Weed killer found in human urine across Europe

Originally posted by Realtruth
...and a response to Alfa's saying glyphosate has "nothing to do with Monsanto, or GMO.

I mentioned it twice, but clearly I have to mention it a third time because you failed to understand.

The topic of this thread, "Weed killer found in human urine across Europe" is nothing to do with Monsanto or GMO.

Operation Red Hat,

spraying those dioxins and mycotoxins from aircraft over countries to poison-kill off their crops.

They should be watching those DC-10's carrying US troops to the former Soviet Union Territories on their way to Afghanistan and what they've been spraying from the engine on the tail over countries....

DC-10 was made to spray those toxins over those countries.

reply to post by Phage


Having read about the practice of spraying out wheat crops to make them die off and dry out early, I'd say that this along with spray drift accidentally entering waterways and urban water supplies plus home use (where the user is far less likely to take all the safety precautions and wear the appropriate preotective gear) is how it is ending up in our bodies.

The most alarming possibility is that it is being directly ingested through contaminated water. From what I understand, once it hits the plant and moves through to the soil it is inert and basically harmless, but in water it is still active and will remain so for quite some time.

reply to post by markosity1973

The most alarming possibility is that it is being directly ingested through contaminated water.

That is a possibility, of course, but since the tested subjects were "city dwellers" I'm not sure how likely it would be. Also, since less than half of the subjects showed positive it would seem to make it even less so.

The lab that analyzed the samples said this:

The results give a first idea to which extent adults in 18 European countries are exposed to Glyphosate. The regional and individual variations are large. Diet seems to be the main sources of exposure. However, more scientific work is needed to distinguish between different exposure situations.

www.foeeurope.org...

Since 56% of the tested subjects did not have detectable levels, it would be interesting to compare their diets. Also, determining why Malta scored "highest" might prove instructive.

reply to post by Philippines


I apologize for not having read the entire thread, I am rushing off to work and replying directly to the OP- but I am guessing it has already been said-

Round up is a common product everyone uses to kill weeds around the home. I have some (one concentrate to mix with water for a large sprayer, and one small ready to use sprayer for touch ups).

Our water comes from natural springs and is not treated in anyway, so whatever gets into the local water tables we end up drinking.

GMO's have nothing at all to do with it where I am.

reply to post by Phage



Phage,

When using GMO and non-GMO many farmers find it much easier and cheaper to use Roundup. It keeps the weeds to almost nill.

The amounts used get heavier and heavier year by year due to the resistance weeds are building up to weed killer, so just by default if you put enough of something on the crops, and ground it will end up in the foods and water supply.

Now when using Monsanto seeds many farmers actually sign an agreement to use Roundup and Monsanto seeds exclusively.

Like I said earlier. I have seen animals wild, and domestic, straight out refuse to eat GMO feed.

www.i-sis.org.uk...

reply to post by Realtruth

When using GMO and non-GMO many farmers find it much easier and cheaper to use Roundup. It keeps the weeds to almost nill.

I don't know about that but I know it is effective or farmers would not use it.

The amounts used get heavier and heavier year by year due to the resistance weeds are building up to weed killer

Year by year. While I can agree in principle I can't really agree with that statement. Do you have some evidence to back it up? But, since herbicide tolerance occurs independant of GMO cropping, I don't see the connection.
It is interesting to note that for corn (the dominant GMO crop) in the US, herbicide use has declined significantly since 1996 when glyphosate tolerant varieties were introduced to the market.

Now when using Monsanto seeds many farmers actually sign an agreement to use Roundup and Monsanto seeds exclusively.

Is that a fact? Can you provide a copy of that agreement? I understand that they agree not to save or resell seed I didn't know there was an exclusivity agreement involved.

Like I said earlier. I have seen animals wild, and domestic, straight out refuse to eat GMO feed.

Interesting. Can you provide some valid studies which indicate this. Something a bit more recent than 2002. I mean, after all these years you might think that those who actually raise the animals commercially would have noticed some problems and done something about it. Like not buying GMO feeds.

In any case, as stated, the topic has nothing to do with GMOs or Monsanto.

Originally posted by Bluesma
reply to post by Philippines

 

I apologize for not having read the entire thread, I am rushing off to work and replying directly to the OP- but I am guessing it has already been said-

Round up is a common product everyone uses to kill weeds around the home. I have some (one concentrate to mix with water for a large sprayer, and one small ready to use sprayer for touch ups).

