July 17, 2017
Mike then speaks to Farron Cousins, Executive Editor of The Trial Lawyer Magazine, about California’s battle against Monsanto’s cancer causing ingredient in Roundup.
July 17, 2017
Mike then speaks to Farron Cousins, Executive Editor of The Trial Lawyer Magazine, about California’s battle against Monsanto’s cancer causing ingredient in Roundup.
June 29, 2017
California will add glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s blockbuster herbicide RoundUp, to its list of chemicals known to cause cancer, effective July 7, 2017. 
Monsanto promises to fight the listing, required under state law Proposition 65, calling the decision “unwarranted on the basis of science and the law.”
The seeds and chemical company unsuccessfully tried to block the listing in trial court and requests for stay were denied by a state appellate court and the state’s Supreme Court. Monsanto has appealed the trial court decision.
Monsanto is entrenched in legal problems at the moment, including hundreds of lawsuits filed by people who allege glyphosate caused them cancer. The biotech giant and its products have always been controversial, but the company’s problems snowballed after the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared the chemical “probably carcinogenic” to humans.
In addition, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) inspector general is currently investigating whether a former staffer colluded with Monsanto to “kill” a study linking glyphosate to cancer.
Scott Partridge, Monsanto’s vice president of global strategy, said:
“This is not the final step in the process, and it has no bearing on the merits of the case. We will continue to aggressively challenge this improper decision.”
Glyphosate’s designation as a carcinogen under Proposition 65 means that companies selling the weed-killing chemical in California would be required to add warning labels to packaging. Additionally, warnings will need to be issued if glyphosate is sprayed at levels deemed harmful by regulators. The majority of glyphosate applicators are landscapers, golf courses, orchards, vineyards, and farms.
Monsanto and other glyphosate manufacturers will have about a year from the listing date to add the warnings to their products or pull them from the market if it is unsuccessful in challenging the decision.
It’s not clear whether RoundUp will receive a warning label. State regulators must still decide if the name brand weed killer contains high enough levels of glyphosate to endanger human health. More than 1,300 public comments have flooded state regulators on the matter. 
Sam Delson, a spokesman for California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), said:
“We can’t say for sure. We’re reviewing those comments.”
Glyphosate, an odorless, colorless chemical, was introduced by Monsanto in 1974, and skyrocketed in popularity for its ability to kill weeds without harming other plants. It is sold in 160 countries, and it is applied to 250 types of crops in California alone.
The fight to protect Californians from toxic substances like glyphosate is far from over, says Michael Baum, an attorney who represents more than 300 people who have filed suit against Monsanto, claiming glyphosate caused a loved one to get sick or die due to exposure to RoundUp.
Nathan Donley, a former cancer researcher and senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group, in an emailed statement, echoed similar sentiments. He said:
“California’s decision makes it the national leader in protecting people from cancer-causing pesticides. The U.S. EPA now needs to step up and acknowledge that the world’s most transparent and science-based assessment has linked glyphosate to cancer.” 
 ABC News
June 23, 2017
Pioneering food scientist and top selling author Mike Adams reveals why the new movie called “Food Evolution” is pure propaganda and disinformation from the chemical industry that poisons our food. Read more about the film at FoodEvolution.news.
June 7, 2017
The World Health Organization’s (WHO) cancer agency, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” which is the second-highest classification for substances that can cause cancer. Glyphosate is the main ingredient of Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup.
Instead of protecting public health and removing it from their products, Monsanto hired an army of fraudulent scientists and industry lobbyists to push their agenda. Backed up by the government and mainstream media, fake stories flooded the internet to cast doubts on the cancer-causing properties associated with glyphosate, allowing Monsanto to continue selling their toxic products.
Last July, the European Union (EU) granted an 18-month extension of glyphosate’s approval after a proposal for a full license renewal met opposition from member states and campaign groups. Despite the strong opposition from environmental groups, a new study by the European Chemical Agency (ECHA) has reopened the negotiations with EU nations over renewing the license for glyphosate, Reuters reported.
After Europe forced a delay in the decision to renew the license of glyphosate for commercial use, the European Commission is now proposing to extend its use by 10 years. According to the EU body, which regulates chemicals and biocides, glyphosate should not be classified as a cancer-causing substance.
