Another article about glyphosate, Monsanto, Round-up… by Elias Marat

From Elias Marat, Feb 26, 2019

Toxic Weed Killer Found in Almost All Beer and Wine Brands … Including Organic

Most of the food that we eat makes a long and tortuous journey to our tables, often over great distances or from unknown origins.

Whether it’s factory-farmed eggs, processed chicken, fresh fruit from the west coast, seafood from the east coast, or a glass of wine or ice-cold beer, we often assume that what we’re eating is generally healthy or at least won’t harm us if enjoyed in moderation.

However, a new report by public-interest watchdog group U.S. PIRG has revealed that most of the top beers and wines in the United States are contaminated with glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s weed-killer, Roundup.

Roundup is a controversial herbicide that has been linked to cancer and other health problems in studies by the World Health Organization and the State of California, among others. In recent years, thousands of people have blamed Monsanto for being a key contributor to their cancer, leading to calls across the world for the weed-killer to be banned.

The advocacy group tested five wines and fifteen beers. The beer brands tested included top-sellers Budweiser, Coors, Miller Lite, Sam Adams, Samuel Smith Organic, and New Belgium. The wine brands tested included Beringer, Barefoot and Sutter Home.

Out of the 20 brands tested, glyphosate was found in 19 of them – including in 3 out of 4 organic beers and wines.

Among the beverages with the highest concentration of glyphosate was 2018 Sutter Home Merlot at 51.4 parts per billion (pbb) and Tsingtao, a beer from China, with 49.7 pbb – a rather high level when compared with the U.S. beer with the largest amount, which was Coors Light at 31.1 pbb.

Organic beverages like 2016 Inkarri Malbec lagged behind at 5.3 pbb while 2017 Samuel Smith Lager had 5.7 pbb.

In a statement, organic winery Frey Vineyards noted that while it refrains from the use of both herbicides and pesticides, “glyphosate in trace amounts is now found in rainwater because of its application to conventionally farmed agricultural land. Glyphosate in trace amounts can be found in many food products across the United States. We urge consumers to speak up to ban all use of glyphosate.”

Peak Organic IPA was the sole adult beverage that had no trace of the likely carcinogen.

The group warned that while the level of contamination isn’t necessarily deadly, the discovery raises potential health concerns.

The report noted:

“The levels of glyphosate we found are not necessarily dangerous, but are still concerning given the potential health risks. What is surprising is that glyphosate found its way into almost every type of beer and wine tested, including organic products. That indicates that consumers who want to avoid glyphosate, due to its probably health effects, would have a difficult time doing so. Considering the ubiquity of glyphosate found in many foods tested by other scientists and groups, and the amount of glyphosate sprayed throughout the country, people are constantly exposed to glyphosate.”

While industry representatives have sought to minimize the report in media statements to USA Today, PIRG stressed that it remains important for consumers to understand the potential danger of imbibing pesticides on a regular basis.

Kara Cook-Schultz of the U.S. PIRG Education Fund, who also authored the study, noted:

“No matter the efforts of brewers and vintners, we found that it is incredibly difficult to avoid the troubling reality that consumers will likely drink glyphosate at every happy hour and backyard barbecue around the country.”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for its part, has fiercely defended the use of glyphosates, telling USA Today in an email that it “found no meaningful risks to human health, including infants and children, when the product is used according to the pesticide label,” and that it has concluded at this stage that the herbicide is “not likely to be carcinogenic” to humans.

The EPA’s conclusion is sharply at odds with that reached by the World Health Organization, which found glyphosate to be a probable carcinogen in 2015 – a conclusion that the State of California concurred with in 2017. Monsanto has tried to appeal the case paving the way for its legal liability, along with parent company Bayer, in thousands of lawsuits where consumers and farmers have blamed Roundup for their incurable cancer.

In October, the first court trial over Roundup’s link to cancer ended with a victory for groundskeeper DeWayne Johnson, who was diagnosed with terminal cancer at the age of 42 due to the herbicide. Now 46, Johnson will be paid $78 million, but may not live long enoughto receive the money.

And starting Monday, a jury in San Francisco federal court began the first federal case on Roundup’s links to a 70-year-old man’s cancer, which may pave the way for hundreds of similar cases. On its first day, the judge threatened to “shut down” any discussion of Monsanto’s long track-record of pressuring government regulators and manipulating cancer research.

Critics have long accused Monsanto of using its wealth and power to force regulators to declare glyphosate safe, including through outright collusion with EPA officials who killed past investigations by the agency.

Nevertheless, PIRG hopes that their study will help inform consumers about what’s at stake in the federal trial – and what goes into their bodies. The group has called for the ubiquitous herbicide to be banned until it can be proven safe, and for consumers to opt for organic products whenever possible due to the significantly lower amounts of glyphosate found in them.

Cook-Schultz commented:

“With a federal court looking at the connection between Roundup and cancer today, we believe this is the perfect time to shine a spotlight on glyphosate … This chemical could prove a true risk to so many Americans’ health, and they should know that it is everywhere – including in many of their favorite drinks.”

Article from Max Goldberg: GMO Impossible Burger Tests Positive for Glyphosate

Another article in the never ending story about the importance of food, and what’s in it….

Article from Max Goldberg:
As Beyond Meat’s very successful IPO is bringing a lot of attention to the alt-protein category, it is important to take a look at what exactly are in these food products.

One popular name in this space is the Impossible Burger, a product we first wrote about in 2017 when Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents uncovered that the FDA disagreed with the company’s safety assessments of the burger’s main ingredient — soy leghemoglobin. However, the company continued selling it to the public anyhow without informing consumersabout the FDA’s very serious concerns.

The issue this time around with the Impossible Burger is the amount of glyphosate that it contains.

According to Moms Across America, who had the product tested at Health Research Institute Laboratories, the levels of glyphosate were 11x that of the Beyond Meat burger and the total result (glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA) came in at 11.3 parts per billion (ppb).

Why should consumers care about glyphosate?

Because glyphosate is known to the State of California to cause cancer and the World Health Organization says it is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” — which means that it “probably causes cancer to humans.” Glyphosate also happens to be the primary ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, and approximately 250 million pounds of this weed killer are sprayed each year in the U.S.

Recent court cases, including the $2 billion judgment to a couple whose non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was caused by Roundup, have provided more evidence of how harmful this chemical is.

So, the Impossible Burger not only contains a genetically-modified protein that has never been in the human diet until a few years ago, but it has also tested positive for glyphosate.

