glyphosate - Page 2

Glyphosate Induced Obesity?

Published on
12170 views
glyphosate induced obesity

Are you struggling with your weight? Are you eating well and exercising but still not losing weight? Well then, it might be time to consider what’s on or in what you are eating or what you are eating eats. Sound complicated? It’s not. An emerging body of evidence shows a strong link between eating foods sprayed with commercial herbicides and eating meats raised on commercial feedlots (that are born and bred on a cocktail of chemicals) and obesity.

After years of eating highly processed and chemically laden fruits, vegetables and meats, the bacteria in our guts shift radically towards a species that emit what are called endotoxins. These endotoxin releasing bacteria induce inflammation, which then shifts a series biochemical pathways that favor fat storage as a protective and compensatory reaction to the steady state of chemicals coming from our diet and the lack of nutrients contained within these foods. Indeed, what we now call autoimmune reactions, the continued elevation in inflammation and antibodies, may be a result of the food we eat (and the other pharmacological and environmental chemical exposures). It turns out, that the constant state of inflammation many of us find ourselves in is the body’s way of trying to clear those toxins.

With obesity in particular, there have been several interesting studies published over the last couple years providing clear links between chemical exposures and fat storage. Whether the body stores fat or uses fat depends upon the balance of good and bad bacteria in the gut and that balance is predicated heavily upon nutrient availability and toxic exposures. High calorie, low nutrient, chemically dosed foods, shift bacterial communities that increase fat storage and inflammation. Not only that, but since gut bacteria metabolize dietary vitamins and even synthesize vitamins from scratch on their own, the high fat, low nutrient, chemically laden diet downregulates the vitamin producing bacteria, in favor of the more pathogenic and opportunistic bacteria. This further depletes nutrient stores while enhancing inflammation. The cycle becomes very difficult to end, as anyone struggling to lose weight knows all too well. There is hope, however. New research from disparate sources demonstrates how reducing the toxic load and increasing nutrient availability can re-calibrate fat usage and storage parameters.

Gut Bacteria and Obesity

Just a few years ago, researchers from Shanghai, China identified one of the gut bacterial over growths associated with obesity and published their results in a paper entitled: An opportunistic pathogen isolated from the gut of an obese human causes obesity in germfree mice. Called enterobacter clocae, the endotoxin producing bacteria was found overpopulated in the gut of a severely obese patient who was also insulin resistant, hypertensive and suffered from the array of obesity related health issues. The enterobacter clocae pathogens made up 35% of the total bacterial content in this patient’s gut; a huge bacterial load. Knowing that enterobacter emitted endotoxins and that endotoxins were associated with inflammation and insulin dysregulation, the researchers speculated that a reduction in the enterobacter population would correspond with a reduction in weight and the other health issues. They were correct. With a special diet and traditional Chinese herbs, weight loss and health parameters changed along with the reduction in toxic load. After 9 weeks, enterobacter represented only 1.7% of the total gut bacteria and at 23 weeks, .32%. The total weight loss during that period was 50kg or 110lbs.

Could something as simple as reducing the opportunistic enterobacter via diet be the solution to obesity? To answer this question, the researchers went back to lab and designed an experiment to test the hypothesis, only they did it in the reverse. They asked if enterobacter was a causative factor in obesity, could they induce obesity in mice bred specifically to resist excessive weight gain simply by increasing the bacterial load?

From the fecal matter of the obese patient, the researchers isolated the particular strain of enterobacter clocae called B29. They took the B29 and inoculated four groups of seven, germ-free mice; B29 inoculated plus normal diet or high fat diet and non-inoculated normal or high fat diet. Germ-free mice are a strain of mice that are microorganisms free and raised in isolates. They are resistant to obesity even when fed a high fat diet.

One mouse from each of the inoculated groups died immediately after the inoculation indicating the toxic nature of this bacteria. Remember, this strain of bacteria represented 35% of the original patient’s gut bacteria, likely acquired gradually over the course of lifetime. During the first week, all of the inoculated mice lost weight, again indicating the mounting immune response. Anorexia, is often a sign of illness as the body reallocates resources towards fighting an infection.

Subsequently, and after the immediate anorexic responses, both groups of inoculated mice gained excessive weight, whereas the non-inoculated mice did not. The inoculated plus high fat diet group not only gained significantly more weight but expressed higher levels of enterobacter inflammatory markers and insulin resistance showing an interaction between diet and bacterial growth. The researchers speculate that the high fat diet facilitates the transfer of this bacteria to the bloodstream and increases the systemic inflammatory reaction. The inflammation then shifts the body towards fat storage via a range biochemical cascades meant to fight the infection but that also induces other reactions along the way; reactions we consider hallmarks of metabolic disease including high cholesterol, insulin resistance, liver damage, decreased adiponectin (satiety hormone – low adiponection means one is always hungry) and even increased amyloid A proteins associated with Alzheimer’s. This study, albeit small and in need of replication, shows us that when the balance of good to bad bacteria shifts, obesity is induced. It doesn’t tell us, however, how environmental chemicals in and on food impact this bacterial shift. For that we have to go to a couple other reports.

Nutritional Perils of the Western Diet

The Western diet has become a synonymous with highly processed foods that barely resemble actual food in nutrient and DNA composition. Indeed, in our efforts to produce the largest and prettiest produce, we’ve cultivated out 95% of the genetic variation from food crops; reducing to almost nothing the ~200,000 plant metabolites that provide nutrition. To make matters worse, we have substituted nutritionally rich and diverse crops with ones that originate from plant seeds engineered with bacterial RNA and DNA and are laced with glyphosate, adjuvants and other chemicals. In addition, all commercial meat production relies heavily on genetically modified, glyphosate-doused feed to grow the cattle, combined with prophylactic antibiotics, growth hormones and a cocktail of other chemicals that compensate for the deplorable conditions under which Western foods are produced. The genetically modified, chemically laden food stuffs are then sold to the consumer as fruits, vegetables, meats and dairy or processed even further into other food-like products. From beginning to end of the food chain are exposures to chemicals and foreign bacterial DNA that our bodies cannot accommodate and that provide only limited nutrients.

So, in addition to the direct exposure to chemical toxicants, conventionally grown Western foodstuffs also impair health by reducing vital nutrient content required for even the most basic cell functioning. By disrupting the balance between good gut bacteria and bad or pathogenic bacteria conventionally grown further disrupts nutrient availability while increasing inflammation and the cascade of ill-health is set in motion.

Metabolic Starvation in the Face of Obesity

As we’ve covered previously, every cell in the body requires energy to exist and function. That energy comes in the form of mitochondrial adenosine triphosphate or (ATP). The production of ATP requires nutrients as co-factors and for enzyme functioning. Many of these nutrients come from diet and others are produced de novo or from scratch by the bacteria in our gut. Glyphosate grown foods attack both. Glyphosate reduces the nutrient availability of foodstuffs, even in the less processed, presumed healthy fruits and vegetables, while simultaneously killing the good bacteria in our guts. Glyphosate is a potent bactericide that in a perverse twist of design preferentially targets the beneficial bacteria while leaving untouched the opportunistic and pathogenic bacteria, like enterobacter clocae. So while eating a healthy diet might lead to weight loss and improved health outcomes under normal circumstances, when that diet consists of conventionally grown foods, with genetically engineered seeds capable of withstanding the toxic insults of glyphosate and its adjuvants, neither the diet nor the disrupted intestinal flora can produce the nutrients required to enable healthy cellular metabolism. The GM-glyphosate combo induces a state of metabolic starvation and through a number of survival pathways and shifts towards fat storage rather than fat loss as a secondary source of energy.

