World’s #1 Herbicide Discovered in U.S. Mothers’ Breast Milk

reply to post by R_Clark

Hi. R_Clark & all.

I was just about to write this:
What are people waiting for to eat ORGANIC ??!!

Even more:
we do NOT eat
stuff that comes from USA !
stuff that comes from China !
stuff that comes from the Pacific ocean !

We eat organic and local, almost 100% !
Sooooo. . .we will live up to 100 years old ?? B-)

Blue skies.

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.

reply to post by C-JEAN


Well said... the Russians just said that they will not import GMO as well... so there is a binary system forming.... let us see how humanity redevelops...

reply to post by beezzer


Right on Beezer...

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 read an article just the other day about GMO's in Baby formula. It's from 2013.

3 companies that are using GMO in their Baby formula


Similac
Enfamil
Gerber Good Start

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:

"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."

www.greenmedinfo.com...

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 but there is no doubt that our world is not a "clean" place;
www.deathcaps.com...

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.

A farting tortoise would probably not be saved because it'd lack aesthetic that induces sympathy, lol. Not all species are actually protected. The snail darter wasn't as cute and fuzzy as a baby tiger cub and all pleas to protect it from extinction went on unsympathetic ears in lieu of building the Tellico dam. Turned out "ok" though as they just introduced it elsewhere, lol (it's only threatened these days). We only protect those cute and fuzzy things. If it's not cute and fuzzy, it's screwed. The farting tortoise would be screwed.



I think what you might be saying is that if there is somebody really, really big, rich and powerful behind something, it's a-okay but if it's some guy just trying to make a living from tilling the earth, then it's not okay. I think you're onto something there.

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:

"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."

www.greenmedinfo.com...

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)

Agreed. Sample size is really important. it's like the whole thing where 9 out of 10 dentists agree that Crest is the toothpaste for you! Did they ask only 10 dentists of which they knew 9 preferred Crest? Same thing.

In this case, the sample size was 35.

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.

Statistically, that's not a big enough sample to make a proper inference about. If the presence of glyphosate in breast milk was detected in repeated tests, over and over again, to embody an overall greater sample size, then it'd be more meaningful. However, we don't know how the sample was selected and where beyond "across the US" either. How did they determine their choices for the sample? Was it random? Or was it like knowing that there might be a higher chance that that dentist is going to prefer Crest and actually be a loaded sample?

Great points, Phage.

Pesticides in breast milk........
Dramatic rise in ADD-ADHD/Learning disabilities.....

Coincidence????

reply to post by virraszto


Good find... considering the outrageous prices they charge for formula... you would think they could use organic..

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...

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...

It's definitely an indicator that more study needs to be done. Pretty sure I said that so not disagreeing there; however, the problem with the sample size used is that its size is too small to be significant in the first place. Its confidence interval would be low. That's why more tests should be run to have an overall larger sample size that can indicate whether the total number of positives for glyphosate in breast milk are either higher or lower. Sample size is very important to statistics, remember?

lol, the both of us are stats nerding out. Kind of awesome.

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.

Yes, beezzer - it's just you.
On a lighter note - Are they still taking applications for breast milk samplers (I mean - Researchers)?
... ...a friend of mine was just...wondering...


ETA: I know - - I get the 'how dare you' award.

When in doubt, ask an "expert"....

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.

The herbicide is sprayed onto plants. Therefore it would drip into the soil, be taken up by the root system of the plant and up through the capillary system of the plant. When the plant is harvested the herbicide would still be there and released once the vegetables or fruit are boiled, sliced, diced or processed.

Could there be grounds of a civil suit against either the makers of the poison or companies like monsanto? If it is a possibility, then we might actually see some progress.

reply to post by Lostmymarbles

Might as well go after all these ones too I guess. These are probably more worrisome than glyphosate.

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)

www.deathcaps.com...

reply to post by Lostmymarbles


Problem is, the law requires proof of harm via direct cause and effect - toxic, mutagenic or carcinogenic. Truth is, most effects are systemic and involve indirect epigenetic processes. We need a big enough paradigm shift to influence the law, not just science. The legal system and scientific establishment both protect the status quo and are exceedingly slow to change.

This is horrible news, and the implications have so many unknowns. One thing that did come out recently, is that Autism in children is up 30%.. 1 in 66 children. One would wonder if there is any correlation here, since they did not have a definitive reason when it was announced.

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!

A full, honest study is needed on how often glyphosate is used, what quantities it's being used and when it's being used.

People will double the recommended amount so it "works better" and spray it when not needed, like just before it rains.