Additionally, company founder Pat Brown wrote the other day that the Impossible Burger will now be using GMO soy in its burgers. Genetically-modified soy is sprayed with Roundup and is one of Monsanto’s most important products.

“We are shocked to find that the Impossible Burger can have up to 11x higher levels of glyphosate residues than the Beyond Meat burger according to these samples tested. This new product is being marketed as a solution for ‘healthy’ eating, when in fact 11 ppb of glyphosate herbicide consumption can be highly dangerous. Only 0.1 ppb of glyphosate has been shown to alter the gene function of over 4,000 genes in the livers, kidneys and cause severe organ damage in rats. I am gravely concerned that consumers are being misled to believe the Impossible Burger is healthy,” said Zen Honeycutt, Executive Director of Moms Across America.

If you’re looking to switch to a vegan diet or consume less meat, there are numerous organic meatless options out there, such as Hilary’s Veggie Burgers or Don Lee Farms, products that are not genetically modified and whose ingredients have not been sprayed with glyphosate.

While the Impossible Burger may be generating a lot of hype and is Instagram-worthy because of how it “bleeds”, it carries elevated levels of glyphosate when compared to its non-organic peers, and its key ingredients are not found in nature but are manufactured in a laboratory.

Is eating the Impossible Burger a risk worth taking?

As the Institute for Responsible Technology has pointed out, GMOs carry many health risks.

But maybe Steven Molino (who now Tweets under @steven_molino) can answer this for us.

On Twitter, he said that 20 minutes after eating his first Impossible Burger at Bareburger, he “went into anaphylactic shock & taken to ER. Never happened to me before…” His Tweet about going into “anaphylactic shock” has since been deleted.

Article about Monsanto – how they wrote some of their own safety reviews

Here’s another reason why to stay away as far as possible from anything related to Monsanto… article posted 9 Aug 2017

Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews

Academic papers vindicating its Roundup herbicide were written with the help of its employees.

Monsanto Co. started an agricultural revolution with its “Roundup Ready” seeds, genetically modified to resist the effects of its blockbuster herbicide called Roundup. That ability to kill weeds while leaving desirable crops intact helped the company turn Roundup’s active ingredient, the chemical glyphosate, into one of the world’s most-used crop chemicals. When that heavy use raised health concerns, Monsanto noted that the herbicide’s safety had repeatedly been vetted by outsiders. But now there’s new evidence that Monsanto’s claims of rigorous scientific review are suspect.

Dozens of internal Monsanto emails, released on Aug. 1 by plaintiffs’ lawyers who are suing the company, reveal how Monsanto worked with an outside consulting firm to induce the scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology to publish a purported “independent” review of Roundup’s health effects that appears to be anything but. The review, published along with four subpapers in a September 2016 special supplement, was aimed at rebutting the 2015 assessment by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. That finding by the cancer-research arm of the World Health Organization led California last month to list glyphosate as a known human carcinogen. It has also spurred more than 1,000 lawsuits in state and federal courts by plaintiffs who claim they contracted non-Hodgkin lymphoma from Roundup exposure.

Monsanto disclosed that it paid Intertek Group Plc’s consulting unit to develop the review supplement, entitled “An Independent Review of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate.” But that was the extent of Monsanto’s involvement, the main article said. “The Expert Panelists were engaged by, and acted as consultants to, Intertek, and were not directly contacted by the Monsanto Company,” according to the review’s Declaration of Interest statement. “Neither any Monsanto company employees nor any attorneys reviewed any of the Expert Panel’s manuscripts prior to submission to the journal.”

Monsanto’s internal emails tell a different story. The correspondence shows the company’s chief of regulatory science, William Heydens, and other Monsanto scientists were heavily involved in organizing, reviewing, and editing drafts submitted by the outside experts. At one point, Heydens even vetoed explicit requests by some of the panelists to tone down what one of them wrote was the review’s “inflammatory” criticisms of IARC.

“An extensive revision of the summary article is necessary,” wrote that panelist, John Acquavella, an epidemiologist at Aarhus University in Denmark, in a February 2016 email attached to his suggested edits of the draft. Alarmed, Ashley Roberts, the coordinator of the glyphosate papers for Intertek, forwarded Acquavella’s note and edits to Heydens at Monsanto, with the warning: “Please take a look at the latest from the epi(demiology) group!!!!”

Heydens reedited Acquavella’s edits, arguing in six different notes in the draft’s margin that statements Acquavella had found inflammatory were not and should not be changed, despite the author’s requests. In the published article, Heydens’s edits prevailed. In an interview, Acquavella says that he was satisfied with the review’s final tone. According to an invoice he sent Monsanto, he billed the company $20,700 for a single month’s work on the review, which took nearly a year to complete.

Monsanto defends the review’s independence. Monsanto did only “cosmetic editing” of the Intertek papers and nothing “substantive” to alter panelists’ conclusions, says Scott Partridge, Monsanto’s vice president for global strategy. While the “choice of words” in the Declaration of Interest “was not ideal,” he says, “it didn’t change the science.”

In July 2016, the journal’s editor, Roger McClellan, emailed his final instructions to Roberts at Intertek on what the paper’s Acknowledgment and Declaration of Interest statements should include. “I want them to be as clear and transparent as possible,” he wrote. “At the end of the day I want the most aggressive critics of Monsanto, your organization and each of the authors to read them and say—Damn, they covered all the points we intended to raise.”

Specifically, McClellan told Roberts to make clear how the panelists were hired—“ie by Intertek,” McClellan wrote. “If you can say without consultation with Monsanto, that would be great. If there was any review of the reports by Monsanto or their legal representatives, that needs to be disclosed.”

Roberts forwarded McClellan’s emails, along with a more technical question, to Heydens, who responded, “Good grief.” The Declaration of Interest statement was rewritten per McClellan’s instructions, despite being untrue. There was no mention of the company’s participation in the editing.

Monsanto’s editorial involvement appears “in direct opposition to their disclosure,” says Genna Reed, a science and policy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy. “It does seem pretty suspicious.”

In response to questions, McClellan wrote in an email on Aug. 7 that he’d been unaware of the Monsanto documents and has forwarded the matter to the journal’s publisher, Taylor & Francis, in Abingdon, England. “These are serious accusations relative to scientific publishing canons and deserve very careful investigation,” he wrote. “I can assure you that Taylor and Francis, as the publisher, and I, as the Scientific Editor of Critical Reviews in Toxicology, will carefully investigate the matter and take appropriate action.” A Taylor & Francis spokeswoman says it has begun an investigation.