Critical to this entire equation is the fact that the bactericidal properties of glyphosate disrupt normal gut microflora.  Glyphosate directly shifts the balance of power away from the healthy, vitamin and mineral factories that feed the body’s enzymes and mitochondria, towards more pathogenic bacteria that are resistant to glyphosate and may even feed on it, further evoking metabolic starvation. As the bacterial balance continues to shift, disease appears and inflammation ensues. Those diseases are then treated pharmacologically with drugs that also disrupt gut bacteria, deplete nutrient stores and damage mitochondria. The cascade of ill-health becomes more and more difficult to end using traditional approaches. Moreover, where and how disease appears is as much based upon individual predispositions as it is on nutrition and other exposures, making the complexity of modern illness something modern medicine is not accustomed too. In other words, these diseases do not fit neatly into the one disease, one medication model, and thus, very rarely respond favorably to treatment.

To Lose Weight, Feed the Body What it Needs: Nutrients.

Despite the complexity of the interactions that come together and create the chronic health issues we face today, there is one variable that can be controlled that will mitigate obesity and ill-health directly: eating, or more specifically, what is eaten. The simple act of cleaning up one’s diet, of moving away from processed foods and away from conventionally grown foods towards organics, can have a tremendous effect on reducing the body’s toxic load and subsequent inflammation, weight gain, and disease. Similarly, replacing needed micronutrients so that bacterial and mitochondrial functioning can come back online and switch from fat storage to fat/energy burning will be critical. This will take time, however, and the transition towards health may be slow. Obesity and ill-health did not emerge overnight and they will not disappear overnight. Finally, we have to recognize that there is no one-size-fits-all, silver bullet, diet vitamin or diet pill. Each of us adapts to chemical exposures and the lack of nutrition individually and uniquely. So each of us requires a different cocktail of nutrients to move forward. Which nutrients and at what doses should be determined individually and may involve some degree of trial and error. As the Western diet is devoid of critical vitamins, minerals and amino acids, it is likely many individuals are suffering from broad based deficiencies. It is also likely, that restoring what has been absent chronically will go a long way towards health and healing, regardless of one’s particular health issues. So if you are struggling with obesity and other health issues, feed your body what it needs to function – nutrients.

We Need Your Help

More people than ever are reading Hormones Matter, a testament to the need for independent voices in health and medicine. We are not funded and accept limited advertising. Unlike many health sites, we don’t force you to purchase a subscription. We believe health information should be open to all. If you read Hormones Matter, like it, please help support it. Contribute now.

Yes, I would like to support Hormones Matter. 

Photo by i yunmai on Unsplash.

This post was published originally on Hormones Matter on July 28, 2014. 

 

Related posts:

creatine creatine in energy metabolismCreatine Creatinine Ratio as a Measure of Energy Metabolism Environmental pollutants microbiomeEnvironmental Pollutants and the Microbiome covid - hypoxiaCOVID Notes: Mitochondrial Hypoxia book review nature wants us to be fatBooks I Like: Nature Wants Us to Be Fat

You might be interested in

The Choices We Make: Glyphosate

Published on
3424 views
glyphosate choices

The story of glyphosate and glyphosate-based-herbicides is emblematic of the perspective we hold towards chemical safety and the tactics employed by the chemical industry to maintain that perspective. Here was a chemical that was initially used industrially and recognized as toxic but through the magic of marketing and intense lobbying, became ‘safe’ for human consumption. What is particularly interesting about the glyphosate story is that each of the mechanisms by which the chemical produced its desired results in industry were compartmentalized by the manufacturers as being somehow distinct from how the chemical would behave in humans or animals. It was a brilliant sleight of hand, one we all bought hook, line, and sinker because we wanted to believe it. Glyphosate based herbicides, at least initially, and if we did not think too much about the chemistry, worked. The herbicides made life easier, or so we thought. If we look at the history of this chemical and the mechanisms by which it acts, however, we should have known better.

From Industrial Descaling Agent to Herbicide and Antibiotic

Glyphosate was first patented in 1961 as an industrial descaling agent. It was used to remove minerals like calcium, magnesium, iron, manganese from piping. Glyphosate chelates or grabs and binds these minerals so that they can be flushed out. It does the same thing in plants and in humans that consume glyphosate-doused products, maybe not as quickly as when used as a descaling agent because the dosage is markedly different, but over time the small and continuous exposure to a chelating agent, will chelate minerals and create deficiencies. Why should we think otherwise; well, because we were told that it would not harm us and we wanted to believe that the inherent properties of these chemicals would somehow change relative to the organism into or onto which the chemical was used. They do not.

Ten years later, glyphosate along with undisclosed and untested chemical adjuvants (helper chemicals that maximize absorption, enhance metabolism and other critical functions) was patented as a weedkiller and brought to market as Roundup in 1974 by Monsanto. Glyphosate-based herbicides kill plants via disruption of an enzyme (enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase –EPSPS) in what is called the shikimate pathway. In plants and microbial organisms like bacteria, fungi, algae and some protozoa, the shikimate pathway synthesizes folates and amino acids (phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan). Of note, folates (vitamin B9) are important for red blood cell development and oxygenation, iron homeostasis, and DNA synthesis and repair, and methylation among other functions and amino acids are critical for protein synthesis, a requisite for health and survival. The amino acids that glyphosate blocks comprise about 30% of plant dry mass and contribute largely to the dietary needs of the larger animals and humans. This is one of the many reasons conventionally grown produce contains fewer nutrients and higher sugar content than their organic counterparts.

The EPSPS enzyme is present in all plants, fungi and bacteria. Since this pathway only occurs in plants and lower organisms like bacteria, it was argued that ingested glyphosate would have no effect on the health of animals or humans. This has proven not to be true for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that these bacteria are commensal with humans. That is, bacteria with this pathway are naturally present on human skin, in the lungs, the gut and the reproductive tract. In that regard, glyphosate is a potent antibiotic and antifungal. The company filed patents for its antibiotic properties in 2002, while simultaneously and vociferously denying glyphosate’s antimicrobial tendencies, using of course, the standard trope that the formulation only affects plants. It most certainly does not. The human gut, in particular, is comprised of incredibly complex and tightly balanced ecosystem of billions of microorganisms that perform all sorts of critical functions from nutrient absorption and synthesis to immune regulation. Alterations in gut bacteria are proving to be key contributors to disease; a fact that was purportedly missed by the manufacturers.

