The TPP of the Iceberg   About Glyphosate
Trevor James says Roundup has no affect on animals. Monsanto's Roundup Triggers Over 40 Plant Diseases
Dr Frank Rowson & professor Don Huber disagee with Trevor James.   Glyphosate toxicity to humans
Field investigations find glyphosate in urine of Danish dairy cows  Glyphosate Feeds Breast Cancer Cell Growth
 Glyphosate Found in Groundwater Samples   The real cost of GM animal feed
 Dow ... welcome back 2,4-D and Agent Orange

 

The TPP of the Iceberg

  • Doctors Without Borders critical of TPP express concern of the havoc on the health of millions worldwide by enforcing patent protections that would eliminate the generic drugs that are used to save the lives of millions. PEPFAR, UNITAID, The Global Fund for AIDS, all rely on generic drugs to continue the life-saving work they perform worldwide. 80% of the antiretroviral drugs used in developing countries for the treatment of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and many other diseases are produced generically in India.
  • Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases including but not limited to:

     Cancer, (feeds breast cancer cell growth)  Thrombosis
     Liver diseases, Crohn's disease  Haemorrhaging
     Permanent Human DNA damage causing hereditary disease  Abnormal blood clotting
     Developmental malformations and infertility  Vitamin D3 deficiency (a cause of dental decay)
     Miscarriage and pre-term births  Obesity, Diabetes
     Cardiovascular / heart disease  Cachexia (muscle wasting)
     Autism, ADHD, ADD  Gastrointestinal and Digestive issues
     Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Multiple sclerosis  Inflammatory bowel disease and Leaky gut syndrome
     Schizophrenia, Dementia, Depression  Sleep disorders
  • Glyphosate Found in Groundwater Samples
  • These and more will be permanently enshrined by international contract law and
    into New Zealand Law and therefore our Lives if Trans-Pacific Partnership goes ahead.


    12 Charts Show Connection Between Roundup and Disease

    Roundup is found in 75% of air and water samples. Most American Farmers drench crops with Roundup right before harvest.

    Monsanto claims that Roundup is totally safe, and can be used like water. Is it true?

    A study from the Journal of Organic Systems includes the following 12 charts which show the correlation between Roundup (technically known as “glyphosate”) and disease:


    Latest News from The New York Times and WHO ... 20/03/2015.

     

    W.H.O. Report Links Ingredient in Roundup to Cancer

    By REUTERS MARCH 20, 2015

    The world’s most widely-used weed killer can “probably” cause cancer, the World Health Organization said on Friday.

    The organization’s cancer arm, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, said glyphosate, the active ingredient in the Monsanto herbicide Roundup, was “classified as probably carcinogenic to humans.” It also said there was “limited evidence” that glyphosate was carcinogenic in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

    Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company, said scientific data did not support the conclusions and called on the group to hold a meeting to explain the findings.

    “We don’t know how IARC could reach a conclusion that is such a dramatic departure from the conclusion reached by all regulatory agencies around the globe,” Philip Miller, Monsanto’s vice-president for global regulatory affairs, said in a statement. ... maybe Philip Miller should try here ... http://www.pesticide.org/get-the-facts/pesticide-factsheets/factsheets/glyphosate

    The U.S. government says glyphosate is considered safe. It is mainly used on crops like corn and soybeans that are genetically modified to survive it.

    Glyphosate has been detected in food, water and in the air after it has been sprayed, according to the report. But its use is generally low in and near homes where people would face the greatest risk of exposure.

    The evidence for the W.H.O.’s conclusion was from studies of exposure, mostly agricultural, in the United States, Canada, and Sweden that were published since 2001.

     


    Monsanto, the TPP and Global Food Dominance

    Global food control has nearly been achieved, by reducing seed diversity with GMO (genetically modified) seeds that are distributed by only a few transnational corporations. But this agenda has been implemented at grave cost to our health; and if the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) passes, control over not just our food but our health, our environment and our financial system will be in the hands of transnational corporations.

    Roundup’s Insidious Effects

    Roundup-resistant crops escape being killed by glyphosate, but they do not avoid absorbing it into their tissues. Herbicide-tolerant crops have substantially higher levels of herbicide residues
    than other crops. In fact, many countries have had to increase their legally allowable levels by up to 50 times in order to accommodate the introduction of GM crops.
    In the European Union, residues in food are set to rise 100-150 times if a new proposal by Monsanto is approved. Meanwhile, herbicide-tolerant “super-weeds” have adapted to the chemical, requiring even more toxic doses and new toxic chemicals to kill the plant.

    Human enzymes are affected by glyphosate just as plant enzymes are: the chemical blocks the uptake of manganese and other essential minerals. Without those minerals, we cannot properly
    metabolize our food. That helps explain the rampant epidemic of obesity. People eat and eat in an attempt to acquire the nutrients that are simply not available in their food.

    According to researchers Samsell and Seneff in Biosemiotic Entropy: Disorder, Disease, and Mortality (April 2013):

    Glyphosate’s inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes is an overlooked component of its toxicity to mammals. CYP enzymes play crucial roles in biology . . . . Negative impact on the
    body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body. Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a
    Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.

    More than 40 diseases have been linked to glyphosate use, and more keep appearing. In September 2013, the National University of Rio Cuarto, Argentina, published research finding that
    glyphosate enhances the growth of fungi that produce aflatoxin B1, one of the most carcinogenic of substances. A doctor from Chaco, Argentina, told Associated Press, “We’ve gone from a
    pretty healthy population to one with a high rate of cancer, birth defects and illnesses seldom seen before.” Fungi growths have increased significantly in US corn crops.

    Glyphosate has also done serious damage to the environment. According to an October 2012 report by the Institute of Science in Society:

    Agribusiness claims that glyphosate and glyphosate-tolerant crops will improve crop yields, increase farmers’ profits and benefit the environment by reducing pesticide use. Exactly the opposite is the case. . . . The evidence indicates that glyphosate herbicides and glyphosate-tolerant crops have had wide-ranging detrimental effects, including glyphosate resistant super weeds, virulent plant and new livestock pathogens, reduced crop health and yield, harm to off-target species from insects to amphibians and livestock, as well as reduced soil fertility.

    In the ground-breaking 2007 book Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, William Engdahl states that global food control and depopulation became US strategic policy under Rockefeller protégé Henry Kissinger.
    Along with oil geopolitics, they were to be the new “solution” to the threats to US global power and continued US access to cheap raw materials from the developing world. In line with that agenda, the government has shown extreme partisanship in favour of the biotech agribusiness industry, opting for a system in which the industry “voluntarily” polices itself.
    Bio-engineered foods are treated as “natural food additives,” not needing any special testing.

    Jeffrey M. Smith, Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, confirms that US Food and Drug Administration policy allows biotech companies to determine if their own foods are safe. Submission of data is completely voluntary.
    He concludes:
    In the critical arena of food safety research, the biotech industry is without accountability, standards, or peer-review. They’ve got bad science down to a science.

    Whether or not depopulation is an intentional part of the agenda,widespread use of GMO and glyphosate is having that result.
    The endocrine-disrupting properties of glyphosate have been linked to infertility, miscarriage, birth defects and arrested sexual development.
    In Russian experiments, animals fed GM soy were sterile by the third generation.
    Vast amounts of farmland soil are also being systematically ruined by the killing of beneficial microorganisms that allow plant roots to uptake soil nutrients.

    The TPP and International Corporate Control

    The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) has the potential to become the biggest regional Free Trade Agreement in history. . . .

    The chief agricultural negotiator for the US is the former Monsanto lobbyist, Islam Siddique. If ratified the TPP would impose punishing regulations that give multinational corporations
    unprecedented right to demand taxpayer compensation for policies that corporations deem a barrier to their profits.

    They are carefully crafting the TPP to insure that citizens of the involved countries have no control over food safety, what they will be eating, where it is grown, the conditions under which food is grown and the use of herbicides and pesticides.

    Food safety is only one of many rights and protections liable to fall to this super-weapon of international corporate control. In an April 2013 interview on The Real News Network, Kevin
    Zeese called the TPP “NAFTA on steroids” and “a global corporate coup.” He warned:

    No matter what issue you care about whether its wages, jobs, protecting the environment . . . this issue is going to adversely affect it . . . .

