for effects on birds, mammals, and terrestrial and aquatic plants. EPA used the most current risk assessment methods, including an evaluation of the potential effects of glyphosate exposure on animals and plants. Full details on these potential effects as well as the EPA’s methods for estimating them, can be found within the ecological risk assessment."

However, Beyond Pesticides has written a damning letter to the EPA highlighting and explaining the numerous and blatant scientific flaws that plague the EPA's pseudo risk assessment of glyphosate. As Beyond Pesticides write in their concluding remarks:

" However, the EPA has taken a myopic approach to its risk assessment. As debate surrounds glyphosate’s cancer classification and overall safety, the agency fails to consider actual product formulations that present exposures to the public. People are questioning whether the Roundup products they buy at the local garden store and sprayed on their food can increase their risk of cancer. EPA’s human health assessment does NOT answer this question. 

EPA chose to ignore the wealth of evidence that show glyphosate-formulated products are more toxic then glyphosate alone. This evidence shows formulated products lead to cell death, potential endocrine disruption, liver damage, and cancer. On the contrary, EPA’s ecological assessment does find it relevant to include glyphosate formulations in assessing exposures to non-target organisms, which affirms the higher toxicity of formulated products.

We urge the agency to hasten its collaboration with the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) to evaluate glyphosate formulations and their impacts on human health. Until such assessments are completed, this human health assessment should be interpreted with caution as its findings are misleading and incomplete. Given glyphosate’s association with increased weed resistance, making it harder and more expensive for farmers to farm, habitat loss, and water contamination, uses of glyphosate must be restricted." 

NTP Research Plan

" NTP is currently pursuing glyphosate and glyphosate formulations research. Human exposure to glyphosate usually occurs in the form of glyphosate-based formulations. Few studies have made side-by-side comparisons of the toxicity of glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations using the same experimental protocols and endpoints. Also, there have been few direct comparisons of the toxicity of different glyphosate products.

Many existing studies of glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations have focused on whether they induce DNA damage (genetic toxicity) and/or oxidative stress, as both are mechanisms that contribute to carcinogenesis (Smith et al., 2016).

As part of the research plan, NTP will use in vitro and in vitro approaches to further investigate whether glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations can induce genetic toxicity and/or oxidative stress. Furthermore, NTP will use a transcriptomics (changes in gene expression) approach in vitro to examine whether any other biological perturbations are caused by the test articles. This research effort to interrogate key outcomes will aid interpretation of the existing literature on glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations. " Link: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/resul…/areas/glyphosate/index.html

Mike DeVito, acting chief of the National Toxicology Program Laboratory, told the Guardian the agency’s work is ongoing but its early findings are clear on one key point. “We see the formulations are much more toxic. The formulations were killing the cells. The glyphosate really didn’t do it,” DeVito said. A summary of the NTP work stated that glyphosate formulations decreased human cell “viability”, disrupting cell membranes. Cell viability was “significantly altered” by the formulations, it stated.

Monsanto has never tested the toxicity of its Roundup "secret" formulation

Internal emails from Monsanto reveal that Monsanto never tested the toxicity of Roundup; In a 2003 internal Monsanto email, Monsanto's lead toxicologist Donna Farmer wrote: “You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement. The testing on the formulations are not anywhere near the level of the active ingredient.” Another Monsanto internal email written in 2010 stated: “With regards to the carcinogenicity of our formulations we don’t have such testing on them directly.” And an internal Monsanto email from 2002 stated: “Glyphosate is OK but the formulated product … does the damage.” Source: https://www.theguardian.com/…/weedkiller-tests-monsanto-hea…

The EPA's final decision for the re-approval of glyphosate/Roundup/GBH in the US is due in 2019.

 The battle continues...

Arya Vrilya

OPEN LETTER TO DR. JANE PHILPOTT - (FORMER) CANADIAN MINISTER OF HEALTH - REGARDING THE FLAWED RISK ASSESSMENT AND RE-EVALUATION OF GLYPHOSATE BASED HERBICIDES (GBH) IN CANADA.

17 October, 2016

Dr. Jane Philpott
Canadian Minister of Health
Health Canada
Ottawa, Canada

Dr. Richard Aucoin
Executive Director
Pesticides Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA)
Ottawa, Canada

cc:

Justin Trudeau
Prime Minister of Canada
Ottawa, Canada

Rona Ambrose
Official Opposition Leader
(Former Canadian Minister of Health)
Ottawa, Canada

RE: Proposed Re-evaluation Decision PRVD2015-01, Glyphosate:

Dear Dr. Jane Philpott and Dr. Richard Aucoin,

I am writing to you regarding the ongoing risk assessment and re-evaluation of glyphosate by Health Canada/PMRA (Proposed Re-evaluation Decision PRVD2015-01)

I hereby wish to share with you some recently published peer reviewed scientific literature, data and evidence on the toxicity of Glyphosate Based Herbicides (GBH) residues in our food and water.
Monsanto, the industry and regulatory agencies in the US (EPA), EU (EFSA) and in Canada (Health Canada) have (erroneously) discredited and dismissed the recent WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) credible and alarming classification of glyphosate as a "probable human carcinogen” by arguing that a health hazard is not a health risk because - they erroneously argue - a health risk is based on the level of human exposure to glyphosate/Roundup.

