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

HUMAN HEALTH RISKS RESULTING FROM ROUNDUP RESIDUES IN OUR FOOD AND WATER

HUMAN HEALTH RISKS RESULTING FROM ROUNDUP RESIDUES IN OUR FOOD AND WATER

The WHO-FAO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) - the arm of the WHO that determines and sets the so-called "safe" level of pesticide residues allowed on our food, water, etc. - has declared that glyphosate/Roundup 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…

Monsanto and regulatory agencies in the US (EPA), EU (EFSA) and in Canada (Health Canada) are attempting to discredit and to dismiss 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.

However, both glyphosate, Roundup and each one of its "secret" co-formulants have alarmingly been found to be endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) which are extremely toxic to human health at low 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.

Under European law, pesticides that disrupt hormones (“endocrine disrupting chemicals” or EDCs) are not allowed to be marketed. 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 researchers have recently found both glyphosate, Roundup as well as their "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, 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 paper with references: http://detoxproject.org/…/how-safe-are-safe-levels-of-roun…/

Several other studies have also found both glyphosate and Roundup to be EDCs:
http://www.endocrinedisruption.org/…/tedx-l…/chemicalsearch…

Moreover, a 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 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:

Excerpts:

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 Hazard vs Health Risk

Furthermore, the risk assessment of glyphosate/Roundup carried out by regulatory agencies is scientifically flawed for the reasons briefly explained below.

1) “The dose makes the poison”

The health hazards vs health risks assessment used by all regulatory agencies is scientifically flawed and invalid because regulators erroneously believe and argue that the “dose makes the poison.” However, toxicology peer-reviewed and published scientific 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) 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 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, 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 was based purely 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)

The WHO-FAO/JMPR and regulatory agencies worldwide determine and set the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) based exclusively on the Active Principle alone (AP) (i.e. glyphosate) and not on the product formulation (i.e. Roundup).

However, the actual product that is approved by regulatory agencies and copiously sprayed on our food crops, soil, water, air and environment is not only glyphosate (AP) but the whole product formulation (i.e. Roundup). This constitutes a flagrant flaw in the risk assessment of glyphosate/Roundup and a serious hazard to public health .

Roundup residues in food and water

Roundup residues have alarmingly been found in various common food items i.e. flour, bread, cereals, 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 truly ubiquitous in our daily food supply, as the following recent investigative articles alarmingly reveal: http://www.truth-out.org/…/35919-not-just-for-corn-and-soy-…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…/fda-tests-confirm-oatmeal_b…

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.

“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,” according to a Monsanto “pre-harvest staging guide.” https://usrtk.org/…/Monsanto-application-guide-for-preharve…

Roundup is also present in our daily drinking water supply. A 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 of course denies that glyphosate/Roundup residues in our food and water supply are dangerous to our 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…

This statement by Kimberly Hodge-Bell and Monsanto is not supported by scientific evidence and is contradicted by the science of toxicology and endocrinology, as I have argued and demonstrated in this paper.

Therefore, it is fair to conclude that both the Risk Assessment and the ADI for glyphosate based herbicides (GBH) such as Monsanto's Roundup - as well as Monsanto's Xtend which combines both glyphosate and dicamba and Dow's Enlist Duo which combines both glyphosate and 2,4-D - are scientifically flawed and extremely hazardous to both our health and our lives since they expose us to high doses of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC) and other "secret" toxic chemical formulations present in the form of high pesticide residues in our food, water, soil, air, environment and bodies which seriously endangers both our health and our lives.

Toxic Food For Thought.

Arya Vrilya
National Health Federation (NHF)
Canada Representative

‪#‎Roundup‬ ‪#‎Glyphosate‬ ‪#‎Monsanto‬ ‪#‎GMO‬ ‪#‎FAO‬ ‪#‎WHO‬ ‪#‎JMPR‬‪#‎pesticides‬ ‪#‎EPA‬ ‪#‎EFSA‬ ‪#‎HealthCanada‬ ‪#‎Dow‬ ‪#‎Syngenta‬ ‪#‎BASF‬‪#‎BAYER‬

PROJET REGIONAL SUR LA BIOSECURITE ( PRB/UEMOA): LE CHEVAL DE TROIE POUR INTRODUIRE LES OGM EN AFRIQUE DE L'OUEST

Le Projet Régional sur la Biosécurité (PRB) de l’UMEOA – financé par la Banque Mondiale - est le « cheval de Troie » des Etats-Unis et des multinationales de biotechnologies ( Monsanto, Syngenta, etc.) pour frauduleusement introduire les OGM au niveau régional en Afrique de l’Ouest.

