Monsanto. Breaking Story. Don’t Let This Go Unshared!

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o
Thanks, providing a date helped. The Federal Register does show that glyphosate tolerance levels were increased for some commodities in 2013 and that the changes were in response to a petition from Monsanto. The changes were less than requested.
www.federalregister.gov...

Csn we get a confirm on the unsafe dosage? 100 parts per trillion seems paranoid to me.

If so were all already dead as i challenge anyone to find anything anymore not having such an amount in the mix.

A couple years ago i about died, when i saw the county roadside weed and overgrowth killer guy near my house near the highway. He had a golf sort of cart vehicle, big roundup tank on the back, the sprayer fired a 20' stream of the stuff so solid he could rain the trees with it. Impressive piece of equipment i must add. So hes out there with no protection of any kind making rain with the stuff. Its real hot in the summer here, hell most of the year. This task was his everyday job i found out when i went out there to talk to him. He said its just too damn hot to be all covered up and ventilator etc all day. I told him he should be wearing a chemical moon suit they way he was just covered in the stuff, breathing it. Talked to him a while kept insisting he gets a new job. He kept saying hes been instructed its safe, its in all the food, etc.

I cant stand the stuff as a material, its all oily which helps it wreck the plant surfaces, and your mucase membranes etc. It has a musty sort of smell not unlike some gross blend of synthetic garter snakes and cockroaches.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

It depends if your body can get rid of the toxins or they are stored and accumulated over time I would think. If everything you drink and eat has it I would think the doses can add up, not to mention other chemical binding and processes not explored with the combinations of other elements.

Last I knew the lawsuit from farmers and farm hands with cancer was moving forward as well.

a reply to: silo13

That's great...even organic produce is uptaking this crap...because it's in the soil, air and water....

originally posted by: new_here
a reply to: silo13

Thank you for this. Alarming. Thankfully, I have cut out almost all of these processed foods. So what I wonder is, what level of contamination occurs in the raw ingredients of these? Or various fruits & vegetables I buy at the grocery store, either fresh or frozen. Also, run-off into our lakes & streams... so how much is in fish I may eat? What about the cow that eats the oats that are contaminated? How about the water table... can it seep into it? Things I wonder and just do not know.

Sorry....

healthimpactnews.com...

www.rodalesorganiclife.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MysterX

If 0.1ppb (and yes, it's a tiny amount) is the set standard,

It isn't the standard.

Arsenic, is really bad. Right? Definitely dangerous. The drinking water maximum is 10.0 ppb.

0.1 ppb is absurd.

Thank you!!! You beat me to painting this out, cyanide in drinking water is .2 ppm ie. 200 ppb... glyphosate in drinking water is .7ppm/700ppb

www.epa.gov...

originally posted by: JanAmosComenius
a reply to: xuenchen

The "expert" answer is far from complete. Most of glyphosate is spread in to food chain via ordinary (not GM) wheat where is GLYPHOSATE USED AS DESICCANT FEW DAYS BEFORE HARVEST.

Do you mean that Glyphosate is sprayed on ordinary crops within a few days of harvesting? That should not be the right thing to do at all.
However, Monsanto has become too controversial, while in any case, if weeds are now losing their resistance to Glyphosate, I don't see the point that they prosecute on their patent being relevant any more than I see the product being relevant any more. That the WHO, in a very convoluted way now say the Glyphosate is, "probably Carcinogenic" should be enough for most to say no more...get it OTF.
The thing is, Cancer of any kind is a human horror, only tempered by years and years of research, although still a killer, but, there is nothing to say that Glyphosate effects on the body could not still kill people before any onset of a cancer in the body.
Anyway here's a video done a while ago in France about Monsanto...the chemical factory.



BTW, you might take in the reference about the push to bypass the regulatory standard of the time in the Bush sequence such as it may have been...whatever..how many dumb clucks do you need to achieve that..is it still going on? remember the phrase...not one dollar!

originally posted by: luciferslight
The story seems old, but the information is relevant. I wonder how many people have died from this as of 1/18/2017 when the story was made.

Maybe another health scare and click bait story.

Zero people have died from this.

a reply to: smurfy

I don't see the point that they prosecute on their patent being relevant any more than I see the product being relevant any more.

The patent expired in 2000.
Glyphosate works and is certainly less toxic than alternatives.

That the WHO, in a very convoluted way now say the Glyphosate is, "probably Carcinogenic" should be enough for most to say no more...get it OTF.

That statement was in regard to direct exposure of agricultural workers.

For the herbicide glyphosate, there was limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The evidence in humans is from studies of exposures, mostly agricultural, in the USA, Canada, and Sweden published since 2001.

www.iarc.fr...

In regard to diet:

In view of the absence of carcinogenic potential in rodents at human-relevant doses and the absence of genotoxicity by the oral route in mammals, and considering the epidemiological evidence from occupational exposures, the Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet.

www.who.int...

a reply to: Chadwickus



I provided some interesting reading from legitimate sources.

There is also a lawsuit that has been moving forward from farmers with cancer so it's debatable.

a reply to: Phage

Less toxic than alternatives? There is a whole industry that doesn't use synthetics.

The truth is there is real evidence it could be a problem for humans and habitat.

Also I have provided sources which debate those claims in your article.

Until now, most health studies have focused on the safety of glyphosate, rather than the mixture of ingredients found in Roundup. But in the new study, scientists found that Roundup’s inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cells—even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and lawns.
One specific inert ingredient, polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, was more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself – a finding the researchers call “astonishing.”

www.scientificamerican.com...

a reply to: luthier

There is a whole industry that doesn't use synthetics.

I am aware of that. I am also aware that it is that industry which it the primary source of articles like the one in the OP.

I'm all for elimination the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers. I'm doubtful that large scale agriculture could exist without them. I'm not a farmer, but it would seem that it is more cost effective to use them than not.


I am aware of studies of the various adjuvants used with glyphosate.

a reply to: Phage

Well of course it's completely subsidized. Almost free.

The problem is its probably toxic to humans and habitat.

a reply to: luthier

Well of course it's completely subsidized. Almost free.

It is? Subsidized how?
I see it running $40-$60 per gallon.

a reply to: Phage

Large scale agriculture doesn't buy gallons. They a part of packages with seeds, fertilizers etc. Cheap.

a reply to: luthier

I guess I'll have to take your word that it's cheap.
Something like that might be hard to verify.

a reply to: Phage

It's not very hard to verify if you research farm subsidies and monsanto.

a reply to: silo13

Monsanto and all its personnel should Corporately be murdered.

a reply to: luthier

I know that large farms receive government subsidies. Do they only get those subsidies if they use Monsanto products? That seems bad.

a reply to: Phage

The subsidies are closely tied to agribusiness, from tractors to fertilizers. I can get you some sources of how closely tied to government Monsanto is, the subsidies they get, and the discounts Monsanto gives for buying seeds for the supporting chemicals. Monsanto themselves are getting hand outs.

I am currently on a cell and about to make dinner however.
But it won't be from Dr mercola don't worry I am married to a research professor and was raised by a mechanical engineer. So I tend to look for real studies and who payed for them.