Monsanto's Roundup may be linked to fatal kidney disease, new study suggests

A heretofore inexplicable fatal, chronic kidney disease that has affected poor farming regions around the globe may be linked to the use of biochemical giant Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide in areas with hard water, a new study has found.
The new study was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.
Researchers suggest that Roundup, or glyphosate, becomes highly toxic to the kidney once mixed with “hard” water or metals like arsenic and cadmium that often exist naturally in the soil or are added via fertilizer. Hard water contains metals like calcium, magnesium, strontium, and iron, among others. On its own, glyphosate is toxic, but not detrimental enough to eradicate kidney tissue.
The glyphosate molecule was patented as a herbicide by Monsanto in the early 1970s. The company soon brought glyphosate to market under the name “Roundup,” which is now the most commonly used herbicide in the world.
The hypothesis helps explain a global rash of the mysterious, fatal Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown etiology (CKDu) that has been found in rice paddy regions of northern Sri Lanka, for example, or in El Salvador, where CKDu is the second leading cause of death among males.
Furthermore, the study’s findings explain many observations associated with the disease, including the linkage between the consumption of hard water and CKDu, as 96 percent of patients have been found to have consumed “hard or very hard water for at least five years, from wells that receive their supply from shallow regolith aquifers.”
The CKDu was discovered in rice paddy farms in northern Sri Lanka around 20 years ago. The condition has spread quickly since then and now affects 15 percent of working age people in the region, or a total of 400,000 patients, the study says. At least 20,000 have died from CKDu there.
In 2009, the Sri Lankan Ministry of Health introduced criteria for CKDu. Basically, the Ministry found that CKDu did not share common risk factors as chronic kidney disease, such as diabetes, high blood pressure and glomerular nephritis, or inflammation of the kidney.
Based on geographical and socioeconomical factors associated with CKDu, it was assumed that environmental and occupational variables would offer clues to the disease’s origins – or in this case, it came from chemicals.
The new study noted that even the World Health Organization had found that CKDu is caused by exposure to arsenic, cadmium, and pesticides, in addition to hard water consumption, low water intake, and exposure to high temperatures. Yet why that certain area of Sri Lanka and why the disease didn’t show prior to the mid-1990s was left unanswered.
Researchers point out that political changes in Sri Lanka in the late 1970s led to the introduction of agrochemicals, especially in rice farming. They believe that 12 to 15 years of exposure to “low concentration kidney-damaging compounds” along with their accumulation in the body led to the appearance of CKDu in the mid-90s.
The incriminating agent, or Compound “X,” must have certain characteristics, researchers deduced. The compound, they hypothesized, must be: made of chemicals newly introduced in the last 20 to 30 years; capable of forming stable complexes with hard water; capable of retaining nephrotoxic metals and delivering them to the kidney; capable of multiple routes of exposure, such as ingestion, through skin or respiratory absorption, among other criteria.
These factors pointed to glyphosate, used in abundance in Sri Lanka. In the study, researchers noted that earlier studies had shown that typical glyphosate half-life of around 47 days in soil can increase up to 22 years after forming hard to biodegrade “strong complexes with metal ions.”
Scientists have derived three ways of exposure to glyphosate-metal complexes (GMCs): consumption of contaminated hard water, food, or the complex could be formed directly within circulation with glyphosate coming from dermal/respiratory route and metals from water and foods.
Rice farmers, for example, are at high risk of exposure to GMCs through skin absorption, inhalation, or tainted drinking water. GMCs seem to evade the normal liver’s detoxification process, thus damaging kidneys, the study found.
The study also suggests that glyphosate could be linked to similar epidemics of kidney disease of unknown origin in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and India.
Recent investigations by the Center for Public Integrity found that, in the last five years, CKDu is responsible for more deaths in El Salvador and Nicaragua than diabetes, AIDS, and leukemia combined. 
http://rt.com/news/monsanto-roundup-kidney-disease-921/

What’s Wrong With 2,4-D Herbicide?

