It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
SloAnPainful
reply to post by R_Clark
Mudersanto is at work again...
I haven't seen too many GMO or Monsanto threads lately.. Or I missed them.
Either way I should be surprised by this, but I'm not... This is the kind of thing that happens when your diet comprises of GMOs and herbicides...
Star and flag for awareness to the subject.
-SAP-
I just pulled from the bottom of the report the following :
"What we have found encouraging is that the women who have been eating organic and non-GMO very strictly, for several months to two years, did not find detectable levels of glyphosate in their breast milk."
so it seems that you can ween yourself off of it and find no detectable levels..
www.greenmedinfo.com...
"It is frightening to see any glyphosate in my body, especially in my breast milk that will then contaminate my son's growing body. It's particularly upsetting to test positive for glyphosate because I go to great lengths to eat organic and GMO free. I do not consume any meats or seafood and only very rarely eat dairy. This really shows me, and should show others, just how pervasive this toxin is in our food system."
beezzer
Is it just me, or do I see nothing but stories where ranchers can't have a pond or can't let cattle graze because of the "farting tortoise" or some such creature, yet allowing these poisons freely into the environment are always given a green light.
Or am I wrong here.
Phage
reply to post by R_Clark
I just pulled from the bottom of the report the following :
"What we have found encouraging is that the women who have been eating organic and non-GMO very strictly, for several months to two years, did not find detectable levels of glyphosate in their breast milk."
so it seems that you can ween yourself off of it and find no detectable levels..
I'm not sure that's a valid assessment. One of the 3 out of 10 positives said this:
www.greenmedinfo.com...
"It is frightening to see any glyphosate in my body, especially in my breast milk that will then contaminate my son's growing body. It's particularly upsetting to test positive for glyphosate because I go to great lengths to eat organic and GMO free. I do not consume any meats or seafood and only very rarely eat dairy. This really shows me, and should show others, just how pervasive this toxin is in our food system."
With only 3 out of 10 positives I'm not sure it can be determined how pervasive glyphosate contamination is with this sort of study. Ten samples, no indication of how the sample population was determined.
edit on 4/9/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)
The glyphosate testing commissioned by Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse, with support from Environmental Arts & Research, also analyzed 35 urine samples and 21 drinking water samples from across the US and found levels in urine that were over 10 times higher than those found in a similar survey done in the EU by Friends of the Earth Europe in 2013.
R_Clark
reply to post by WhiteAlice
Still you would have a P value less that 5 percent on the first and less than 1 percent on the second... though, the data is not controlled... A control study is required... my guess is that they are pushing for a valid clinical study... just that the EPA, FDA, and friends don't like that kinda study here...
beezzer
Is it just me, or do I see nothing but stories where ranchers can't have a pond or can't let cattle graze because of the "farting tortoise" or some such creature, yet allowing these poisons freely into the environment are always given a green light.
Or am I wrong here.
Q:
How much pesticide and / or weed killer gets absorbed into freshly planted GM seeds from residual amounts in the soil from previous treatments ? And how much gets absorbed by plants through roots after new treatments ? And, do end products retain any pesticide or weed killer amounts (other than washable surface amounts) that would be unsafe to humans ? Who determines safe levels if any levels do in fact exist ? And finally, are different amounts absorbed by non-GM originated plants ?
Question Submitted By: xuenchen from chicago, Illinois
A:Expert Answer
By: Marian Bleeke, Fate and Metabolism Platform Lead, Monsanto on Thursday, 10/17/2013 7:02 pm
Your questions all relate to the safety of pesticide residues that may occur in GM crops.
That’s a reasonable concern given the rapid adoption and widespread use of GM crops. Importantly, since crops tolerant to herbicides such as glyphosate are very popular among farmers, spraying of glyphosate could lead to residues of the active ingredient in the forage or grain that is consumed by animals or humans. When farmers spray fields to eliminate weeds that compete with the crop and reduce yield, the vast majority of the glyphosate enters plants through the leaves. Glyphosate is tightly bound to soil, and little or no glyphosate is taken up from the soil, either by newly planted seeds or by existing plants, whether GM or non-GM. One of the reasons that glyphosate is so popular with farmers is that farmers can safely plant other crops after using glyphosate without impacts on the subsequent crop. Over time, soil microorganisms break down any glyphosate residues in the soil.
Any glyphosate residues that remain in the plant decrease over time following application, and are less in grain compared to leaves. Processing of grain for use in food also reduces detectible residues. For example, there is no detectible glyphosate present in the oil fraction in soybean or corn oil.
Finally, since there is the potential for residues of glyphosate to remain in forage and grain used in animal feed and human foods, the levels must be measured across many locations and environments to determine the highest levels that might be present. In the US, the EPA is responsible to examine all uses of pesticides and must examine the residue data and establish safe levels of exposure. All uses must be approved and the combined exposure from all crops must be below the acceptable dose level established by the EPA. This process was described previously in detail on this site. That answer can be found at: (gmoanswers.com...). Other countries follow similar procedures within their regulatory agencies.
Ask Us Anything About GMOs!
Granite
reply to post by R_Clark
How is it being ingested...chemtrails?
Orbs are shooting them as seen in a recent ATS thread.
Breast milk also contains polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)(10), a carcinogen and endocrine disruptor. In fact, by 1976, 99 percent of breast milk sampled in the U.S. contained PCBs.
In addition, breast milk contains many other fat-loving persistent organic pollutants, among them: many pesticides (heptachlor, chlordane, mirex, endrin, aldrin, and dieldrin)(12), and industrial chemicals (dioxin,(13) benzene, chloroform, methylene chloride, styrene, perchoroethylene, toluene, trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and xylene.)(14) Like DDT and PCBs, many of these compounds have been banned—but continue to pollute the breast milk of not only American women, but women worldwide. A study of breast-fed infants in Australia showed that 100 percent had heptachlor levels exceeding the World Health Organization’s Average Daily Intake Allowance. Eighty-eight percent had levels of aldrin and dielrin exceeding this standard, and 27 percent exceeded the standard for benzene.(15)
VoidHawk
Total ban on pesticides! and a full study to find out why some women do not have contaminated breast milk. Are they the sensible women who only eat organic food? I'd like to see an independant study on that!