As Health Canada writes in its own risk assessment and proposed re-evaluation decision of glyphosate:

Excerpts:

" The World Health Organization's (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) recently assigned a hazard classification for glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans". It is important to note that a hazard classification is not a health risk assessment. The level of human exposure, which determines the actual risk, was not taken into account by WHO (IARC). Pesticides are registered for use in Canada only if the level of exposure to Canadians does not cause any harmful effects, including cancer.

Only uses for which exposure is well below levels that cause no effects in animal testing are considered acceptable for registration. Toxicology studies in laboratory animals describe potential health effects from varying levels of exposure to a chemical and identify the dose at which no effects are observed. The risk assessment approach ensures that the level of exposure to humans is well below the lowest dose at which these effects occurred in animal tests."

GBH residues in our food and water

Health Canada further writes:

" Dietary risks from food and water are not of concern."

" Reference doses define levels to which an individual can be exposed over a single day (acute) or lifetime (chronic) and expect no adverse health effects. Generally, dietary exposure from food and water is acceptable if it is less than 100% of the acute reference dose or chronic reference dose (acceptable daily intake). An acceptable daily intake is an estimate of the level of daily exposure to a pesticide residue that, over a lifetime, is believed to have no significant harmful effects.

The chronic dietary exposure estimate for the general population represents 30% of the acceptable daily intake (ADI). Exposure estimates for population subgroups range from 20% of the ADI (for adults aged 50 years or older) to 70% of the ADI (for children 1-2 years old). Thus, acute and chronic dietary risks are not of concern. Food containing a pesticide residue that does not exceed the established MRL does not pose a health risk concern."
Source: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/…/…/_prvd2015-01/prvd2015-01-eng.php…

Moreover, the recently held joint WHO-FAO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) - the arm of the WHO that determines and sets the so-called "safe" level of pesticide residues allowed in our food and water - has also (erroneously) declared that glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer through pesticide residues in our food. The summary report from the JMPR is available at this link: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf?ua=1
Source: http://www.reuters.com/…/us-health-who-glyphosate-idUSKCN0Y…

GLYPHOSATE/ROUNDUP/GBH: ENDOCRINE DISRUPTING CHEMICALS (EDC) TOXIC AT LOW/MINUTE DOSES:

What both Health Canada/PMRA and the joint WHO-FAO/JMPR omit to indicate and take into account in their risk assessment and in setting the ADI for GBHs, is that both glyphosate (Active Principle), Roundup (formulation) and each one of its so-called “inert” and "secret" co-formulants have alarmingly been found to be endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) which are extremely toxic to human health at low/minute doses.

As the following paper explains:

" The endocrine disrupting effect of glyphosate and its commercial formulations (i.e. Roundup) is their most insidious and worrying toxic effect. This is because EDC's do not function like normal poisons, where a higher dose gives greater toxicity. Often, endocrine disruptive effects are seen at lower doses but not at higher doses. The studies conducted by industry for regulatory purposes use relatively high doses and are not able to detect these effects. Endocrine disruption in humans is thought to contribute to some cancers, birth defects, reproductive problems such as infertility, and developmental problems in foetuses, babies, and children.

Governments recognize the threat posed by endocrine disruption, which are believed to be implicated in serious diseases, such as cancer, reproductive and developmental problems, and birth defects. These effects are thought to result from very low doses over a long period of exposure or from exposures in critical windows of development, such as foetal development in the womb.
Source: http://detoxproject.org/glyphosate/hormone-hacking/

Alarmingly, professor Gilles-Éric Séralini and his team of prominent and eminent scientific researchers have recently found both glyphosate, Roundup as well as each one of its so-called “inert” and “secret” co-formulants to be endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC).

Excerpts:

" A new study shows that the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI), the supposedly safe level for glyphosate is unreliable in terms of assessing the risks of the complete commercial formulations that we are actually exposed to. The co-formulants were shown in the new study to have a far more powerful endocrine-disrupting effect at lower doses than the isolated active ingredient i.e. glyphosate. The complete formulations (i.e. Roundup) were also found to have much greater endocrine disrupting effects at lower doses than glyphosate alone. The research shows that the ADI should be calculated from toxicity tests on the commercial formulations as sold and used. The new study is the first ever demonstration that the endocrine disrupting effects of glyphosate based herbicides (GBH) are not only attributable to glyphosate, the declared active ingredient, but above all to the co-formulants."
Link to the study: http://www.gmoseralini.org/new-research-shows-regulatory-s…/

As the following paper further explains:

" The so-called safe levels of glyphosate exposure have never been tested directly to determine if indeed they are really safe to consume over the long term. Instead the “safe” levels are extrapolated from higher doses tested in industry studies. Industry toxicity study protocols are out of date. All toxicity tests conducted by industry for regulatory purposes are based on the old adage: “The dose makes the poison” – that is, the higher the dose, the greater the degree of toxicity. However, in some cases, low doses corresponding to human exposures can be more toxic than the higher doses tested in laboratory animals in industry studies. This is especially true for chemicals that disrupt the hormonal system (endocrine disruptors). Safe levels of these chemicals cannot be extrapolated from effects at higher doses. Evidence from in vitro and animal experiments shows that glyphosate may be an endocrine disruptor at levels permitted in tap water in the EU.

Findings that glyphosate and its commercial formulations may be endocrine disruptors imply that the standard industry long-term animal studies are inadequate. These studies are conducted on adult animals, and fail to test the effects of exposure during important windows of development, such as foetal development. Yet hormones are vital regulators of development. A subtle hormonal effect during early life can modify organ morphology and function for the rest of the life, as well as potentially leading to chronic diseases such as cancer and reproductive dysfunction in adults.

