Roundup probably causes cancer

[tupac chopra]

I remember I read something a few weeks ago that said the glyphosate in Roundup is fairly safe but the other chemicals in Roundup are dangerous. I'll have to see if I can find it again.

Here is a study where glyphosate had no effect yet Roundup had a toxic effect on the hearts of rabbits.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12012-014-9299-2

Abstract

Roundup (R), a glyphosate (G)-based herbicide (GBH), containing unknown adjuvants is widely dispersed around the world. Used principally by farmers, intoxications have increasingly been reported. We have studied R effects (containing 36 % of G) on right ventricular tissues (male Sprague–Dawley rats, up to 20,000 ppm and female New Zealand rabbits, at 25 and 50 ppm), to investigate R cardiac electrophysiological actions in vitro. We tested the reduced Ca?? intracellular uptake mechanism as one potential cause of the electrical abnormalities after GBH superfusion, using the Na?/K?-ATPase inhibitor ouabain or the 1,4-dihydropyridine L-type calcium channel agonist BAY K 8644 which increases ICa. R concentrations were selected based on human blood ranges found after acute intoxication. The study showed dose-dependent Vmax, APD50 and APD90 variations during 45 min of R superfusion. At the highest concentrations tested, there was a high incidence of conduction blocks, and 30-min washout with normal Tyrode solution did not restore excitability. We also observed an increased incidence of arrhythmias at different doses of R. Ouabain and BAY K 8644 prevented Vmax decrease, APD90 increase and the cardiac inexcitability induced by R 50 ppm. Glyphosate alone (18 and 180 ppm) had no significant electrophysiological effects. Thus, the action potential prolonging effect of R pointing to ICa interference might explain both conduction blocks and proarrhythmia in vitro. These mechanisms may well be causative of QT prolongation, atrioventricular conduction blocks and arrhythmias in man after GBH acute intoxications as reported in retrospective hospital records.

 

[bilby]

Here is a study where glyphosate had no effect yet Roundup had a toxic effect on the hearts of rabbits.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12012-014-9299-2

Abstract

Roundup (R), a glyphosate (G)-based herbicide (GBH), containing unknown adjuvants is widely dispersed around the world. Used principally by farmers, intoxications have increasingly been reported. We have studied R effects (containing 36 % of G) on right ventricular tissues (male Sprague–Dawley rats, up to 20,000 ppm and female New Zealand rabbits, at 25 and 50 ppm), to investigate R cardiac electrophysiological actions in vitro. We tested the reduced Ca?? intracellular uptake mechanism as one potential cause of the electrical abnormalities after GBH superfusion, using the Na?/K?-ATPase inhibitor ouabain or the 1,4-dihydropyridine L-type calcium channel agonist BAY K 8644 which increases ICa. R concentrations were selected based on human blood ranges found after acute intoxication. The study showed dose-dependent Vmax, APD50 and APD90 variations during 45 min of R superfusion. At the highest concentrations tested, there was a high incidence of conduction blocks, and 30-min washout with normal Tyrode solution did not restore excitability. We also observed an increased incidence of arrhythmias at different doses of R. Ouabain and BAY K 8644 prevented Vmax decrease, APD90 increase and the cardiac inexcitability induced by R 50 ppm. Glyphosate alone (18 and 180 ppm) had no significant electrophysiological effects. Thus, the action potential prolonging effect of R pointing to ICa interference might explain both conduction blocks and proarrhythmia in vitro. These mechanisms may well be causative of QT prolongation, atrioventricular conduction blocks and arrhythmias in man after GBH acute intoxications as reported in retrospective hospital records.

Ooooh, look! There's Gilles-Eric Séralini again.

Isn't it funny how the same names crop up time and time again.

It is almost as though there were only a handful of people who were making money out of bashing Monsanto, and only those people are publishing papers on how dangerous and scary Roundup is.

I know Biochemistry is a relatively small field, but there are still more than enough Biochemists in the world to fill a large football stadium; How come we only hear from a dozen or so voices, if Glyphosate is so awful?