The Monsanto documents, more than 70 in all, were obtained through pretrial discovery and posted online by some of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, who claim Monsanto missed a 30-day window to object to their release. Monsanto says it was blindsided by the disclosures and has asked U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco to order the documents pulled from the web and to punish the attorneys for violating confidentiality orders. Says Monsanto’s Partridge: “It’s unfortunate these lawyers are grandstanding at the expense of their clients’ interests.”

Other emails show that Monsanto’s lead toxicologist, Donna Farmer, was removed as a co-author of a 2011 study on glyphosate’s reproductive effects, but not before she made substantial changes and additions to the paper behind the scenes. The study, published in Taylor & Francis’s Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, served to counter findings that glyphosate hampers human reproduction and development. Partridge says Farmer’s contributions didn’t warrant authorship credit. While almost all of her revisions made it into the published paper, her name doesn’t even show up in the acknowledgments.

BOTTOM LINE – Monsanto has long noted that independent scientists have vouched for the safety of its Roundup herbicide. Court data show its employees edited some of those reviews.

The real reason why wheat is toxic

I stopped eating wheat/gluten several years ago, and are feeling so much better… and I try to buy organic food as much as I can, this is another good reason to buy organic food – it might be the case that gluten is not the only culprit, it could be the glyphosate as well, among other things…

The Real Reason Wheat is Toxic (it’s not the gluten)

The stories became far too frequent to ignore.

Emails from folks with allergic or digestive issues to wheat in the United States experienced no symptoms whatsoever when they tried eating pasta on vacation in Italy.

Confused parents wondering why wheat consumption sometimes triggered autoimmune reactions in their children but not at other times.

In my own home, I’ve long pondered why my husband can eat the wheat I prepare at home, but he experiences negative digestive effects eating even a single roll in a restaurant.

There is clearly something going on with wheat that is not well known by the general public. It goes far and beyond organic versus nonorganic, gluten or hybridization because even conventional wheat triggers no symptoms for some who eat wheat in other parts of the world.

What indeed is going on with wheat?

For quite some time, I secretly harbored the notion that wheat in the United States must, in fact, be genetically modified.  GMO wheat secretly invading the North American food supply seemed the only thing that made sense and could account for the varied experiences I was hearing about.

I reasoned that it couldn’t be the gluten or wheat hybridization. Gluten and wheat hybrids have been consumed for thousands of years. It just didn’t make sense that this could be the reason for so many people suddenly having problems with wheat and gluten in general in the past 5-10 years.

Finally, the answer came over dinner a couple of months ago with a friend who was well versed in the wheat production process. I started researching the issue for myself, and was, quite frankly, horrified at what I discovered.

The good news is that the reason wheat has become so toxic in the United States is not because it is secretly GMO as I had feared (thank goodness!).

The bad news is that the problem lies with the manner in which wheat is grown and harvested by conventional wheat farmers.

You’re going to want to sit down for this one.  I’ve had some folks burst into tears in horror when I passed along this information before.

Common wheat harvest protocol in the United States is to drench the wheat fields with Roundup several days before the combine harvesters work through the fields as the practice allows for an earlier, easier and bigger harvest 

Pre-harvest application of the herbicide Roundup or other herbicides containing the deadly active ingredient glyphosate to wheat and barley as a desiccant was suggested as early as 1980.  It has since become routine over the past 15 years and is used as a drying agent 7-10 days before harvest within the conventional farming community.USDA pesticides applied to wheat

According to Dr. Stephanie Seneff of MIT who has studied the issue in depth and who I recently saw present on the subject at a nutritional Conference in Indianapolis, desiccating non-organic wheat crops with glyphosate just before harvest came into vogue late in the 1990’s with the result that most of the non-organic wheat in the United States is now contaminated with it.  Seneff explains that when you expose wheat to a toxic chemical like glyphosate, it actually releases more seeds resulting in a slightly greater yield:   “It ‘goes to seed’ as it dies. At its last gasp, it releases the seed” says Dr. Seneff.

According to the US Department of Agriculture, as of 2012, 99% of durum wheat, 97% of spring wheat, and 61% of winter wheat has been treated with herbicides. This is an increase from 88% for durum wheat, 91% for spring wheat and 47% for winter wheat since 1998.

Here’s what wheat farmer Keith Lewis has to say about the practice:

I have been a wheat farmer for 50 yrs and one wheat production practice that is very common is applying the herbicide Roundup (glyposate) just prior to harvest. Roundup is licensed for preharvest weed control. Monsanto, the manufacturer of Roundup claims that application to plants at over 30% kernel moisture result in roundup uptake by the plant into the kernels. Farmers like this practice because Roundup kills the wheat plant allowing an earlier harvest.

A wheat field often ripens unevenly, thus applying Roundup preharvest evens up the greener parts of the field with the more mature. The result is on the less mature areas Roundup is translocated into the kernels and eventually harvested as such.

This practice is not licensed. Farmers mistakenly call it “dessication.” Consumers eating products made from wheat flour are undoubtedly consuming minute amounts of Roundup. An interesting aside, malt barley which is made into beer is not acceptable in the marketplace if it has been sprayed with preharvest Roundup. Lentils and peas are not accepted in the market place if it was sprayed with preharvest roundup….. but wheat is ok.. This farming practice greatly concerns me and it should further concern consumers of wheat products.

Here’s what wheat farmer Seth Woodland of Woodland and Wheat in Idaho had to say about the practice of using herbicides for wheat dry down:

That practice is bad . I have fellow farmers around me that do it and it is sad. Lucky for you not all of us farm that way. Being the farmer and also the president of a business, we are proud to say that we do not use round up on our wheat ever!

This practice is not just widespread in the United States either. The Food Standards Agency in the United Kingdom reports that use of Roundup as a wheat desiccant results in glyphosate residues regularly showing up in bread samples. Other European countries are waking up to to the danger, however. In the Netherlands, use of Roundup is completely banned with France likely soon to follow.

Using Roundup on wheat crops throughout the entire growing season and even as a desiccant just prior to harvest may save the farmer money and increase profits, but it is devastating to the health of the consumer who ultimately consumes the glyphosate residue laden wheat kernels.