 In seemingly unrelated stories, activists from Oregon to Mexico City to Berlin have taken to the streets protesting genetically modified (GM) crops, and the Australian government has decided to ban the future sale of most 2,4-D herbicides because of risks to the environment. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) plans to deregulate new strains of GM corn and soybean engineered to tolerate spraying with 2,4-D, which experts say will result in profound increases in how much 2,4-D is applied to American farmland.


What’s wrong with this picture?

So far, comments on the USDA’s plan are mostly from alarmed citizens who want neither genetically modified varieties nor 2,4-D involved in their food supply. Many sound very surprised!

“You obviously don’t care about your children or their children, or the future of America.”

“Growing food with toxins built in, in the long run, is dangerous at best and potentially deadly. Just because you can do something does not mean you should.”

You can post your opinion on this matter here; additional details on the USDA’s proposed action are included in my previous post on this topic, Take This Chance to Speak Up on Genetically-Modified Crops and 2,4-D herbicide.

Dangers of 2,4-D Herbicide

So, what’s wrong with “a profound increase” in the use of 2,4-D herbicide? First, some scary information, copied verbatim from the National Pesticide Information Center’s fact sheet on 2,4-D:

Because 2,4-D has demonstrated toxic effects on the thyroid and gonads following exposure, there is concern over potential endocrine-disrupting effects.

Work examining incidents of exposure to 2,4-D without simultaneous exposure to 2,4,5-T [which has been banned] has found some association between 2,4-D and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

2,4-D was detected at low concentrations in urine samples collected from all age groups in a large study of the American public.

Traces of 2,4-D were detected in 49.3 percent of finished drinking water samples and 53.7 percent of untreated water samples.
Looking beyond the imminent threats to clean water and health posed by much heavier use of 2,4-D, there is an unanswered question about 2,4-D and dioxins, one of the most potent and persistent group of carcinogens on the planet. Although many known sources of dioxins have been eliminated or controlled, nobody can explain why right now, today, there are enough dioxins in a conventionally produced hot dog to exceed a child’s dietary maximum for the day.

It is suspected that dioxins may be entering the food chain through tainted or substandard batches of 2,4-D, which is sold under more than 80 trade names, often combined with other herbicides, and it is widely available as a generic herbicide at farm supply stores nationwide. The chemical was once manufactured close to home, but current supplies often have international origins and come from chemical plants in Argentina, China, India or Russia. The United States government has decided that these are all trustworthy sources, and has no reality check in place to validate this belief.

The dioxin issue came into sharp focus in Australia last year, when investigative journalists found high levels of dioxin in supplies of 2,4-D (the same supplier that provides 2,4-D to American customers). Australia subsequently cancelled registration of most formulations. The dioxin concern is also made clear in a multinational analysis of 2,4-D sponsored by the Munich-based Institute for Independent Impact Assessment in Biotechnology, as well as the brief submitted to the EPA by the Center for Food Safety. It said:

“EPA should undertake a comprehensive review of 2,4-D-related dioxin. … To briefly summarize, CFS found that EPA is relying heavily on pesticide industry assurances of reduced levels of dioxin contaminants in 2,4-D; that independent scientific testing casts great doubt on such assurances, suggesting that dioxin levels in 2,4-D have not declined as claimed by industry; that EPA should itself conduct, or commission independent scientists to conduct, a comprehensive testing program for dioxins in a broad array of 2,4-D formulations; that EPA should consider dioxins generated during the manufacture of 2,4-D, and dioxins emitted during incineration of unwashed 2,4-D jugs, in its overall assessment of dioxins related to 2,4-D.”
Is this not common sense? Isn’t this the sort of thing the EPA is supposed to do? If the EPA and USDA have their way, a whole lot more 2,4-D imported from Argentina, China, India, Russia and other nations will be drenching American soil and polluting our water, with no monitoring for possible dioxins.