    If a country takes a step to try to regulate the financial industry or set up a public bank to represent the public interest, it can be sued . . . .

    Return to Nature: Not Too Late

    There is a safer, saner, more earth-friendly way to feed nations. While Monsanto and US regulators are forcing GM crops on American families, Russian families are showing what can be done with permaculture methods on simple garden plots.

    In 2011, 40% of Russia’s food was grown on dachas (cottage gardens or allotments).
    Dacha gardens produced over 80% of the country’s fruit and berries, over 66% of the vegetables, almost 80% of the potatoes and nearly 50% of the nation’s milk, much of it consumed raw. According to Vladimir Megre, author of the best-selling Ringing Cedars Series:

    Essentially, what Russian gardeners do is demonstrate that gardeners can feed the world – and you do not need any GMOs, industrial farms, or any other technological gimmicks to guarantee everybody’s got enough food to eat.

    Bear in mind that Russia only has 110 days of growing season per year – so in the US, for example, gardeners’ output could be substantially greater. Today, however, the area taken up by lawns in the US is two times greater than that of Russia’s gardens – and it produces nothing but a multi-billion-dollar lawn care industry.

    In the US, only about 0.6 percent of the total agricultural area is devoted to organic farming.
    This area needs to be vastly expanded if we are to avoid “the sixth mass extinction.” But first, we
    need to urge our representatives to stop Fast Track, vote no on the TPP, and pursue a global phase out of glyphosate based herbicides and GMO foods.
    Our health, our finances and our environment are at stake.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-the-tpp-and-global-food-dominance/5359491


    How TPP resembles NAFTA, and why both create some of the largest health and human rights emergencies of our time
    December 3, 2013

    Today we say, enough is enough! We have been denied the most elemental preparation so they can use us as cannon fodder and pillage the wealth of our country. They don't care that we have nothing,
    absolutely nothing, not even a roof over our heads, no land, no work, no health care, no food nor
    education. (1)

    This First Declaration of the Lacandona Jungle, published in Chiapas, Mexico by the Zapatista (EZLN) anti-neoliberal movement in 1993 sparked the Mexican Revolution of the 20th century, and was in part a response to the signing of NAFTA by the Mexican government.
    NAFTA, or the North American Free Trade Agreement was and still is a controversial trade partnership between the United States, Canada and Mexico and was quickly followed by mass exoduses of newly further-impoverished Mexican farmers from the primary farming epicentres of their nation, Chiapas, Guerrero, Oaxaca, Puebla, and into our own (2).

    In short, NAFTA severely eliminated Mexican tariffs on foreign crop prices (among other goods), rendering small-scale and local Mexican farmers unable to compete even within their own home town prices paid to Mexican corn farmers fell 66% overnight and after 3 years of NAFTA
    implementation the percent of rural Mexicans who did not have enough money for food rose from 36% to 50% (3).
    With American farming products streamlining into the Mexican nation at subsidy and NAFTA infused prices via the U.S. Congress, we had rendered the Mexican farmer jobless overnight and
    a migrant worker without papers soon after.

    Today however, enough may not be enough for the Office of the United States Trade Representative, while a 2010 report by the Monterrey Institute of Technology in Mexico estimates that 50 million, or close to 46% of Mexicans live in poverty, we may be striving to out-do ourselves (4).

    Our governments newest and largest version of NAFTA is a currently proposed trade agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. TPP could potentially encompass up to 21 countries (12), many of which also struggle with poverty, such as Vietnam, where over half of the population lives on less than 2$ a day, and Peru where 35% of the population lives in poverty (5,6).

    If you don't know what TPP is, you are not alone; the entire process to negotiate the treaty has kept the global public in the dark, and was only recently leaked in November on WikiLeaks as the
    Secret TPP Agreement.

    It might also be worth noting that the secrecy of the U.S. government surrounding TPP is greater than any other trade agreement in the past; even President Bush's FTAA, discussed below, had
    published the entire text of the document on the U.S. governmental website (13).
    The secrecy is alarming considering the magnitude of the deal; TPP is the largest trade agreement in existance since the formation of the World Trade Organization in 1995, and encompasses 40% of world trade between over 800 million people (13).

    Revelations of the WikiLeaks confidential document among activists characterized TPP as NAFTA on steroids (7), and was labelled by one journalist as Christmas wish-list for major corporations. Hollywood, the music industry, big IT companies such as Microsoft and the pharmaceutical sector would all be very happy with this (8).

    Equally critical of TPP is Doctors Without Borders (MSF), which recently sent President Obama an open letter to express their serious concern of the treaty poised to wreck havoc on the health of millions worldwide by enforcing stricter patent protections that would eliminate the generic drugs that are used to save the lives of millions.
    Within their letter MSF writes that 80% of the antiretroviral drugs used in developing countries are produced generically in India.

    MSF also cites that the cost of the antiretroviral drug treatment needed for HIV/AIDS, as well as tuberculosis, malaria and many other diseases, has been reduced by 99% due to the competition created by generic drug companies and has lowered the per person cost yearly drug cost to under 140 USD for one HIV/AIDS patient. Our largest international aid organiations, including PEPFAR, UNITAID, and The Global Fund for AIDS, all rely on generic drugs to continue the life-saving work they perform worldwide.

    The MSF slogan against TPP asks the U.S. Trade Representative, Stan McCoy to stop trading away health, however its proposed legislation would move far beyond just the realm of international trade.
    Only 5 of the 29 chapters of the TPP document involve trade, whereas the rest of the 24 chapters cover other provisions that Loris Wallach, a journalist covering TPP summarized by saying there is almost no part of your life that TPP couldn't undermine (13).

    Wallach characterized the other 24 chapters of TPP as either handcuffing our domestic governments, limiting food safety, environmental standards, financial regulation, energy and climate policy, or establishing new powers for corporations.

    Furthermore, the regulations invoke a copyright portion that would allow a part of SOPA, previously struck down in Congress after public outrage, to be incorporated into TPP, thereby prompting some activists to label TPP as the son of SOPA (13).

    While a full list of TPP ramifications can be found online at ExposeTheTPP.org, a few of the ways that TPP proposes to undermine global health and human rights also include:

    Giving pharmaceutical companies the right to sue national governments that enact policies that hurt profits of drug companies, known as exta-judicial investor state tribunals, where the judges on the investor-state tribunals are corporate attorneys, and give unlimited cash damages to corporations; these damages are paid by the taxpayers (13).
    Expanding pharmaceutical patent protections, thereby eliminating the generic drug competition, (known as parrallel importations), that MSF and other global health organizations report is necessary to give access to life-saving treatment.

    As medical students at Boston University in varying stages in our training, we join health organizations like MSF, labor unions such as AFL-CIO, and countless other adovcates in asking
    President Obama and other global leaders to reject the deal proposed by the TPP.
    There is a strong precedent for advocacy that has been able to stop behind-closed-doors agreements that support the 1% of our world.

    The FTAA, or Free Trade Area of the Americas was proposed again by President Bush in 2003 as a mega-expansion of NAFTA between 34 countries in the Americas yet failed to pass the last negotiation stages; Latin America's Bolivarian Alliance, or anti-neoliberal political climate and public backlash was able to defeat the partnership.

    Then-president of Venezula, Hugo Chavez, had called the FTAA a tool of imperialism during the height of negotiations (10) and the legislation received public dissent similar to that rising against TPP.
    Other restrictionary legal acts such as SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act that poised to eliminate internet sharing freedoms by strengthening copyright laws, was also defeated with public outcry, including a Wikipedia 24-hour blackout in 2012.

    Past advocacy shows that it is possible to stop these devastating laws that threaten the health and livelihoods of millions, but only through a concerted public outcry. We ask you to step forward and
    help join us in spreading the word about TPP and its potentially devastating effects. Upon signing of the NAFTA treaty in 1993, the Zapatistas acknowledged that this was a message from the global
    neoliberal community that they don't care that we have nothing. Use any medium and action you can to show that we are different, that we stand in solidarity with health and human rights globally,
    and that we deeply care. The Occupy movement has written that, if people knew the contents [of TPP], it could not pass (11).
    Let us make sure everyone knows; we couldn't stop NAFTA over two decades ago, but that doesn't mean we will let an agreement even larger pass today. Enough is enough!