The chart below of skyrocketing applications of glyphosate to US wheat crops since 1990 and the incidence of celiac disease is from a December 2013 study published in the Journal Interdisciplinary Toxicology examining glyphosate pathways to autoimmune disease. Remember that wheat is not currently GMO or “Roundup Ready” meaning it is not resistant to its withering effects like GMO corn or GMO soy, so application of glyphosate to wheat would actually kill it.

celiac incidence as a factor of glyphosate application to wheat

While the herbicide industry maintains that glyphosate is minimally toxic to humans, research published in the Journal Entropy strongly argues otherwise by shedding light on exactly how glyphosate disrupts mammalian physiology.

Authored by Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff of MIT, the paper investigates glyphosate’s inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes, an overlooked component of lethal toxicity to mammals.

The currently accepted view is that ghyphosate is not harmful to humans or any mammals.  This flawed view is so pervasive in the conventional farming community that Roundup salesmen have been known to foolishly drink it during presentations!

However, just because Roundup doesn’t kill you immediately doesn’t make it nontoxic.  In fact, the active ingredient in Roundup lethally disrupts the all important shikimate pathway found in beneficial gut microbes which is responsible for synthesis of critical amino acids.

Friendly gut bacteria, also called probiotics, play a critical role in human health. Gut bacteria aid digestion, prevent permeability of the gastointestinal tract (which discourages the development of autoimmune disease), synthesize vitamins and provide the foundation for robust immunity.  In essence:

Roundup significantly disrupts the functioning of beneficial bacteria in the gut and contributes to permeability of the intestinal wall and consequent expression of autoimmune disease symptoms

In synergy with disruption of the biosynthesis of important amino acids via the shikimate pathway, glyphosate inhibits the cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes produced by the gut microbiome.  CYP enzymes are critical to human biology because they detoxify the multitude of foreign chemical compounds, xenobiotics, that we are exposed to in our modern environment today.

As a result, humans exposed to glyphosate through use of Roundup in their community or through ingestion of its residues on industrialized food products become even more vulnerable to the damaging effects of other chemicals and environmental toxins they encounter!

What’s worse is that the negative impact of glyphosate exposure is slow and insidious over months and years as inflammation gradually gains a foothold in the cellular systems of the body.

The consequences of this systemic inflammation are most of the diseases and conditions associated with the Western lifestyle:

  • Gastrointestinal disorders
  • Obesity
  • Diabetes
  • Heart Disease
  • Depression
  • Autism
  • Infertility
  • Cancer
  • Multiple Sclerosis
  • Alzheimer’s disease
  • And the list goes on and on and on …

In a nutshell, Dr. Seneff’s study of Roundup’s ghastly glyphosate which the wheat crop in the United States is doused with uncovers the manner in which this lethal toxin harms the human body by decimating beneficial gut microbes with the tragic end result of disease, degeneration, and widespread suffering

Got the picture yet?

Even if you think you have no trouble digesting wheat, it is still very wise to avoid conventional wheat as much as possible in your diet!

You Must Avoid Toxic Wheat No Matter What

The bottom line is that avoidance of conventional wheat in the United States is absolutely imperative even if you don’t currently have a gluten allergy or wheat sensitivity. The increase in the amount of glyphosate applied to wheat closely correlates with the rise of celiac disease and gluten intolerance. Dr. Seneff points out that the increases in these diseases are not just genetic in nature, but also have an environmental cause as not all patient symptoms are alleviated by eliminating gluten from the diet.

The effects of deadly glyphosate on your biology are so insidious that lack of symptoms today means literally nothing.

If you don’t have problems with wheat now, you will in the future if you keep eating conventionally produced, toxic wheat!

How to Eat Wheat Safely

Obviously, if you’ve already developed a sensitivity or allergy to wheat, you must avoid it.  Period.

But, if you aren’t celiac or gluten sensitive and would like to consume this ancestral food safely, you can do what we do in our home. We source organic, naturally low in gluten, unhybridized Einkorn wheat for breadmaking, pancakes, cookies etc. Please note that einkorn is not to be confused with the more general term farro, which includes emmer and spelt, which are both hybridized. You can learn more about the scientific research on the “good” gluten in einkorn in this article.

When we eat out or are purchasing food from the store, conventional wheat products are rejected without exception. This despite the fact that we have no gluten allergies whatsoever in our home – yet.

I am firmly convinced that if we did nothing, our entire family at some point would develop sensitivity to wheat or autoimmune disease in some form due to the toxic manner in which it is processed and the glyphosate residues that are contained in conventional wheat products.

What Are You Going to Do About Toxic Wheat?

How did you react to the news that US wheat farmers are using Roundup, not just to kill weeds, but to dry out the wheat plants to allow for an earlier, easier and bigger harvest and that such a practice causes absorption of toxic glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and other herbicides, right into the wheat kernels themselves?

Did you feel outraged and violated like I did? How will you implement a conventional wheat-avoidance strategy going forward even if you haven’t yet developed a problem with gluten or wheat sensitivity?

What about other crops where Roundup is used as a pre-harvest dessicant such as barley, sugar cane, rice, seeds, dried beans and peas, sugar cane, sweet potatoes, and sugar beets?  Will you only be buying these crops in organic form from now on to avoid this modern, man-made scourge?

UPDATE:  The Soil Association in July 2015 called for an immediate ban on the use of glyphosate for wheat ripening and desiccation purposes.  The nonprofit reports that glyphosate residues are widely found in nonorganic wheat samples and the use of the herbicide on wheat crops has increased 400% in the past two decades.

Dr. Robin Mesnage of the Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics at Kings College in London, revealed new data analysis showing Roundup, the most common brand of Glyphosate based herbicides, is 1,000 times more toxic than genotoxic glyphosate alone due to the inclusion of other toxic chemicals in its mix.

Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director said; “If Glyphosate ends up in bread it’s impossible for people to avoid it, unless they are eating organic. On the other hand, farmers could easily choose not to use Glyphosate as a spray on wheat crops – just before they are harvested. This is why the Soil Association is calling for the immediate ending of the use of Glyphosate sprays on wheat destined for use in bread.”

Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist


Sources and More Information

Roundup: Quick Death for Weeds, Slow and Painful Death for You

Glyphosate now commonly found in human urine

Study: Glyphosate, Celiac and Gluten Intolerance

The Glyphosate, Celiac Disease Connection

Hybrid Wheat is Not the Same as GMO Wheat

The Dutch Ban Roundup, France and Brazil to Follow

Is it the Gluten or is it the Glyphosate?

How to Mix and Use Gluten Free Flour

Can Celiacs Eat Sourdough Bread?