After taking the latest state of scientific research into account, a spokeswoman for the Commission said that they will start to “work with the Member States to find a solution that enjoys the largest possible support.”
In 2015, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose carcinogenic or mutagenic properties and has no toxic effect on fertility, reproduction, or embryonic development.
As reported by Reuters, the ECHA study has been welcomed by the EFSA and lobby groups for farmers who use glyphosate-containing products on their fields. No date has been set for the start of the discussions between member states, so there is still hope Europe will maintain its strict safety standards and ban this health damaging chemical from its lawns and fields.
Bart Staes, a Green Party group member of the European Parliament, said that it makes no sense at all to ignore the wide range of risks associated to glyphosate. Despite the clear link between glyphosate and cancer, the decision to seek a 10-year rather than a long-term approval was criticized by glyphosate opponents such as the European Crop Protection group. They called the decision “short-sighted,” claiming it pandered to activists.
Will Europe fall for the bad science practices of the agricultural industry and fake media reports? Or will it make the right decision, putting people before profit? Only time will tell. Since glyphosate was registered in over 130 countries as one of the world’s most heavily used weed killers in 2010, Monsanto will not give up its biggest money-generating product without putting up a big fight. According to analysts, Monsanto is looking at a loss of up to $100 million if Europe bans the use of glyphosate.
Stay informed about the real science behind glyphosate and learn the undeniable truth about the risks associated with this widely used herbicide at Glyphosate.news.
May 26, 2017
How can you tell if a company is truly evil? If actively covering up the fact that their highly profitable products cause cancer wasn’t your first clue, the knowledge that thousands of people around the world stage protests against them every year should illustrate the extent of their depravity quite nicely.
Of course, you might not have heard much about the 6th International March Against Monsanto, which was held on May 20, because the mainstream media simply does not cover it. The same outlets that are all too happy to show up when even small protests are held against Trump are conspicuously absent when people take to the streets in more than 200 cities across six continents to draw attention to a company that has caused irreparable harm to our planet and the life on it.
Why are they the world’s most hated company? Let’s count the ways. Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide contains the chemical glyphosate, which the World Health Organization labeled a “probable carcinogen.” It is so pervasive that it’s been found in rain samples, vaccines, baby formula, prenatal vitamins, breast milk and around 90 percent of our conventional food supply.
It’s now at the center of a slew of lawsuits that were filed by cancer patients or their loved ones, and it has also been linked to infertility and birth defects. It is also impacting the environment, leading to mass die-offs of butterflies and bees and polluting soil, water and air. Its use has risen 16-fold since GMO crops were introduced in the mid-90s, and it earned Monsanto nearly $4.76 billion in sales in 2015.
Promoting and selling a product to the public that you know is dangerous is bad enough, but the way that Monsanto has conducted itself in its dealings with the government, regulators, researchers, and the public takes their nefariousness to another level entirely.
Monsanto colluded with the EPA to cover up Roundup’s toxicity, resorting to such abhorrent measures as threatening and bullying scientists, smearing journalists who dare speak out against them, writing favorable research studies and paying scientists to sign off on them, and hiring a crew of trolls to search every corner of the internet – including people’s personal social media pages – for negative mentions of their products and counter them with false science. It’s easy to see why people all around the world from all walks of life are so riled up.
The Twitter hashtag #MarchAgainstMonsanto was flooded with pictures of peaceful protests around the planet. Around 1,500 people showed up in Basel, Switzerland, while 300 people took to the streets in Lyon, France. Protestors in Bordeaux, France held signs that said: “With nature, not against it.”
A crowd marched near Monsanto’s office in Buenos Aires, while demonstrators shouted anti-Monsanto sentiments in Ghana. People in cities from Lisbon and Miami to San Antonio and London voiced their concerns about the firm. Large demonstrations in Montreal and Toronto prompted a Monsanto Canada public affairs director to defend the firm on Twitter, where she quite predictably claimed there is no scientific proof that glyphosate causes cancer.
The message in all these places was the same regardless of location and language: Buy organic and local, or better yet, grow your own food. Eating food with an unknown origin is simply not worth the risk. Be sure to express your outrage over Monsanto by joining in next year’s march!