The complete glyphosate herbicide formulations as sold and used contain additives (adjuvants), which are toxic in their own right and/or increase the toxicity of glyphosate. Safety limits are set for the isolated ingredient glyphosate, but the whole formulations, which are generally more toxic, are never tested to determine long-term toxic effects. This limitation of the regulatory process applies to all pesticides in all countries worldwide. Studies in rats confirm that the complete glyphosate herbicide formulations are toxic at levels deemed safe by regulators for the isolated ingredient glyphosate. Other feeding studies in pigs and rats directly comparing the toxicity of formulations with glyphosate alone found that the formulations were far more toxic.

Even glyphosate alone may not be as safe as claimed. Industry tests on glyphosate alone revealed toxic effects, notably birth defects, below the levels that regulators claimed showed no toxic effect – but these results were ignored or dismissed by regulators in setting the supposedly safe ADI. Independent studies have found toxic effects of glyphosate and its commercial formulations at environmentally realistic levels, which have never been tested by regulators. Effects include oxidative stress on liver and kidneys and endocrine disrupting effects. These findings, taken as a whole, suggest that the levels of Roundup we are exposed to may not be safe over the long term." 
Link to the article with references: http://detoxproject.org/…/how-safe-are-safe-levels-of-roun…/

The following independent peer reviewed published studies have also found both glyphosate and Roundup to be EDCs:
http://www.endocrinedisruption.org/…/tedx-l…/chemicalsearch…

Moreover, a peer reviewed Scientific Consensus Statement recently published by a number of prominent and eminent scientists states:

Abstract:

" Our Statement of Concern considers current published literature describing glyphosate based herbicides (GBH) uses, mechanisms of action, toxicity in laboratory animals, and epidemiological studies. It also examines the derivation of current human safety standards.
We conclude that: (1) GBHs are the most heavily applied herbicide in the world and usage continues to rise; (2) Worldwide, GBHs often contaminate drinking water sources, precipitation, and air, especially in agricultural regions; (3) The half-life of glyphosate in water and soil is longer than previously recognized; (4) Glyphosate and its metabolites are widely present in the global soybean supply; (5) Human exposures to GBHs are rising; (6) Glyphosate is now authoritatively classified as a probable human carcinogen; (7) Regulatory estimates of tolerable daily intakes for glyphosate in the United States and European Union are based on outdated science." (emphasis is mine.)


" We offer a series of recommendations related to the need for new investments in epidemiological studies, biomonitoring, and toxicology studies that draw on the principles of endocrinology to determine whether the effects of GBHs are due to endocrine disrupting activities.
We suggest that common commercial formulations of GBHs should be prioritized for inclusion in government-led toxicology testing programs such as the U.S. National Toxicology Program, as well as for biomonitoring as conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

Link to the complete Scientific Consensus Statement:
http://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/…/10.1…/s12940-016-0117-0

The Endocrine Society has also recently published an alarming (2nd) Scientific Statement on the toxicity of EDC's:

" This Executive Summary to the Endocrine Society's second Scientific Statement on environmental endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) provides a synthesis of the key points of the complete statement. The full Scientific Statement represents a comprehensive review of the literature (1300 studies) on seven topics for which there is strong mechanistic, experimental, animal, and epidemiological evidence for endocrine disruption, namely: obesity and diabetes, female reproduction, male reproduction, hormone-sensitive cancers in females, prostate cancer, thyroid, and neurodevelopment and neuroendocrine systems."

"Scientific advances over the past 5 years (encompassing 1300 studies) reveal numerous EDC effects on obesity, diabetes, male and female reproduction (including cancer), the prostate and thyroid glands, and neurodevelopment. The past 5 years represent a leap forward in our understanding of EDC actions on endocrine health and disease."

Link to the complete Scientific Statement:
http://www.healthandenvironment.org/partnership_calls/18015

Glyphosate Risk Assessment: Health Hazards vs Health Risks

Furthermore, the risk assessment of GBHs carried out by Health Canada/PMRA and all regulatory agencies is scientifically flawed and outdated for the reasons briefly explained below.

1) “The dose makes the poison”

The health hazards vs health risks assessment carried out by Health Canada/PMRA and by all regulatory agencies is scientifically flawed and outdated because regulators erroneously believe the five century old adage that the “dose makes the poison.” However, recent toxicology peer-reviewed and published scientific research has shown that this outdated dogma is in many cases inaccurate and quite often the opposite is true (i.e. linear vs nonmonotonic dose-response curves) Study link:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22419778

2) Active Principle (glyphosate) vs Formulation/product (Roundup)

Regulatory agencies only review the toxicity of the Active Principle alone (i.e. glyphosate) and not the whole product formulation (i.e Roundup) which contains other highly toxic and synergistic “secret” adjuvants. However, a recent landmark peer-reviewed and published study has alarmingly found Monsanto's Roundup and other pesticide formulations to be 125-1000 times more toxic than their declared Active Principle.

