You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

New Study Finds Roundup Could be Linked to Severe Health Issues

A.M. White
NationofChange / News Report
Published: Saturday 27 April 2013
Glyphosate may be “the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment” and that the “negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body.”
Article image

According to a new peer-reviewed report from the scientific journal Entropy “glyphosate”, the main ingredient in Roundup, has been found in food. 

Roundup was developed by Monsanto and is used as a weed killer on their genetically engineered crops. Monsanto’s crops are specifically engineered to be resistant to Roundup so that farmers may spray the weed killer directly on the crops to kill weeds without affecting the crops themselves. Monsanto and other leading industry experts have said for years that glyphosate is proven safe, and has a less damaging impact on the environment than other commonly used chemicals. A spokesperson for Monsanto confirmed this when asked for a comment after findings from the study were published.

According to the authors of the study, Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at MIT, and Anthony Samsel, a former science consultant from Arthur D. Little, Inc., glyphosate may be "the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment," and that the "negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body.” The residues of Roundup that are appearing in food enhance the “damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins.” This relationship is linked to a range of health problems and diseases, such as Parkinson’s, infertility, autism, and cancer.

The Environmental Protection Agency is currently reviewing glyphosate and must determine by 2015 if its use should be altered or limited. The findings of the review, as well as similar studies such as this one, could potentially have a major affect on farming, as glyphosate is the top herbicide on the market.

The author’s conclusion that glyphosate is "the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment," echoes the concerns that many have had for years on the effects of herbicides and the practice of growing genetically engineered crops on health worldwide.  Hopefully more independent and unbiased research can be conducted during the EPA’s review of the herbicide so that this previously claimed “non-toxic” chemical can be properly regulated.

The full article in Entropy is viewable here.

ABOUT A.M. White

A.M. White is an activist and writer living in California. She has attended several progressive marches including the original Occupy Wall Street Zuccotti Park. She has her B.A. in social science from the University of California, Irvine. 

Cliff Lacon's picture

Using these type of

Using these type of artificial ingredients for growing crops is completely wrong and its against the nature. I have a done a study over the artificial ingredients crops growth and the conclusion is that it has number of effects on human health.

Complications why ? The Earth

Complications why ?
The Earth is a Perfect Place to Live
The problem with the USA and the world is it's filled with Stupid People.
There is a technology 6 thousand years old that will fix this problem it is called
Give Until it Bleeds !

study everything on these sites - watch all the videos
cough up the money to learn TM properly & sit twice a day in silence for 20 minutes
nature will come to save us

Eat only organic food. Preferably food you have grown yourself.

Protect yourselves and let the dumb ones go off eating Stupid Food

If you live in the USA travel to Fairfield Iowa - see their plans
for the future of our dear world ... the light glows bright there.
Good luck !

Sit twice a day in silence

Sit twice a day in silence for 20 minutes....if you don't have the time, sit for 1 hour twice a day in silence.

So who are the "other leading

So who are the "other leading industry experts" who "have said for years that glyphosate is proven safe?" Just the fact that a paper can apparently bring together LOTS of disturbing science about some very bad effects of Roundup totally gives the lie to a word like "proven."

Were these "experts" in bed with Monsanto? Or just ignorant? Or somewhat aware of all the studies but opted to be head-in-sand?

jackwenayscott's picture

Rockit scientists.... poison

Rockit scientists.... poison is bad for ya.! Yup, seems to me that poison COULD have some adverse health effects!

Concur with excellent

Concur with excellent response by mycophile above.

Would add that one vexing thing about the new Roundup news is that a relatively short while ago it was pronounced unharmful to animal life, and a major university attested to that. It was supposedly the one herbicide that should not arouse health concers.

The headline was accurate but

The headline was accurate but I would like to have seen one word in it changed, in order to better capture its essence, because with the paper itself quite long and dense with biochemistry jargon most readers will be deterred from it and thus have only its characterization by the author from my alma mater.

That word would have been: "study". I would would have liked it to read: "literature review".

There is nothing to say that Samsel and Seneff are not spot-on, but, as they themselves note (with MY EMPHASES):
"Given the known toxic effects of glyphosate reviewed here and the PLAUSIBILITY that they are negatively impacting health worldwide, it is IMPERATIVE for more RESEARCH to take place TO VALIDATE the IDEAS PRESENTED HERE, and to take immediate action, IF they are verified, to drastically curtail the use of glyphosate in agriculture. Glyphosate is likely to be pervasive in our food supply, and, contrary to being essentially nontoxic, it MAY in fact be the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment."

Put another way by an associate of mine: This "premise probably deserves some further insight like actual manipulative science rather than innuendo. Glyphosate brings out the very most entertaining of them all."

Make no mistake, I (and my referenced associate) think science is the chink in the GMO armor, but limiting hyperbole about any and all of the science is vital to speeding the process of scientific consensus forming on the ill-effects of GMOs. Many readers could take from this article the belief that the Samsel/Seneff paper "proves" what it does not. The louder the cry of such proof, the more likely from GMO advocates calls for wholly discounting all of the ideas in the paper via shrill character assassinations and claims of mis-use of science.

Instead, the many and detailed threads which Samsel/Seneff weave should become research projects, ASAP. Prima facie, many look like they well could be excellent graduate research material. Controversializing their paper wouldn't help that research get funded, though, as much as it would inhibit that.

Thank you for trying to bring

Thank you for trying to bring order and a cool head in this situation.

How (inadvertently) rude of

How (inadvertently) rude of me -- I neglected to make clear my appreciation that A.M. White and NoC publicized this Samsel & Seneff paper. Here's hoping the biochemical reasoning framework that S&S put forward proves quite catalytic.

There is an aspect of scientific experimentation that can be hard to appreciate. When one is working out the puzzle of, say, a biochemical system, every experiment teaches something that helps further the entire investigation along -- even if one proves one's hypothesis incorrect. Most if not all , then, of S&S's causative and synergistic suggestions, since they are so interwoven, would be valuable to assess towards a much better understanding of the operation of our biochemistry in the matter of the "modern civilized diseases".

If we are going to remain modern and civilized biological beings, aren't we going to remain challenged by its dis eases? Shouldn't we rise to that challenge? Hadn't we best understand how it works so we can know where we need to put barriers to wrenches being thrown in its works and when, where and with to grease its bearings? Of course so.

Roundup.... from the same

Roundup.... from the same earth loving company that brought you Agent Orange.
We all know its harmless, because they tell us so.

Comment with your Facebook account

Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...