L Last week, June 12, 2019, the bio-industry-funded Environmental Working Group (EWG) published a press release claiming "Major food companies may be selling General Mills popular child breakfast cereals and other foods contaminated with glyphosate, the carcinogenic herbicide-gathering ingredient. "
The EEC's announcement is the third of its kind, focusing on the alleged dangers of glyphosate residues in our food. It was immediately trumpeted by fringe groups of activists – that's self-evident – but it was also reported almost uncritically by mainstream sources like CNN:
What's new here?
Like its predecessors, published in July and October 2018, this EEC study was based on a "round of tests" that were not peer-reviewed by independent experts. The scientists said they found dozens of cases where the foods they tested did not pass the Child Health Benchmark to assess potential exposure hazards.
The EEC did not mention that its "benchmark" is fully defined, has no clear scientific basis, and is inconsistent with historically established and globally recognized benchmarks used by regulators in each country. The EEC safety threshold is 100 times lower than even the most conservative limit set by regulators around the world, including the EPA. Oddly enough, but not surprisingly, given the EEC's historical willingness to falsify science, the threshold it set coincides only "by chance" with the infinitesimal trace amounts of glyphosate it found on Cheerios.
As a rationale for these horror investigations and reports, the EEC has cited a review of glyphosate by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2015, which found that workers exposed to glyphosate could be exposed to a cancer threat, and classified the long-used herbicide as "likely" to be carcinogenic to humans. "Sounds scary, but it is not. The mainstream science community has sharply criticized the UN sub-organization for its outdated study methodology and its decision to exclude the overwhelming amount of research that did not support glyphosate-cancer links, including a state-of-the-art longitudinal study on more than 50,000 people regularly taking the herbicide had no unusual cancer-related health problems. [ Read the GLP report on the study of IARC research and other studies on the potential health risks of glyphosate.
Recent reports from the Centers for Disease Control and the Environmental Protection Agency, published in April and May 2019 respectively, confirmed the global consensus of pesticide researchers and regulators that glyphosate is not a cancer risk as it is currently used. In the meantime, every major regulatory and regulatory body in the world – 15 of them – has reviewed and rejected the conclusions of the IARC. [ Check the GLP infographic for regulatory conclusions on glyphosate.
Along with the credibility issues, the EEC misrepresented the results of the IARC to make its case. IARC's 2015 evaluation found that there is no evidence that glyphosate residues are harmful to consumers who encounter tiny amounts in our food supply, which is contrary to what the EWG claims. IARC said that its data only raise the possibility of serious health problems for farmers, who have concluded that they are potentially threatened by glyphosate, however small they may be. Dangers become risks based on exposure levels and duration of exposure. IARC classified the herbicide into a category of cancer risk shared by bacon and threats emanating from a visit to a hairdressing salon or hairdressing salon, and was classified as less dangerous than drinking wine or beer.
This repositioning of a one-year study seems to have arrived Just one reason: The EEC's attempt to feed the fire of the Glyphosate Legal Juggernaut Building in California. Hundreds of billions of dollars in lucrative fees are at stake when tort lawyers based on pseudo-studies such as the EEC and misrepresenting IARAC research findings can convince Janes and Jacks in juries of banks, Monsanto (now Bayer). In the event that someone does not see his strategy for what it is, the EEC has set this in its headline, announcing its "new study".
In August 2018, GLP spoke to several experts who guided us in assessing the original claims of the EEC and the category defined by the IARC. Since the activist group in their latest campaign did not bring any new information on glyphosate into the discussion, we are publishing our first analysis of the EEC's allegation that parents are serving their children breakfast with a dangerous "dose of weed-killing poison". [June162019]
"If you or your children are eating cheerios, there is a good chance that they will be accompanied by a potentially harmful weed killer named Roundup." Fortune told his readers on 16 August. Newsweek wrote in his article, "Dangerous Weedkillers Contained in Cheerios, Quaker Oats, and Other Breakfast Flakes." say is a dubious study of breakfast cereals and granola bars from the Washington DC-based Environmental Working Group .
