N. Vigfusson & E. Vyse in MUTATION RESEARCH, v.79 p.53-57, found
that glyphosate has a genetic mutagenic effect on human lymphic cells. To
Monsanto of course that translates "unproven for cancer," but what it
really shows is that glyphosate at least sets in motion conditions that
result in nonhodgson's lymphoma, as further shown to be the situation by
L. Hardell & M. Eriksson in "A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin
Lymphoma" in the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY,
March 15, 1999. A conservative assessment of these studies would indicate
further study is needed to be sure the indicators, at this point being ALL
against glyphosate, can always be substantiated; but the studies could be
done fifty times with the same outcome & it would still be unproven by
Monsanto's standard of lying & propogandizing.
When one begins to accumulate peer-reviewed studies, it soon becomes
obvious that the vast majority indict RoundUp's allegedly "safe as salt"
key ingredient as a threat to the environment & to human health. In
Australia it is already banned for use near wetlands. (During Australian
court battles with Monsanto, company flacks were forced to admit to
the accuracy of a study that showed glyphosate caused testicular tumors
in rabbits, and had caused "severe" environmental damage -- but
Monsanto argued this was a localized effect and would not happen
elsewhere -- not that they studied that of course.)
When one finds "positive" studies they turn out not to be peer
reviewed, & were either done at Monsanto labs, written by
Monsanto propogandists, were Monsanto-funded studies & did
not qualify for publication in peer-reviewed journals. The worst
studies are promulgated through corporate-sponsored ExToxNet,
& CanTox, which cam look useful at first glance but
are complete fraud that exists primarily to whitewash
any deadly toxin that is of economic importance
to the sponsoring corporations, notably Monsanto. The best
studies are ignored or quoted out of context.
One way to make glyphosate look "good" in slanted studies is to note
only that the chemical breaks down quickly in the environment.
Monsanto-bought studies don't look at what glyphosate breaks
Glyphosate easily nitrosates, forming N-nitrosoglyphosate, an unsafe
chemical in its own right, & which degrades into Formeldehydemm
Sarcosine, Methylamine, & aminomethylphosphonic acid -- so if it were even
slightly true glyphosate per se does not migrate to water, this would be
because deadly break-down chemicals do so instead.
To Monsanto this translates "glyphosate does not migrate to water."
Well, actually, it does, & Western Australia studies have proven it,
but even in environments where the glyphosate itself is broken down
rapidly hence cannot itself migrate to water, the harmful chemicals it
breaks down into DO migrate to water.
Monsanto sources take quotes out of context from real
science, mix it with their own fake science such as that which they
sponsor through Academic Press (a corporate publisher
with sciency-sounding titles on the non-peer-review
magazines), then post it to the web via the corporate-sponsored
Extoxnet, & voila, easily accessed propoganda with no
balance of science remaining.
A western Australia study established that three species of frog were now
extinct because of glyphosate products. Separate & supportive studies on
loss of frogs & tadpoles in Canada have further established
at least ONE permanent & irrepairable effect of glyphosate products
on frogs: Extinction. The studies that have indicated that glyphosate
itself may be involved in the rising rates of lymphatic cancers in humans
is frightening enough, but the chemical mixes that have reach wetlands
are undeniably involved in the mass extinction of frogs -- so the only
sensible decision in light of even that one issue would
have to be STOP USING THESE POISONS.
Monsanto, while fighting in the Australian courts to not reveal what the
miscellaneous ingredients in their glyphosate products really are, & to
limit the scope of eventual bans on several once-normative uses of
glyphosate in western Australia, rather like the cigarette companies at
first would not admit to any faults in their products, but eventually did
admit their glyphosate products had indeed caused "severe local effects"
in the Australian environment, & also
finally admitted that the low-organic-matter soils in Australia meant
their glyphosate products would not biodegrade even after a full year.
A few years back the EPA was preparing to put some heavy-duty
restrictions on glyphosate. But Monsanto has some powerful
lobbyists and have bankrolled many a congressional campaign.
So congressmen in Monsanto's back pocket instructed the EPA to
be more Monsanto-friendly.
The public is not even allowed to know what the
miscellaneous contents of products like RoundUp really are.
The lab tests on pure chemicals ultimately do not apply to the
toxic "mixes" of chemicals in these products. "Mixes"
of chemicals can become increasingly dangerous; for
instance, Monsanto doesn't want anyone to know that
glyphosate used in the proxity of phosphates triples in
toxicity -- which means really the label should carry the
"Warning: do not use near areas that are fertilized." In 1996
Judge Robertson by court order forced Monsanto to reveal
other ingredients of their glyphosate-based brands, but
the list was then sealed by court order, so the public still
does not know. Fifteen chemicals ARE known for
RoundUp alone, but the packaging lists far fewer.
NO STUDY has ever been done on the actual chemical
mixes in play, and the public and independent researchers
are not even allowed to know what those chemicals might
be. But independent studies have measured toxins
in watersheds, & it is clear that these deadly Monsanto
products already pollute exactly the kind of areas Monsanto-
purchased studies pretend aren't harmed.
-paghat the ratgirl
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
Click to see the full signature.