    Megan Weinand, written on behalf of a Global Health Advocacy student action-group at Boston University School of Medicine contact: megan.weinand@fulbrightmail.org

    References:

    El Despertador Mexicano, the newspaper of EZLN. January 1st, 1993. Accessed from: Latin American Network Information Center. Zapatistas! Documents of the New Mexican Revolution. University of Texas.http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/Zapatistas/chapter01.html

    Passel, Jeffrey S. The Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population in the
    U.S. Pew Hispanic Center, Research Report March 7th 2006. http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/61.pdf

    Public Citizen. NAFTA's Legacy for Mexico: Economic Displacement, Lower Wages for Most,
    Increased Immigration. http://www.citizen.org/documents/ImpactsonMexicoMemoOnePager.pdf

    Cohen, Luc. Meico povert rate eased to 45.5 percent: development agency. Reuters. July 29
    2013.http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/29/us-mexico-poverty-idUSBRE96S0PZ20130729

    World Bank. World Development Indicators. July 9 2012. http://databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspx

    United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. Panorama social de
    América Latina. 2010.
    http://www.cepal.cl/publicaciones/xml/9/41799/PSE-panoramasocial2010.pdf

    Wallach, Lori. NAFTA on Steroids. The Nation. July 16th, 2012.
    http://www.thenation.com/article/168627/nafta-steroids

    Doring, Phillip. Trade deal could be bitter medicine. The Sydney Morning Herald. November 14,
    2013. http://www.thenation.com/article/168627/nafta-steroids

    Doctors Without Borders. An Open Letter to President Obama; TPP July 15, 2013. http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/publications/letters/2013/130715_TPP Open Letter_USA.pdf

    Rivera, Estevan. Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America. ALBA. April 1 2011.
    http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/int-bapa.html

    Zeese, Kevin and Flowers, Margaret. Trash the TPP: Why it's time to revolt against the worst
    trade agreement in history.
    http://www.occupy.com/article/trash-tpp-why-its-time-revolt-against-worst-trade-agreement-history

    MSF. Trading Away Health.
    http://www.msfaccess.org/spotlight-on/trans-pacific-partnership-agreement

    Democracy Now. Obama Pushes Secretive TPP Trade Pact, Would Rewrite Swath of US. Laws.

    http://www.msfaccess.org/spotlight-on/trans-pacific-partnership-agreement


    Tests show milk clear of Roundup used for silage

    The dairy industry has checked out the use of glyphosate to increase silage metabolisable energy and found it does not turn up as residue in milk.

    AgResearch expert Trevor James says the herbicide, commonly known as Roundup, has no affect on animals.

    (IC: if glyphosate has no effect on animals would Trevor James like to show us he and his family eating some lovely vegetables freshly sprayed with Roundup / Glyphosate? ... or not!! Come on Trevor Call Me Out!! ... please make my day)

    The practice has raised concerns in Europe, with the Austrian parliament voting to ban its use as a preharvest desiccation tool for crops used in food and animal feed as a precautionary measure till it can be looked at more closely in 2015.

    Agricultural chemical company Nufarm recommends spraying silage pastures before harvest with Roundup Transorb to increase its ME value.

    ME typically peaks four days after spraying and an extra 0.1 to 0.6 megajoules per kilogram of dry matter can be expected, Nufarm says.
    For dairy farmers this is turned into an increase in milk solids and profits. The research is reported on Nufarm's website.

    Glyphosate worked on an enzyme found only in plants and not in humans or animals, Dr James said.

    (IC" Correction it is designed to work on plants, but as we read down we'll see quite a different version of 'truths' )

    However, glyphosate was sometimes formulated with a range of additives that could be toxic to aquatic organisms. Cheap glyphosates could vary from batch to batch. He said the expensive dry formulations and Glyphosate 540 products were more consistent and safer to use.
    (IC" clearly Dr James has an agenda to promote the originals company product and in fact slurs the competition product, raising doubt in it's safety ... we also note that he doesn't say Glyphosate 540 is safe ... just safer. These comments work on installing a doubt in other products while masquerading the main product as being safer ... creating doubt is a very powerful tool in the art of manipulation and when we see this tool we should hold everything connected to it at "FULL ARMS LENGTH".)

    Fonterra milk supply technical and assurance manager Andy Goodwin said the company had carried out ""targeted testing"" with no reported results of residues of glyphosate in milk.
    (IC: The presence of glyphosate in milk is not the problem ... we do note that 'ONLY THE PRESENCE OF GLYPHOSATE" was researched here ... what other problems could there be? is the question that should have been asked but that was totally avoided in the research done by the company who has the most to gain by adding poisons into our food chain/system)

    He also pointed out that ministry for Primary Industries approval to use glyphosate products, with appropriate withholding periods, was backed by its own testing.
    (IC: so what did the MPI test for ... and I'd like to know if in fact they tested at all or did they get test results from America ... home of glyphosate/roundup and certainly would have an agenda to
    promote it's own deadly product)
    Here's a great use for an official information act request.

    All documents that would evidence:

    What did the ministry for Primary Industries test for?
    What were the parameters of the testing?
    Who specifically carried out the tests?
    What other tests have they carried out for Monsanto?

    Would the CEO of Monsanto's like to show us he and his family eating some lovely vegetables freshly sprayed with Roundup / Glyphosate?

    Or would these company CEO's decline the kind offer? After all if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear right?

    In MPI's 2011-12 National Chemical Contaminants Programme, 52 random milk samples were tested for glyphosate but none was reported as being detected.

    Preharvest spraying with Roundup/glyphosate is standard practice for arable farmers overseas and in New Zealand to speed up the drying period of crops and to knock out weeds.

    Federated Farmers South Canterbury and North Otago grain and seed spokesman Colin Hurst said he was aware of concern that pre-harvest treatment with Roundup/glyphosate would
    exacerbate the build-up of resistance to weeds. (IC: Well Colin Hurst you're in luck because Agent Orange is making a big come back)

    However, the labels on the product were very informative about use, application and effects.
    Website Maximise Yields (August 18, 2013) says spraying sugarcane with Roundup/glyphosate increases the profitability of crops. The author, Elizabeth Dougherty, says sugar cane in Florida
    and other parts of the world is sprayed with glyphosate before harvest to speed up ripening and increase sweetness.

    (IC: Still the word comes only from people/companies with an agenda to make money ... no health profesionals so far and sadly no CEO's or 'experts' have come forward to my dinner party)


    Veterinarian concerned about impact of glyphosate on animal health

    MATAMATA veterinarian Dr Frank Rowson shares concerns with professor Don Huber (professor Emeritus, Purdue University) about the causual effect glyphosate is having on animal
    health both here and overseas and wants farmers to take note.

    Dr Rowson has been a veterinarian for 55 years and is a farm performance consultant for soil herbage, animals and humans.

    Professor Huber is an ex-US military consultant and has a high ranking in the government consultancy ranks as the expert in biosecurity threats.

    It appears separate from the issue of the effect of Round Up Ready genetically modified plants and their impact on the food chain wherever they are grown, that glyphosate poses serious risks
    to animals through its ability to inactivate the minerals in the soil that are needed for the creation of enzymes that all living things need for metabolic and reproductive function.

    Professor Huber has done numerous presentations on the the link between glyphosate and its negative impact on animal fertility.

    He is tracking a novel virus documented in crops and food subjected to Round Up Ready, and weed resistance in countries, also now recorded in New Zealand.

    Dr Rowson is following the issues and overseas research and trying to make the connections he sees coming through in animals here.

    They include mineral deficiencies in dairy herds, broken cows legs and fertility problems.

    Glyphosate depresses the absorption of manganese, calcium, copper and magnesium all of which are tied up in the absorption process for bone strength.

    (IC Editor Comment ... Glyphosate/roundup depresses the absorption of manganese, calcium, copper and magnesium, ARE THE PRODUCTS WE ARE EATING DEFICIENT IN manganese, calcium, copper and magnesium?)

    Danish research based on anecdotal reports from pig farmers indicates pigs fed GM corn are having high rates of abortions, stillbirths, malformities and reduced litter sizes.
    After the farmers cease feeding GM corn the problems go away.