The authors of the study alarmingly found and write:

“We tested the toxicity of 9 pesticides, comparing active principles and their formulations, on three human cell lines[...] Despite its relatively benign reputation, Roundup was among the most toxic herbicides and insecticides tested. Most importantly, 8 formulations out of 9 were up to one thousand times more toxic than their active principles. Our results challenge the relevance of the acceptable daily intake for pesticides because this norm is calculated from the toxicity of the active principle alone. Chronic tests on pesticides may not reflect relevant environmental exposures if only one ingredient of these mixtures is tested alone.”
Study Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3955666/

EPA and EFSA recognize the toxicity of GBH formulations

Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have publicly recognized the toxicity of glyphosate based herbicides (GBH) formulations.

In its own risk assessment of glyphosate, the EPA publicly admits and states that it evaluated only the "human carcinogenic potential for the active ingredient," not that of "glyphosate-based pesticide formulations." The EPA acknowledges that the formulations may be more toxic than glyphosate and expresses the need to evaluate the toxicity of the entire formulation i.e. Roundup.  The EPA is developing a “research plan” with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to “evaluate the role of glyphosate in product formulations and the differences in formulation toxicity.”

Similarly, EFSA's risk assessment of glyphosate was based exclusively on the toxicity of glyphosate alone, not on the complete formulation; although EFSA acknowledged that one common ingredient in glyphosate based herbicides - POE-tallowamine - is more toxic than glyphosate itself, EFSA publicly admits and writes that the carcinogenic potential of GBH formulations "should be further considered and addressed."

3) Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI)

Health Canada/PMRA and regulatory agencies worldwide determine and set the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of glyphosate/Roundup based exclusively on the Active Principle alone (AP) (i.e. glyphosate) and not on the complete product formulation (i.e. Roundup). However, the actual product that is approved by regulatory agencies and copiously sprayed in our food, soil, water, air and environment is not only glyphosate (AP) but the whole product formulation (i.e. Roundup). This constitutes a flagrant and dangerous flaw in the risk assessment of GBHs and a serious health risk to public health

ROUNDUP (GBH) RESIDUES IN OUR FOOD AND WATER

Roundup residues have alarmingly been found in various common food items i.e. flour, bread, cereals, lentils, peas, beans, potatoes, dairy, eggs, fruits, vegetables, wine, beers, etc., as well as in human urine, blood and breastmilk!
http://beyondpesticides.org/…/glyphosate-residues-found-in…/

Roundup is alarmingly ubiquitous in our daily food supply, as the following recent investigative articles and reports alarmingly reveal:

https://usrtk.org/…/CFIA_ACIA-9123346-v1-FSSD-FSSS-Glyphosa…
http://www.cbc.ca/n…/health/cfia-report-glyphosate-1.4070275
http://www.truth-out.org/…/35919-not-just-for-corn-and-soy-…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…/fda-tests-confirm-oatmeal_b…
https://s3.amazonaws.com/…/FDN_Glyphosate_FoodTesting_Repor…

In fact, Roundup is not only used on GMO crops; it is also widely used as a dessicant to dry and kill non-GMO grain crops such as wheat, oats, barley, flax, etc. a few weeks before harvest; it is also copiously sprayed on nuts, lentils, peas, beans, potatoes, fruits and vegetables.

In its “pre-harvest staging guide” Monsanto states: “A preharvest weed control application is an excellent management strategy to not only control perennial weeds, but to facilitate harvest management and get a head start on next year’s crop.”
Source: https://usrtk.org/…/Monsanto-application-guide-for-preharve…

Roundup is also present in our daily drinking water supply. The following recently published study also found ultra-low dose exposure to Roundup in drinking water to adverse impacts on rat livers and kidneys: http://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/…/10.1…/s12940-015-0056-1

Monsanto and the industry of course deny that glyphosate/Roundup residues in our food and water supply are dangerous to human health. "According to physicians and other food safety experts, the mere presence of a chemical itself is not a human health hazard. It is the amount, or dose, that matters," Monsanto senior toxicologist Kimberly Hodge-Bell said in the Monsanto blog; "trace amounts are not unsafe".
Source: http://www.reuters.com/…/us-food-agriculture-glyphosate-idU…

However, this misleading and false public statement by Kimberly Hodge-Bell and Monsanto is not supported by the peer reviewed published scientific literature, evidence and data and is contradicted by the science of toxicology and endocrinology, as I have argued and demonstrated in this paper.

Conclusion

To summarize and to conclude, Monsanto, Health Canada, regulatory agencies and the Joint WHO-FAO JMPR claim and argue that glyphosate/Roundup residues in our food and water are safe for human consumption and pose no human health risks; they erroneously believe in the five century old and outdated dogma that “the dose makes the poison.” However, recent toxicology research has shown that this belief is in many cases inaccurate and quite often the opposite is true i.e. linear vs nonmonotonic dose-response curves.

Furthermore, glyphosate, Roundup and each one of its so-called “inert” and “secret” co-formulants have been found to be endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC) which are extremely toxic to human health at low/minute doses. Endocrine disruptive effects are seen at lower doses but not at higher doses. The studies conducted by industry for regulatory purpose and approval use relatively high doses and are not able to detect these effects.

EDCs in humans are believed to contribute to some cancers, birth defects, reproductive problems such as infertility, and developmental problems in foetuses, babies, and children. These effects are thought to result from very low doses over a long period of exposure or from exposures in critical windows of development, such as foetal development in the womb.

Furthermore, Health Canada/PMRA and all regulatory agencies only review industry-funded and supplied studies on the toxicity of the Active Principle (AP) alone (i.e. glyphosate), not on the whole product formulation (i.e. Roundup) which contains other highly toxic and synergistic “secret” adjuvants. However, a recent landmark peer-reviewed published study has alarmingly found Roundup and other pesticide formulations to be 125-1000 times more toxic than their declared Active Principle.

