You are on page 1of 3

"In April of 2014, scientists at the IARC published their review oftwenty

-five years of researchon the relationship between pesticide exposure and non-Hod
gkin's lymphoma. They found a positive association between organo-phosphorus her
bicides, like glyphosate, and this cancer. The B cell lymphoma sub-type, in part
icular, was strongly associated with glyphosate exposure.
"How is it possible that there are so many adverse health impacts in the test an
imals, if, as Monsanto claims, "the enzyme, EPSP synthase, is not present in hum
ans or animals"? The reason is simple. Roundup attacks other enzyme systems, wh
ich are indeed present in the animal kingdom.We owe this knowledge to a group of
scientists from Argentina who became concerned about human birth defects in are
as of their country where Roundup was being sprayed from airplanes as part of ge
netically modified (GM) soy production. They decided to do laboratory research t
o explore whether Roundup would produce similar developmental abnormalities in t
est animals. Experimenting with frog and chicken embryos, they found that those
embryos exposed to the herbicide developedsignificant malformations, including n
eural defects and craniofacial malformations similar to the birth defects seen i
n humans."
"Not only did this group of scientists demonstrate that Roundup causes b
irth defects in the animals tested, but they also were able to demonstrate how R
oundup caused the fetal abnormalities. The herbicide increased the activity of t
he Vitamin A (retinoic acid) "signaling pathway." It's called asignaling pathwaybe
cause it turns genes on and off. Roundup causes an abnormal increase in activity
of this pathway, which turns off certain genes. Unfortunately, those very genes
are needed for normal embryological development. When the Roundup turns off tho
se genes, birth defects result."
"Chaco, Argentina is also a region of intensive GM soy production and heavy glyp
hosate use. In the last decade, coincident with expansion of GM soy production,b
irth defectshave increased threefold and cancer rates have increased fourfold. A
court in the adjacent province of Santa Fe, a major GM soy-producing region, ban
ned the spraying of glyphosate and other agrochemicals in populated areas becaus
e of concerns about "severedamageto the environment and to the health and quality
of life of the residents."
Another study's results:
Examining NTD subtypes in a polytomous hierarchical model, we also observed asso
ciations for the following organophosphosus compounds: chlorpyrifos (OR: 1.54; 9
5% CI: 0.87, 2.73) with spina bifida, and glyphosate (OR: 1.55; 95% CI: 0.85, 2.
85) and naled (OR: 1.95; 95% CI: 0.89, 4.28) with anencephaly.
"Dr. Medardo Avila Vazquez, a pediatrician specializing in environmental
health, explained hisconcerns:"The change in how agriculture is produced has bro
ught, frankly, a change in the profile of diseases. We've gone from a pretty hea
lthy population to one with a high rate of cancer, birth defects and illnesses s
eldom seen before.What we have complained about for years was confirmed and espec
ially what doctors say about the sprayed towns and areas affected by industrial
agriculture. Cancer cases are multiplying as never before in areas with massive
use of pesticides."Dr. Avila Vazquez blamed the biotech agricultural corporation
s for placing their profits over the public's health:"The tobacco companies deni