Our water comes from natural springs and is not treated in anyway, so whatever gets into the local water tables we end up drinking.

GMO's have nothing at all to do with it where I am.

Thanks for the reply. Understood about drinking spring/well water and not testing to know what's in it - I do the same

For your location sure, if people use chemicals in the environment it will eventually disperse into the local habitat as the chemicals interact with different creatures in the food chain etc.

The issue here is that "city-dwellers" show signs of glyphosate and ampa in their urine. They don't use glyphosate in their lives in the city (imo) - so why is it showing up in their urine? What are they ingesting that has glyphosate?

Originally posted by Philippines
The issue here is that "city-dwellers" show signs of glyphosate and ampa in their urine. They don't use glyphosate in their lives in the city (imo) - so why is it showing up in their urine? What are they ingesting that has glyphosate?

Given that glyphosate is probably the number 1 weedkiller product you buy at your local shop, if the test was to be repeated, a question about whether the user had a garden at home that they tended to use weedkiller on would be instructive.

But the more I read about this study, the more useless I find it to be.
- Self selecting? The study was commissioned by "The Friends of the Earth", which is a group of people not representative of the population at large. People more likely to avoid GMO, use organic food, or grown their own.
- They obtain samples from volunteers, but *nowhere* in either the report or the media briefing do they say how this process happened. Did they ask people on the street? Did they ask at local meetings? Did they put up requests on a website? A very basic thing to mention, has not been mentioned.
- They did not seem to ask any questions at all from the volunteers. All they have are some numbers that they cannot now correlate with anything at all. No meaning can be derived from this experiment.
- The report from Bremen says "Diet seems to be the main sources of exposure." How do they claim that? For me it just looks like they made that claim up with no evidence at all? It may be right, but how does anyone know?

And to top it off, they make demands:

... we want to know how the glyphosate found in human urine samples has entered the body

and

...more scientific work is needed to distinguish between different exposure situation

IMHO, if they'd done this experiment properly, they'd be halfway to answering those questions themselves.

What we call "weeds" are actually manifestations of nature restoring balance to ecosystems that have been altered to maintain artificial systems of food production (i.e., "agriculture") and landscaping. The weeds are supposed to be there. The gazillion acres of monocropped corn (or whatever) is not supposed to be there. Which one is the invasive species? Nature doesn't want us to do what we're doing, so it is in a constant state of self-correction.

Instead of recognizing this and changing the way we do things to achieve harmony with the planet WE LIVE ON, we geniuses instead invented chemicals to beat nature into submission and kill anything that interferes with our "land management plans".

The question shouldn't be, "Why is weed killer in our bodies?". A more relevant one would be, "Why are we in a situation where we have to spray chemicals on our food in the first place?" That's the root (if you will) of the problem. Outrage at the governments/corporations using these techniques is misdirected. It's the entire system itself we should be pissed off about, because it undermines the most fundamental relationship we have--the one with our planet.

Originally posted by NthOther
What we call "weeds" are actually manifestations of nature restoring balance to ecosystems that have been altered to maintain artificial systems of food production (i.e., "agriculture") and landscaping. The weeds are supposed to be there. The gazillion acres of monocropped corn (or whatever) is not supposed to be there. Which one is the invasive species? Nature doesn't want us to do what we're doing, so it is in a constant state of self-correction.

Instead of recognizing this and changing the way we do things to achieve harmony with the planet WE LIVE ON, we geniuses instead invented chemicals to beat nature into submission and kill anything that interferes with our "land management plans".

The question shouldn't be, "Why is weed killer in our bodies?". A more relevant one would be, "Why are we in a situation where we have to spray chemicals on our food in the first place?" That's the root (if you will) of the problem. Outrage at the governments/corporations using these techniques is misdirected. It's the entire system itself we should be pissed off about, because it undermines the most fundamental relationship we have--the one with our planet.

I'm sorry, but I beg to differ on your stance. There are so many invasive weeds that are either poisonous or strangle out native life in the environment today that something has to be done to eliminate them.

Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with this website (or the one for your own country if you are not from the USA)

plants.usda.gov...

These plants choke up waterways and kill off fish, strangle out native trees and kill them off, they poison us and animals and they can even turn healthy virgin areas of national parklands into an ecological disaster.

Mother nature is not all kindness hugs and eco paradise unfortunately, she can be a real b@#$ too.....