 

[tupac chopra]

Ooooh, look! There's Gilles-Eric Séralini again.
Isn't it funny how the same names crop up time and time again.

As usual you present no science. You never do.

 

[tupac chopra]

Some more science.

Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases†

Abstract: Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup®, is the most popular herbicide used worldwide. The industry asserts it is minimally toxic to humans, but here we argue otherwise. Residues are found in the main foods of the Western diet, comprised primarily of sugar, corn, soy and wheat. Glyphosate's inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes is an overlooked component of its toxicity to mammals. CYP enzymes play crucial roles in biology, one of which is to detoxify xenobiotics. Thus, glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body. Here, we show how interference with CYP enzymes acts synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria, as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport. Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. We explain the documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease, and we show that glyphosate is the “textbook example” of exogenous semiotic entropy: the disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins

Glyphosate’s claimed mechanism of action in plants is the disruption of the shikimate pathway, which is involved with the synthesis of the essential aromatic amino acids, phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan [10].

The currently accepted dogma is that glyphosate is not harmful to humans or to any mammals because the shikimate pathway is absent in all animals. However, this pathway is present in gut bacteria, which play an important and heretofore largely overlooked role in human physiology [11–14] through an integrated biosemiotic relationship with the human host. In addition to aiding digestion, the gut microbiota synthesize vitamins, detoxify xenobiotics, and participitate in immune system homeostasis and gastrointestinal tract permeability [14]. Furthermore, dietary factors modulate the microbial composition of the gut [15].

The incidence of inflammatory bowel diseases such as juvenile onset Crohn’s disease has increased substantially in the last decade in Western Europe [16] and the Entropy 2013, 15 1418 United States [17]. It is reasonable to suspect that glyphosate’s impact on gut bacteria may be contributing to these diseases and conditions.

However, the fact that female rats are highly susceptible to mammary tumors following chronic exposure to glyphosate [9] suggests that there may be something else going on. Our systematic search of the literature has led us to the realization that many of the health problems that appear to be associated with a Western diet could be explained by biological disruptions that have already been attributed to glyphosate. These include digestive issues, obesity, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, Parkinson’s disease, liver diseases, and cancer, among others. While many other environmental toxins obviously also contribute to these diseases and conditions, we believe that glyphosate may be the most significant environmental toxin, mainly because it is pervasive and it is often handled carelessly due to its perceived nontoxicity.

In this paper, we will develop the argument that the recent alarming increase in all of these health issues can be traced back to a combination of gut dysbiosis, impaired sulfate transport, and suppression of the activity of the various members of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) family of enzymes. We have found clear evidence that glyphosate disrupts gut bacteria and suppresses the CYP enzyme class. The connection to sulfate transport is more indirect, but justifiable from basic principles of biophysics.

In the remainder of this paper, we will first provide evidence from the literature that explains some of the ways in which glyphosate adversely affects plants, microbes, amphibians and mammal

 

[bilby]

Ooooh, look! There's Gilles-Eric Séralini again.
Isn't it funny how the same names crop up time and time again.

As usual you present no science. You never do.

Really? Post #37 in this thread is calling you a liar. That's just six posts before yours.

Just because you don't take any notice of what I post doesn't mean I don't post it; just that you don't read it. Not my problem.

 

[bilby]

Some more science.

Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases†

Glyphosate’s claimed mechanism of action in plants is the disruption of the shikimate pathway, which is involved with the synthesis of the essential aromatic amino acids, phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan [10].

The currently accepted dogma is that glyphosate is not harmful to humans or to any mammals because the shikimate pathway is absent in all animals. However, this pathway is present in gut bacteria, which play an important and heretofore largely overlooked role in human physiology [11–14] through an integrated biosemiotic relationship with the human host. In addition to aiding digestion, the gut microbiota synthesize vitamins, detoxify xenobiotics, and participitate in immune system homeostasis and gastrointestinal tract permeability [14]. Furthermore, dietary factors modulate the microbial composition of the gut [15].