ed the link between smoking and cancer, and took decades to recognize the truth.
The biotech and agrochemical corporations are the same as the tobacco industry;
they lie and favor business over the health of the population."
Another interesting thing about Seralini's study was that the design of it reall
y wasn't that different from Monsanto's own studies in how it was set up.
"Thus the design was similar. While the Monsanto study used twice the sample size
(rats per group) as Sralini, the Monsanto authors only analyzed blood and urine
from half of the animals
the same number of sampled animals as in Sralini s study.
Both studies used the same rat strain the Sprague-Dawley.Sralini added elements t
hat made his study more detailed than Monsanto s. He tested three levels of GM mai
ze exposure, compared with Monsanto s two, and measured a larger number of effects
more often. Furthermore, Sralini added additional treatment groups, namely NK603
maize not treated with Roundup, and Roundup exposure alone (in drinking water).
This was done in an effort to ascertain whether any ill effects observed were d
ue to the GMO, Roundup or a combination of the two. Again, this is an issue that
industry and regulators have failed to address.The key difference between the st
udies was thus not in research protocol, but in breadth of analysis and study du
ration. Crucially, Sralini s study lasted two years, as compared with Monsanto s 90 d
ays. This proved to be important because in Sralini s study, the first tumours only
became visible four months into the experiment a month after Monsanto s study had
As it turns out, the Seralini study was retracted by the same journal who publis
hed Monsanto's studies, but the agency who called for the retraction, the EFSA,
used a double standard on it compared to the Monsanto studies . . . .http://www.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the study, it was poorly designed,
but it shouldn't have been retracted, there are tons of poorly designed or inco
nclusive studies that aren't retracted . . . . http://www.endsciencecensorship.o
We can't have a controlled trial using roundup because that would be unethical,
but we can get close using epidemiological studies of humans, controlled trials
in animals who have similar biochemical systems as us, and in vitro studies of
the effects of Roundup on various types of human cells. Plus, we can study the
effects of Roundup on humans who have glyphosate in their blood or breast milk.
"In a 2004 study done at the National Scientific Research Center and the Univers
ity of Pierre and Marie Curie in France,Roundupcaused significanterrorsin the cell d
ivision of sea urchin embryos. The scientists commented that these abnormalities
are hallmarks of cancer and delivered a particularly chilling warning: The conc
entration ofRoundupneeded to cause these errors was 500 to 4,000 times lower than
the dose to which humans may be exposed by aerial spraying or handling of the he
"Dr. Fernando Manas, a biologist at the National University of Rio Cuarto in Arg
entina, has been investigating the effects of pesticides for years. He believes
that glyphosate spraying is causing cancer by inducing DNA damage. His research
has documented genetic damage in those exposed. When Dr. Manas studied pesticide
sprayers working in the soy industry in Crdoba, he found significantly more DNA
damage in their lymphocytes than in those of an unexposed group of controls. Rou
ndup was one of the most commonly used pesticides."
It's not hard to put 1+1 together and come to the conclusion that pesticide spra
yers are exposed to pesticides, and if they're getting cancer at higher rates, i
t's the pesticide causing the cancer. Thus, all people who live in the vicinity

of the fields sprayed with pesticides are also at risk for cancer, which is exa
ctly what the researchers found.
And as I previously mentioned, it's been shown to be an endocrine disruptor, whi
ch among other things, causes breast cancer and developmental defects . . . ."Sc
ientists in Thailand studied the impact of Roundup on human estrogen-responsive
breast cancer cells in tissue culture. They published their results in 2013. Hor
mone-responsive breast cancer cells are known to grow when exposed to estrogen.
Roundup also stimulated these cells to grow. The herbicide was able to bind to t
he cancer's estrogen receptors, thus mimicking the effects of estrogen and accel
erating tumor growth."
"However, the safety tests conducted by industry to support regulatory authoriza
tions of glyphosate herbicides are on glyphosate alone. The complete formulation
of Roundup as it is sold and used has never been tested over the long term for
regulatory purposes. Sralini s study contributes valuable data to this information
As I also mentioned, these "inerts" have been shown to be more toxic than the ac
tive ingredient itself, yet Monsanto has chosen not to include them in its "stud
ies" on Roundup. I wonder why . . . Could it be that they already know how tox
ic and harmful these substances are and know that if they're tested it'll prove
this and thus create a risk that their product will be banned or at least give i
t negatively publicity and significantly reduce sales of it to farmers?
"The necessary scientific studies of GM crops are not going to be done anytime s
oon, either. Monsanto uses its intellectual property rights to prevent others fr
om studying its products, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires th
at Monsanto only to make periodic checks on product safety. However, these check
s are not stringent and require Monsanto do to little more than tell the FDA tha
t their products are safe."
So based on all this research, combined with the industry's own flawed studies,
it's pretty reasonable to demand that we at least have a moratorium on spraying
Roundup until more studies are done using ALL of the substances in Roundup, and
those studies would have to be by independent, unbiased third parties with no ag
enda, and could be repeatable.