Barbara H. Peterson
The EPA is set to raise “safe” glyphosate contamination levels. Notwithstanding several documented reports of the current dangers of glyphosate exposure, including one from international plant pathologist, Dr. Don Huber, the EPA sets out to dupe the public once again and declare that the current set levels for “safe” consumption of glyphosate should be raised. Expect this figure to rise periodically as levels of glyphosate contamination rise in proportion to the expansion of genetically engineered crops and their herbicide-resistant counterparts around the world.
II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance
In theFederal Registerof May 2, 2012 (77 FR 25954) (FRL-9346-1), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 2E7979) by IR-4, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.364 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide glyphosate N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine in or on the raw agricultural commodity teff, forage and teff, hay at 100 parts per million (ppm) and oilseed crops, group 20 at 40 ppm. The petition also requested amendments to the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.364 as follows: Vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except sugar beet, from 0.2 ppm to 6.0 ppm; vegetable, bulb, group 3 at 0.2 ppm tovegetable, bulb, group 3-07 at 0.2 ppm; okra at 0.5 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 0.1 ppm to vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.1 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.5 ppm to fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.5 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.2 ppm to fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.2 ppm; cranberry, grape, juneberry, kiwifruit, lingonberry, salal, strawberry, and berry group 13 at 0.2 ppm to berry and small fruit, group 13-07 at 0.2 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Monsanto, the registrant, which is available in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has modified the levels at which tolerances are being established for some commodities as well as the crops for which tolerances are being established. The reason for these changes is explained in Unit IV.C.
Nothing to see here, as Monsanto has repeatedly stated that it is safe. That is, until the company was caught lying… again.
There was a time when Monsanto claimed their patented herbicide Roundup was “safer than table salt” and “practically nontoxic,” and aggressively marketed this message until 1996, when they were ordered by Dennis C. Vacco, the Attorney General of New York, to pull the ads.
In 1996, Monsanto was accused of false and misleading advertising of glyphosate products, prompting a law suit by the New York State attorney general. Monsanto had made claims that its spray-on glyphosate based herbicides, including Roundup, were safer than table salt and “practically non-toxic” to mammals, birds, and fish.
Let’s just take a look at some real data on glyphosate, shall we? Here is Dr. Don Huber, explaining some of its dangers:
Internationally recognized plant pathologist Dr. Don Huber, wrote a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack warning of the discovery of a new pathogen and a possible link between Roundup Ready® (GMO) corn and soybeans and severe reproductive problems in livestock as well as widespread crop failure. Less than 3 weeks later, the Obama administration approved 2 new Roundup Ready® GMO crops…
Sayer Ji of GreenMedInfo points out that according to a new study published in Food and Chemical Toxicology, glyphosate is carcinogenic in the parts per trillion range:
An alarming new study finds that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup weedkiller, is estrogenic and drives breast cancer cell proliferation in the parts-per-trillion range. Does this help explain the massive mammary tumors that the only long term animal feeding study on Roundup and GM corn ever performed recently found?
- Glyphosate induces T47D, hormone dependent breast cancer cell growth.
- The proliferative effect of glyphosate is mediated via estrogen receptors.
- Glyphosate induces ERE [Estrogen Response Element]-transcription activity via estrogen receptors.
- Glyphosate modulates the expression of E[strogen] R[eceptor] α and E[estrogen] R[eceptor]β in human breast cancer cells.
These effects indicate that glyphosate is a ‘xenoestrogen,’ capable of inducing Estrogen Response Elements (EREs) in a manner, slightly weaker but functionally similar to the most potent human estrogen Estradiol (E2).
More concerning is the discovery that infinitesimal glyphosate concentrations in the parts-per-trillion rage (10 to the minus 12) had proliferative (carcinogenic) effects on the studied T47D breast cancer cells line:
“In this study, we found that glyphosate at a log interval concentration ranging from 10-12 to 10-6 M increased the cell proliferation of a hormorne dependent breast cancer T47D cell…”
The researchers also discovered that the naturally occurring phytoestrogen in soybean known as genistein, produced “an additive estrogenic effect” when combined with glyphosate, raising the serious question as to whether GMO soybeans are contributing to the epidemic levels of breast cancer within countries like the US where they are consumed in relatively high quantities.
No wonder cancer is predicted to rise 75% by 2030. A self-fulfilling prophecy? It seems that the cancer industry is preparing to experience a significant boom thanks to the EPA.
The worldwide incidence of cancer is expected to increase 75 percent by 2030, with a projected increase of more than 90 percent in the poorest nations, a new study reveals.
Rates of certain types of cancer (such as cervical and stomach cancer) appear to be declining in some developing countries, but these reductions are likely to be offset by substantial increases in the types of cancer associated with a “westernized” lifestyle, including breast, prostate and colorectal cancer, according to the report published online May 31 in The Lancet Oncology.
The increase of cancer in developing countries is associated with a western lifestyle, and not so coincidentally, the rate of GMO crop production has increased substantially in these countries:
For the first time since the introduction of biotech/GM crops almost two decades ago, developing countries have grown more hectares of biotech crops than industrialized countries…
Developing nations planted 52 percent of the global biotech crops in 2012, up from 50 percent a year earlier and above the 48 percent industrial countries grew last year, according to a report released today by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA).
It appears that an increased use of glyphosate that goes along with genetically engineered crops in developing countries coincides with an elevated risk of cancer, as projected by the Lancet report.
So, what is the EPA’s response? Why, increase “acceptable” levels of glyphosate, of course, which were never really “acceptable” at all to begin with considering the agency’s “acceptable” ranges are measured in the ppm (parts per million) range when cancer incidence is detected in the parts per trillion range.
Coincidence? Connect the dots. The facts and figures are there. We are being told in advance to expect to get cancer, and the groundwork is being laid for a huge increase in the disease. All that is needed is a compliant populace willing to believe anything the EPA, FDA, USDA, and a whole host of other alphabet soup agencies say is safe. Will you be one of the statistics? Or will you take responsibility for your own life and discard the junk science that tells us black is white, white is black, and to believe what they say and not anyone else?
©2013 Barbara H. Peterson