So, we have a chemical formulation that kills plants and microbes; one that is toxic to all plant life, not just weeds, but all plant life. This necessitated the development of genetically modified (GM) crops to withstand the poison. GM crops contain either two copies of the EPSPS enzyme or a strain of the enzyme resistant to the chemicals. That is the genetic modification used in conventional agriculture. It is not the simple crossbreeding of yesteryear to produce bigger, prettier, or tastier produce. The modifications are to withstand a poison. It should be noted that although the plants are modified to withstand the poison, they cannot to metabolize it. That means that glyphosate residues remain in and on the plant that is destined to become food or, and in the cotton that is used in all sorts of applications from clothing to medical and feminine hygiene products. Yes, glyphosate has been found in 85% of tampons tested. Might this be a problem in women’s health? Likely, but again, it is not something that is considered by conventional medicine. Glyphosate remains in the soil indefinitely and leaches into the surface and ground water changing the nutrient and microbial composition ever so slightly as to be considered insignificant, unless of course, one understands the ramifications of small changes, compounded over time. Finally, and as mentioned previously, while glyphosate alone carries certain toxicities, glyphosate with its adjuvants becomes exponentially more dangerous, a 1000 times more potent according to some studies. Researchers in France have demonstrated this repeatedly (see work by Giles Seralini Lab ). The adjuvants, however, are presumed inert, and thus, never tested pre-release and not recognized for their toxicity post-release.

Manufacturing Approval

Looking at the history of this product, we see where the manufacturer actively collides with contrary regulatory indices and research findings. Work on genetically modified (GM) strains of crops began in the eighties and reached culmination in the nineties. In 1985, however, glyphosate was recognized as a class C carcinogen by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Monsanto, fought against this classification and in 1991, just as the first GM products were to reach market, successfully bid the EPA to change its classification from Class C “Suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential” to Class E which suggests “evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans”. Nearly thirty years later, and hundreds of studies, the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC), a semi-autonomous branch of the World Health Organization, declared glyphosate as a probable carcinogen in 2015 with ‘strong evidence of genotoxicity, and just as it did in decades earlier, the manufacturers fought the classification and are largely succeeding. In 2018, however, a US court, said wait a minute; glyphosate based herbicides are indeed carcinogenic and found in favor of the plaintiff who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Subsequently, additional cases have been brought against the manufacturers and any many more will likely follow. Whether and how this will ultimately affect the chemical industry remains to be seen.

We know that according to industry, glyphosate based herbicides are completely safe and effective and pose no cause for concern. None. They argue that the glyphosate based herbicides, much like every other chemical toxicant mass marketed, would not be allowed on the market unless they were safe. Failing to mention, of course, that through a series of regulatory loopholes, many components of these products are never tested, including the adjuvants, or that the regulatory agencies rely on data provided by industry; data that is edited heavily to present the compound in its most favorable light. Emblematic of the industry’s cavalier attitude towards chemical safety:

‘‘Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food,” he said. ”Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.’s job.” – Phil Angell, Monsanto’s Corporate Communications Director, 1999

Speak to the farmers, however, and a different story emerges. Animals fed GM foods develop all sorts of health issues from birth defects in offspring, to tumors in the animals themselves. Perhaps even more damning, at least economically, is that farmers who originally embraced glyphosate based herbicides now face invasive super-weeds for which there are no easy solutions.

Glyphosate Mechanisms of Ill-health

Here are just a few of the findings regarding the impact of glyphosate based herbicides on health. We know that glyphosate based herbicides:

  • Destroy gut bacteria. Research shows that glyphosate destroys gut bacteria. It is an antibacterial by design, after all (blocking the EPSPS enzyme in all microorganisms). The disruption of gut bacteria significantly influences the synthesis and absorption of nutrients and is linked to a wide variety of disease processes from autoimmune to neurological and everything in between.
  • Chelate minerals. Because glyphosate also binds to the minerals that do absorb, it acts as a chelator, effectively inactivating remaining minerals. The chelated metals (iron, zinc, magnesium, manganese, cobalt) contribute to mineral deficiencies but also vitamin deficiencies inasmuch as minerals are required for the enzyme activity that regulates vitamin synthesis.
  • Damage mitochondria. Roundup® with glyphosate damages complex I and III of the electron transport cycles, reducing ATP production by some 40%. Early evidence of this was demonstrated over 30 years ago.
  • Block liver detoxification pathways. The glyphosate-based herbicides block the Cytochrome P 450 (CYP450) enzymes in the liver responsible for detoxifying substances we ingest and impair metabolic transport mechanisms that underlie critical biochemical pathways in our bodies, thus magnifying the effects both food born toxicants and other ingested toxicants like pharmaceuticals. The net results include the array disease processes associated with the modern diet, everything from gastrointestinal disorders to depression and neurological conditions.
  • Initiate antibiotic resistance. Glyphosate based herbicides, are essentially antibiotics. When applied regularly, as they have been for decades, the bacterial community adapts by inducing what are called epigenetic changes; changes that increase their likelihood of survival. The regular consumption of these products, changes the bacterial landscape of the gut, skewing toward the hardier bacteria, which are typically of the pathogenomic strains like coli.
  • Induce fibrinous tumors in animals. This one should be particularly interesting for women who suffer from fibroids. Glyphosate induced alterations in the vitamin A pathway are linked with fibrinous tumor growth in rodents. Alterations in vitamin A metabolism can be mechanistically linked to the development of fibroid tumors. Similarly, a diet of GM (glyphosate tolerant) soy and maize has been shown to increase the size of the uterus in female pigs by 25%. Remember, glyphosate is sprayed on the cotton used for tampons and other feminine hygiene products providing a direct route of exposure for millions women every month, year in and year out.
  • Accumulate in humans, animals, ground soil and waterways. Glyphosate is present in significantly higher concentrations of individuals who eat genetically modified foods compared to those who eat predominantly organic foods and also in in chronically ill versus healthy individuals.

Many of the damages invoked by glyphosate based herbicides are linked to its structure as a synthetic glycine analog. Glycine is an essential amino required for protein synthesis and repair. It is also an excitatory neurotransmitter in the brain. When glyphosate displaces glycine at random points in the protein synthesis and repair processes or by constituitively activating excitatory receptors in the brain, the consequences are vast and complicated. Research suggests that glyphosate’s role as a glycine analog underpins the explosion of chronic disease over the last few decades.

“Glyphosate substitution for conserved glycines can easily explain a link with diabetes, obesity, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pulmonary edema, adrenal insufficiency, hypothyroidism, Alzheimer’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Parkinson’s disease, prion diseases, lupus, mitochondrial disease, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, neural tube defects, infertility, hypertension, glaucoma, osteoporosis, fatty liver disease and kidney failure.”

The notion that substituting an important amino acid with a synthetic analog would be safe, particularly over time, is laughable, but that is exactly what the industry argues and what we, as a population, chose to believe. We believed not just because we did not understand the chemistry, but because we wanted to believe. We wanted to believe in the supremacy of our man-made inventions and in the compartmentalization of effects. We never bothered to question whether there might be ill-effects from this or any of the thousands of other chemicals currently in use. We never asked whether the chemistry is indeed compartmentalized. We did not ask because to do so would require a fundamental change in the economic fabric of modern living; to ask would mean that we would have to act. If we are truthful with ourselves, with glyphosate, as with so many other modern chemicals that we now know are dangerous, we chose to ignore what we did not want to know. We chose convenience and the purported economic gain this convenience would bring us.

We Need Your Help

More people than ever are reading Hormones Matter, a testament to the need for independent voices in health and medicine. We are not funded and accept limited advertising. Unlike many health sites, we don’t force you to purchase a subscription. We believe health information should be open to all. If you read Hormones Matter, like it, please help support it. Contribute now.

Yes, I would like to support Hormones Matter.

Image by 652234 from Pixabay.