Comme écrit Grain dans son rapport sur le PRB :

"La Banque mondiale s'apprête à assurer le financement en provenance du Fonds pour l'environnement mondial (FEM) pour deux projets qui annihileront le débat public et introduiront de force les cultures génétiquement modifiées (GM) au coeur de l'agriculture paysanne. Les deux projets, l'un en Afrique de l'Ouest et l'autre en Amérique latine, accélèreront la diffusion des cultures GM dans les systèmes de semences des agriculteurs et même dans certains centres d'origine.

HARMONISER…

Les projets sont clairement motivés par des priorités extérieures. Il y a au coeur de ces projets une stratégie poursuivie depuis longtemps par la Banque mondiale et le gouvernement des Etats-Unis pour « harmoniser » les réglementations des cultures GM dans les régions afin de passer outre les processus nationaux plus sensibles à l'opposition locale. L'idée est d'établir des réglementations favorables dans un petit nombre de pays dont les gouvernements sont ouverts aux cultures GM et ensuite d'utiliser ces réglementations comme modèle pouvant être imposé aux pays voisins par la voie des organismes de politique régionale. De cette manière, l'harmonisation évite tout débat démocratique possible et fournit aux compagnies privées un guichet unique pour leurs cultures GM.

CONTAMINER…

L'autre objectif principal du projet est de faire progresser la stratégie actuelle de contamination de l'industrie GM. Les projets faciliteront ou introduiront les essais en champs et ouvriront la voie à la commercialisation des cultures GM, plus particulièrement des cultures fondamentales pour les systèmes agricoles paysans dans les régions respectives. Le projet latino-américain cherche en particulier à faciliter le "déploiement" des cultures GM dans les centres d'origine de ces cultures. La contamination sera inévitable, et la Banque mondiale le sait certainement. En effet, les projets supposent que les cultures GM seront introduites à large échelle dans les régions. Le "renforcement des capacités" en matière de biosécurité s'entend ici comme simple gestion de la contamination qui s'ensuivra."

Source : www.grain.org/nfg/?id=417

Pire, Ce projet n’a d’autres finalités que de dégager les responsabilités des multinationales vis-à-vis des dommages et préjudices causés par les OGM en les transférant aux pays de la sous-région.

De plus, l’objectif (officiel) déclaré du PRB de l’UMEOA est « d’élaborer et de mettre en oeuvre un cadre juridique communautaire de biosécurité en vue de permettre aux Etats membres de l’UEMOA de
faire face à leurs obligations vis-à-vis du Protocole de Cartagena, sur la prévention des risques biotechnologiques, relatif à la Convention sur la Diversité Biologique ». Paradoxalement, le PRB de l'UMEOA est en réalité en violation flagrante vis-à-vis de la Convention sur la Diversité Biologique qui reconnaît le droit de souveraineté des Etats sur leurs ressources biologiques et de toute les lois internationales qui réglemente les OGM.

La Convention sur la Diversité Biologique (1992) reconnaît le droit de souveraineté des états sur leurs ressources biologiques. De ce fait, la collecte de ces ressources est subordonnée à "l’accord préalable donné en connaissance de cause" par l’état qui possède ces ressources, avec comme un des objectifs « le partage juste et équitable des bénéfices tirés de l’exploitation des ressources génétiques. »

Le Protocole de Carthagène (2003) est un accord international fondé sur le « principe de précaution », qui vise à garantir le transfert, la manutention et l’utilisation en toute sécurité des OGM issus de la biotechnologie moderne. Il place sous haute surveillance la circulation et les échanges d'OGM et prend en compte les risques pour la santé humaine et pour l'environnement.