April 27, 2017
A new lawsuit claims that Monsanto, the world’s most evil corporation, has been lying about the nature of its Roundup herbicide by claiming that it only targets an enzyme found in weeds, but not in people or pets. Challenging the very basis upon which Roundup was even granted approval in the first place, this latest suit represents yet another among many alleging that the chemical and GMO giant has been falsely advertising its products, putting the public at risk.
Now that Roundup is being detected at “extreme levels” in the nation’s food supply, it is more critical than ever that the truth be revealed about the world’s most widely used chemical herbicide, glyphosate. Filed in the Superior Court in the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.), this latest suit could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Plaintiffs in the case, which include the D.C.-based advocacy group Beyond Pesticides and the Minnesota-based Organic Consumers Association, point to scientific evidence published back in 2013 showing that glyphosate, the primary active ingredient in Roundup, does, in fact, act upon enzymes in the human body contrary to what Monsanto claims. This research, entitled “Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases,” is published in the peer-reviewed journal Entropy.
According to the paper, glyphosate’s inhibition of this important human enzyme, which also goes by the name of CYP, represents “an overlooked component of its toxicity to mammals” because CYP’s role in human biologics is a critical one. For one, CYP’s purpose is to detoxify the body of xenobiotics, which is basically just a fancy word for describing any foreign chemical substance that’s not supposed to be in the body.
The paper goes on to explain how glyphosate’s interference with CYP manifests over time as a gradual buildup of inflammation throughout the body, including within the various cellular systems that support life. This interference with CYP, the paper explains, “acts synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria, as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport.”
The result? Serious chronic illness, including almost every major condition that people living in areas where Roundup is sprayed now suffer – conditions like gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, infertility, depression, autism, dementia, and cancer.
“It is now beyond any scientific doubt that glyphosate is extremely hazardous to human health,” explains the Health Ranger, lab science director of CWC Labs and producer of the Health Ranger Science podcast. “The mass poisoning of the food supply must be halted, or the costs to humanity and the ecosystem will be devastating.”
A full abstract of this damning study is available to view online.
This is all a very stark detraction from the advertising claims long made by Monsanto that Roundup and glyphosate are completely safe, and that people shouldn’t be making such a big deal about them because doing so is just “anti-science.” Such an argument won’t fly anymore now that real scientific evidence conducted by independent scientists is proving, without a doubt, that Roundup is a serious threat to people and the environment.
This latest lawsuit intends to convey to the courts that Monsanto has been blatantly lying about this fact as it continues to rake in billions of dollars in profits based on false information. If the court agrees, such an indictment could – and should – lead to serious consequences for Monsanto, not the least of which include the company’s undoing. In a just world, Monsanto executives and anyone else complicit in perpetuating these lies, will also be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and sent to prison.
“Consumers have been deceived into believing that Roundup targets an enzyme found only in plants and not in people or pets,” the suit definitively declares. “Monsanto misrepresented the nature of Roundup and/or failed to adequately disclose the fact that Roundup’s key ingredient targets an enzyme found in the gut bacteria of people and pets, which was and is false, misleading, and/or likely to deceive reasonable consumers.”
April 14, 2017
Finally, Monsanto, the giant chemical company which produced Agent Orange and other horrendous environmental and health-damaging herbicides including its ‘star’ GMO-agriculture and harvest staging product Roundup®, has been sued alleging “it actively advertises and promotes its Roundup Products as targeting an enzyme ‘found in plants but not in people or pets’. These claims are false, misleading, and deceptive ,” according to a draft of the complaint and lawsuit filed in Superior Court in the District of Columbia (Washington, DC).
The lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs Beyond Pesticides (Washington, DC) and Organic Consumers Association (Finland, MN) due to “false and labeling of the company’s flagship product, Roundup herbicide.” 