    For the last two years Australian cattle farmers have noticed problems with their cattle including deformed calves and abortions and all fetus and calves were Manganese deficient.
    Massey University has fractured cow bones in storage to test for the deficiencies but needs funding to do the research.
    (IC: well as none of these CEO's of experts have come forward to a very public dinner invite, maybe the department of Primary Industries and company's Fonterra, Monsanto and Nufarm could fund this research do you think? ... I'm hoping a note of sarcasm got through there?)

    Dr Rowson spoke of serious mineral deficiencies in an overseas lucerne crop treated the year before with one application of glyphosate.

    "The crop was down 40 per cent on Potassium, Sulphur 52 per cent, Iron 49 per cent, Magnesium 26 per cent and Manganese 31 percent."

    Similar depletions have been noted in Round Up Ready Soy/glyphosate soy crops. There are depletions in mature grain. In one example, depletions of 26 per cent Calcium, 13 per cent
    Magnesium, 49 per cent Iron and 45 per cent Magnesium.

    "Round Up Ready Soy on its own showed an 83 per cent reduction in all mineral testing," he said.

    "Compared to mineral figures for crops grown in the 1940s, in themselves these are very concerning figures, but when added to the similar depletions rates in all crops since WWII this is
    disastrous."

    Dr Rowson said considering the use of Roundup and Glyphosate around the world and in New Zealand, and observing the problems coming through in livestock, he wondered if we had
    reached the tipping point and was it too late to make changes, but agreed it was up to farmers to show some action.

    ********************************

    Toxic glyphosate (Roundup) found to be harming dairy cows

    Glyphosate, the primary active ingredient in Roundup herbicide, was identified in 100 percent of urine samples collected from dairy cows all across Denmark, the health implications of which are immensely sobering for both the animals and humans.

    In every instance, dairy cows were found to have glyphosate not only in their urine but also in their blood at levels that suggest serious cell toxicity.

    The new study (Ref:1) was taken on 30 dairy cows from eight dairy farms across Denmark. Urine samples were collected from all the cows and tested for parameters indicative of cytotoxicity.
    Also studied was cholesterol levels, concentrations of the vital trace minerals manganese, cobalt, selenium, copper and zinc.

    The results determined all the cows had levels of glyphosate in their systems. Many of these same cows also had varying types and degrees of organ damage, including damage to their livers, kidneys and muscle cells. High urea levels and mineral depletion were detected in the cows suggesting a potential kidney-poisoning effect from glyphosate.

    Correlations between glyphosate and some of the measured blood serum parameters to CK, Se, Co and Zn demonstrate that glyphosate is toxic to the normal metabolism of dairy cows.

    When sprayed on crops, glyphosate seeps into the ground and literally binds important trace minerals like Co and Mn, rendering them unavailable for both plants and the animals that eat these plants. Cows that graze on glyphosate-poisoned pasture becoming mineral deficient.

    The Co and Mn levels were much too low in all animals for proper function and immune response in comparison with reference levels. This is a result of the strong chelating effect of glyphosate especially in chelating Co and Mn.

    References
    (1) http://www.omicsonline.org/field-investigations-of-glyphosate-in-urine-of-danish-dairy-cows-2161-0525.1000186.pdf

    Original article http://www.naturalnews.com/042175_glyphosate_dairy_cows_harmful_effects.html#ixzz2mYwiq9hl


    Glyphosate Found in Groundwater Samples

    Determination of glyphosate in groundwater samples using an ultrasensitive immunoassay and confirmation by on-line solid-phase extraction followed by liquid chromatography coupled to
    tandem mass spectrometry.
    Sanchís J, Kantiani L, Llorca M, Rubio F, Ginebreda A, Fraile J, Garrido T, Farré M.
    Source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22101424

    Institute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research (IDAEA-CSIC), Barcelona, Spain.
    Erratum in Anal Bioanal Chem. 2012 Aug;404(2):617.

    Abstract

    Despite having been the focus of much attention from the scientific community during recent years, glyphosate is still a challenging compound from an analytical point of view because of its
    physicochemical properties: relatively low molecular weight, high polarity, high water solubility, low organic solvent solubility, amphoteric behaviour and ease to form metal complexes. Large
    efforts have been directed towards developing suitable, sensitive and robust methods for the routine analysis of this widely used herbicide. In the present work, a magnetic particle
    immunoassay (IA) has been evaluated for fast, reliable and accurate part-per-trillion monitoring of glyphosate in water matrixes, in combination with a new analytical method based on
    solid-phase extraction (SPE), followed by liquid chromatography (LC) coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS), for the confirmatory analysis of positive samples. The magnetic
    particle IA has been applied to the analysis of about 140 samples of groundwater from Catalonia (NE Spain) collected during four sampling campaigns. Glyphosate was present above limit of
    quantification levels in 41% of the samples with concentrations as high as 2.5 ?g/L and a mean concentration of 200 ng/L. Good agreement was obtained when comparing the results from IA
    and on-line SPE-LC-MS/MS analyses. In addition, no false negatives were obtained by the use of the rapid IA. This is one of the few works related to the analysis of glyphosate in real
    groundwater samples and the presented data confirm that, although it has low mobility in soils, glyphosate is capable of reaching groundwater.
    Comment in

    Letter to the editor regarding "Determination of glyphosate in groundwater samples using an ultrasensitive immunoassay and confirmation by on-line solid phase extraction followed by liquid
    chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry". [Anal Bioanal Chem. 2012]


    About Glyphosate


    Don't think you're safe because you eat organic - glyphosate pollution and exposure is now omnipresent, with one 2011 study finding glyphosate in 60-100% of all US air and rain samples tested, and another 2012 study finding that glyphosate widely contaminates groundwater, which is the water located beneath the ground surface, that supplies aquifers, wells and springs. It is therefore virtually impossible to hermetically seal yourself off from the growing global environmental threat by only consuming "certified organic" food. The time has come to face the fact that unless there is a systemic change in the way our GM, petrochemically-driven monocultured food production system operates, we will all experience a great deal of harm.

    **************************************
    Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases

    Glyphosate’s claimed mechanism of action in plants is the disruption of the shikimate pathway, which is involved with the synthesis of the essential aromatic amino acids, phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan. The currently accepted dogma is that glyphosate is not harmful to humans or to any mammals because the shikimate pathway is absent in all animals.

    However, this pathway is present in gut bacteria, which play an important and heretofore largely overlooked role in human physiology through an integrated biosemiotic relationship with the human host. In addition to aiding digestion, the gut microbiota synthesize vitamins, detoxify xenobiotics, and participitate in immune system homeostasis and gastrointestinal tract permeability.

    Disorders resulting from this action include: digestive issues, obesity, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, Parkinson’s disease, liver diseases, cancer, leaky gut, Vitamin D3 deficiency (a cause of dental decay), abnormal blood clotting, cardiovascular disease, heart failure, dementia, schizophrenia, ADHD, sleep disorders, inflammatory bowel disease, cachexia (muscle wasting), developmental and fertility problems, preterm births, DNA damage, Crohn's disease, multiple sclerosis, thrombosis, haemorrhaging, and developmental malformations.

    Glyphosate is also linked to Vitamin D3 deficiency, as well as destroying the gut bacteria that process phytates (like phytic acid). These phytates are present in the hulls of grain, seeds and nuts, and they lock up many essential minerals, primarily calcium.

    These deficiencies have been linked by other sources to tooth decay. (Ref:1)

    References
    (1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2520490/pdf/brmedj07379-0001.pdf

    Original article http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416/pdf

    ***************************************

    Leaky Gut Syndrome.

    Leaky Gut Syndrome is something most doctors don't like talking about LGS happens when the gut flora is compromised allowing the gut contents to pass through the gut walls direct into the blood stream.

    These Pollutants can be partly digested food to the eggs of Internal Parasites.

    In the event of eggs of Internal Parasites pass through the gut walls they will travel around the blood stream till they lodge in a restricted flow area like the cartilage in the wrists, fingers, knees, back, head, etc.

    After hatching the first thing these Internal Parasites do is eat.

    The body's immune system recognises the Internal Parasites as "living organisms" so does nothing.

    The second thing the Internal Parasites do defecate (shit) ... at which time the body's immune system recognises it as a threat and begins attacking the defecation ... which if in the cartilage in the wrists, fingers, knees, back, etc the body's immune system will begin attacking the body itself.