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Philippines
The issue here is that "city-dwellers" show signs of glyphosate and ampa in their urine. They don't use glyphosate in their lives in the city (imo) - so why is it showing up in their urine? What are they ingesting that has glyphosate?

Given that glyphosate is probably the number 1 weedkiller product you buy at your local shop, if the test was to be repeated, a question about whether the user had a garden at home that they tended to use weedkiller on would be instructive.

But the more I read about this study, the more useless I find it to be.
- Self selecting? The study was commissioned by "The Friends of the Earth", which is a group of people not representative of the population at large. People more likely to avoid GMO, use organic food, or grown their own.
- They obtain samples from volunteers, but *nowhere* in either the report or the media briefing do they say how this process happened. Did they ask people on the street? Did they ask at local meetings? Did they put up requests on a website? A very basic thing to mention, has not been mentioned.
- They did not seem to ask any questions at all from the volunteers. All they have are some numbers that they cannot now correlate with anything at all. No meaning can be derived from this experiment.
- The report from Bremen says "Diet seems to be the main sources of exposure." How do they claim that? For me it just looks like they made that claim up with no evidence at all? It may be right, but how does anyone know?

And to top it off, they make demands:

... we want to know how the glyphosate found in human urine samples has entered the body

and

...more scientific work is needed to distinguish between different exposure situation

IMHO, if they'd done this experiment properly, they'd be halfway to answering those questions themselves.

Agreed, more studying needs to be done across the entire spectrum.

The study itself though is pretty basic: they are taking the piss out of people (had to say it) and testing it using gas chromatography. The report is basically an observation that Glyphosate and AMPA exist in their samples of urine tested.

On your other questions / points, I agree and would like the answers as well. This report is just an observation of urine samples, and anything more would require a lot more work.

With your point about diet, how else would it get in their urine if they are not eating or drinking it?

However, more scientific work is needed to distinguish between different exposure situations.

Perhaps a scientist's attitude toward the experiment affects the results of the experiment too?

On your last point about more work needing to be done -- fully agreed, but I think that work should've been done before the chemical was approved for release into the environment so the people would know its full spectrum ecological / biological effects -- instead of learning in hindsight.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by markosity1973

The lab that analyzed the samples said this:

The results give a first idea to which extent adults in 18 European countries are exposed to Glyphosate. The regional and individual variations are large. Diet seems to be the main sources of exposure. However, more scientific work is needed to distinguish between different exposure situations.

www.foeeurope.org...

Since 56% of the tested subjects did not have detectable levels, it would be interesting to compare their diets. Also, determining why Malta scored "highest" might prove instructive.

If I were to hazard a guess with Malta, it would be because they are an island nation that grows almost all of their own food and that glyphosate sprays are used widely there to ready a crop for harvest early.

They would indeed make the ideal place for further investigation if my theory of the food in their diets being mostly off the island is correct.

I am still not entirely convinced that we do not ingest it through water either though. I would entirely depend on a town / city's proxomity to farmland and whether runoff from said farmland enters either directly or via stream / river into the town reservoirs. I can certainly think of a couple of reservoirs where I live that would fit the bill to have contaminated water enter them. What the dilution is etc however is unknown to me, as I have never though to get a water test done.

Originally posted by markosity1973
I'm sorry, but I beg to differ on your stance. There are so many invasive weeds that are either poisonous or strangle out native life in the environment today that something has to be done to eliminate them.

These plants choke up waterways and kill off fish, strangle out native trees and kill them off, they poison us and animals and they can even turn healthy virgin areas of national parklands into an ecological disaster.

And how did these invasive species get there? They were transported to foreign environments for one of two reasons--agriculture or landscaping (if not both). What makes a species "invasive"? It disrupts the ecology of the local system it colonizes because it is not adapted to, and therefore unbalanced with, that environment. Why is it not adapted? Because it's not supposed to be there. If it was supposed to be there, it would be. Makes sense, right? We wouldn't have to do "something" about it if we hadn't created the problem in the first place.

The very notion of "invasive species" exists due to humanity's dysfunctional relationship with the planet that created and sustains it, as evidenced by the following statement:

Originally posted by markosity1973
Mother nature is not all kindness hugs and eco paradise unfortunately, she can be a real b@#$ too.....

Originally posted by NthOther

Originally posted by markosity1973
I'm sorry, but I beg to differ on your stance. There are so many invasive weeds that are either poisonous or strangle out native life in the environment today that something has to be done to eliminate them.