Pre-harvest Application of Glyphosate to Wheat

The Dirty Little Secret About Gluten Free

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

Yield and quality of wheat seeds as a function of desiccation stages and herbicides

Wheat farmer weighs in on the use of Roundup as a wheat desiccant

Kraftig ökning av sjukligheten i USA sätts i samband med GMO-ogräsgift

 En mycket stor ökning av kroniska sjukdomar har skett i USA de senaste 20 åren. En statistisk analys grundad på data från USAs hälsovårdsmyndigheter tyder på ett kraftigt samband mellan användning av GMO-ogräsmedlet Roundup och en rad vanliga kroniska sjukdomar, inklusive högt blod blodtryck, diabetes, fetma, Alzheimer, Parkinson vissa cancerformer mm. Ett i det närmaste lika starkt samband fanns mellan de kroniska sjukdomarna och förekomsten av GMO-odling i grannskapet.

Orsaken till att man kunde sortera ut ett så kraftigt samband är sannolikt att GMO-odling är koncentrerad till begränsade områden i USA, medan stora delar är helt GMO-fria. Man kunde därmed jämföra graden av Roundupanvänding allt från noll till mycket hög med sjukligheten i motsvarande områden. Nedan jorbruksdepartementets karta på majsodling (över 90% är GMO) i USA och bilden är snarlik för soja:


Roundup används till mycket stor del i samband med GMO som genmanipulerats till att tåla detta ogräsgift (sk Roundup-resistenta GM-grödor). Observera att det förelåg ett i det närmaste lika starkt samband med förkomst av GMO-grödor i granskapet. Denna analys tillåter inte att avgöra till vilken grad sjuklighetsökningen enbart berodde på Roundup som används tillsammans med grödorna eller om GMO i sig själv också bidragit.

Sammanfattning i klartext för lekmannen

Förekomsten av kroniska sjukdomar i alla delar av USA jämfördes med  användningen av Roundup och odlingen av GMO (vi skriver samman det i Roundup&GMO nedan) i respektive område (underlaget var offentliga data från Hälsoministeriet (dess avdelning CDC) och Jordbruksministeriet (USDA)). Man fann att ju större användning av Roundup&GMO i jordbruket, desto större var sjukligheten i ett antal allvarliga kroniska sjukdomar. Det var slående att innan Roundup&GMO började användas var sjukligheten konstant i de flesta fall, medan den, sedan användningen började, ökade tvärt och tilltog parallellt och kraftigt med den

Klicka ovan för att förstora

ökande användningen vilket illustreras i vidstående diagram (den röda linjen visar Glyfosat och de gula staplarna sjukdomsfrekvensen). Det statistiska sambandet var osedvanligt starkt och den statistiska sannolikheten för att sambandet var slumpmässigt var ytterst lågt.

Som helhet innebär resultatet att det finns starka indikationer på ett samband mellan Roundup&GMO och flera svåra kroniska sjukdomar inklusive högt blodtryck, diabetes, Alzheimer, senil demens, Parkinson, MS, Autism, inflammatorisk tarmsjukdom, tarminfektioner, grav njursjukdom, cancer i sköldkörtel, urinblåsa, bukspottskörtel och njure samt myeloisk leukemi.

Resultatet är inte förvånande, för det har framkommit belägg för att Roundup har gifteffekter av olika slag som kan leda till kronisk sjukdom och dödsfall.

Översättning av den vetenskapliga rapportens sammanfattning

(redigerad med punktlistor, fetstil o kursivering av PSRAST med förklaringar inom [hakperentes] )


Nancy L. Swanson 1, Andre Leu 2*, Jon Abrahamson 3 and Bradley Wallet 4

En enorm ökning av incidensen och prevalensen av kroniska sjukdomar har rapporterats i USA (US) under de senaste 20 åren. Liknande ökningar har setts globalt.

Bekämpningsmedlet glyfosat [Roundup] infördes 1974 och dess användning har accelererat med tillkomsten av herbicidtoleranta genetiskt modifierade (GMO) grödor. Det finns växande belägg för att glyfosat stör många metaboliska processer hos växter och djur och glyfosatrester har upptäckts [i blod, vävnader och modersmjölk] hos bådadera.

Glyfosat stör det endokrina [=hormon-] systemet,  rubbar tarmfloran, skadar DNA och är en drivkraft för mutationer som leder till cancer.

I den aktuella studien, genomsöktes offentliga databaser i USA: s  beträffande GMO skördedata , glyfosat [Roundup] användningsdata och epidemiologiska data betr sjukdomsförekomst. Korrelation analyser utfördes sedan på totalt 22 sjukdomar i dessa tidsseriedatamängder.

Pearson korrelationskoefficienterna [=statistiskt mått på samband] var höggradigt signifikanta (<10-5) [denna siffra betyder att chansen att sambandet vållades av sumpen var mindre än en på 100.000]

[Man fann ett mycket starkt samband i form av en osedvanligt hög korrelation] mellan glyfosat användning och:

  • hypertoni [högt blodtryck] (R = 0,923), [R= korrelationskofficient som max kan vara 1,0.  R=0,923 är ett extremt kraftigt samband. Mycket sällan ser man så kraftiga korrelationer i statistiska analyser inom medicinen. Detta tillsammans med den mycket låga sannolikheten att sambandet var orsakat av slumpen, indikerar att det föreligger ett mycket kraftigt och statistiskt sett höggradigt tillförlitligt samband]
  • stroke (R = 0,925),
  • diabetes prevalensen [förekomst] (R = 0,971),
  • diabetes incidensen [insjuknandefrekvens] (R = 0,935),
  • fetma (R = 0,962),
  • lipoproteinmetabolism [störningar i fettomsättningen]  (R = 0,973),
  • Alzheimers (R = 0,917),
  • senil demens (R = 0,994),
  • Parkinsons (R = 0,875),
  • Multipel Skleros (R = 0,828), [trots att detta är den lägsta siffran innebär 0,83 ett mycket starkt samband]
  • Autism (R = 0,989), [OBS – ytterligt kraftigt samband]
  • Inflammatorisk tarmsjukdom (R = 0,938),
  • Tarminfektioner (R = 0,974),
  • Terminal njursjukdom (R = 0,975),
  • Akut njursvikt (R = 0,978),
  • Cancer i
    • sköldkörteln (R = 0,988), [OBS]
    • lever (R = 0,960),
    • urinblåsa (R = 0,981),
    • bukspottkörteln (R = 0,918),
    • njure (R = 0,973)
  • Myeloisk leukemi (R = 0,878).