Ce protocole instaure une procédure d’information préalable permettant à tout pays importateur de refuser une cargaison de semences ou de produits alimentaires transgéniques en invoquant le principe de précaution. (principes de précaution et de prévention : règle de décision politique en l’absence de certitudes scientifiquement établies limitant, encadrant ou empêchant certaines actions potentiellement dangereuses, sans attendre que leur danger éventuel soit scientifiquement établi de façon certaine.)

Toutes ces conventions juridiques que le Mali a ratifiées prévoient un mécanisme d’information, de sensibilisation et de participation du Public à la prise de décision. C’est dire qu’en matière de sécurité en biotechnologie, la décision ne doit être prise qu’après une large information / sensibilisation des populations sur les avantages mais aussi et surtout les risques liés à l’utilisation des produits transgéniques et que le public doit être réellement impliqué à la prise de décision, ce qui n’est évidemment pas le cas du PRB/UMEOA.

Les pays qui adhèrent à la Convention, juridiquement contraignante, sont dans l’obligation d’en appliquer les dispositions.

La loi modèle de l’union africaine sur la sécurité en biotechnologie complète le protocole de Carthagène qui a été signé par le Mali. Elle accorde une importance particulière à l’évaluation et à la gestion des risques (articles 8 et 9). Selon cette loi « Aucune décision d’importation, d’utilisation confinée de dissémination ou de mise sur le marché d’un OGM ou dérivé d’OGM ne peut être prise par l’autorité compétente sans évaluation des risques pour la santé humaine, la diversité biologique et l’environnement, notamment ses conséquences sur l’environnement socio-économique et les normes culturelles.

La loi modèle pour la protection des droits des communautés de L’UA estime que la privatisation des formes de vie à travers le régime des droits de propriété intellectuelle viole le droit fondamental à la vie et va à l’encontre du concept africain du respect de la vie (non – brevetabilité du vivant). De solides arguments éthiques justifient l’exclusion des microorganismes, végétaux ou animaux du système de brevets.

Comme écrit la COPAGEN dans son rapport en réaction au Projet Régional de Biosécurité, « Il s’agit en fait d’une stratégie pour mettre sur la touche la souveraineté de chaque pays aux fins d’exécuter le programme OGM des sociétés transnationales en leur créant des conditions favorables d ’investissement dans les semences transgéniques dans la sous –région. En effet, en vertu des dispositions de l ’UEMOA, les décisions prises dans un pays peuvent être appliquées dans les autres si cette décision est entérinée par l’institution sous-régionale. C’est le principe de la subsidiarité. » C'est-à-dire qu’une législation mise au point au niveau régional s’impose aux Etats membres.

Comme il est prescrit dans la proposition du projet : "Si l'UEMAO est en mesure d'harmoniser les législations nationales de biosécurité et plus tard de faire appliquer une décision prise par l'un des pays dans les autres pays, cela améliorera considérablement la situation des investissements dans les biotechnologies pour les cultures de rente et les cultures vivrières dans la zone de l'UEMAO… en diminuant les couts liées aux transactions". Une fois l'adoption effectuée au sein de l'UEMAO, la Banque Mondiale déclare qu'elle cherchera à augmenter progressivement le projet au beaucoup plus gros marché que représente la CEDEAO.

De plus, les différentes versions du document complet du projet n’existent qu’en anglais alors que tous les pays de l’UEMOA, sauf un (la Guinée Bissau) ont le français comme langue officielle de l’administration publique. Cela est en contradiction flagrante avec les principes de participation effective du public au débat, puisque les documents sont inaccessibles en raison de la barrière linguistique.