The incidence of inflammatory bowel diseases such as juvenile onset Crohn’s disease has increased substantially in the last decade in Western Europe [16] and the Entropy 2013, 15 1418 United States [17]. It is reasonable to suspect that glyphosate’s impact on gut bacteria may be contributing to these diseases and conditions.

However, the fact that female rats are highly susceptible to mammary tumors following chronic exposure to glyphosate [9] suggests that there may be something else going on. Our systematic search of the literature has led us to the realization that many of the health problems that appear to be associated with a Western diet could be explained by biological disruptions that have already been attributed to glyphosate. These include digestive issues, obesity, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, Parkinson’s disease, liver diseases, and cancer, among others. While many other environmental toxins obviously also contribute to these diseases and conditions, we believe that glyphosate may be the most significant environmental toxin, mainly because it is pervasive and it is often handled carelessly due to its perceived nontoxicity.

In this paper, we will develop the argument that the recent alarming increase in all of these health issues can be traced back to a combination of gut dysbiosis, impaired sulfate transport, and suppression of the activity of the various members of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) family of enzymes. We have found clear evidence that glyphosate disrupts gut bacteria and suppresses the CYP enzyme class. The connection to sulfate transport is more indirect, but justifiable from basic principles of biophysics.

In the remainder of this paper, we will first provide evidence from the literature that explains some of the ways in which glyphosate adversely affects plants, microbes, amphibians and mammal

Oh well, I guess we should be grateful for a break from Seralini.

It's a shame that Stephanie Seneff, who according to her MIT webpage is:

a Senior Research Scientist in the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at MIT. She received the B.S. degree in Biophysics from MIT in 1968, the M.S. and E.E. degrees in Electrical Engineering in 1980, and the PhD degree in Electrical Engineering in 1985, also from MIT.

is cut from the same small patch of cloth.

She is a computer scientist whose only biological qualification is a BS in Biophysics - not Biochemistry - and that is from 1968, just 15 years after the structure of DNA was determined, and two years before Glyphosate was first known as a herbicide.

I somehow doubt that the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory does a lot of research in Biochemistry or Molecular Biology.

As Paul Raeburn points out:

MIT should be concerned that one of its employees is evidently using her MIT affiliation in papers that are completely unrelated to her work at MIT and are eminently deserving of the criticism they are getting.

As usual you present no science. You never do. Just non-science, dressed up to look like science. I wonder if you can even tell the difference.

Do you ask a plumber for advice on rewiring your house?

 

[tupac chopra]

As usual you present no science. You never do.

Really? Post #37 in this thread is calling you a liar.s.

.

Amazing..this time you actually linked to some science. Wonders will never cease

Did you notice that the scientists above warn about people assuming Roundup is not toxic?

While many other environmental toxins obviously also contribute to these diseases and conditions, we believe that glyphosate may be the most significant environmental toxin, mainly because it is pervasive and it is often handled carelessly due to its perceived nontoxicity.

But you don't worry...just keep exposing your self to it.

 

[tupac chopra]

As usual you present no science. You never do.

It's an hypothesis based on previous work that can be tested. But as I said...please keep exposing yourself to it.

Expose yourself to lots of it if you like, even before that hypothesis is tested

 

[Juma]

But come on. The highest amounts measured in urine are some micrograms per litre. Since water weighs 1000 gr per litre the mass ratio is 1/1000 000 000.

The fact remains, it has passed through the human digestion system and the blood and still not been reduced to metabolites. That means it is PERSISTENT.

It means it goes right through you without interaction. That is a good thing.

 

[bilby]

Really? Post #37 in this thread is calling you a liar.s.

.

Amazing..this time you actually linked to some science. Wonders will never cease

I accept your apology.

Did you notice that the scientists above warn about people assuming Roundup is not toxic?

While many other environmental toxins obviously also contribute to these diseases and conditions, we believe that glyphosate may be the most significant environmental toxin, mainly because it is pervasive and it is often handled carelessly due to its perceived nontoxicity.