Related posts:

creatine creatine in energy metabolismCreatine Creatinine Ratio as a Measure of Energy Metabolism the problem with glyphosateThe Glyphosate Problem book review nature wants us to be fatBooks I Like: Nature Wants Us to Be Fat Environmental pollutants microbiomeEnvironmental Pollutants and the Microbiome

You might be interested in

The Echo Chamber of Corporate Science: Controlling the Narrative Ad Nauseam

Published on
3049 views
scientific echo chamber

If you read my work with any regularity you’ll know that I like to ponder the nature of language, specifically, how the rules of discourse affect what can be known and who is permitted to have this knowledge. Inasmuch as language and discourse are culturally determined so too are the bounds of knowledge. How we describe our reality determines in large part the parameters of that reality or of what can be known. Just as important, is the act of delineating what types of discourse are meaningful versus which types are not worthy of our attention. In recent years, it has become increasingly difficult to delineate the rules of discourse. I have argued previously that we have dissembled much of what holds discourse together and replaced it with a squirrelly notion of narrative control; one where all that matters is how a ‘product’ is perceived, whatever that product may be. In December, two seemingly separate touchstone events illustrate just how far the rules of discourse, particularly scientific discourse, have been severed from the pursuit of knowledge.

Controlling the Narrative

There is a saying in public relations, “he who controls the narrative, controls everything.” There are various iterations of this sentiment, but the gist is that if you control the language, if you control what can be said, and who can say it, you can pretty much guide any story to a desired end. It is brand management 101. Read any marketing or PR guide and there are often long discussions on how to control the narrative. It’s a well-honed practice for anyone in business or politics, and really, in life in general. We all massage language in order to achieve a desired end, to some degree or another. Whether speaking to friends, family, or professionally, there is a tacit understanding of what that person or audience needs to hear in order to make a favorable decision. In many ways, gauging speech to the audience is just part of human communication.

As one might expect, corporations and politicians spend great sums on money on creating and then controlling the narratives of their brands. Whether the brand is a medication, an automobile, or a person, is unimportant. The methods are the same: control the language, control what can be said and who can say it. We begin to have problems when brand management becomes the only arbiter of truth or reality, or more specifically, when simply believing something means it must be true or real. No need to align the belief with reality, to test it against fact or truth. Simply control the narrative and persuade enough people to buy it, and whatever reality one is selling, becomes THE REALITY.

We see this in politics all the time. A political campaign will identify a problem with a particular segment of their voting block and rather than question why that segment of voters did not vote for their candidate, the marketing geniuses conclude that it was the branding at fault, and maybe it was. More likely, however, there were flaws in the candidate; flaws that, if addressed, might yield more votes, but because only the branding is ever considered, because all that matters are how the candidate is perceived and not how he or she actually is, there is no impetus to address these problems. We only have to repackage and re-brand, and somehow, more effectively control the narrative. As infuriating as this type of behavior is, it is so deeply entrenched in our political and economic environments that few bat an eye, unless, of course, we are slapped in the face with the folly of these predilections. Late last year, we were slapped in the face, sucker punched really.

Indeed, I think the entire last year was an exercise in face-slapping, but I digress.

Money, Science and Language

Mid December the press was a flurry with news of banned words emerging from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Initially, it was reported that the ban was top down from Trump administration with admonitions of Orwellian thought control. Claims of anti-science abounded. Given the politically contentious nature of the words and this administration’s view on such topics, it was a reasonable assumption. The reports proved to be false, however, and it was later revealed that the CDC bureaucrats themselves were massaging the lexicon in order to protect their budgets from a conservative Congress. The CDC was re-branding their message and we were aghast in self-righteous indignation.

While everyone else was up in arms about the CDC news, I chuckled, not because this news wasn’t troubling, it was, but because this has been a longstanding practice in the CDC, as it is in any agency or organization whose existence depends upon the whims and political aspirations of others; prostrating at the feet of funders is a well-honed skill, one that takes no accord of ethics, science, and in some cases, reality itself. Only now, it was being laid bare. Under other administrations, different words or concepts, though probably not banned, were definitely eschewed. It is simple marketing 101, brand management, controlling the narrative for express purpose of reaching a desired end. It’s ugly. It’s cynical and not something we like to think about, particularly where science and health are concerned, but it happens.

We believe, perhaps naively, that organizations tasked with public health and medical science are not swayed by political or economic biases. As we saw so plainly with the latest CDC shenanigans, this just isn’t true. He who controls the purse strings controls the narrative, and more importantly, controls the actual work. For the CDC, both congress and pharma control the purse strings. Arguably, as one of the largest spenders on congressional lobbying, pharmaceutical industry influence supersedes even congressional whims. So how does an agency tasked with public health justify the flexibility of language? They don’t and therein lies the problem. Perhaps even more troubling though, neither do we. Rarely, is any consideration given to what effect altering the language so indiscriminately to mollify, or in many cases, promote the goals of one’s funders, has on the actual ‘truth’ and on the science itself. Indeed, had these words not been so politically charged and had this event not taken place during the current administration, one where admittedly there have been many direct assaults on language and meaning, few would have considered these actions newsworthy, much less problematic. We would have continued on in happy ignorance of the larger play at hand.

Beyond Just the Narrative: Controlling How to Think

About the same time as the CDC shenanigans broke, an academic report bemoaning the weaknesses of certain glyphosate research appeared in my feed. The report: Facts and Fallacies in the Debate on Glyphosate Toxicity argues against the use of deductive reasoning in scientific research. To say that I was flabbergasted, would be an understatement. This was a true WTF moment, if there ever was one, and there have been many in recent years. Who, in their right mind, would argue against the use of deductive reasoning in science? Well, the same folks that have something to protect by massaging the language in order to protect their livelihoods. Not literally, of course, but the motivations remain the same, e.g. money and influence.

The purveyors of glyphosate, like those in the pharmaceutical and other big chemical industries, have a longstanding history of controlling the narrative  and employing all sorts of nefarious techniques to do so. Industry entrenchment into all areas of academic research, publishing, and mainstream media combined with their deep financial tentacles strangling every branch of every government globally, not only determine the types of research that can be conducted and published but ensures a perfectly controlled narrative, one that exudes safety and ignores risks. This is not news. Indeed, the playbook for such tactics were written long ago by the tobacco industry and have been perfected over recent decades. What is new is the direct assault on reason as a foundation for hypothesis driven research. In the past, such product defense operations were content with the standard forms of disinformation: employ a cadre of

“industry-friendly scientists and writers who had the habit of pooh-poohing the potential dangers of products, dismissing studies finding possible harm…” and who promote “falsehoods and misdirection to protect companies from bad media and regulatory scrutiny.”

Arguing against the use of reason in scientific endeavors is an altogether different level of narrative control, one that, if it takes hold, will damage the very pursuit of science itself. For what is science, if not a reasoned approach to understanding?

The Argument Against Reason

The authors of the glyphosate paper argue that deductive reasoning. Specifically, they contend that the use of particular type of reasoning called a syllogism is not a valid method to derive a conclusion. In a syllogism, the conclusion is derived from two assumptions that serve to determine the outcome. Throughout the paper, they provide several instances where deductive reasoning should not be employed to derive hypotheses about the ill-effects of glyphosate on human health. In each case, their arguments rest on the lack of research regarding a particular aspect of glyphosate toxicity, with the underlying assumption that an absence of evidence means evidence of absence. Here is one example.