According to Alexis Temkin, the EEC-based toxicologist:
Popular oatmeal, oatmeal, cereal and snack bars, according to independent lab tests conducted by the Commissioned a hefty dose of the weed control drug in Roundup. Glyphosate, a herbicide that has been linked to cancer by US scientists and the World Health Organization, has been identified except for two out of 45 samples of conventionally-grown oat products. Almost three quarters of these samples had higher glyphosate levels than the EEC scientists consider to protect children's health.
The study had been conducted at the right time. The EEC apparently ordered the rollout when a Californian panel of judges ruled that Roundup, Monsanto's herbicide, whose main constituent is glyphosate, suffers from cancer of a primary care worker in San Francisco. On August 10, a jury awarded $ 289 million to the plaintiff in a controversial decision challenged by many scientists. As a result of this ruling, this study did not attract much attention in the media. However, it is always a good idea to review alarming claims. Therefore, the GLP spoke with a number of experts, all of whom raised serious doubts about the claims of the EEC.
The Fundamental Conclusion of Consensus: A bowl of cheerios or a daily bowl for months or even many years does not endanger your health. Why? Because we're talking about tiny amounts of glyphosate – well below the levels that would be considered dangerous. It is almost certain that EWG would have found traces of dozens of chemicals (similarly harmless) – if they had been tested for any other chemical. But EWG tested only on glyphosate.
Let's look at some basic facts in context. First, glyphosate effectively kills weeds, but not much else. Humans and animals have no metabolic machinery – the shikimic acid path – used by the herbicide to kill plants. This means that glyphosate is not metabolized well in the human body, which significantly reduces its potential for harm.
In addition, after spraying on food crops, the herbicide is degraded by bacteria in the soil and thus shows "no signs of bioaccumulation in the food chain", . The California Department of Pesticides Regulation, Trevor Charles, a microbiologist at the University of Waterloo, Ontario, added in an email: "Glyphosate is rapidly degraded by microbes and also absorbed by soil particles, it is not bioaccumulated." ]
And while it is true that a World Health Organization sub-organization is known as the International The Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has linked the herbicide to cancer in 2015 . The effects of the exposure were not taken into account. Based on this type of hazard analysis, coffee and salted fish have also been classified as "probable carcinogens" and no one is pushing to ban them. The WHO and the United Nations have issued their own much broader risk analysis, in which they have declared the IARC cancer finding safe.
To put it bluntly, the IARC has not identified any danger of consuming traces of glyphosate that might occur in foods that have been sprayed with the herbicide. Agricultural workers exposed to glyphosate faced "limited evidence" of the carcinogenicity of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and prostate cancer, but consumers were not exposed to any identifiable risks. The panel also found "sufficient evidence" of carcinogenicity in experimental animals in selected studies, but was accused by experts of failing to find evidence in many studies that did not show any harm and manipulating the interpretation of others. Hundreds of studies, including from the Environmental Protection Agency, have shown that glyphosate is not a serious health hazard to humans.
These basic facts seem to disprove the hypothesis that glyphosate exposure to food is dangerous. Some contrary scientists, most of whom are involved in the movement of anti-GMO activists, have suggested in response that the chemical kills beneficial bacteria that live in our gut and could cause a wide range of diseases. These include "inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, depression, ADHD, autism, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, ALS, multiple sclerosis, cancer, cachexia, infertility and developmental disorders," said the far-out MIT computer scientist Stephanie Seneff her field .
Seneff even goes one step further than the IARC glyphosate panel, which found only "limited evidence" of carcinogenicity in agricultural workers exposed to glyphosate. Of course, Seneff's work was also planned by experts. Cell biologist Iida Ruishalme pointed out in her blog ThoughtScapism:
While there are some studies that suggest a link [between gut health and glyphosate]they have so far outlined only hypothetical models that are often of very poor quality and your mistakes are easily recognizable to scientists and even laymen when they are studied closely.
One of these errors, Ruishalme explained, is related to the amount of glyphosate someone would need to take to cause a problem. Studies suggesting that the chemical could damage intestinal bacteria put microbes into far more glyphosate than was found in grains:
To achieve the same inhibitory effect that they saw in our gut studies, one would have to about 150 kg or 330 lbs of legumes (since legumes have the highest fixed limit for pesticide residues and it is assumed here that the batch approaches this limit) at once.