Health Canada/PMRA sets the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of pesticide residues in our food and water based exclusively on the toxicity of glyphosate alone and not on the entire formulation i.e. Roundup. However, the actual product that is approved by Health Canada/PMRA and copiously sprayed in our food, water, soil, air and environment is not only glyphosate (AP), but the complete pesticide formulation i.e. Roundup. This constitutes a major flaw in the risk assessment of glyphosate/Roundup and all GBH formulations and a serious danger and risk to public health.

Therefore, it is fair to conclude that both the risk assessment of glyphosate/Roundup and all GBH formulations as well as the ADI set by Health Canada/PMRA are scientifically flawed and outdated and extremely toxic to human health since they expose us to extremely high doses of glyphosate based herbicides (GBHs) and endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) residues in our food and water.

I hereby ask you both Dr. Jane Philpott and Dr. Richard Aucoin to urgently and carefully read, study and take into account the above published peer reviewed scientific literature, data and evidence on the toxicity of Monsanto's Roundup and all GBHs in your ongoing risk assessment and final re-evaluation decision of glyphosate/Roundup/GBHs and to BAN all ongoing and future usage of GBHs in our food, water and environment to protect our health, our lives and our environment.

Both you Dr. Jane Philpott as Canadian Health Minister and Dr. Richard Aucoin have a public mandate and a legal obligation and responsibilty to make sure that the food we eat and the water we drink is safe for human consumption and to protect the health and the lives of all Canadians.

HEALTH CANADA FINAL RE-EVALUATION DECISION ON GLYPHOSATE

Tragically but unsurprisingly, Health Canada and Health Minister Jane Philpott have re-approved the unrestricted use of glyphosate/GBH/Roundup in Canada for another 15 years! Health Canada writes: " Following a rigorous science-based assessment, Health Canada has determined that when used according to the label, products containing glyphosate are not a concern to human health and the environment." 

Link to the Final Re-Evaluation Decision: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2017/04/statement_from_healthcanadafinalre-evaluationdecisiononglyphosat.html?wbdisable=true


With grave concern,

Arya Vrilya

HOW CHINA IS MASS POISONING BILLIONS OF PEOPLE AND THE ENVIRONMENT WITH THE PRODUCTION OF GLYPHOSATE AND THE IMPORTATION AND CONSUMPTION OF GM ROUNDUP READY SOY AND CORN

China: Largest producer and exporter of glyphosate

China is the largest producer and exporter of glyphosate, the declared active ingredient in Monsanto's infamous and highly toxic Roundup herbicide, as well as in other glyphosate based herbicides (GBHs). In 2015, China produced over 800,000 metric tons of glyphosate, which represented roughly 70% of global production. Over 80% of China's production of glyphosate is exported in six countries, with the US, Brazil and Argentina representing 55-60% of the export market. The balance is consumed locally in China.[1]

China: Largest importer & consumer of GM RR Soy and corn

China is also the largest importer and consumer of genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready (RR) soy beans, importing over 90 million metric tons of GM RR soy beans in 2015, with imports and consumption projected to exponentially increase to over 140 million metric tons by 2020-2025 (see graph below). The overwhelming vast majority of the GM RR soy beans imported into China are used for livestock feed; the rest is used for human consumption. [2]

The US, Brazil and Argentina are the three biggest producers and exporters of genetically modified Round Up Ready soybeans, accounting for over 80% of global production and 90% of global exports, with China representing 60% of their export market. The US, Brazil and Argentina are also the three largest GMO producers, accounting for 78% of global GMO production in 2016. [3]

The industrial chemical-intensive agricultural production of RR GM soy, corn, cotton and canola doused in glyphosate/Roundup and other poisonous pesticides/biocides is mass poisining both billions of humans, animals, the soil, water, the air, the environment and all web of life in South America, in the US and elsewhere around the planet, as numerous peer reviewed and published studies have documented. [4][5]

As the late prominent scientist and director of the Institute for Science in Society Dr Mae-Wan Ho wrote and warned: “The vicious circle is now complete. China gave up producing soybeans and invested heavily in producing glyphosate instead, shortly after Monsanto’s patent for glyphosate expired in 2000. Most of the glyphosate is shipped to the top GM soybean producing countries US, Brazil and Argentina, where it is sprayed on Roundup Ready soybean to be exported back to China. Excessive glyphosate spraying has sickened people & wildlife in GM soybean producing countries (not to mention millions of hectares of natural forests cut down and natural grasslands destroyed), and a billion Chinese people are poisoned with toxic soybeans. The international group of NGOs are right [1], China holds the key to world health, only China can break this vicious circle that devastate people and planet.” [6]

How Monsanto “cheated” to obtain approval of glyphosate/Roundup and of GM RR soybean and maize in China.

China’s Ministry of Agriculture has been accused of fraudulently authorizing Monsanto’s GM RR soybeans and maize that “cause systematic harm to mankind, animals, plants, microbes and the ecological environment” to enter and flood the Chinese market without carrying out proper risk assessments to make sure that GM RR soy and corn are safe for human consumption.