But you don't worry...just keep exposing your self to it.

It's good advice. People often handle all sorts of things carelessly because of a perception that they are safe. Nothing is 100% safe.

53 people died in Germany in 2011 from eating fresh vegetable sprouts contaminated with organic fertiliser. That's 53 more people than have ever died from eating food containing traces of Glyphosate, just in that one incident.

That does not, of course, mean that eating fresh vegetables is inadvisable. But it isn't completely safe; and it isn't even as safe as eating food containing traces of Glyphosate.

Cow manure is a good, natural and generally safe fertiliser. That said, I wouldn't want to drink a glass of it.

 

[tupac chopra]

Cow manure is a good, natural and generally safe fertiliser. That said, I wouldn't want to drink a glass of it.

Though from the sound of it you'd spray it on your food?
If not then why compare it to Roundup?

Or maybe you've been using your Roundup the wrong way. Did you read the instructions?

The Roundup I use in my backyard

 

[bilby]

Though from the sound of it you'd spray it on your food?
If not then why compare it to Roundup?

Or maybe you've been using your Roundup the wrong way. Did you read the instructions?

The Roundup I use in my backyard

Roundup is a herbicide. I use it to kill weeds. That's what it's for.

Cow manure is routinely sprayed on food crops - particularly by organic growers. I have no doubt that you have eaten plenty of food that has been sprayed with manure at some point in its growing cycle. It's not very pleasant to think about, but it is pretty safe.

Roundup is generally not sprayed directly on food crops, other than Roundup Ready varieties; not because it is dangerous to the final consumer of the crop, but because it is a herbicide - it kills plants.

As a result, there is much less chance of finding Glyphosate in your food than there is of finding cow manure. But both are safe enough in the tiny quantities that are found. Manure is quite a bit less safe - it has caused actual deaths, as those unfortunate Germans discovered. But still, it is fairly safe.

 

[tupac chopra]

As a result, there is much less chance of finding Glyphosate in your food than there is of finding cow manure. But both are safe enough in the tiny quantities that are found.

Firstly the thread is about Roundup, not glyphosate. As has already been mentioned Monsanto cheerleaders like to use them interchangeably. Interestingly you did that just then. I wonder why? You started talking about Roundup then switched to glyphosate. Glyphosate is only one ingredient in Roundup.

What science are you relying on to say Roundup is safe and what science are you relying on to say glyphosate is safe?

What will happen now will be either
<snip>

 

[scombrid]

It's a shame that Stephanie Seneff,

Seralini, Seneff, rinse repeat.


http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/12/31/oh-no-gmos-are-going-to-make-everyone-autistic/

 

[Under the Rose]

Roundup is generally not sprayed directly on food crops, other than Roundup Ready varieties; not because it is dangerous to the final consumer of the crop, but because it is a herbicide - it kills plants.

I beg to differ. It is an increasingly common practice. The following information was in the first link I posted. http://www.ithaka-journal.net/herbizide-im-urin?lang=en

Death-spray before Harvests

Glyphosate probably entered human populations over the past 10 years through its increasing presence in daily foods such as meat and dairy products, vegetable and fruit produce and grains products. Glyphosate laced genetically modified Roundup soya which enters the animal food chain, is only one of the risk factors. Even more dangerous now is the increasing use of herbicides in the EU over the past several years for the desiccation of entire stocks of harvestable crop. “Spraying crops to death”, as desiccation should be more aptly called, means that herbicides are being sprayed directly on the crops shortly before they are to be harvested to facilitate the harvest by uniformly killing off all living plants (including the crops) on the field. If crops can not fully mature due to excessive rain, as was the case in the summer of 2011, herbicides are used to bring the crops to maturity by means of a “death-spray”. The method facilitates the drying of the crops as well as removing all weeds for the next sowing period, and has become common for the harvest of potatoes, cereals, canola and pulses. For potatoes, spraying herbicides on the field immediately before harvest (2.5 l / ha), hardens the skin and reduces its susceptibility to late blight and germination, which improved the potatoes shelf life. Active compounds of the herbicide directly enter the potato through the leaves; however, decomposition of the poison takes place in the body of the consumer.

