Edgework

The agricultural chemical, Roundup, has been around since 1974 when Monsanto introduced it as a “magic” cure for all unwanted weeds. Its use increased exponentially after 2000 when Monsanto introduced Roundup resistant crop varieties. By now most modern agriculture is dependent upon Roundup as an essential component of modern farming practices.

But the chorus of opposition to the ubiquitous weed killer has been growing exponentially as well in recent years. Scores of independent studies question Monsanto’s claim that Roundup poses no threat to the health and well-being of the environment, animals and people. The singular reaction of Monsanto to these studies is to try to discredit them and the people who perform them. I am not a scientist, but I can read. And what I read leaves me with a lot of questions, most of which – when answered properly – lead me to the conclusion that it might be time to begin a round up of Roundup.

I will now simply ask a series of questions about Roundup that its makers are not in a hurry to answer.

• Why should we trust the claims of Monsanto that Roundup is safe to be used around humans and on the food they consume? Phil Angeli, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications, recently stated, “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.” Monsanto is the company that once told us that PCBs, Agent Orange and DDT were perfectly safe. We know where that took us. Is Roundup the next chemical to be added to this notorious list?
• Why does Monsanto test only for acute toxicity and not for chronic toxicity? Studies done by Monsanto have shown that exposing mice to Roundup for 90 days, for example, has a limited effect. That is to say its acute toxicity is relatively low. But when independent studies have exposed mice to Roundup for 120 days and longer, breast tumors and other multiple health issues begin to emerge. That is to say Roundup is characterized by chronic toxicity. This reminds me of the time when tobacco companies used to say that acute toxicity of cigarette smoke could not be proven. But by now we all know what happens to human lungs when exposed to cigarette smoke over many years.  Chronic toxicity kills.
• A related question would be to ask why chronically ill persons invariably test for higher levels of glyphosate presence than healthy people.
• And why is there a positive correlation between the increasing use of Roundup and the many “Modern Plague” diseases the developed world is experiencing? These include gastrointestinal problems, leaky gut, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, anorexia, aggression, infertility, cancer, Alzheimer disease and two dozen more. In both cases the line graph tends upward at remarkably similar angles. Why don’t more people begin connecting the dots?
• Why does Monsanto steadfastly claim that Roundup is harmless to animals and humans because it acts to kill weeds by blocking the shikimate pathway in plants, a pathway absent in animals? While this may be true, Dr. Stephanie Seneff has clearly demonstrated that the shikimate pathway IS present in the bacteria in the human gut which make up the human microbiome. She notes that bacteria in our bodies outnumber our human cells 10 to 1 and that when its biodiversity is compromised through kill off from exposure to chemicals like Roundup, or the overuse of antibiotics, many health problems can ensue.
• How should one explain the fact that people living in agricultural areas of Argentina where they are exposed to massive spraying of pesticides, especially Roundup, experience an unusually high incidence of miscarriages, fertility problems and abnormal fetal development? Why is the rate of miscarriages in the village of Malvinas, for example, which is surrounded by Roundup Ready soy plantations, a hundred times the national average? Why does Monsanto not take such a situation seriously?
• Why did Zen Honeycutt, co-founder of Moms Across America, discover glyphosate, the main active ingredient in Roundup, present in her autistic child’s urine at 8.7 parts per billion – eight times more than is allowed in the presence of drinking water in the E.U.? And why, when she removed him from all sources of glyphosate contamination, did her child’s autism’s symptoms disappear after six weeks?
• Why have thousands of people suffering from one or more of our modern plagues experienced relief after changing to an organic diet that is free of all pesticides?
• Why do most toxicological studies usually not pay attention to what Monsanto calls “inert” ingredients in Roundup? As reported in the journal, Toxicology, “Inert ingredients such as solvents, preservatives, surfactants and other added substances are anything but ‘inactive.’ They in fact contribute to toxicity in a synergistic manner.” In other words, is it not at least possible that cocktails of various chemicals can do more damage than individual chemicals by themselves?
• Why is there a revolving door between chemical company executives and members of the Food and Drug Administration in the USA? How can persons moving back and forth in this way be trusted to be more concerned about the health of people than the bottom line of chemical companies?
• Why was Monsanto convicted by the Supreme Court of France in 2007 of falsely advertising that Roundup is biodegradable and claiming that the product actually cleaned the soil after use? Could this “cleaning” perhaps refer to the fact that, because of repeated exposure to Roundup, many helpful microbes that produce micro-nutrients in healthy soil are actually killed?

I know many farmers who cannot imagine how it would be possible to continue farming without Roundup. Indeed, most modern farming methods depend on Roundup to make a profit. But, given the mounting evidence, it seems to me we would be prudent to begin exploring more natural systems of producing our food.