    ***************************************

    Monsanto's Roundup Triggers Over 40 Plant Diseases and Endangers Human and Animal Health

    How Glyphosate works:

    The herbicide Glyphosate doesn't destroy plants directly. It rather cooks up a unique perfect storm of conditions that revs up disease-causing organisms in the soil, and at the same time wipes out plant defences against those diseases.

    The claimed "mode of action" is by the disruption of the shikimate pathway. The shikimate pathway is a major biosynthetic pathway for the production of aromatic compounds that are involved in multiple responses of plants, including protection against UV and defence(Ref:1).

    The glyphosate molecule grabs and holds vital nutrients. When applied to crops, it deprives them of vital minerals necessary for healthy plant function - especially for resisting serious soilborne diseases.

    Glyphosate also annihilates beneficial soil organisms, such as Pseudomonas and Bacillus bacteria that live around the roots. These facilitate the uptake of plant nutrients and suppress disease-causing organisms, their untimely deaths causes the plant to get weaker and the pathogens even stronger.

    Glyphosate itself is only slightly toxic to plants.
    It also breaks down slowly in soil to form another chemical called AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid) which is also toxic.
    However even the combined toxic effects of glyphosate and AMPA are not sufficient on their own to kill plants. It has been demonstrated numerous times since 1984 that when glyphosate is applied to plants in sterile soil, the plant may be stunted, but it isn't killed.(Ref:2)

    The actual plant assassins, according to Purdue weed scientists and others, are severe disease-causing organisms present in almost all soils. Glyphosate dramatically promotes these, which in turn overrun the weakened crops with deadly infections.

    By weakening plants and promoting disease, glyphosate opens the door for other problems in the field.

    According to Don Huber, this is already showing in increased incidence of over 40 plant diseases, notably SDS (Sudden death syndrome). Fields previously sprayed with glyphosate are experiencing severe outbreaks of disease. In some cases half fields are affected ... the half previously grown with a crop on which glyphosate was used. In many situations the plants at the ends of rows are affected more than others ... this is where the tractor turns at the end of the row and more glyphosate gets applied.

    The amount of glyphosate that can cause damage is tiny.
    European scientists demonstrated that less than half an ounce per acre inhibits the ability of plants to take up and transport essential micro-nutrients.

    As a result, more and more farmers are finding that crops planted in years after Roundup is applied suffer from weakened defences and increased soilborne diseases and the situation is getting worse.

    Some of the fungi promoted by glyphosate produce dangerous toxins that end up in food or feed. These include Fusarium (Ref:3), Aspergillus (Ref:4)

    Toxins from Fusarium have been linked to oesophageal cancer, joint diseases, blood disorders, infertility.(Ref:5)

    Aflatoxins from Aspergillus sp. have been linked to stunted growth in children, liver cancer, and genetic damage (Ref:6).

    Roundup persists in the environment

    Monsanto used to boast that Roundup is biodegradable, claiming that it breaks down quickly in the soil. But courts in the US and Europe disagreed and found them guilty of false advertising.

    Whether glyphosate degrades in weeks, months, or years varies widely due to factors in the soil, including pH, clay, types of minerals, residues from Roundup Ready crops, heavy metals, and the presence of the specialized enzymes needed to break down the herbicide molecule.
    In some conditions, glyphosate can grab and hold soil nutrients and remain stable for long periods. One study showed that in a soil loaded with heavy metal that it took up to 22 years for glyphosate to degrade by half (Ref:7)

    Nutrient loss in humans and animals

    The same nutrients that glyphosate chelates and deprives plants are also vital for human and animal health. These include but not limited to: iron, zinc, copper, manganese, magnesium, calcium, boron. Deficiencies of these elements in our diets, alone or in combination, are known to interfere with vital enzyme systems and cause a long list of disorders and diseases.

    Manganese, zinc, and copper are also vital for proper functioning of the SOD (superoxide dismustase) cycle. This is key for stemming inflammation and is an important component in detoxifying unwanted chemical compounds in humans and animals.

    Glyphosate-induced mineral deficiencies can easily go unidentified and untreated.
    Even when laboratory tests are done, they can sometimes detect adequate mineral levels, but miss the fact that glyphosate has already rendered them unusable.

    Glyphosate binds up minerals for years, essentially removing them from the pool of nutrients available for plants, animals, and humans.

    References
    (1) http://www.jipb.net/Abstract.aspx?id=5100
    (2) http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2012/120717JohnsonSuper.html
    (3) http://www.naturalnews.com/031138_Monsanto_Roundup.html#ixzz2mYxTDB9i
    (4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24007484
    (5) http://www.naturalnews.com/031138_Monsanto_Roundup.html#ixzz2mYxTDB9i
    (6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aflatoxin
    (7) http://www.falw.vu.nl/nl/Images/91%20-%20kools1_tcm19-29679.pdf?

    Original article http://www.naturalnews.com/031138_Monsanto_Roundup.html#ixzz2mYxTDB9i

    ***************************************
    Glyphosate toxicity to humans: An overview

    Monsanto's infamous Roundup contains the hotly debated compound called glyphosate. This merciless herbicide is also found in 750 or more U.S. products.
    Glyphosate infiltrates the landscape and accumulates in mammals, especially bone, hindering cellular detoxification along the way.

    A destroyer, glyphosate annihilates a plant's building blocks of life, tearing apart amino acids. By disrupting the "shikimate pathway" in plants and microorganisms, glyphosate creeps inside leaves and stalk, raping natural life processes.
    Glyphosate also destroys the beneficial microorganism in the human gut, destroying the human immune system.

    Glyphosate stays in the bone:

    In some of the first studies in the 90s involving rats, 30-36 percent of glyphosate was passed through the animal's gut wall and into their bodies (Ref:1).
    A similar study on hens and goats got likewise results.
    In the rat study, seven days after the glyphosate was administered, the remaining glyphosate levels were found in the rats' bones. In a WHO publication, "the glyphosate isotope was widely distributed throughout the body, but was primarily found in bone"(Ref:2).

    References
    (1) http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html
    (2) http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?cid=3496

    Original article text http://www.naturalnews.com/041464_glyphosate_Monsanto_toxicity.html

    **************************************
    Glyphosate: Herbicide Factsheet

    This interesting (and well referenced) article links glyphosate to many serious damaging effects, including genetic damage, non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, accelerated growth of breast cancer cells, miscarriages, skeletal abnormalities, reduced sex hormone production, ADD/ADHD, as well as many instances of mutation and immune disruption in fish, insects and amphibians exposed to glyphosate.

    Original article http://www.pesticide.org/get-the-facts/pesticide-factsheets/factsheets/glyphosate
    (it doesn't know what file type it is, but open it in your normal pdf viewer)

    ***************************************
    Distribution of Glyphosate within the body

    How much Glyphosate is actually absorbed
    Where does it go?
    The following Data from a Glyphosate-Freindly "Technical Fact Sheet".

    Rats dosed orally with 10 mg/kg glyphosate attained peak concentrations in their tissues 6 hours following dosing. The gastrointestinal tract contents accounted for 50% of the dose, with the tissue of the small intestine accounting for an additional 18%. Approximately 5% of the dose was found in bone and 6% in the carcass, with 1% or less of the dose distributed to abdominal fat, blood, colon, kidney, liver, and stomach.

    Researchers gave rats a single oral dose of 10 mg/kg or 1000 mg/kg of glyphosate. Seven days after administration, the absorbed dose had distributed throughout the body, although it was primarily concentrated in the bone.

    Researchers fed hens and goats glyphosate and found glyphosate and its major metabolite AMPA in eggs, milk, and the animals' body tissues.

    Original text http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html

    ***************************************
    Glyphosate Feeds Breast Cancer Cell Growth In the PARTS PER TRILLION Range

    An alarming new study finds that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup weedkiller, is estrogenic and drives breast cancer cell proliferation in the parts-per-trillion range.

    The study, titled, "Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors," compared the effect of glyphosate on hormone-dependent and hormone-independent breast cancer cell lines, finding that glyphosate stimulates hormone-dependent cancer cell lines in what the study authors describe as "low and environmentally relevant concentrations."