Syngenta’s advertising brochure has the following to say about desiccation: “For professional producers chemical desiccation now counts among the standard measures to assure high quality production [...]. In this context one also speaks of the “economic maturity” of crops, as the usage of herbicides allows for a safe termination of the harvesting procedure.”

Barley destined for brewing is not treated this way because it will not brew. What a surprise! Yet there is no concern about eating bread from grains harvested in this manner? My personal body chemistry suggests there is. Conventional flour, even baked at home, gives me discomforts of several kinds. Bake with organic, non-Round-up sprayed wheat and I'm good. Our family has baked bread since I was a child and something changed in the wheat a while back. It's not only myself that has observed this.

For example, glyphosate may not be used on malting barley or for a “kill-off” during seed propagation, as this reduces germination capacity. Beer does not brew with grains that were “sprayed to death” with glyphosate. For bread and fodder grain, however, this reduced germination capacity is not a concern. Authorities, however, forbid desiccated cereal straw to be used for fodder in the same year. Unfortunately, this regulation is neither followed nor enforced.

 

[braces_for_impact]

See? Gish gallops aren't just for religious arguments.

 

[scombrid]

My personal body chemistry suggests there is. Conventional flour, even baked at home, gives me discomforts of several kinds. Bake with organic, non-Round-up sprayed wheat and I'm good. Our family has baked bread since I was a child and something changed in the wheat a while back. It's not only myself that has observed this.

You should do a series of blinded tests wherein you do not know what kind of flour you are getting.

Some recent studies of "non celiac gluten sensitive" subjects found the presence or absence of gluten in the diet had no effect on their self reported symptoms. What mattered was whether or not they thought they were eating gluten. Previous studies found a link between gluten and various symptoms in "non-celiac gluten sensitive" people but when the studies were re-run with researcher-provided meals with the study subjects blinded to the presence or absence of gluten in the diet then the symptoms had no relationship to gluten.

I'd be curious to see how your gut responded to a similar blinded study with respect to whether or not the cereal grains are organic or not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ooooh, look! There's Gilles-Eric Séralini again.
Isn't it funny how the same names crop up time and time again.

As usual you present no science. You never do.

It's already been established that this guy is a quack. Showing that he's the one behind a study is enough to rebut it, no science is needed.

 

[tupac chopra]

As usual you present no science. You never do.

It's already been established that this guy is a quack. Showing that he's the one behind a study is enough to rebut it, no science is needed.

The jury is out, but with a serious study underway, rather than Monsanto's pretend studies we will see.
The thing to do is to do the study again, and see if Seralini was right or whether Monsanto was right.
Monsanto wil never do a serious study and the American FDA will never make them do one. Too much money at stake.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...-causes-cancer&p=143465&viewfull=1#post143465

By not doing proper tests Monsanto has put their profits at risk. But management would have already received their bonus's I imagine.
By not requiring more serious tests the FDA has added yet another risk to the American economy which relies on their corporations having at least some credibility

 

[bilby]

As a result, there is much less chance of finding Glyphosate in your food than there is of finding cow manure. But both are safe enough in the tiny quantities that are found.

Firstly the thread is about Roundup, not glyphosate. As has already been mentioned Monsanto cheerleaders like to use them interchangeably. Interestingly you did that just then. I wonder why?

Because the largest ingredient in Roundup is Glyphosate, so if you are looking for Roundup traces, Glyphosate is the chemical you test for.

You started talking about Roundup then switched to glyphosate. Glyphosate is only one ingredient in Roundup.

No shit, Sherlock. I mentioned that 21 posts ago - Really, if you are not going to read my posts, then you might want to stop commenting on what I have or have not said, it just makes you look foolish.

What science are you relying on to say Roundup is safe and what science are you relying on to say glyphosate is safe?

So far, all of it

What will happen now will be either
<snip>

<snip>