A petition [7] signed by more than 600 people all over China submitted to the State Council Legislative Affairs Office claims that the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture has “colluded” with Monsanto, allowing Monsanto to provide “fake samples, to carry out “false tests” and to “falsify safety conclusions” and have thus “cheated” both the Chinese government and billions of Chinese consumers, and seriously violated the State Council’s “Agricultural GMOs Safety Administration Regulation”, amounting to a “crime of endangering public security.”

“Not only has the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture ignored the harm that can be caused by glyphosate/Roundup residues in Monsanto's GM RR soybeans; it has also refused to tell the truth on how Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide obtained its pesticide registration in China in 1988, and how Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybean 40-3-2 and NK603 maize obtained their bio-safety certificate from the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture.

“It transpired that for its pesticide registration of Roundup, Monsanto “cheated” the Chinese government and the Chinese people. First, Monsanto intentionally did not inform the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture that glyphosate was patented as a chelator, which causes systematic harm to the health of the soil, microbes, crops, animals and humans.

Second, Monsanto failed to inform the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture that the US Environment Protection Agency (EPA) had in 1985 classified glyphosate as a possible carcinogen. 

Third, Monsanto did not provide reports on the long-term, lifetime and three-generation study revealing the carcinogenicity of glyphosate. And fourth, Monsanto submitted a “Roundup toxicology test report issued by Younger Laboratories on 23 December 1985”, which has all the appearances of being an “outright fraud.

As for the bio-safety certificate for glyphosate-tolerant GM soybean 40-3-2 and maize NK 603, the petition alleges that the leaders of the Ministry of Agriculture, China’s Centers for Disease Control and Monsanto “colluded internally and externally.” They used “fake samples, falsified tests, and made false safety conclusions”, writes Dr Mae-Wan Ho.

The petition includes 23 attachments containing documentary evidence bearing out its allegations of the Ministry of Agriculture’s wrongdoings, four of which are in English, the rest in Chinese. Among the attachments are collections of scientific papers published in Chinese and in English on the toxicities of glyphosate herbicides. [8]

Marked deterioration in China’s public health blamed on imports and consumption of GM RR soybeans.

Among the attachments included in the petition is a quotation from an article entitled “We must face the harm caused by imported GM soybeans to 1.3 billion Chinese people” written by Mi Zhen-yu, former Vice President of Academy of Military Science, Doctoral tutor, and Lieutenant General, and published by Science & Technology Abstracts Newspaper 25 April, 2014. [9]

The document highlights the rapid deterioration of public health in China over the past 10-20 years, correlating with the rapid increase in imports and consumption of GM RR soybeans in China [10]

• In 1996, the rate of birth defects among the newborn in China was 0.87 %; in 2000, it increased to 1.09 %; and in 2010, to 1.53%
• A survey reported by Reference News on June 2, 2013 found the rate of severe depression in people over 60 years old in China is as high as 40 %
• The Xinmin Evening News reported on 22 November 2011 that the rate of precocious puberty in Chinese girls has increased 10-fold over the past 10 years
• The first “Public Health White Paper” issued by the Beijing Municipal Government in 2010 revealed that Type II diabetes has increased 11.7 fold
• The Zhengzhou Daily News reported on 2 April 2013 that the number of children confirmed with autism has increased 100 fold during the past 20 years
• The Chengdu Daily reported on 20 February 2013 that the prevalence of childhood cancer is increasing, on average there is one cancer patient for each 10 000 children. Among juvenile cancer patients, leukaemia, brain tumour, malignant lymphoma and neuroblastoma are the top 4.
• The “2012 Chinese male sperm quality survey white paper” of the China Population Association reports that the total number of infertility patients in China already exceeded 50 million, accounting for 15.6 % of the child-bearing age population. Ten years ago in 2002, this figure was 8 %, and 20 years ago in 1992, it was 3 %, 40 years ago during the 1970s, infertility was not more than 1 %
• According to a report by the Xinhua website, the prevalance of Parkinson’s patients in China has increased more than 20-fold during the last 20 years
• Currently, the prevalance ofcardiovascular disease has exceeded 13 %; and prevalence of chronic kindney disease has reached 10 %.

These grim figures in China echo the increases in 22 chronic and lethal diseases in the US that closely parallel and correlate with the exponential rise of glyphosate/Roundup and GMO's in the US [11,12]

Similar upsurges in birth defects and cancers have also been observed in Argentina as GM RR soybean cultivation increases. [13]

Environmental and human health NGO's ask China to ban glyphosate/Roundup and GM RR soy/corn

Ten environmental health NGOs have written an Open Letter [14] to the Chinese Ambassador to the UK asking China to suspend exports of glyphosate and imports of GM RR soy/corn while independent testing is carried out.

Excerpts of the Open letter:

“We are genuinely frightened by the harm currently being done to the health of your citizens and indeed the health of people across the planet. We understand that China already is the largest producer and exporter of glyphosate in the world, including supplies exported to Monsanto for use in the manufacture of Roundup formulations worldwide.

Accordingly, we ask that your Government accepts that it shoulders, together with Monsanto, some responsibility for the devastating harm to public health in those countries importing glyphosate/Roundup from China. We are also concerned that there may be massive claims for compensation in the near future.

China is also the largest importer of 'Roundup Ready' (RR) soybeans and maize, thus contributing to the ongoing production of these varieties in the USA, Argentina and Brazil. It will be no easy thing to close down factories and to ban the use of the chemical in town and country; and if imports of RR soy and maize are stopped, they will have to be replaced with other products. But we respectfully ask you to take a global lead in this matter.