Cereal with a "Dose of Weed Control Ingredient"
This brings us back to the EEC glyphosate study – which, of course, was not peer-reviewed, but was posted on the internet only for the hysteria associated with the California glyphosate regimen to use. Charles, the Canadian microbiologist, said the group's conclusion was immediately suspect because "the work was not peer-reviewed". This means that the results have not been verified by independent scientists. Peer Review does not guarantee that a study is valid, but rather "…. is a necessary component of quality control in science, "said Steven Novella, clinical neurologist at the Yale University School of Medicine.
Lack of peer review may explain why EEC data interpretation is inconsistent with who The vast majority of experts comment on the toxicity of glyphosate. The authors of the study claimed, for example, that glyphosate "…. was found in all but two out of 45 samples of products. Almost three-quarters of these samples had higher glyphosate levels than …. EEC scientists hold protection for the health of children for … "
The language used here is problematic as it indicates that children are exposed to dangerous amounts of glyphosate. But at what level is the protection of children's health? The EEC has a habit of applying arbitrary standards such as this, said the weed researcher Andrew Kniss of the University of Wyoming in 2014, who say nothing about how realistic exposure to pesticides in children can be.
USDA maintains a database of maximum residue limits for pesticides which allows us to assess how safe our food supply is. In its most recent report, released in 2016, the USDA wrote: "Over 99 percent of the products studied …. had residues below the EPA tolerances. If the EPA determines that a pesticide is not safe for human consumption, it will be withdrawn from the market. "
Neither agency has come to the conclusion that glyphosate should be withdrawn from the market. This is because, as Ruishalme emphasized in her post
a [150-lb] person would have to eat in the US. 62 lbs of products with the highest amount of permitted residues per day to reach the limit …. 2 mg glyphosate per [2.2 lbs of] body weight per day. This allowed level …. [a] is one hundred times lower than the value set for no observed adverse effects …. tested in the most sensitive laboratory animal species. It is not physically possible to eat enough normal products to reach this level.
EWG has glyphosate in breakfast foods in the parts per billion range (ppb) which is insignificant to human health.
"Only trace amounts of glyphosate were found (made possible by advances in analytical chemistry) that were well below allowable levels," said Charles, and according to USA Today, "… the amount permitted in cereals is Quantity [by the EPA] 30 parts per million. "
The glyphosate levels established by the EEC ranged between 0 and 6% of the ar ar The generally acceptable levels (30ppm) are set by both the US and the EU, and this level set by the government It's considered unbelievably conservative, and according to the EPA standard, you'd have to eat 30 cups or more of Cheerios daily for more than a year to even approach the US limit, which is 100 times or more lower than what actually harms someone The EEC has just set its own ridiculous standard of horror, which is 14,000 times lower than that of the EPA.
Everything is made up of organic or inorganic chemicals.The reality is that the human body is affected has developed very effectively to deal with tiny amounts of chemicals in the world, which is why very few pesticides can harm us most of them of course are . Natural chemical pesticides, found in almost every plant, have emerged as a defensive mechanism to repel or kill pests such as insects that hunt plants. In small quantities they are not dangerous for us. As a biochemist, Bruce Ames of the University of California, Berkeley, and his colleagues in a 1990 study said, "…. At the lowest doses of most human exposures, the comparative risks of synthetic [and natural] pesticide residues are insignificant. "
If you read or hear stories about the EEC explosion study, remember that the conclusion of the group deviates from the overwhelming expert opinion on glyphosate. The data tell a clear, science-based story about the herbicide and the EEC another, ideologically-based. In an e-mail, Mary Mangan, a biologist who wrote extensively on glyphosate safety summarized the situation as follows:
I do not eat Cheerios. But even if I did, I would not worry about herbicides that are far below the levels that our scientists think are acceptable. Fear is worse for you than Cheerios. I try to avoid fear-baiters for my health.
Cameron J. English is the lead editor of the GLP for Agricultural Genetics and Special Projects. He is a science journalist and podcast presenter. BIO. Follow him on Twitter @camjenglish
Jon Entine is the CEO of the Genetic Literacy Project. Follow him on Twitter