We know that glyphosate chelates minerals. It was initially patented as an industrial descaling agent after all. We also know that mineral homeostasis is an important part of human health. Too little or too much of any one mineral can and does have deleterious effects on health. If we know that glyphosate chelates minerals and that people consume glyphosate in concentrations capable of chelating those critical minerals, can we then say that glyphosate plays a role in diseases processes that involve reduced or dysregulated minerals? According to the authors of the aforementioned paper, we cannot; not because the chemistry is wrong and not because the reasoning is flawed, but because there have been no studies conducted to date to investigate this possibility. They argue that we can only make assertions based upon the results of studies that have already been conducted. We cannot deduce a hypothesis from what data are available if any one piece of the puzzle is missing. To bolster the legitimacy of their contention, this quote is used throughout the article.

It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong. Richard P. Feynman (Nobel Laureate, Physics, 1965)

A legitimate assertion. If theory contradicts data, then it is possible that the theory is wrong. And if a Nobel Laureate makes this claim, well then, there is no need to go any further.

Oooh, but there is.

If the data do not match the theory, it could mean that the experiment is flawed. Human research is messy. Disease processes, particularly those that involve changes in metabolism, are complicated and our ability to detect these changes with current lab testing methods is incomplete at best. Under these circumstances, a mismatch between theory and experiment is no more likely to suggest an error in the theory than an error in experimental design or methods. The authors, however, do not want us to think about potential flaws in experimental design. They want us to think that there is this magic box, called an ‘experiment’ into which ideas go and are tested for validity. If only it were that easy.

More troubling, however, and this is the sleight of hand these authors hope to carry out, it is not that the experimental data do not match the theory, it is quite simply that there are no experimental data. Since industry itself controls the funding for the science, controls what gets published, and how what gets published is narrated, these types of studies have never been conducted and likely never will. In fact, why on earth would the purveyors of industrial demineralizing agent now ubiquitous on all agricultural products and consumed in vast quantities by actual living organisms want to know if their product did to humans what it does to metal pipes? Why would they want to confirm that their product chelates essential minerals? They wouldn’t. And if the authors of this piece have their way, they won’t have to.  That is a dangerous pass these authors have given to chemical manufacturers: no need to test anything that hasn’t already been tested. Not only have they perfected tobacco industry tactics for product defense, in one fell swoop, they demolished what constitutes scientific reasoning.  To them, we can only ever say what has already been said.

From Banned Words to Banned Reason: Scary Times

While banning or limiting the use of certain words is a troubling, banning the use of reason to arrive at hypotheses seems altogether more sinister. With the CDC shenanigans, we have an open display of the malleability of language to political and economic whims; one that fully exculpates the need to connect scientific endeavors to any sort of reality beyond that which is politically expedient. Anyone with any experience with the CDC, knows this has long since been the case, but perhaps not on display as openly. With the research article, we have a codification of what has long been an undercurrent in corporate medicine/agriculture and the like, that absence of evidence does, indeed, mean evidence of absence. It means that the simple act of choosing not to investigate a particular side effect serves to prove that it does not exist, and now, can never exist. If we cannot reason our way to a hypothesis, but instead, can ever only rely on what has already been concluded, there is no need for science, none. This kills it and in its stead, places an echo chamber of self-serving marketing. 

We Need Your Help

More people than ever are reading Hormones Matter, a testament to the need for independent voices in health and medicine. We are not funded and accept limited advertising. Unlike many health sites, we don’t force you to purchase a subscription. We believe health information should be open to all. If you read Hormones Matter, like it, please help support it. Contribute now.

Yes, I would like to support Hormones Matter. 

Image by juicy_fish on Freepik.

Related posts:

the problem with glyphosateThe Glyphosate Problem protein orexin hypocretin brainThe Brain Needs Protein, Say What? Environmental pollutants microbiomeEnvironmental Pollutants and the Microbiome ethics of it allThe Ethics Of It All

You might be interested in

Do You Know Why Crops are Genetically Modified?

Published on
2186 views
Genetically modified crops

Why are crops genetically modified? What are genetically modified crops modified to do?

Those questions were asked to about 250 people who were in a presentation about microbiome health that was being held in an organic grocery store. I presume that if you asked them their thoughts on genetically modified crops, most of them would say that they are anti-GMO. But at least a dozen wrong answers were shouted before the correct answer was given.

Most genetically modified seeds are modified so that the crops can withstand pesticides, specifically glyphosate.

This isn’t common knowledge, but it should be. People should realize that the majority of GMO seeds are not genetically modified to provide more nutrition or even greater yield, they’re modified so that glyphosate can be poured over the fields indiscriminately.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, “While some GE (genetically engineered) seeds with traits that affect a crop’s nutritional content and agronomic properties are already being commercialized and many more GE seeds are under development and testing, nearly all the GE seeds marketed to date to U.S. farmers are for pest management (pests here are defined to include insects, weeds, and some other organisms that interfere with the production of crops).” (Emphasis added.)

Glyphosate is an herbicide. It kills plants—crops as well as weeds. Genetically modifying seeds so that crops are resistant to glyphosate allows farmers to spray glyphosate all over their crops, killing the weeds but not the genetically modified corn, cotton, soy, sugar beets, etc.

The genetic modification proponents have skewed the conversation so much past reality that people think they’re arguing over increasing the nutritional content of rice, or feeding the world, or saving the papaya industry, or reducing pesticide use (the people who believe that one must be really good at cognitive dissonance). Feeding the world is a worthwhile goal, and increasing the nutritional content of rice may or may not be a good thing to do (the consequences of genetically modifying rice so that it has more vitamin A in it haven’t been played out), but when we’re arguing about whether or not genetic modification of consumable crops is appropriate, the reality is that the majority of GM/GE crops are being modified so that they are resistant to herbicide, not so that they can be better for consumers in any way.

Did you think it was a coincidence that Monsanto sells both genetically modified seeds and RoundUp?

It’s a shrewd business move, but it’s not good for consumers or for the planet.

Genetically modified crops put consumers at risk, much of that risk currently unknown, and provide zero benefits to consumers. The cost/benefit analysis doesn’t work at all for common people, because crops aren’t genetically modified for consumers, they’re genetically modified so that glyphosate can be used indiscriminately and so that Monsanto can dominate agribusiness. We’re guinea pigs in an experiment that doesn’t even benefit us. Welcome to lab-rat status.

Are genetic modification proponents really in favor of exposing people to as-yet unknown health risks so that glyphosate can be poured on crops? Because that’s what “nearly all” genetically modified crops are designed to do.

People need to be aware of what they’re fighting or supporting when they are pro or anti GMO.

I’m anti subjecting myself and everyone else to potential health risks so that Monsanto can sell more RoundUp. I’m anti Monsanto, Dow, Cargill and every other corporation involved with creating and selling genetically modified seeds. These agribusiness corporations are turning once-fertile cropland in the middle of the US into a wasteland (the NPR article, “Cornstalks Everywhere But Nothing Else, Not Even A Bee” illustrates this problem). They’re polluting our water and soil. They’re making farmers throughout the world dependent and indentured. They’re buying our Congressional representatives and putting us further down the path of corporatocracy. They do nothing to serve consumers, they only serve themselves and the monied interests that align with them.

I’m not anti-feeding-the-world—of course I’m not. But that’s not what the reality of the conversation around GMOs should be. The reality, straight from the USDA is that, “nearly all the GE seeds marketed to date to U.S. farmers are for pest management.”