Pearson korrelationskoefficienterna var mycket signifikanta (<10-4) [en på tiotusen] mellan andelen planterad  GE majs och soja  och:

  • hypertoni (R = 0,961),
  • stroke (R = 0,983),
  • diabetes prevalensen (R = 0,983),
  • diabetes incidensen (R = 0,955),
  • fetma (R = 0,962),
  • lipoproteinmetabolism störning (R = 0,955),
  • Alzheimers (R = 0,937),
  • Parkinsons (R = 0,952),
  • multipel skleros (R = 0,876),
  • hepatit C (R = 0,946) ,
  • njursjukdom i slutstadiet (R = 0,958),
  • akut njursvikt (R = 0,967),
  • cancer i
    • sköldkörteln (R = 0,938),
    • lever (R = 0,911),
    • urinblåsa (R = 0,945),
    • bukspottkörteln (R = 0,841) ,
    • njure (R = 0.940) och
  • myeloisk leukemi (R = 0,889).

Den statistiska signifikansen och styrkan i korrelation visar att effekterna av glyfosat och GMO-grödor på människors hälsa bör utredas vidare.


Några illustrativa diagram från rapporten:


[PSRAST:] Diagrammet ovan illustrerar det mycket starka tidssambandet mellan roundup-användning / GM-grödor och den växande insjuknandet i diabetes. Korrelationen på 0,935 är mycket stark. Den gröna linjen visar frekvensen under tio år före införandet av Roundup&GMO och visar att innan dessa infördes var insjuknandet konstant, vilket underbygger sambandet.  Samma slags tidssamband finns för de andra sjukdomarna. Sambandet med Roundup misstänks bero på att giftet rubbar hormonbalansen och ämnesomsättningen.

Här ett par ytterligare exempel:2014-11-24

[PSRAST:] Frekvensen av dödsfall pga tarmsjukdomar var konstant  under tolv år innan Roundup införders och har sedan ökat mycket kraftigt, parallellt med Roundupanvändningen. Detta är inte förvånande, för studier har visat att Roundup av någon anledning dödar i huvudsak den nyttiga mjölksyrebildande tarmbakteriefloran banar därmed väg för skadliga, giftbildande bakterier. Dessutom hämmar glyfosat Cytochrome P450 – systemet som spelar en nyckelroll i avgiftningen. Ett samband med ”läckande tarm” (se Samsell&Seneff 2013) misstänks, vilket gör att stora mängder bakteriegifter kan svämma in. Eftersom förmågan att neutralisera dessa gifter är nedsatt, är det förståeligt att personer, som utsatts för glyfosat och har giftbildande tarmflora med läckande tarm, kan avlida.


[PSRAST:] Diagrammet återspeglar den extremt starka korrelationen (0,99) mellan Roundupanvändning och sköldkörtelcancer. Observera att före Roundup var sköldkörtelcancerförekomsten konstnat i drygt 15 år. Den påfallande parallelliteten understryker starkt sambandet mellan Roundup och cancerförekomsten. Flera faktorer misstänks här bidra. Roundup stör immunförsvaret, skadar DNA, och hämmar som ovan nämnts viktiga avgiftande enzymer varigenom inverkan av cancerframkallande gifter i miljön och i maten förstärks. Flera andra cancertyper hade också ett starkt samband med Roundup.


Även om det statistiska sambandet är mycket starkt, är sambandet i realiteten ännu starkare. Sannolikheten för att resultatet är en slump är visserligen ytterst låg rent statistiskt. Men två faktorer som den statistiska analysen inte inkluderade förstärker sambandet väsentligt.

Den ena faktorn är att det för flera olika, inte nära relaterade sjukdomar, skett en påfallande likadan ökning av sjukdomsfrekvensen  i form av kraftig parallellitet mellan glyfosatanvändningen (röd linje i diagrammet nedan) och sjukligheten (gula staplar). Detta återkommande mönster talar starkt emot en slumpartad ökning (vid statistisk analys av här tillämpat slag räknar man bara ut samband mellan siffror i varje mätpunkt, dvs antal sjuka och mängd Roundup&GMO vilket missar sådana mönster).


Den andra är att att i flera fall har sjukligheten varit konstant innan Roundup&GMO infördes (se den gröna trend-linjen i diagrammet) och sedan ökat parallellt med Roundup&GMO-användningen först sedandenna introducerades, stärker beviskraften ytterligare (det hade kunnat påvisas med sk tidsserieanalys, men vi förmodar att författarna fann det överflödigt med tanke på den starka korrelationen).

Vår slutsats

Här föreligger en kombination av

  • Extremt hög Pearson-korrelation
  • Mycket stark statistisk signifikans
  • En påfallande parallel utveckling av sjukligheten över tid för vitt skilda sjukdomar tydande på en gemensam orsak
  • Ett påfallande tidssamband mellan sjuklighetsökningens början för vitt skilda sjukdomar och insättandet av Roundup o GMO
  • En påfallande parallellitet mellan sjuklighetsökningen och ökningen av Roundup&GMO-användningen.
  • Vetenskapligt dokumenterade gifteffekter av Roundup som är kända för att kunna leda till sagda sjukdomar (se ”Why Glyfosate should be banned”  från 2012) .

Detta torde berättiga slutsatsen att ökningen av sjukligheten med till visshet gränsande sannolikhet vållats av Roundup&GMO. Vi har full förståelse för att författarna för att minimera risken för otillbörliga påhopp hållit sig till traditionell statistisk analys i synnerhet som dessa resultat i sig är imponerande. Men med tanke på problemets allvar vill vi framhäva de fulla konsekvenserna av redovisade fakta.

I Sverige används Roundup i jordbruket främst till att bekämpa kvickrot.

”År 2007 såldes 681,9 ton aktiv substans glyfosat i Sverige enligt Kemikalieinspektionen.[1] 2011 hade försäljningen ökat till 707,7 ton.” (Wikisv)

En del andra länder har förbjudit Glyfosat – men inte Sverige

Texten här har flyttats till ett separat inlägg.