The plaintiffs cite as scientific evidence the 2013 research study published by Samsel and Seneff in the journal Entropy “Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases.”  The Abstract for that paper states:
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. [CJF emphasis]
Plaintiffs allege, “By deceiving consumers about the nature and effects of Roundup, Monsanto is able to sell a greater volume of Roundup, and to command a higher price for Roundup.” [1, Pg.2 (10)]
Furthermore, “Monsanto affirmatively states that the enzyme targeted by glyphosate is not found in people and pets, and fails to disclose to consumers the material information that the enzyme targeted by glyphosate, and the shikimate pathway it’s designed to inhibit, are found in people and pets.” [1, Pg.3 (13)]
Clauses 15, 16 and 17 allege:
In Complaint clause 56, we find something that may not be very surprising, “Monsanto omits the material fact that peer-reviewed scientific research studies have shown that the enzyme targeted by glyphosate in fact is present in human and animal gut bacteria.”
However, the crux of the lawsuit, in my opinion, can be found in clause 58, “Consumers have been deceived into believing that Roundup targets an enzyme found only in plants and not in people or pets.” That allegation also should be filed against all federal government alphabet agencies involved in the ‘approval’ processes regarding safety and environmental impact studies, if any were done, prior to saturating the globe with an apparent disastrous herbicide, which now has become ubiquitous.
Its main active ingredient, glyphosate, has been found in ground, well and drinking water  sources—including human breast milk ; as residues in foods ; in vaccines ; and in 93% of urine samples tested . Regarding human blood cells, erythrocytes (red blood cells that transport oxygen and carbon dioxide to and from human body tissues), this 2014 study about glyphosate’s effects explains “The results clearly show that the changes induced in the erythrocytes can occur only as a result of poisoning with these compounds,” apparently referring to glyphosate’s metabolites and their impurities.
Complaint clause 78 states, “Monsanto misrepresented the nature of Roundup and/or failed to adequately disclose the fact that Roundup’s key ingredient targets an enzyme found in the gut bacteria of people and pets, which was and is false, misleading, and/or likely to deceive reasonable consumers,” an apparent serious health hazard plus chronic-disease-inducing factor for unsuspecting consumers—something not only the legal and court systems in the USA have to address, but federal and state public health agencies everywhere in the world!
According to Seattle Organic Restaurants’ website, here are the top ten environmental and chemical harms that are Monsanto’s legacy:
Don’t you think the federal government should be called to account for approving such horrific toxic chemicals being allowed to be sold as part of consumer products?
The plaintiffs BP and OCA request a jury trial. What do you think a jury of twelve Americans will do?
Will their decision depend upon how much Roundup® they use, since everyone probably thinks it’s as ‘safe’ as water?
How much Roundup® do you use?
 OCA Newsletter Organic Bytes, April 13, 2017 “Trouble in St. Louis?”
Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.
Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.
Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.
Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008)
Catherine’s NEW book: Eat To Beat Disease, Foods Medicinal Qualities ©2016 Catherine J Frompovich is now available
March 24, 2017
Will Monsanto finally get what they deserve for their crimes against humanity? The Miller Firm hopes to bring the corporate giant to their knees by pursuing a lawsuit that shows Roundup can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma.
And perhaps, in their pursuance of this litigation, the EPA will be taken down, too.
Email evidence indicates that not only did Monsanto help write the so-called cancer studies on Roundup, but that EPA officials colluded to keep reports on glyphosate’s carcinogenic status in favor of the industry. Former EPA scientist Marion Copley’s heartbreaking email not only illustrates the cancer-causing capacity, but that the EPA is riddled with corruption and greed.
Copley’s letter describes a host of ways in which glyphosate can cause cancer:
“Any one of these mechanisms alone listed can cause tumors, but glyphosate causes all of them simultaneously. It is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer. With all of the evidence listed above, the CARC category should be changed to ‘probable human carcinogen,’” Copley states. Copley passed away in 2014, before the IARC finally did come to reach this conclusion.
And as The Miller Firm notes, recent independent studies have shown that farm workers exposed to glyphosate or Roundup are at least twice as likely to develop lymphoma. Monsanto is, at the very least, guilty of engaging in deceptive marketing tactics by making claims that their deadly herbicide is “safer than table salt” and “practically non-toxic.” Worse still, several scientists have gone to federal prisons for falsifying data on the toxicity of glyphosate. According to The Miller Firm, the issues with Roundup’s safety testing date back to 1976. In spite of this, Monsanto has spent the last few decades convincing the public that glyphosate is totally safe.