These plants choke up waterways and kill off fish, strangle out native trees and kill them off, they poison us and animals and they can even turn healthy virgin areas of national parklands into an ecological disaster.

And how did these invasive species get there? They were transported to foreign environments for one of two reasons--agriculture or landscaping (if not both). What makes a species "invasive"? It disrupts the ecology of the local system it colonizes because it is not adapted to, and therefore unbalanced with, that environment. Why is it not adapted? Because it's not supposed to be there. If it was supposed to be there, it would be. Makes sense, right? We wouldn't have to do "something" about it if we hadn't created the problem in the first place.

The very notion of "invasive species" exists due to humanity's dysfunctional relationship with the planet that created and sustains it, as evidenced by the following statement:

Originally posted by markosity1973
Mother nature is not all kindness hugs and eco paradise unfortunately, she can be a real b@#$ too.....

This is a circular argument you are entering into. The plants have found their way into alien places and now they have to be dealt with. Yes, it's like trying to close the door after the horse has bolted, but if we sit back and do nothing at all, areas that we are working to protect (not just monculture food crops but national parks with untouched original ecosystems) are in danger.

What would you have us do to right in imbalance that we have caused then?

Originally posted by markosity1973
What would you have us do to right in imbalance that we have caused then?

First we have to acknowledge that true, fundamental imbalances even exist. That's hard enough. Then we just have to accept the fact that what's done is done, stop doing it, and allow the relationship to heal over time. That's what nature does, if only we would let it. We keep trying to control everything. Let's stop doing that and just let the "invasive species" run their courses. The damage is done, but there's nothing to worry about in the end. Nature will fix it the way it should be fixed, and we'll just have to adapt in kind. One way or the other.

A hard pill to swallow, I know.

reply to post by Philippines


Oh dear just came in and this is the first thing i saw

I'm gonna die!!!

Tut if i believed everything i read about this stuff i'd be as skinny as a worm, iv'e been reading this s**t for years and i'm still here and iv'e ate some crap in my day, just look up army menu's.

Phage

reply to post by NthOther

I could argue the point by saying things like if we let nature run it's course we'd probably all starve and certain native species would become extinct. But instead I'd like to share with you a story of 2 acres if forest that my mother and I have saved from the brink of dying out on her farm to show how our control and weed sprays can do positive things.

When we purchased the property we were both enamored with the little patch of native bush it had in the middle of one of the fields. From a distance the block of trees looked perfectly innocent, grand and majestic trees with a variety of native birds living in them. However on closer inspection I quickly realised that there was no regrowth - when these mature trees died off, there would be nothing to take their place. Even worse, the forest floor was littered with weeds that did not belong there and the bottoms of the trees had been damaged by livestock. This patch of paradise was critically ill.

The first thing we did was to put a fence around the bush to keep the livestock out so they could not cause any more damage to the mature trees. Then we set to the weeds. We identified ragwort, californian and scots thistles, gorse, wooly nightshade, deadly nightshade and blackberry as being the worst and most problematic weeds.

Some of them were able to be removed by simply pulling them out by hand. Others, like the Gorse, wooly nightshade and blackberry are too thorny, too well rooted, would just grow back or would damage surrounding trees by removing them by this method. So we set about using appropriate sprays to kill the plants and after the first year the weed population had been completely eliminated. We only needed to maintain it through pulling out seedlings by hand from there on.

Even better, the trees were now dropping seeds that are germinating as they would naturally. The last time I saw the patch of bush (approx a year ago) there were young saplings growing at waist height on the forest floor - nature's natural cycle has been restored, with a little intervention from man and his technology.

Now if we could just get everyone to pee on the dandylions wed eradicate them all......

Originally posted by ballymoney50
reply to post by Philippines

 

Oh dear just came in and this is the first thing i saw

I'm gonna die!!!

Tut if i believed everything i read about this stuff i'd be as skinny as a worm, iv'e been reading this s**t for years and i'm still here and iv'e ate some crap in my day, just look up army menu's.

Phage

edit on 17-6-2013 by ballymoney50 because: oppsies

I'll let you in on a secret, we're all going to die, even the most health conscious people

The human body is resilient, it can take a lot of abuse from various substances. That doesn't mean the Earth's ecology can withstand the abuse. You're living relatively "fine" (define metrics), but how about the habitats of organisms destroyed by herbicides and pesticides? How about the creatures that depend on the organisms lower on the food chain?