Nancy L. Swanson 1, Andre Leu 2*, Jon Abrahamson 3 and Bradley Wallet 4


A huge increase in the incidence and prevalence of chronic diseases has been reported in the United States (US) over the last 20 years. Similar increases have been seen globally. The herbicide glyphosate was introduced in 1974 and its use is accelerating with the advent of herbicide-tolerant genetically engineered (GE) crops. Evidence is mounting that glyphosate interferes with many metabolic processes in plants and animals and glyphosate residues have been detected in both. Glyphosate disrupts the endocrine system and the balance of gut bacteria, it damages DNA and is a driver of mutations that lead to cancer. In the present study, US government databases were searched for GE crop data, glyphosate application data and disease epidemiological data. Correlation analyses were then performed on a total of 22 diseases in these time-series data sets. The Pearson correlation coefficients are highly significant (< 10-5) between glyphosate applications and hypertension (R = 0.923), stroke (R = 0.925), diabetes prevalence (R = 0.971), diabetes incidence (R = 0.935), obesity (R = 0.962), lipoprotein metabolism disorder (R = 0.973), Alzheimer’s (R = 0.917), senile dementia (R = 0.994), Parkinson’s (R = 0.875), multiple sclerosis (R = 0.828), autism (R = 0.989), inflammatory bowel disease (R = 0.938), intestinal infections (R = 0.974), end stage renal disease (R = 0.975), acute kidney failure (R = 0.978), cancers of the thyroid (R = 0.988), liver (R = 0.960), bladder (R = 0.981), pancreas (R = 0.918), kidney (R = 0.973) and myeloid leukaemia (R = 0.878). The Pearson correlation coefficients are highly significant (< 10-4) between the percentage of GE corn and soy planted in the US and hypertension (R = 0.961), stroke (R = 0.983), diabetes prevalence (R = 0.983), diabetes incidence (R = 0.955), obesity (R = 0.962), lipoprotein metabolism disorder (R = 0.955), Alzheimer’s (R = 0.937), Parkinson’s (R = 0.952), multiple sclerosis (R = 0.876), hepatitis C (R = 0.946), end stage renal disease (R = 0.958), acute kidney failure (R = 0.967), cancers of the thyroid (R = 0.938), liver (R = 0.911), bladder (R = 0.945), pancreas (R = 0.841), kidney (R = 0.940) and myeloid leukaemia (R = 0.889). The significance and strength of the correlations show that the effects of glyphosate and GE crops on human health should be further investigated.

Källa Journal of Organic Systems, vol 8, nr 2 2014.

Copyright PSRAST 2014. Får kopieras eller delvis citeras under förutsättning att källan, PSRAST, anges inklusive artikelns URL.

Maybe you aren’t gluten intolerant? You might be poison intolerant?

November 19, 2014 | By Daisy Luther

Over the past couple of years, I had the unpleasant experience of having bloodwork done to confirm that I am gluten intolerant, only to have it come back and say, “Nope, you’re just crazy.”

The same thing happened to my good friend Melissa Melton, who was terribly ill before she cut wheat out of her life.

It’s happened to scores of other people, who pass the test for the anti-gliadin antibodies but still know that their health issues directly correlate with what they eat.

Now we may know why.

The tests were right. I’m not gluten intolerant.  I’m poison intolerant.

I read a mind-blowing article last night that put it all together for me. (Please go read the entire piece by Sarah, the Healthy Home Economist.)

Standard wheat harvest protocol in the United States is to drench the wheat fields with Roundup several days before the combine harvesters work through the fields as withered, dead wheat plants are less taxing on the farm equipment and allows for an earlier, easier and bigger harvest

Pre-harvest application of the herbicide Roundup and other herbicides containing the deadly active ingredient glyphosate to wheat and barley as a desiccant was suggested as early as 1980.  It has since become routine over the past 15 years and is used as a drying agent 7-10 days before harvest within the conventional farming community.

According to Dr. Stephanie Seneff of MIT who has studied the issue in depth and who I recently saw present on the subject at a nutritional Conference in Indianapolis, desiccating non-organic wheat crops with glyphosate just before harvest came into vogue late in the 1990′s with the result that most of the non-organic wheat in the United States is now contaminated with it.  Seneff explains that when you expose wheat to a toxic chemical like glyphosate, it actually releases more seeds resulting in a slightly greater yield:   “It ‘goes to seed’ as it dies. At its last gasp, it releases the seed.”

According to the US Department of Agriculture, as of 2012, 99% of durum wheat, 97% of spring wheat, and 61% of winter wheat has been doused with Roundup as part of the harvesting process. This is an increase from 88% for durum wheat, 91% for spring wheat and 47% for winter wheat since 1998. (source)

How horrifying is it that they douse this stuff for human consumption with the most toxic, prevalent herbicide around, an herbicide which has been linked to all sorts of problems, just days before the harvest? That stuff doesn’t get removed – it gets milled in with the wheat and lurks in your bags of flour, your loaves of bread, and your desserts.

This could also explain why some people who have terrible gluten symptoms are able to eat products made from organic Einkorn wheat.  It may not be that it’s heirloom Einkorn – it could just be that it hasn’t been doused in glyphosate.

Modern farming practices are killing us. Here’s a little rundown on glyphosate:

The first study found that glyphosate increases the breast cancer cell proliferation in the parts-per-trillion range.

An alarming new study, accepted for publication in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology last month, indicates that glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide due to its widespread use in genetically engineered agriculture, is capable of driving estrogen receptor mediated breast cancer cell proliferation within the infinitesimal parts per trillion concentration range.

The study, titled, “Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors,” compared the effect of glyphosate on hormone-dependent and hormone-independent breast cancer cell lines, finding that glyphosate stimulates hormone-dependent cancer cell lines in what the study authors describe as “low and environmentally relevant concentrations.”

Another study found that consumption of glyphosate causes intestinal and gut damage, which opens the door to numerous human diseases, such as diabetes, gastrointestinal disorders, heart disease, obesity, autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s

However, another classification of allergy-type food is emerging and getting recognized for adverse effects on the human intestinal tract and gut. Those foods are genetically modified organisms known as GMOs or GEs. There is scientific research indicating intestinal damage from GMO food and the article “Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Disease” discusses how the inordinate amount of pesticides sprayed on GMOs leaves residues in GMO crops that, in turn, are being traced to modern diseases.  (source)

The Organic Consumers Association says:

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world.  According to the EPA, at least 208 million tons of Roundup were sprayed on GE crops, lawns and roadsides in the years 2006 and 2007. In 2007, as much as 185 million pounds of glyphosate was used by U.S. farmers, double the amount used just six years ago.

2009 study found that Americans use about 100 million pounds of glyphosate annually on their lawns and gardens. It’s safe to assume all these number are much higher now. Why? Because GE crops are now being invaded by new strains of herbicide-resistant “superweeds” requiring higher and higher doses of poison.

Beyond Pesticides has assembled extensive documentation of past research linking glyphosate to increased cancer risk, neurotoxicity and birth defects, as well as eye, skin, respiratory irritation, lung congestion, increased breathing rate, damage to the pancreas, kidney and testes.