First, will you please commission appropriate scientific institutions in China to carry out independent long-term carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, endocrine developmental disruption, and multiple-generation reproduction toxicity tests on glyphosate alone, and on Roundup formulations? These studies should be carried out by institutions with no commercial or academic interest links with the glyphosate and/or related products industries, and with no connections to the earlier safety evaluation of glyphosate and/or related products.

We also believe that in China, as elsewhere, there should now be a nationwide programme of testing for glyphosate residues in surface water, underground water, animal and human urine, breast milk and blood. In parallel, we hope that you will see merit in a nationwide epidemiological investigation of the link between glyphosate/Roundup pollution (including traces contained in imported GM soybeans) and the increased incidence of malignant diseases during the past 20 years.

Second, before such studies are commissioned, we ask you as an essential precautionary measure immediately to suspend production/sales and exports of glyphosate, to suspend imports of Roundup formulations, and to suspend imports of all agriculture products (such as RR varieties) containing any glyphosate residues.

Finally, given the past frauds practised by IBT and Craven Labs in carrying out industry tests on pesticides, including glyphosate, we urge you to challenge Monsanto to place certain key reports [15] immediately into the public domain. If the corporation will not cooperate by releasing these documents without deletions or alterations, we will assume that there has been scientific malpractice and that the WHO findings of a glyphosate/cancer link are well founded.

Glyphosate should have been banned globally 35 years ago, and Roundup should never have been placed on the market. After decades of health damage, it must be in the interests of the whole world for these lethal chemicals to be taken immediately out of use before any more harm is done.

While many scientists in Europe and the Unites States share the concerns expressed above, there are many political and commercial obstacles to change. If China could take a lead in the manner which we respectfully suggest, placing the safety and good health of future generations above the commercial aspirations of multinational corporations, that would be something of truly historical importance for our planet.”

China has (tragically) decided and announced to become a global biotech/chemical superpower!

Unfortunately and tragically, the Chinese State has instead decided to embrace GMO's and pesticides and become a global leader in biotechnology. China must “boldly research and innovate, [and] dominate the high points of GMO techniques,” President Xi said in a 2013 speech. “[We] cannot let foreign companies dominate the GMO market.” [16]

To do so, ChemChina - China's State-owned chemical company- has decided to buy Syngenta – one of the largest biotech/chemical company in the world for $US 43 billion. “ChemChina has won around 82 percent support from Syngenta shareholders for its $43 billion takeover of the Swiss pesticides and seeds group, China's biggest foreign acquisition to date, the two companies said on Wednesday, 10 May 2017. [17]

Conclusion

To summarize and to conclude, China is the largest producer and exporter of glyphosate in the world, producing and supplying over 70% of the global market. China supplies glyphosate to Monsanto and the biotech/chemical industry, who in turn use it to manufacture Roundup and other toxic/poisonous glyphosate based herbicides (GBHs) which are copiously sprayed on both GM RR soybeans, corn and other GM RR crops, as well as on conventional food crops worldwide as a dessicant. Glyphosate/Roundup has been proven to cause a myriad of chronic and lethal human diseases as well as widespread environmental pollution and destruction worldwide, as numerous peer reviewed and published studies have documented.

China is also the largest importer and consumer of genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready (RR) soy beans and corn, which are used for both livestock feed as well as human consumption. The consumption of GM RR soybeans and corn doused in glyphosate/Roundup are also extremely toxic to both human and animal health. Moreover, the industrial and chemical intensive agricultural production of GM RR soy and corn is mass poisoning billions of people, animals, the soil, water, the air, the environment and all web of life in South America, in the US and elsewhere around the world where GM RR crops are grown.

Therefore, China must stop producing, exporting and supplying glyphosate to the biotech/chemical industry and stop importing and consuming GM RR soybeans and corn to protect and to save both the health and the lives of billions of Chinese and humans around the world as well as the environment globally.

Arya Vrilya

Footnotes & references

[1] http://www.i-sis.org.uk/China_to_Devastate_People_and_Planet.php

[2] Ibid

[3] Source ISAAA report http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/52/download/isaaa-brief-52-2016.pdf

[4] Banishing Glyphosate, Institute for Science and Society: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Banishing_Glyphosate.php

[5] A Roundup of Roundup® Reveals Converging Pattern of Toxicity from Farm to Clinic to Laboratory Studies, Institute for Science and Society: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Roundup_of_Roundup.php

[6] http://www.i-sis.org.uk/China_to_Devastate_People_and_Planet.php

[7] http://www.i-sis.org.uk/china_petition_and_attachments.php

8] http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Chinas_Ministry_of_Agriculture_Accused_of_Colluding_with_Monsanto.php

[9]We Must Face the harm caused by imported GM soybeans to 1.3 billion Chinese people”, Mi Zhen-yu, Science & Technology Abstracts Newspaper, 25 April 2014, http://t.cn/8skNH8S

[10] http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Chinas_Ministry_of_Agriculture_Accused_of_Colluding_with_Monsanto.php

[11]Swanson NL, Leu A, Abrahamson J and Wallet B. Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America. Journal of Organic Systems 2014, 9, 6-37.

[12]Saunders PT. Marked deterioration of public health parallels increase in GM crops and glyphosate use, US government data show. Science in Society 65

[13] (Devastating Impacts of Glyphosate Use with GMO Seeds in Argentina, Institute for Science and Society.