    These effects indicate that glyphosate is a 'xenoestrogen,' capable of inducing Estrogen Response Elements (EREs) in a manner, slightly weaker but functionally similar to the most potent human estrogen Estradiol (E2).

    More concerning is the discovery that infinitesimal glyphosate concentrations in the parts-per-trillion range had carcinogenic effects on the studied T47D breast cancer cells line:
    In this study it was found that glyphosate at a log interval concentration ranging from 10-12 to 10-6 M increased the cell proliferation of a hormone dependent breast cancer T47D cell...

    Researchers discovered that the naturally occurring phytoestrogen in soybean known as genistein, produced "an additive estrogenic effect" when combined with glyphosate.

    Oeiginal article http://www.activistpost.com/2013/06/study-glyphosate-roundup-feeds-breast.html

    **************************************
    Research - Roundup toxicity much worse than Monsanto / governments claims

    Numerous studies, including one recently published in the online journal Entropy, have found that low levels of glyphosate exposure in humans is also problematic, leading to conditions such as Parkinson's disease, infertility, and cancer.

    A majorly overlooked mechanism of its toxicity, glyphosate's inhibitory action against cytochrome P450 (CYP) in humans and other mammals is one of the primary ways in which the chemical disrupts normal, healthy biology.
    Researchers discovered that glyphosate impedes the body's ability to properly detoxify, as well as promotes the type of chronic inflammation that leads to more serious health impediments.

    "Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body," wrote the authors about the long-term damaging effects of glyphosate. "[Glyphosate] residues enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease."

    Other prominent research has found that glyphosate directly damages and kills human cells, including embryonic, placental, and umbilical cord cells. Many of the inert, or supposedly "inactive," ingredients added to Roundup and other glyphosate formulas are also highly damaging, having been found to directly interfere with normal hormone production and cellular function in otherwise healthy persons, as well as fetal development in pregnant women.

    Original article http://www.naturalnews.com/041150_monsanto_roundup_glyphosate.html

    ***************************

    Monsanto

    Dow

    Why approve 2,4-D ready corn? The answer: Dow expects to reap in $1.5 billion in extra profit in 2013 from 2,4-resistant corn sales alone.
    In the light that TPP can open governments up to be sued for restricting a companies product, should New Zealand be involved in TPP at all because if in the future we find
    Agent Orange to be dangerous, Dow could easily sue the New Zealand Govt for $1.5 billion.

    The chemical 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) makes up half of the herbicide mix known as Agent Orange.

    Farmers that sign up to use genetically-engineered 2,4-D-resistant corn will be required to spray down their fields with both 2,4-D and Roundup, double-dosing our food, our soil and our
    waterways with the toxins. Some experts estimate this will increase the use of 2,4-D 50-fold, even though the EPA says the chemical is already our seventh-largest source of dioxins — nasty,
    highly toxic chemicals that bioaccumulate as they move up the food chain and cause skin sores, liver damage, cancer, Parkinson’s, developmental damage, cell damage, reproductive problems,
    birth defects, high rates of miscarriage, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and sometimes death in animals.

    2,4-D is a potential endocrine disruptor and can affect development.
    Rats exposed to 2,4-D exhibited depressed thyroid hormone levels, which can affect normal metabolism and brain functioning.
    Studies found that men who applied 2,4-D had lower sperm counts and more sperm abnormalities than those unexposed to the herbicide.

    In the 15 years since herbicide-resistant crops were first introduced, weeds already have become resistant to herbicides affiliated with genetically engineered crops.

    In particular, application of Monsanto’s Roundup has spawned glyphosate-resistant weeds, a problem that is driving farmers to apply older, more toxic herbicides and to reduce conservation
    tilling to combat weeds.

    Now, to treat the problem of glyphosate-resistant weeds, biotechnology companies are simply creating crops resistant to a variety of chemicals.

    Not only is 2,4-D dangerous for human health, but it also spurs weed resistance. According to the International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds, there have been 29 weeds found to be
    resistant to 2,4-D’s family of synthetic auxin herbicides.

    It is only a matter of time before Dow stacks this variety with glyphosate-resistance, which could lead to situations where Roundup and 2,4-D are sprayed on the same crop.

    The chemical treadmill model cannot be continued indefinitely.
    Weed resistance to these chemicals will continue to abound and the application of more noxious herbicides will increase exponentially.
    This new corn variety is not only unsafe and inefficient

    Unsafe to Eat

    Although FDA considers Dow’s 2,4-D corn, “as safe as conventional corn varieties … and not materially different” from corn currently grown, the FDA’s Biotechnology Consultation Note for
    2,4-D-resistant corn lists several amino acids, fatty acids, vitamins and minerals that differed from conventional corn and were statistically significant, including glutamic acid, oleic acid,
    vitamin C and zinc.
    A description of differences without data showing that these differences are “safe” is inadequate, especially when scientists from the French National Institute for Agricultural Research suggest
    that “following 2,4-D treatment, 2,4-D tolerant plants may not be acceptable for human consumption.”

    Harmful for the Environment

    Aside from its harmful endocrine and carcinogenic effects, 2,4-D is a very volatile herbicide, which can easily drift onto nearby crops, vegetables and flowers. In fact, a comparative risk
    assessment found that 2,4-D was 400 times more likely to cause non-target plant injury than glyphosate (also known as Roundup, the herbicide many currently used GE crops are engineered
    to survive.)
    In an Association of American Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO) survey on pesticide drift, 2,4-D was the herbicide most commonly involved in drift occurrences. The drift potential of
    2,4-D is a concern for ecosystems containing sensitive organisms since the EPA’s toxicity research found 2,4-D to be “very highly toxic to slightly toxic to freshwater and marine
    invertebrates.”

    The USDA claims that planting 2,4-D crops and using more 2,4-D will not adversely impact the listed endangered species or their critical habitats, when in fact, it certainly will.

    All of the human safety and environmental risks associated with 2,4-D use beg the question—why approve 2,4-D ready corn? The answer: Dow expects to reap in $1.5 billion in extra
    profit in 2013 from 2,4-resistant corn sales alone.

    ***************************
    Special report Deformities, sickness and livestock deaths: the real cost of GM animal feed?

    Andrew Wasley 28th November 2013

    Much of our meat and dairy produce is made from animals raised on GM feeds.

    Alarming new claims suggest that the GM diet is affecting animal health - prompting fears over human safety. Andrew Wasley reports ...
    When using GM feed I saw symptoms of bloat, stomach ulcers, high rates of diarrhoea, pigs born with the deformities ... but when I switched these problems went away, some within a matter of days.
    At first glance the frozen bundles could be mistaken for conventional joints of meat. But as Ib Pedersen, a Danish pig farmer, lifts them carefully out of the freezer it becomes apparent they are in fact whole piglets - some horribly deformed, with growths or other abnormalities, others stunted.

    This is the result, Pedersen claims, of feeding the animals a diet containing genetically modified (GM) ingredients. Or more specifically, he believes, feed made from GM soya and sprayed with the controversial herbicide glyphosate.  
    Pedersen, who produces 13,000 pigs a year and supplies Europe's largest pork company Danish Crown, says he became so alarmed at the apparent levels of deformity, sickness, deaths, and poor productivity he was witnessing in his animals that he decided to experiment by changing their diet from GM to non-GM feed.

    The results, he says, were remarkable: "When using GM feed I saw symptoms of bloat, stomach ulcers, high rates of diarrhoea, pigs born with the deformities ... but when I switched [to non GM feed] these problems went away, some within a matter of days."

    The farmer says that not only has the switch in diet improved the visible health of the pigs, it has made the farm more profitable, with less medicine use and higher productivity. "Less abortions, more piglets born in each litter, and breeding animals living longer." He also maintains that man hours have been reduced, with less cleaning needed and fewer complications with the animals.
    Inside the farmhouse, piles of paperwork are laid out across a vast table; print outs, reports, statistics, scientific research, correspondence. Pedersen shows me photos he says are of animals adversely affected by the GM feed - there's more piglets with spinal deformities, their back legs dragging on the ground; others have visible problems with their faces, limbs or tails. There's even a siamese twin - two animals joined at the head.
    Pedersen believes these abnormalities, and the other problems, were caused - at least in part - by the presence of the herbicide glyphosate in his GM pig feed. Glyphosate is routinely sprayed on many soya and cereal crops to kill weeds and maximise yields.