Glyphosate also endangers the environment, destroys soil and plants, and is linked to a host of health hazards. The EPA’s decision to increase the allowed residue limits of glyphosate is out of date, dangerous to the health of people and the environment and scientifically unsupportable. (source)

Nearly all of the symptoms we chalk up to gluten intolerance can also be related to glyphosate exposure.  This horrific little farming shortcut may have created an epidemic across the country.

Just last week I picked up a loaf of organic sourdough bread to serve with some beef stew.  I was hesitant but astonished when I didn’t suffer abdominal pain, bloating, and digestive upset.  I thought, “Yay!  I ate bread and didn’t die!”

Sarah’s article blew my mind, because when I read it, all of the inconsistencies with my own gluten issues began to make sense. It explains why I can eat the fancy Italian pasta that a friend sent as a gift. It explains why the odd baked good from the organic bakery doesn’t make me sick. It explains the blood test that says I don’t have a problem with gluten, even though my gut says that I do have a problem.

It’s time to say no to Big Food. Vote with your wallet and forgo eating anything containing poisoned wheat. Either skip the wheat products entirely or choose organic wheat products.

Perhaps our family diet can get a little bit broader now. It would be far less expensive to buy a bag of organic flour than the gluten free flour that we use for baking, pancakes and thickening stuff.

Maybe the bloodwork was right. Maybe we aren’t actually gluten intolerant at all.

Maybe we are just poison intolerant.


Om genmanipulerad soja

En artikel i Svenska Dagbladet av Karin Skill och Francisco Contreras, från oktober 2010.

Bekämpningsmedel största faran

GENMODIFIERAT I Latinamerika är oron stor över de kemiska bekämpningsmedel som används vid odlingar av genmodifierad soja. Antalet fall av barncancer och missbildningar har ökat kraftigt, skriver forskaren Karin Skill och Francisco Contreras, ordförande Latinamerikagrupperna.

Debatten om genetiskt modifierade organismer (GMO) har varit intensiv inom EU i många år. Flera länder har infört nationella förbud mot GMO och har hävdat att detta skett med stöd av gällande regler, medan EU-kommissionen och andra länder menat att förbuden gått emot rådande EU-regler. Nu när frågan åter ligger på EU:s dagordning finns det skäl att konkretisera debatten genom att granska sojan, en av världens mest odlade GM grödor, och dess produktionsvillkor.

En stor del av de sojabönor som idag importeras till Europa produceras genom ett teknologiskt paket som består av genmanipulerade sojafröer och ogräsmedlet Roundup och andra glyfosatbaserade bekämpningsmedel. Medan den europeiska opinionen främst ifrågasatt den genmodifierade aspekten av detta teknologiska paket, cirklar diskussionen i Argentina, världens tredje största sojaproducent, kring de negativa hälsokonsekvenserna av bekämpningsmedlet.

I juni i år publicerades till exempel officiell hälsostatistik från den argentinska provinsen Chaco som tyder på oroväckande konsekvenser av besprutningarna av genmanipulerad soja och ris. Antalet barn under 15 år som diagnostiserats med cancer har trefaldigats under det senaste decenniet, och barn som föds med missbildningar har fyrfaldigats på samma tid, trots att det sammanlagda födelsetalet minskat. Utvecklingen följer produktionskurvan av grödor som kräver intensiv besprutning. Missfall har rapporterats öka i samtliga argentinska provinser där omfattande besprutning sker.

I augusti i år publicerade den argentinske molekylärbiologen Andrés Carrasco sina laboratorieresultat i den amerikanska tidskriften Chemical Research in Toxicology. Hans forskning visar att glyfosat, den aktiva substansen i Roundup, ger fosterskador på de groddjur och kycklingar som de utfört experimenten på. Hans resultat stödjer alltså de effekter som uppmärksammats bland barn i Chaco.

År 1996 auktoriserades inträdet av den genmodifierade sojan Roundup Ready och tillhörande besprutningsmedel Roundup i Argentina. Landet som gjort sig känt som världens kornbod, blev ett av de första i världen att auktorisera det teknologiska paketet med GM soja. Enligt dagstidningen Pagina/12 skedde auktoriseringen på mindre än tre månader och i dokumentet som låg till grund hade det multinationella företaget som utvecklat och säljer utsädet och besprutningsmedlet, skrivit majoriteten av texterna. De flesta översattes inte heller från engelska till spanska.

GM soja har därefter godkänts i flera länder i Sydamerika och produktionen har ökat lavinartat. Idag odlas den på mer än hälften av den argentinska jordbruksmarken. Skog skövlas för att ge plats till nya fält som ska svara mot den ökade globala efterfrågan på foder för djuruppfödning. Minst 180 miljoner liter glyfosat används årligen. Besprutningen, som ofta sker med flygplan, ökar ständigt till följd av kombinationen av ökade doser, och ökade arealer. Medan sojan skeppas ut för export till köttproduktionen i Europa och Asien lever den sydamerikanska landsbygdsbefolkningen kvar med oron för hälsokonsekvenserna. Ett stort antal argentinska miljöorganisationer arbetar därför mot besprutningarna med Roundup och glyfosat, och för att den så kallade försiktighetsprincipen ska tillämpas.

Sojaindustrin har lyft fram GM soja som en lösning på problemet med användning av andra mer direkt giftiga bekämpningsmedel som används i den traditionella (icke-ekologiska) sojaproduktionen. Men det har visat sig att exempelvis det omdebatterade parakvat även används i odlingen av GM soja som en respons på att flera oönskade växter utvecklat resistens mot Roundup. Det är högst tveksamt om denna extremt storskaliga produktion av en och samma gröda och den massiva användningen av bekämpningsmedel någonsin kan bli en hållbar lösning och förenlig med biologisk mångfald.

Erfarenheterna från Sydamerika bör stämma till eftertanke. Vi tror att det är få som vill ha denna typ av produktion i Sverige och det vore oetiskt att importera sojan. Därför är vi glada över att en stor del av den svenska livsmedelsbranschen aktivt har valt bort GM sojan. Så länge det finns risker för människor och den biologiska mångfalden bör försiktighetsprincipen vara vägledande för EU:s förhållande till produktionen av GMO, en princip som svenska och europeiska beslutsfattare även bör värna under toppmötet om biologisk mångfald i Japan nästa vecka.


fil dr i teknik och social förändring


ordförande Latinamerikagrupperna

July 2020