Know that fact next time you get into an argument about GMOs, no matter what side of the argument you’re on.

Related posts:

the problem with glyphosateThe Glyphosate Problem poisonous potatoesWalking the Wrack Line: Poisonous Potatoes

You might be interested in

The Dangers of Glyphosate Herbicides

Published on
5931 views

Do we know what we’re eating? That’s the question that I constantly ask myself, because I know that at this point in time, my own regulations are the only thing protecting my health. It seems that the moment I become lax with my rules, I am quickly reminded why I must enforce them.

Monsanto is a corporation that manufactures herbicide and genetically engineered plants. Today, I learned that Roundup and other herbicides from the Monsanto corporation are made with a chemical ingredient called glyphosate. Glyphosate has been linked to a number of health-related issues ranging from birth defects to endocrine disruption (the endocrine system regulates the hormones in our body). Unfortunately, Monsanto’s products are used around the world. Products like Roundup are not just used to kill weeds in homes and the agricultural industry, but also to deter plant growth on railroad tracks, sidewalks and roads. This means that farmers, government workers and consumers are constantly spraying glyphosate on the ground, which is why it should come as no surprise that scientists are finding increasing levels of glyphosate in our groundwater. Even if we choose organic food (which is still recommended, since glyphosate is absorbed by plants treated with Roundup), our water cycle, including our drinking water, is being contaminated. In fact, glyphosate was detected in 60% to 100% of rain samples in Mississippi and Iowa.

Monsato, Malformations, Miscarriages and More

Consumers, workers and bystanders alike are affected by the use of glyphosate. Uninformed consumers purchase glyphosate-sprayed products and are exposed to the toxin. Agricultural workers handle the chemical directly. And then there are those that do not use the herbicide or consume the treated products, but are exposed to glyphosate nonetheless. This is particularly the case for those that live in close proximity to agricultural businesses that use Monsanto’s herbicides, such as Roundup.

Residents and doctors of Argentina and Paraguay began reporting a host of serious health effects, including birth defects, miscarriages, infertility and cancer. Those affected lived in regions where glyphosate was regularly used, linking abnormal health conditions to the pervasive chemical.

Argentinian scientists took this cue and began to study glyphosate, finding that exposure to glyphosate did cause birth defects in the embyros of chickens and frogs. Glyphosate has even been tied to an increase in spontaneous abortion and infertility among the cattle that are fed Roundup treated alfalfa.

Scientists from the University of Caen, in France, conducted an experiment using glyphosate doses that were less than the maximum residue limit (legal limit) and discovered that the chemical caused endocrine disruption. More specifically, the scientists found estrogen receptors were inhibited (blocking estrogen hormones from activating cells) with just 2 ppm (2mg/kg). The legal limit in the US is 5 ppm.

Dr. Don M. Huber, a plant pathologist who is part of the USDA National Plant Disease Recovery system, stated that there are, “more than 40 diseases reported with the use of glyphosate, and that number keeps growing as people recognize [glyphosate’s] association [with disease].”

Clearly, we should be concerned.

What about Government Health Regulations?

While only 2.03 mg/kg of glyphosate is needed to cause birth defects in chicken and frog embryos, government regulations, referred to as the maximum residue limit, allow 5 mg/kg of glyphosate residue in the US and a whopping 20 mg/kg in the European Union. The question isn’t how does this protect, but rather, who does this protect?

Unfortunately, government regulations are often set in place to protect corporations from liabilities. When citizens attempt to sue, corporations can state that they have complied with the law and that toxins are within the legal limit. Concerned parties may seek retribution from the government, but at this point, our tax dollars are being used for litigation.

What’s a Girl to Do? Take Action!

We start by sharing information with others to make a change. Litigation may be costly, but changing government regulations is not. (Corporations take the financial hit). Tell your friends, tell your co-workers, tell your neighbors.

This isn’t just a female-specific matter (though miscarriages and infertility concern us), since glyphosate is associated with a myriad of health issues and wreaks havoc on our crops by promoting plant diseases. Contact your senators and house representatives and let them know that you want regulations that protect your crops, your water resources, and your well-being. CLICK HERE to sign the petition to ban glyphosate-based herbicides.

Of course, if you’re worried your voice won’t be heard, the best way to make a statement is with your consumption habits. Every time you make a purchase, you cast a vote. Pay extra special attention to labels, buy organic and avoid products sprayed with glyphosate-based herbicide. Remember that corn chips may be processed from corn that has been treated with glyphosate. Let your money show that you don’t support the use of glyphosate, because money speaks.

Glyphosate Petition Review

The current petition against glyphosates was created on SignOn.org. I have recently been informed that emails associated with SignOn.org may start to pile up in your inbox. If this is the case, feel free to unsubscribe at any time to eliminate the onslaught of emails. Any recommendations for sites that create petitions without the spam would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your support!

Related posts:

the problem with glyphosateThe Glyphosate Problem ethics of it allThe Ethics Of It All

You might be interested in

Is it Time to Include Inactive Ingredients in Chemical Safety Testing?

Published on
3041 views
Pesticides, herbicides, fungicides dangerous to human health

The answer to that question is an unequivocal and very loud YES. For generations, the industrial chemical companies, whether they be pharmaceutical, agricultural, energy or from other sectors, have maintained that only certain ingredients in their products must be measured and accounted for – the so-called ‘active ingredients’. The adjuvants, those chemical compounds that dilute, preserve or in some way maximize the delivery of the primary chemical, are considered inert or inactive by regulatory agencies. As a result, and much to the benefit of the chemical manufacturers, those adjuvants fall outside the purview of testing and regulation. That is, not only are most of these chemicals not identified in the primary product, but they are not tested for safety – ever.  Only the active ingredients are tested, singly, and never with the entire chemical cocktail that is the product itself.

As one might suspect, the inactive ingredients are far from inactive, either when tested alone or when combined with the active ingredients. In chemistry when compounds interact, it is not always a simple, linear, one to one relationship; sometimes 1+1 = 10 or more. That is the case with adjuvants. Indeed, that is their function – to maximize the strength of the active ingredients, and so, by definition and by design, failing to test adjuvant safety represents the height of scientific dishonesty.

Slowly and despite the chemical industry’s promulgations to the contrary, independent scientists are demonstrating just how active, inactive ingredients really are. In the field of agricultural chemical safety testing, one lab stands out – the Seralini Lab in France. Over the last several years, researchers from the Seralini Lab have conducted and released a series of controversial studies on agricultural chemical safety. Here are just a few that we have covered on Hormones Matter: Controversy, GMO Research and Women’s Health and Inert Ingredients in Glyphosate Herbicides are Toxic Too.

Adjuvants Matter

Just recently, the Seralini Lab published another damning set of experiments showing just how toxic the cocktail of chemicals found in common, presumed safe, pesticides, herbicides and fungicides really are. The study: Major Pesticides are More Toxic to Human Cells than their Declared Active Principles, demonstrates clearly the egregious inanity of testing only manufacturer declared active chemicals.

In the present study, researchers measured the toxicity of nine common, commercially and consumer available formulations, three from each category, pesticides, herbicides and fungicides, against three types of human cells, embryonic-kidney (HEK293), placental (JEG3), and young adult liver (HEPG2).  What they found was striking. Eight of the 9 formulations tested were several hundred to several thousand times more toxic than the active chemical alone and at levels significantly less than currently allowed by regulatory standards and used commercially. The single formulation that was not more toxic than declared, contained no adjuvants.