    Although it is used on conventional crops, its usage on GM soya and maize is particularly prevalent as the crops are engineered to be resistant to the chemical, killing the weeds but leaving the crop plants unaffected.
    The introduction of GM crops resistant to glyphosate allowed crops to be sprayed with the herbicide to control weeds - often many times over a growing season - without killing the crop. But this also led to much higher levels of glyphosate in the plants and seeds. 

    After glyphosate-resistant strains of soy were introduced in 1996, EU regulators raised the allowed maximum residue limit (MRL) for glyphosate in imported soy 200-fold, from 0.1 mg/kg to 20 mg/kg. 
    Glyphosate use has become increasingly controversial in recent years, with a growing body of research, say campaigners, suggesting that exposure, even at low levels, can be harmful to animals and humans.
    Studies have also suggested, claim critics, that the herbicide may disrupt the human endocrine system, which regulates the body's biological processes, meaning that any level of exposure could pose a significant risk to health.

    Such claims are vigorously refuted by the agro-chemical industry, who state the herbicide is safe and who accuse campaigners of touting flawed research, or manipulating the findings to suit their own agenda.
    Pedersen claims that independent testing revealed all of his deformed pigs had glyphosate in their organs. He shows me a chart he suggests shows a clear correlation between the volume of glyphosate found in pig feed and higher numbers of cranial and spinal deformities. "The more glyphosate, the more deformities," he says, bluntly.

    Outside, along a muddy track through a number of arable fields - in addition to pigs, Pedersen produces strawberries, peas and potatoes - we come to the main pig house. It's vast and crowded, efficient and noisy, with the unmistakable stink of pig waste.

    A factory farm.

    Pedersen shows me the farrowing crates, the large bodies of the nursing sows squeezed under metal bars, surrounded by up to a dozen weaning piglets. He points out his best animals - the most productive, the veterans - and stops to check on those he has concerns about, examining a swollen joint here or an inflamed nipple there. Antibiotics are administered to one.

    In the main hall the pigs move more freely, as they do in a series of smaller rooms where younger animals are kept as they grow. The farmer manually throws down handfuls of sandy-looking feed to supplement that available in the conical feed troughs. The feed mix, he explains, contains soya, fishmeal and other ingredients - but nothing of GM origin.

    Pederson admits his work isn't scientific but says the results should alarm people. He's worried that many farmers have no idea of the potential impact of GM feed, and that the same is true for consumers: when using GM feed, he says, "Everything was down in the quagmire ... We had eleven pigs die in one day."

    Deformities and deaths "the new normal"

    The farmer's research, and outspoken stance, provoked a storm of controversy in Danish agricultural circles after the respected farming publication Effektivt Landbrug featured the story, interviewing Pedersen in detail and referring to the pig farmers' suggestion that DDT and thalidomide - linked to deformities in up to 10,000 babies - could be regarded as trivial compared to the potential risks from GM and glyphosate.
    Critics accused him of scaremongering and slammed the findings as unscientific and "without merit" - pointing out that if the claims were true, thousands of other farmers using GM feed would be recording similar problems.
    Despite this, Pedersen's work has prompted the Danish Pig Research Centre (VSP) to announce an in-depth study to test the effects of GM and non-GM soya on animal health. The findings of the research have yet to be published.

    Pedersen's findings are beginning to spread well beyond Denmark; earlier this month the German television channel ARD broadcast a documentary featuring the farmer's claims, and Pedersen himself recently travelled to the UK to address a packed symposium at the House of Commons, organised by the All-Party Parliamentary Group On Agroecology.
    Anti-GM campaigners say the findings are particularly compelling as the observations were made in a real farm setting, not a laboratory. Claire Robinson of GM Watch told The Ecologist.
    "The findings are worrying and consistent with reports from some farmers and vets in the US, who noticed a downturn in the health and reproductive performance in pigs and cattle after GM feed became common." 
    "Farmers who have worked to exclude GM ingredients from their feed report dramatic improvements in herd health. Farmers should be worried and should not settle for what some scientists are calling a 'new norm' of increased rates of malformations, deaths and digestive and reproductive problems, as GM feed becomes more common."

    Peter Melchett, of the Soil Association, says: "Farmers in countries as far apart as Denmark and India have been saying for many years that they have noticed serious ill-health in their animals when feeding GM feed ... practical research on pigs has shown significant impact of GM compared to non-GM feed."

    The Danish farmer's claims have also been supported by veterinary experts. Professor Monika Kruger, of Leipzig University, says there is growing evidence showing that glyphosate is dangerous for both animals and people: "A lot of livestock are ill and nobody is interested. In most cases the highest concentrations come from GM products like soya, rapeseed and corn. We [have] also found glyphosate in meat."
    Professor Kruger, who's own research suggested that glyphosate may be toxic to dairy cows, and apparently linked to cases of botulism in cattle, says farmers - and the wider food industry including supermarkets - should be "very concerned" about the claims, and believes that glyphosate should be "eliminated" from farming.

    Her comments follow the publication last year of controversial research by Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini, an expert in molecular biology at Caen University in France, which claimed that rats fed a diet of GM maize, or exposed to glyphosate, for two years, developed higher levels of cancers and died earlier than controls.

    The study, published in the peer reviewed publication Food and Chemical Toxicology, was the first of its kind to test the impact of GM, and glyphosate, over such a long period - many previous experiments lasted 90 days. The findings led Seralini to argue that glyphosate's apparent endocrine disrupting effects might be responsible.
    The study was criticised by the agribusiness industry and academics however, who said it contained methodological flaws, was scientifically substandard, and its findings sensationalised.
    A review by the European Food Safety Authority later concluded that Seralini's research could not be regarded as scientifically sound because of inadequacies in the design, reporting and analysis of the study. This has been challenged by the research team.

    More recently, research led by Dr. Judy Carman, Associate Professor at Flinders University, Adelaide, claimed that pig health could be harmed by the consumption of feed containing GM crops.
    Carmen studied two sets of pigs - one fed a GM diet, one a non-GM diet - from a US piggery over a period of more than five months. Each group was farmed identically in terms of housing and feeding conditions, before being slaughtered and autopsied.

    The researchers found that the GM-fed females had, on average, a 25 per cent heavier uterus than non-GM-fed females, 'a possible indicator of disease' according to the study team. The level of severe inflammation in stomachs was also reportedly higher in pigs fed on the GM diet.
    Howard Vlieger, an Iowa-based farmer and one of the co-ordinators of Carman's study, told The Ecologist:
    "There is little doubt based on the results of putting GM feed into a livestock ration and based on results of removing GM feed from a ration that animal health is better on conventional feed and grain."
    Vlieger, when launching the study, said: "In my experience, farmers have found increased production costs and escalating antibiotic use when feeding GM crops. In some operations, the livestock death loss is high, and there are unexplained problems including spontaneous abortions, deformities of new-born animals, and an overall listlessness and lack of contentment in the animals."
    As with Seralini's study, Carmen's work was criticised by some academics who accused the researchers of picking out a few "statistically significant" results from a large number of tests, and for using poor statistical methodology for assessing differences in inflammation.

    GM "being forced onto farmers"

    About 30 million tonnes of GM animal feed is now thought to be imported into Europe each year to feed pigs, poultry, dairy and beef cattle, as well as farmed fish. The UK imports an estimated 140,000 tonnes of GM soya and as much as 300,000 tonnes of GM maize annually for use as animal feed.
    In reality, say campaigners, this means that much of the meat and dairy products on sale are now produced from animals fed a GM diet. Much of the soya and maize used is grown in South America, including Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay.

    In the UK, foods containing GM material for human consumption are currently required by law to be labelled. However, human foods derived from GM fed animals - meat, fish, milk and dairy products - do not need to be labelled. This represents a loophole, claim activists, which means consumers could inadvertently be eating be GM products.
    Peter Melchett comments: "Labelling of all products from animals fed on GM should be legally required throughout the EU. Supermarkets in many European countries are now starting to label products from animals fed on GM."

    "It is a scandal that UK supermarkets refuse to give this information to their customers, and instead deliberately keep them in the dark, with, at best, information on their websites and confusing answers to people who call their helplines. We know that people want accurate labelling, and at the moment supermarkets are betraying their customers on this issue."