[14] Source: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Ten_NGOs_Ask_China_to_Stop_Producing_Glyphosate.php

[15] 'A Three-Generation Reproduction Study in Rats with Glyphosate' (Final Report; Bio/dynamics Project No. 77-2063; March 31, 1981) -- submitted by Monsanto to EPA
'Addendum to Pathology Report for a Three-Generation Reproduction Study in Rats with Glyphosate. R.D. #374; Special Report MSL-1724; July 6, 1982' EPA Registration No 524-308, Action Code 401. Accession No 247793. CASWELL#661A' -- submitted by Monsanto to EPA
'A Lifetime Feeding Study of Glyphosate (Roundup Technical) in Rats' (Report by GR Lankas and GK Hogan from Bio/dynamics for Monsanto. Project #77-2062, 1981: MRID 00093879) -- submitted by Monsanto to EPA. Including the study's 4-volume Quality Control evaluation of the Bio/dynamic assessment performed by Experimental Pathology Laboratories, Inc. (2,914 pp).
Also Addendum Report #77-2063
Knezevich, AL and Hogan, GK (1983) 'A Chronic Feeding study of Glyphosate (Roundup Technical) in Mice'. Project No 77-2061. Bio/dynamics Inc for Monsanto. Accession No #251007-251014 -- document not available but cited in EPA 1986 Memo.
Follow-up study: McConnel, R. 'A chronic feeding study of glyphosate (Roundup technical) in mice: pathology report on additional kidney sections'. Unpublished project no. 77-2061A, 1985, submitted to EPA by Bio/dynamics, Inc.

[16] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-21/china-does-an-about-face-on-gmos

[17] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syngenta-ag-m-a-chemchina-idUSKBN1860GT

Monsanto: Sordid mirror of humanity...?

We all vehemently blame and condemn Monsanto et al. for mass poisoning humanity, the environment and all web of Life on this planet to extinction. However, we conveniently omit to recognize and admit our own individual and collective responsibility in this morbid affair.

In fact, Monsanto et al. could never mass poison humanity without the willing, voluntary and active support of the overwhelming vast majority of humanity i.e. the billions of people who purchase and consume GMO's and pesticides laden so-called "food" worldwide through ignorance or worse through indifference; the corrupt politicians, scientists, scholars, farmers, traders, journalists, etc. who willingly covertly collaborate with Monsanto et al. out of greed.

In other words, Monsanto et al. are only a result and a sordid reflection of humanity's individual and collective choices and behavior; a sordid mirror of human "civilization" (never mind the oxymoron), society, choices, behavior, values, immorality and consciousness or lack thereof. Monsanto et al. would never exist in an enlightened and morally upright society.

Therefore, it is a pointless and self-defeating exercise to fight Monsanto et al. without changing our own sordid individual and collective choices, behavior, values, etc. The outer world is only a result and a mirror of our own individual and collective choices and consciousness; therefore to defeat Monsanto et al., we must fight and defeat our own sordid inner demons...

Toxic Food For Thought.

Arya Vrilya

GMO: TO EAT OR NOT TO EAT ?

The controversial, heated and unending debate about the hazards/safety of GM "foods" has not yet been resolved; of course, the industry and their minions claim that GM so-called "food" is perfectly safe for human consumption.

However, the fact is that genetically engineered food crops have never been independently tested for human consumption because they have (fraudulently) been declared to be "subtantially equivalent" to non-GM food.

Furthermore, all tests conducted by the industry for regulatory approval are conducted using laboratory rats; this is a major flaw in the risk assessment of GMOs since humans are not rats!

Secondly, all industry-sponsored and funded laboratory tests are only conducted for 3 months, which is clearly insufficient to monitor and observe both animal and human health risks associated with consumption of GM "food".

Moreover, the industry has repeatedly corrupted and falsified both the science and the laboratory data by using "historical controls" as well as feeding GMO and glyphosate/Roundup contamined feed to the control group.

Moving beyond the sterile pro vs anti-GMO debate:

What is urgently needed to test the human health safety/hazards of GM crops and genetically engineered human "food" are HUMAN FEEDING CLINICAL TRIALS i.e. feeding GM "food" vs non-GM food i.e. organic food to the control group over several years and comparing the clinical and medical data.

Note: There would be nothing unethical in human feeding clinical trials using GM "food" since the overwhelming vast majority of the human population has been eating GM "foods" for the last 20 years and are therefore used by the industry as human guinea pigs for their experiments.

The industry and their minions who repeatedly claim that GM "foods" are perfectly safe for human consumption should practice what they preach and be recruited to eat their GMO "foods" in the clinical feeding experiment.

Food For Thought.

Arya Vrilya

OPEN LETTER TO MARK LYNAS RE. YOUR DECEITFUL & FRAUDULENT PRO-GMO PROPAGANDA IN AFRICA

Back in 2011, Mark Lynas - the infamous UK "environmentalist" turned pro-GMO apologist - wrote and published an article in the UK Sunday Times titled and arguing that "to abolish hunger and malnutrition, Africa must embrace GM technology."

I responded to the claims made by Mark Lynas in a letter debunking his deceitful and fraudulent claims. Unsurprisingly, Mark Lynas has failed to respond to my letter to this day.

Meanwhile, Mark Lynas continues to publicly spew, promote and spread deceitful and fraudulent pro-GMO propaganda in Africa and in the media.

I am enclosing a copy of my letter:  https://googlegroups.com/…/Response%20to%20Mark%20Lynas%20a….