Farm workers are particularly susceptible to the adverse health effects of glyphosate exposure. The Miller Firm has launched their lawsuit against Monsanto and taken aim at the EPA as well, citing that farmers were intentionally led to believe the cancer-causing chemical was safe — and if they had known the product was toxic, they’d have at least have known of the risks and been able to better protect themselves and further minimize contact with the herbicide.
The legal team also notes that Marion Copley’s letter points to corruption and collusion occurring between Monsanto and the EPA to protect glyphosate from being exposed as toxic.
“For once in your life, listen to me and don’t play your political conniving games with the science to favor the registrants. For once do the right thing and don’t make decisions based on how it affects your bonus. You and Anna Lowit intimidated staff on CARC and changed MI ARC and IIASPOC final reports to favor industry. The CARC category should be changed to “probable human carcinogen,” Copley writes in her email to fellow EPA scientist Jess Roland.
Court documents have continued to point to a not-so-innocent relationship between Roland and Monsanto. UPI reports that emails between Roland and Monsanto scientist Dr. William Heydens reveal that Heydens offered to write a 2013 report on glyphosate for the EPA. Roland purportedly then used the reports to conclude glyphosate should not be classified as carcinogenic.
Emails have also shown that Monsanto sought Roland out to stop the Agency of Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) — another federal agency — from investigating glyphosate further. A conversation relayed to coworkers by Monsanto regulatory affairs manager, Dan Jenkins shows that Rowland said,”If I can kill this I should get a medal.”
Bloomberg reports that the ATDSR never did publish a toxicological profile on the substance.
All signs point to one thing: both the EPA and Monsanto know glyphosate is toxic and carcinogenic, but they’re doing whatever they can to keep that fact under wraps.
Will The Miller Firm be able to convince the courts to mete out the appropriate punishment in the face of such corruption? One can only hope.
March 24, 2017
Is the day we’ve all been waiting for finally on the horizon? Monsanto and the EPA have been caught red-handed in the midst of a legal controversy. Unsealed court documents have shown that not only is the EPA severely lacking in the standards department, but that the federal agency colluded with one of the nation’s most menacing companies, Monsanto. And in doing so, the EPA helped to keep Monsanto’s star product, Roundup, on store shelves and safe from being reviewed for its cancer-causing effects.
Court documents show that the EPA declared that Roundup was safe for use without ever testing the entire formulation’s effects, and instead relied on the industry testing done on just the key active ingredient, glyphosate.
As you can see in the graphic below, not only does the EPA not require testing of the actual product in its entirety, Monsanto itself as not conducted any studies on the chronic carcinogenic studies related to Roundup’s formulation. While this alone is certainly more than enough cause for concern — both about Roundup’s safety and the EPA’s apparent lack of integrity — this revelation is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.
Recently, former EPA official Jess Rowland has come under fire for his collusion with Monsanto. The industry giant even reached out to Rowland to garner his assistance in putting the brakes on an investigation of glyphosate that was being pioneered by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
“If I can kill this I should get a medal,” Rowland said to a Monsanto employee, who then relayed the conversation to coworkers via email.
Another damning email shows that Monsanto executive William Heydens even conspired to “ghostwrite” a paper on glyphosate’s safety. Heydens claimed that having the company write their own research on key areas of the product’s safety would be “less expensive” and “more palatable.” It also appears that they were preparing for what may come of the IARC’s report on glyphosate, and how they would go about defending themselves. See below:
Heydens also noted that this same practice of ghostwriting and getting “independent” researchers to “sign their names” on studies is how they’d handled research on glyphosate’s safety in the past. And as NPR explains, while that earlier paper that is mentioned in the email did note that Monsanto helped to “assemble” the information, no Monsanto employees are noted as co-authors.
While the EPA contends that glyphosate is safe, the World Health Organization and numerous independent studies on the chemical’s safety seem to disagree. The WHO made tremendous waves when they declared that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen, and several independent investigations of the product’s safety have shown that it’s linked to liver damage, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease, digestive disorders and other ailments.