Ci-joint le rapport de la COPAGEN relatif au PRB de l'UEMOA:

GRAIN - Afrique Francophone, 06 BP 2083 - COTONOU, BENIN www.grain.org/semences/

Semences de la biodiversité N° 55

Septembre 2006

DECLARATION LIMINAIRE DE LA CONFERENCE RELATIVE AU PROJET DE LA BANQUE MONDIALE SUR LA BIOSECURITE

Organisée à Cotonou, le 04 Juillet 2006, par JINUKUN et COPAGEN

(La coalition pour la protection du patrimoine génétique africain)

Quelles analyses critiques faisons-nous de ce projet :

Les points suivants méritent d’être soulignés par rapport à ce projet, qui de façon subtile comme à l’accoutumée, tente de cacher des objectifs mercantiles, au détriment de l’intérêt de nos Etats et des populations :

” Ce n’est pas un hasard si le coton, qui fait l’objet de beaucoup de polémiques au niveau international, liées entre autres aux problèmes de subventions des USA et de l’Europe, de l’accès aux marchés… est le premier produit proposé actuellement dans le cadre de ce projet.

” Le problème actuel du coton en Afrique de l’Ouest n’est pas celui de la production (quantité) mais bien ceux de la transformation/valorisation et de l’accès à des prix justes et équitables au producteur. Le coton Bt (coton OGM) ne sera donc pas la solution à ces problèmes.

” Il est évident que ce projet cherche à mettre en place un cadre réglementaire favorisant l’introduction des cultures génétiquement modifiées dans la région.

” Il est choquant de constater que nulle part dans ce projet, la question fondamentale des droits des communautés locales sur leurs ressources génétiques n’est prise en compte.

” Les OGM ne peuvent pas contribuer à « l’augmentation des revenus des producteurs » comme mentionné dans le projet. Les OGM qui sont faits pour l’agriculture industrielle, éliminent non seulement les petits producteurs, mais créent une dépendance vis-à-vis des semences produites par les multinationales.

” L’objectif environnemental global cité dans le projet, à priori « séduisant », cache l’objectif inavoué de légaliser les tests (officiels et cachés) menés dans nos pays.

” Ce projet qui veut faire de nos pays « un espace attractif pour les recherches et l’utilisation des biotechnologies » n’a d’autres finalités que de dégager les responsabilités des multinationales, en cas de dommages sanitaires, environnementaux, économiques, etc. causés par les OGM.

” L’UEMOA en tant qu’institution sous-régionale, n’a pas la légitimité d’autoriser la formulation et la mise en oeuvre d’un tel projet sur la biosécurité. En effet, ceci relève de la souveraineté de chaque pays, du moment où le protocole de Carthagena et la Convention sur la Biodiversité indiquent que chaque pays doit prendre en compte ses propres spécificités et est souverain sur ses
ressources biologiques.

” La Banque Mondiale, en tant qu’institution financière ne peut se donner le droit d’imposer à nos Etats une législation sur la biosécurité, pour légitimer l’utilisation et la consommation des produits qui font l’objet de polémiques et de rejet partout dans le monde.

Quelles conclusions tirées de cette analyse ?

Il est évident que ce projet de la Banque Mondiale intitulé : « Proposed West Africa Regional Biosafety Project » ne présente aucun intérêt ni pour notre sous-région, ni pour nos pays pris individuellement, pour les raisons suivantes :

Les OGM ne sont pas une solution pour l’Afrique. Plusieurs alternatives scientifiquement maîtrisables, économiquement rentables et socialement durables existent de nos jours, en plus de toutes les ressources locales que possèdent nos pays pour se nourrir, mais aussi pour produire de la richesse.

Les problèmes majeurs de l’agriculture dans nos pays sont entre autres : la maîtrise de l’eau, la fertilité des sols dans certains pays, l’accès aux moyens de production (notamment les questions de sécurisation foncière), l’accès aux crédits à des coûts acceptables, la transformation des produits pour une plus-value, l’accès aux marchés…

Les lois sur la biosécurité ne sont pas une fin en soi. L’essentiel est de prendre en compte les préoccupations des communautés locales et de respecter leurs droits sur les ressources biologiques qu’elles ont protégées pendant des générations.

L’UEMOA doit s’occuper de sa fonction originelle qui consiste à créer les conditions favorables pour permettre aux pays membres d’accéder aux marchés intérieurs et d’accompagner les initiatives économiques internes, en priorité au profit de nos populations. Elle ne doit pas constituer un frein au développement économique de nos Etats, en prônant des politiques d’ouverture suicidaires qui mettent en péril les intérêts de la population.