Fungicides were found to be the most toxic chemical formulations at levels 300-600 times lower than currently accepted agricultural dilutions. Next in line was Roundup, one of the most heavily marketed and used herbicides, worldwide. Roundup toxicity ranged from twice to 10 times that of the other herbicide and pesticides and its total formulation was 125X more toxic than its declared active chemical, glyphosate.The placental cells were most sensitive to the toxins, followed by embryonic and liver cells, respectively.

Mechanisms of Toxicity

The most common mechanisms of toxicity were cell membrane disruption and the interruption of mitochondrial respiration rather than an immediate initiation of cell death or apoptosis. The authors note that apoptosis was difficult to measure because cell-death occurred via a necrotic progression rather than an immediate apoptosis reaction. This is important for a number of reasons.

The job the adjuvant is to maximize the insect, fungal or weed killing properties of the active ingredient. Seralini’s work shows us that these adjuvants work as designed, even in human cells. They maximize the killing properties of the active ingredients by weakening cell membranes (all the better to absorb the poison intracellularly and leak cell contents out into the extracellular space) and disrupting mitochondrial respiration (impaired energy and nutrient processing, make surviving the toxin that much more difficult).

Adjuvants increase toxicity by specific mechanisms that call into question, not only, their absence in testing, but the nature of toxicology testing in general. Specifically, these adjuvants evoke cell injury versus cell death. They increase the permeability of the cell wall and decrease mitochondrial respiration. These mechanisms evoke complex and chronic health conditions that are difficult quantify in standard dose-response toxicology curves with humans. Here is it is not the dose per se that increases death rate, even though higher doses would expedite the process, but the time lapse required between the exposure and the necrotic reactions in cells to reach critical mass to be clinically relevant. Imagine a slow and painful death versus the immediate and easily recognizable death.

In lower organisms like bugs, weeds and fungi, where mass is smaller, life cycles are shorter and chemistry simpler, the time frame is quicker, the injuries are more obvious and death more expedited. A standard dose response curve may appear appropriate because with the expedited time frame of the organisms life cycle e.g. the critical mass of necrotic cells can be reached more quickly to initiate death.

In contrast, however, those same deleterious mechanisms activated in higher animals and humans, would not be so easily detected, within the short time frame generally allocated for these types of studies. Initiating mitochondrial dysfunction in humans and large animals would be unrecognizable at first, and perhaps chronically, making connecting the dots between exposure to these toxic chemicals and ill health particularly difficult. When the mechanisms action of the poison evokes a process that is time dependent, larger doses appear safe, at least in the short term and with lower organisms.

In humans, the effects of the formulation would also be dispersed across multiple tissues and organs systems but how and where the toxins wreak the most havoc would be inconsistent and dependent on other factors such as previous exposures, genetic predispositions, other illnesses, medications or stressors that would modulate the current exposure. All factors that are not accounted for in toxicology in general, but especially in toxicology studies that ignore all but the manufacturer’s declared active principle – the active ingredients.

Final Thoughts

Any toxicology study that purports product safety but does not test the entire chemical formulation, adjuvants and other presumed inactive ingredients included, should be thrown out. Simple, dose-response curves are inadequate for all but most preliminary investigations. Long term studies must be conducted to evaluate the onset of disease and cumulative exposure effects, including endocrine disruption. Finally, Seralini points out, that his research is among the first to test the safety of these chemicals in human cells. This is beyond unconscionable, particularly considering these products have been on the market for decades. Regulatory agencies must test product safety against human cells. Otherwise, why even bother.

Related posts:

ethics of it allThe Ethics Of It All birth control brick wallBanging My Head Against the Wall: Questioning Birth Control Safety

You might be interested in

Inert Ingredients in Glyphosate Herbicides Are Toxic Too

Published on
3699 views

Funny thing happens when you actually measure stuff, you find that things are not always as they seem. This appears to be the case with popular pesticides and herbicides – the inert ingredients are not so inert after all.

Herbicides and pesticides are formulations that combine the primary weed or bug killing chemical(s) with what are called adjuvants. Adjuvants are compounds that dilute or preserve or in some way maximize the delivery of the primary chemical. The adjuvants are considered inert or as having no effect. So, when chemical companies seek approval for their product, they only have to show the safety of the active ingredients – not the adjuvants. (A similar procedure is used with vaccine approval and that is how dangerous adjuvants like thimerosol (thiomersal), the mercury based neurotoxin used in a variety of vaccines, reach the market.)

What happens when researchers begin measuring the entire formulations, the adjuvants alone and together with the primary chemicals?  We learn that, the adjuvants are more toxic than the primary chemicals.  This appears to be the case with glyphosate based herbicides.Glyphosate is the primary weedkiller in Roundup and other popular herbicides.

Glyphosate is pretty disruptive to health on its own accord being linked to significant endocrine disrupting effects that can lead to cancers and reproductive disorders, ambiguous genitalia and neurodevelopmental disorders in the offspring of exposed animals and farm workers.  But glyphosate isn’t the only chemical in the herbicidal formulation. Glyphosate is combined with host of inert ingredients. Researchers in France tested these supposedly inert ingredients, individually and in the standard product formulations. What they found was troubling.The adjuvants were cytotoxic (induced cell death) to cells from the kidney, liver and placenta. The placental cells were especially sensitive to the adjuvants reacting and dying off at twice the rate as either the kidney or the liver cells.

While each of the nine adjuvants tested were cytotoxic, one adjuvant in particular stood out as more than 100 times more toxic than glyphosate or the other adjuvants – a surfactant called – POE-15. POE-15 is found in a host of common gardening and agricultural products including: Topglypho 360, Glyphogan, Clinic E.V. Bayer GC, Genamin, Roundup GT and Roundup GT+. The toxicity of these products directly corresponded to the concentration of POE-15. Formulations with larger concentrations of POE-15, were more toxic.

What does this mean? The acceptable exposure levels, those levels deemed to safe for human health, are calculated based only the primary ingredient glyphosate. Because the adjuvants like POE-15 are not considered, the approved exposure levels significantly underestimate the real risk to health, especially fetal health. Not measuring something is not the same as warranting its safety or efficacy. Policy regulations must be changed to reflect the total composition of the product seeking approval, whether it be drugs or environmental chemicals. In the mean time, limit your exposure. Find safer ways to control weeds, especially if you are pregnant.

 

 

 

Related posts:

the problem with glyphosateThe Glyphosate Problem ethics of it allThe Ethics Of It All

You might be interested in

Controversy, GMO Research & Women’s Health

Published on
4509 views
GMO rats

If you’ve been on the internet at all over the last several weeks, you’ve likely come across these pictures- the white rats with grotesquely large mammary tumors warning of the dangers of GMO foods. A controversial and not yet even officially published study out of France on the Long term toxicity of Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize is responsible.

In this 2 year study (compared to the 90-120 days for most previous protocols) researchers purportedly demonstrated the ill-effects of glyphosate (active ingredient in Roundup herbicide) and its adjuvants (putatively inactive ingredients that enhance the absorption, distribution or metabolism of the active ingredient), but also inadvertently, and despite the rampant criticism of the study, may have identified a mechanism of action for the growth of these tumors; a disruption of the estrogen pathway perhaps linked to primary kidney and liver damage. Moreover, and again perhaps inadvertently, the research points to a possible player in the development of fibroid type tumors.