    The Soil Association cites a Food Standards Agency-published poll which found 67 per cent of the public thought it was important for products made from animals fed GM diets to be labelled.
    In France, retail giant Carrefour in 2010 launched a labelling scheme to inform customers that animals used to produce foodstuffs have not been fed genetically-modified feed. More than 300 products now come with a 'free from GM feed' label after the supermarket giant said polls had found that more than 60 per cent of customers would stop buying products if they knew they were made from animals given GM feed.
    Similar schemes are being adopted by other major European food retailers.

    In Britain, tensions over the issue were heightened following the announcement earlier this year by four British supermarkets - Tesco, Sainsburys, the Co-op and Marks and Spencer - that they could no longer guarantee that the feed used in their poultry lines would be non-GM, citing their suppliers' apparently increasing difficulties in sourcing non-GM feed.
    All said customers would continue to have non-GM options, including organic and certain premium ranges. Waitrose has continued to guarantee a non GM diet for its poultry, stating that it wants customers to have "choice". 

    British farmers are facing a dilemma - accept GM feed or go organic - according to some industry sources, who agree that conventional feed is increasingly becoming more difficult to source at an economically viable price.
    They say that although the availability of non GM feed is disputed (producers organisations in Brazil maintain there is an ample supply of conventionally grown soya but say poor infrastructure at ports has held some shipments up) some major feed supply companies are now only offering their customers GM options, or organic.
    "It's a nightmare trying to source non GM feed," a supermarket source said. "The reality is that trying to source it on the scale needed [by large retailers] is very difficult. The feed companies own the boats, the mills, they control the supply chain."

    One UK feed merchant told The Ecologist that GM is now effectively being forced onto farmers: "As a farmer you are constantly under pressure, you are busy, you've got to be good at finance, a good production manager, so when someone offers [GM] feed that's cheaper, it's easy to say yes."
    "Not having an option is not good. But when you've got an importer saying GM is fine and that he's not going to bring in [non GM] a farmer is not likely to go out and source his own."
    The merchant said that not all farmers were aware about GM ingredients, and admitted some were not concerned anyway. He said some believed they were the victims of double standards: "'Why can we import GM from the USA or wherever, but are not allowed to grow it here' they say."
    One Welsh organic dairy farmer agrees opinions are split: "I've got farming neighbours who are conventional; some are accepting GM with open arms, some don't want it. One milk supplier is not happy at all about GM feed," he says.

    Michael Hart, a beef and lamb farmer from Cornwall, and the founder of the Small and Family Farms Alliance, says that he believes there is still demand for non GM feed but that it is becoming prohibitively expensive. "My local feed merchant says he can get organic, but for conventional non GM he'll demand more money."
    Hart, a prominent anti-GM campaigner, says that since the BSE crisis farmers have become more sceptical about science and about what they are told, and that many have concerns about GM:
    "Since 1996 farmers are more market aware and [more aware] of public opinion towards what we do. Is this GM stuff safe to feed my cows? Why do the public say they don't want it? Trust of science, trust of big business has gone."

    Although not addressing the GM feed issue specifically, a poll conducted earlier this year by Farmers Weekly and Barclays Bank found that more than 60 per cent of British farmers would grow GM crops if it were legal to do so. The survey tested the opinions of more than 600 farmers across the UK.

    Farm evidence "without merit"

    Unofficially, one supermarket source admitted that "no one knows" when it comes to the potential health implications of using GM feed. As for whether GM is potentially risky or not, he says, "No-one can really put their hand on heart and say that one or the other is the case."
    However, in formal replies to questions from The Ecologist retailers defended their position. A spokesperson for the Co-operative Group said:
    "Since 2003, we have been working with suppliers to achieve greater availability of products from animals fed a non-GM diet. Unfortunately, this position is proving to be increasingly difficult to deliver.
    "This is because the amount of non-GM soya being produced is decreasing, there are increasing difficulties in segregating through the soya supply chain and there is an increasing cost to farmers and potentially to customers for non-GM soya."
    "All of this has meant that our previously stated position of increasing availability of products from animals fed a non-GM diet is no longer tenable."
    The spokesperson said the company will continue to monitor the animal feed supply situation and added: "since this issue broke in the news we have had very few individual complaints and queries, and there has been no impact on sales."

    Marks & Spencer said in a statement: "Alongside other retailers, we have written to our suppliers to tell them that we will no longer stipulate the use of non-GM feed in our fresh meat supply chain. This change in policy is absolutely necessary because there is now a much reduced supply of non-GM feed available to UK farmers. As such we can now no longer guarantee that our fresh meat has been fed on a non-GM diet."
    Josephine Simmons from Sainsbury's said: "Whilst the latest scientific research and current Government advice is that GM ingredients do not present any risks to human health, we acknowledge the concerns of our customers and do not permit the use of GM crops, ingredients, additives or derivatives in any Sainsbury's own label food, drink, pet food, dietary supplements or floral products, this remains the case."
    "We know that some people also have concerns about products from animals whose feed may contain GM ingredients. We therefore offer a choice of products from livestock fed a non-GM diet."

    Tesco declined to comment.

    The Food Standards Agency said it is "aware of anecdotal reports that pigs in Denmark perform much better when fed with non-GM than GM ingredients. These claims are unproven and they are currently being assessed by the Danish authorities. We look forward to their conclusions, and to the results of formal experiments that are under way in the Danish pig research centre (VSP)."
    It added: "Every new GM crop must go through a detailed evaluation and be specifically authorised before it can be marketed. The evaluation covers safety and nutritional quality and is carried out at EU level by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). FSA is confident in the rigour of EFSA's assessments. As a result, the FSA can confirm that any GM food or feed that is authorised in the EU is as safe as its non-GM equivalent." The body highlighted criticisms of both the Seralini and Carman research.
    In a detailed statement, Tom Helscher from the agribusiness giant Monsanto - one of the world's largest producers of GM crops and suppliers of glyphosate, marketed under their well-known Roundup brand - said:
    "Product safety and stewardship is a high priority for us and we routinely review studies that relate to our products and technologies. There is a large body of evidence that supports the food and feed safety of commercial GM crops and derived food and feedstuffs." Helscher said the company were aware of Pedersen's claims but said that "if the allegations had merit, pigs all over Denmark and the US would be having diarrhoea problems, which isn't the case. There is a very robust collection of recent publications that found no negative effect of GM feed on pig health or performance."
    He said Carmen's study and its results "are at odds with the long safety records of glyphosate and GM, and contrary to the weight of evidence substantiated by a large body of credible, peer reviewed literature."
    "For over a decade, millions of pigs have been fed GM corn and soybean meal without negative impacts on health, reproduction, and growth. To date, there has been no scientific evidence confirming any detrimental impact on the animals or on the products - that is the meat, milk and eggs derived from animals fed GM crops.
    "Therefore, the long history of safe use of GM feed is at direct odds with the author's allegations and suggests their findings are without merit."
    Helsher said the Seralini study "does not meet minimum acceptable standards for this type of scientific research, the findings are not supported by the data presented, and the conclusions are not relevant for the purpose of safety assessment. Major flaws in the Seralini research have been reported by many reviewers."
    Back in Denmark, Ib Pedersen's farm manager informs him that one of his pigs has unexpectedly died - the carcass has been carried out and lies behind the farm buildings, still warm.
    Pedersen takes a sharp knife and slices the animal open, blood pouring onto the concrete floor. The intestines and other internal organs, including the stomach - it's full, the feed consumed just hours before is still visible - are pulled out and individually checked for signs of inflammation or other abnormalities.
    Nothing unusual, the farmer says. Not this time.

    http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2176082/deformities_sickness_and_livestock_deaths_the_real_cost_of_gm_animal_feed.html

    If any promoter of 2,4-D, Agent Orange, Glyphosate would like to call me out and come to dinner to prove their undying stand that theses are safe for use on foods, I'm only too willing to hire the venue, ensure the media are there and fill the public seats to watch you and your lovely children eat your own poison.

    Come on Philip Miller, Monsanto’s vice-president ... I've been waiting for years for you to grow some balls.

     

    Please feel very free to email me to arrange our lovely dinner together ... we're just dying to meet you all.

    Offer begining 14/12/2013

    Emails so far: - 0