La Banque Mondiale a largement contribué à déstabiliser les économies des pays de la sous-région en particulier, et de celles de toute l’Afrique en général, à travers les PAS imposés aux Etats. Tout le monde est unanime aujourd’hui pour reconnaître que les PAS ont consisté à drainer l’essentiel des revenus de nos Etats vers l’extérieur. Les OGM s’inscrivent dans cette même logique de dépossession et de dépendance de l’Afrique.

Pour toutes les raisons évoquées ci-dessus, JINUKUN et COPAGEN:

- Demandent à l’UEMOA et aux décideurs des pays membres :

L’arrêt immédiat de toutes les actions relatives à la recherche de financement et à la mise en place du projet de la Banque Mondiale intitulé « Proposed West Africa Regional Biosafety Project » ;

Le respect des systèmes de gestion communautaires des ressources génétiques et des
connaissances associées;

La résistance à toutes les formes de pressions relatives à l’introduction des OGM dans l’agriculture africaine ;

La valorisation des ressources locales et des savoirs qui y sont associés ;
La promotion (application et diffusion) des alternatives aux OGM dans l’agriculture.

- Invitent les populations et les organisations de la société civile à :

Résister à toute tentative d’introduction des OGM dans l’agriculture ;

Valoriser les ressources locales pour une meilleure création de richesses de façon durable ;

S’informer et se former pour mieux comprendre les enjeux liés aux OGM afin d’agir en
connaissance de causes.

Fait à Cotonou, le 04 juillet 2006. JINUKUN et COPAGEN

JINUKUN est un réseau d’ONG locales et nationales, d’organisations paysannes, d’organisations communautaires de base et de scientifiques de
différentes spécialités du Bénin (biologistes, généticiens, sociologues, historiens, vétérinaires, …) travaillant pour une utilisation durable de la
biodiversité au Bénin et en Afrique. Le réseau a fait de la lutte contre les OGM, et de la protection des droits des agriculteurs et des communautés
locales, ses chevaux de bataille pour que la biodiversité du Bénin et d’Afrique soit réellement contrôlée par les communautés locales.
JINUKUN travaille en partenariat avec les organisations paysannes, les ONG qui interviennent dans le domaine de l’agriculture, de la protection
de la biodiversité ou de défense des consommateurs. Il produit une plaquette de liaison, du même nom, JINUKUN. JINUKUN est membre d’un
réseau intervenant en Afrique de l’Ouest : la Coalition pour la Protection du Patrimoine Génétique Africain (COPAGEN)

La Coalition pour la protection du patrimoine génétique africain (COPAGEN), est un mouvement social et citoyen. C’est un regroupement non formel d’organisations de la société civile de l’Afrique francophone au Sud du Sahara, manifestant un intérêt pour la gestion durable et la valorisation des ressources biologiques du continent ; elle comprend comme principaux acteurs, des Organisations paysannes, des ONG, des
associations de consommateurs, des associations de développement, des syndicats, des mouvements des droits de l’homme, des organisations de jeunes, de femmes, des individus etc. Le mouvement soutient les droits collectifs des communautés locales et des agriculteurs sur le patrimoine génétique africain, et rejette le génie génétique dans l’alimentation et l’agriculture. La mission de la coalition est d’oeuvrer pour la sauvegarde du patrimoine génétique africain, et pour une utilisation durable des ressources biologiques africaines, à travers la protection des droits des communautés locales et des agriculteurs. Le message de COPAGEN est : « Oui pour une recherche scientifique indépendante qui valorise les
ressources biologiques locales et les connaissances traditionnelles et endogènes dans l’intérêt des petits agriculteurs et des consommateurs
africains, non au brevetage du vivant et aux OGM face à tous les risques avérés et potentiels actuels qui y sont attachés. »
La coalition est actuellement active dans les pays suivants : Bénin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinée Bissau, Guinée Conakry, Mali, Niger,
Sénégal et Togo