How GMO Research is Conducted

There is great debate over the safety of herbicide rendered or engineered, genetically modified organisms (GMO) within the food and water supply. Studies on the side of industry, suggest no major ill-effects, while those on the side of environmentalist indicate differently.  Research design likely contributes to the disparate findings. Much research to date has been short-term (90-120 days) and/or has limited the analysis to testing or manipulating only the active ingredient in the herbicide (glyphosate) and not the variety adjuvants found in the total herbicide formulation and that would be dispersed into the natural environment (food, water) post herbicide use.

The current study sought to remedy some of those short-comings and approximate what humans might be exposed to with current regulatory standards in place and in an ‘natural environment’ where exposure rates and types would necessarily vary. (Whether lab rats can approximate human physiology or the lab can be considered a ‘natural environment’  are debates for another day).

The Seralini GMO Study

Using healthy male and female Sprague-Dawley rats, the researchers evaluated the long-term (two years), across a life-span effects, of eating Roundup treated foods (maize) and water with Roundup residue at levels below the currently parts per billion standard and consistent with what humans might be exposed to in the current environment. Control rats were fed non-GMO diets and the test rats were fed varying levels of GM maize (11%, 22% and 33% of the total diet) and water with Roundup – well below the approved levels found in the environment.

Tumors, Toxicity, Death and the GM Diet

Compared to control rats fed a non-GM diet, those fed the GM-maize and Roundup water, died five times sooner and developed huge tumors, often greater than 25% of their body weight and requiring euthanasia to reduce suffering. There were distinct differences between the male and female treated animals. The females died more quickly and developed primarily mammary tumors, followed by a lower percentage of pituitary tumors and kidney and liver toxicity. While the males, demonstrated more severe kidney and liver disease along with skin tumors. The females were more susceptible to the Roundup in the water and both groups were equally susceptible to both the lower and higher percentage (11% and 33%) exposure to GM food, suggesting a threshold effect for disease initiation rather than a cumulative or additive effect.

Endocrine Disruption

The endocrine effects were also telling and pointed to sex-dependent differences in the tumor and disease expression. The ratio of testosterone to estradiol was disrupted in both males and females. Males in the highest Roundup treatment group (33% of total feed maize), demonstrated double the levels of circulating estradiol (see Evolution or Extinction of Men for details on male endocrine disruption) when compared to the control group. Whereas the exposed females showed increased testosterone levels.

Potential Fibroid Connection

The explosive growth of tumors in the female treated rats is notable both because of the large size and location of the tumors (mammary and pituitary) but more so perhaps because of the nature and physiology of the tumors themselves. In all but two cases, the tumors were non-cancerous, non-infective or non-metastatic.  The tumors were benign adenomas and fibroadenomas, those commonly found in human women as they age (also common in this strain of lab rat as it ages). Fibroadenomas are comprised of fibrous and glandular tissue located in the breast. Fibroids are similar in tissue composition, but are found in the uterus.  In the present study, fibroadenomas were found in the mammary tissue and adenomas in the pituitary gland. There was no mention of uterine fibroids or adenomas in other female reproductive regions. Similarly, although, the authors make no such claim regarding the expression of fibroid type tumors, relative to hormone changes and concurrent liver dysfunction (where the enzymes and proteins involved in the hormone regulation reside), I surmise that perhaps there is a connection there as well.  It is conceivable that the combined insult of aging and environmental toxins on liver function alters hormone pathways sufficiently to promote this type of tumor growth.

Controversy and Criticism

As this study was released both pro- and anti-GMO factions got their pants in a bunch. On the anti-GMO side, this study represented proof-positive that GMO foods were bad. The results of this study, and in particular, the pictures of the tumor-ridden rats went viral on the internet. On the pro-GMO side, the criticism was as swift as it was vitriolic, with claims ranging from poor methodology, to outright scientific fraud.  I suspect the truth lay somewhere in between.

My Take

Releasing to press first. This merited all sorts of criticism, most of which has no bearing on the actual study but does suggest a less than forthright approach to media relations. However, given the politics surrounding this topic, one can understand this PR approach.

Sprague-Dawley rats are prone to tumors. Yes, they are and as they age, tumors become more frequent. But here we have a little pot and kettle action going on. Sprague-Dawley and other outbred strains of rats and mice, all have predilections for certain diseases and tumors, but are nevertheless what is used in all industry supported (even the studies supporting the safety of GMO) and academic research. The choice of lab rat/mice is important, but even within specific strains there is huge variability. Nullifying the study because the researchers used the same strain of lab rats that other researchers also use, is a weak criticism at best and more than a little disingenuous. Perhaps a better criticism would be the use of lab rats in general to extrapolate human physiology.

Sprague-Dawley rats are prone to tumors as they age. Well guys, so are women. By the time a woman reaches age 50, upwards of 70% of women have fibroid type tumors. And frankly, aging, whether in animals or humans, increases disease expression. Our bodies just don’t work as well when we are older. Simply measuring the effects of a toxin for a short period of time in youthful animals does not, in any way, mirror the real life of the animal or a human, where effects are cumulative over time and sometimes even multiplicative and synergistic.

The study was too long and the control rats were dying too. Life is longer than adolescence. If one wants to evaluate how a treatment or toxin affects an organism over time and as it ages, one has to evaluate across that life span. This study compared tumor progression, disease and death rates between the non-GM controls and the GM fed groups, across the rodent’s life span, which is about 2+/- years. As the rodents aged, both groups developed tumors and some died, but there were more tumors and earlier deaths in the experimental group.

Failure to observe or measure is not synonymous with non-existence. Neglecting to measure a particular toxin or analyte, a specific symptom or disease process, or failing to evaluate long term effects does not mean that the toxin, analyte, symptom or disease process in question did not happen or does not exist. It simply means that you chose not to measure it. So claiming that a 3-month study in youthful rodents nullifies results from a longer study, regardless of any other methodological issues with either study, is an utterly false, and more than a little dishonest argument.

The dose response-curve was not linear. Damn it, how dare our complex physiology not conform to the simplicity of linear statistics. A common dose-response reaction is highly linear, where a small dose elicits a similarly small response and a larger dose increase the response size. This is not case when dealing with endocrine disruptors. Hormone systems are complex and highly non-linear. Hormone reactions occur at extremely low doses and often interact synergistically with other factors and respond differently over time and with cumulative exposures. This was the case in the current study.

In spite of the flaws with this study and contrary to the criticism, the Seralini study represents one of the only, if not the only, long term evaluation of the effects of Roundup and GM feeding on health. Long term studies, even in rodents, are not common place. They should be.

The next long term study (and there should be many more) should include different strains of rodent, measure additional hormones and steroidogenic proteins altered with liver disease and if they want to be really ingenious, look at the estrogen, androgen and progesterone receptor densities in the tumors.

We Need Your Help

More people than ever are reading Hormones Matter, a testament to the need for independent voices in health and medicine. We are not funded and accept limited advertising. Unlike many health sites, we don’t force you to purchase a subscription. We believe health information should be open to all. If you read Hormones Matter, like it, please help support it. Contribute now.

Yes, I would like to support Hormones Matter.

Related posts:

ethics of it allThe Ethics Of It All the problem with glyphosateThe Glyphosate Problem

You might be interested in

1 2