Monsanto, of course, has wasted no time defending their product and themselves. Scott Partridge, Monsanto’s vice president of global strategy, has reportedly said that it would be “remarkable” if the corporate giant was capable of manipulating the EPA under the Obama administration.
This comment surely must have been in jest, as the EPA’s corruption runs deep; impervious to the rules of reality, the EPA has continuously proven itself to either be an agency of sheer ineptitude or great deception — look no further than the Gold King Mine spill for proof of that.
Regardless, Partridge — like any corporate talking head — maintains that glyphosate is completely safe, and cites the EPA’s assessment as proof. But as the emails show, the EPA’s assessment is little more than a regurgitated form of Monsanto’s data. So, who’s really calling the shots here?
March 23, 2017
While you’d be hard pressed to find anyone willing to use a known herbicide for medicinal purposes, that hasn’t stopped Monsanto from patenting the star ingredient of their flagship herbicide, Roundup, as a type of antibiotic. In 2003, the corporate giant first submitted a patent for glyphosate as a parasitic control-type antimicrobial agent — or, in other words, a type of antibiotic.
The patent was granted in 2010, and you can view it here. Monsanto patented the combination of glyphosate and polyvalent anion oxalic acid as a method for preventing and treating pathogenic infections like malaria. As the patent explains, parasites from the phylum of Apicomplexa are often responsible for diseases in humans and other animals — and glyphosate is capable of inhibiting the growth of these parasites.
This patent certainly brings even more concerns about the impending Bayer-Monsanto merger, but more importantly, it raises a significant question: is glyphosate contributing to the proliferation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria?
Recent research has revealed that the herbicide could indeed be a contributing factor to the “superbug” epidemic that is being seen around the world. Scientists from the University of Canterbury in New Zealand have piloted new research that shows glyphosate is not just an herbicide, but a potential vector for antibiotic-resistant disease.
The study is the first of its kind. Professor Jack Heinemann, from the university, says that while herbicides may be tested for their ability to kill bacteria, they are not tested for what other effects they may have on microbes.
“We found that exposure to some very common herbicides can cause bacteria to change their response to antibiotics. They often become antibiotic resistant, but we also saw increased susceptibility or no effect. In most cases, we saw increased resistance even to important clinical antibiotics,” Heinemann commented.
The professor went on to explain that their results were so surprising that they enlisted another researcher from a different institution to conduct the same exact experiments in a different environment and without knowing exactly what she was adding to the bacteria, to help ensure the validity of their findings. The research conducted at Massey University yielded the same results as that done by the University of Canterbury.
According to the researchers, the effects they uncovered would be relevant to people and animals who are exposed to pesticides used in similar concentrations to that of what was tested. While the amounts used by the team were of greater concentration than what is currently supposed to be allowed in food — as we all know, the amount of glyphosate residue in and on food often surpasses what is deemed “permissible.” [RELATED: Keep up with the latest herbicide scandals at Glyphosate.news]
As antibiotic resistance continues to grow, the threat that glyphosate poses simply cannot be ignored. The effects of herbicides like glyphosate can have on bacteria are very real — especially given the chemical’s tendency to be intentionally misused by farmers as a desiccant.
Pathogenic bacteria are not the only microbes susceptible to the ill effects of glyphosate. The bacteria that reside in the human gut can also be harmed by the toxic herbicide. The very same shikamate pathway that glyphosate uses to target weeds and pathogenic bacteria species is the same pathway it would use to destroy the friendly and beneficial bacteria that inhabit the intestinal microbiome. This, of course, would come with its own host of adverse health effects.
There is no reason to believe that if glyphosate is capable of killing or altering one type of bacteria, that it would not harm other bacteria via the same pathway. Some research has already alluded to the potential for glyphosate to wreak havoc on the human digestive system. Given that the microbiome is of great importance to overall human health, findings such as this are not surprising: if glyphosate is killing off intestinal bacteria, it stands to reason that may be the first point of disease. Furthermore, some research has shown that glyphosate is capable of altering gut bacteria in other animals — for example, in 2014 German scientists found that glyphosate negatively affected the gut bacteria of cows.
It seems that the more we learn about glyphosate, the more dangerous it becomes.