The Threat of 2,4-D Herbicide Drift

One of the characteristics that has limited 2,4-D use in the past is that it will injure or kill many broad-leafed crops, including cotton, soybeans, tomatoes, roses, grapes, fruit trees, and many other home garden crops. It does not have a history of safe use, but rather of one drift accident after another. According to a story in the Des Moines Register, drift from 2,4-D used by farmers after World War II is one of the reasons the Midwest lost its grape industry. More recently, Wisconsin grape growers have lost vineyards to 2,4-D drift, and 250,000 acres of Arkansas cotton were damaged by 2,4-D drift in 2012. In California, 15,000 acres of the San Joaquin Valley were accidentally treated with a fog of 2,4-D in the same year.

In home gardens, herbicide drift damage can occur when a neighbor has their lawn treated with herbicides containing 2,4-D, including granular products. In addition to droplets carried on the wind, damage can occur when the herbicide vaporizes and a persistent chemical cloud forms close to the ground. This is what happened last year to organic farmer Will Reed in Tupelo, Miss., who lost his heirloom tomato crop to herbicide drift that came out of nowhere.

Damage to home gardens from herbicide drift is common enough to merit bulletins from numerous state extension service offices, though gardeners have little hope of recovering their losses. As explained in this advisory from the University of Minnesota, “The ‘garden variety’ dispute between neighbors is usually not taken through the trial and appeal process, because of the financial realities of paying for lawyers, expert witnesses, scientific analysis, and other litigation costs.” There are no public resources for residue testing, which can cost $100 to $300 per sample. Tired of being put in this no-win situation, Iowa farmers who don’t want herbicides drifting onto their land are arming themselves with “drift catchers” that capture air samples for analysis.

Rather than forcing organic gardeners and farmers to defend themselves against 2,4-D drift, the USDA needs to change its priorities, get out of bed with Big Ag, and start working to protect our environment and help farmers farm without poisons. Do you feel the push to do something, to share your opinions on GM food crops and ever-present pesticides? You have until midnight on February 24, 2014, to make your voice heard on the deregulation of genetically modified crops that tolerate treatment with 2,4-D. The only thing that will overcome the pressure from chemical companies will be greater pressure from you, the public. 
2/12/2014 1:35:00 PM
By Barbara Pleasant
 

Roundup In 75% of Air and Water Sampled … Causes Kidney Failure

Posted on February 28, 2014 by WashingtonsBlog

A Vicious Cycle of Chemical Madness …

A new study from the U.S. Geological Survey – soon to be published in the  journal Enviromental Toxicology and Chemistry – finds that Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide (technically known as “glyphosate”) and its toxic degradation byproduct AMPA were found in over 75% of all air and rain samples in Mississippi in 2007.

Another new study – published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health – proposes that the epidemic of kidney failure found in areas with hard water is caused by an adverse reaction between Roundup and the chemicals found in hard water:

Roundup has been linked with many other diseases as well.  Reuters reported last year:

Heavy use of the world’s most popular herbicide, Roundup, could be linked to a range of health problems and diseases, including Parkinson’s, infertility and cancers, according to a new study.

The peer-reviewed report, published last week in the scientific journal Entropy, said evidence indicates that residues of “glyphosate,” the chief ingredient in Roundup weed killer, which is sprayed over millions of acres of crops, has been found in food.

Those residues enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease, according to the report, authored by Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Anthony Samsel, a retired science consultant from Arthur D. Little, Inc.

***

In 2007, as much as 185 million pounds of glyphosate was used by U.S. farmers, double the amount used six years ago, according to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data.

Indeed, “Roundup-ready plants” – plants genetically engineered to be able to tolerate Roundup – have overtaken the country.  For example:

• Monsanto reports that – between 2008 and 2009 – 95% of all sugarbeets planted were genetically engineered to be able to tolerate high doses of the pesticide Roundup

• The USDA reports that 93% of all soy and 85% of all corn grown in the U.S. is an herbicide-resistant GE variety

• Similarly, around 93% of all cottonseed oil and more than 90% of all canola oil produced in the U.S. is herbicide-resistant GE

(Remember, genetically engineered foods have been linked to obesity, cancer, liver failure, infertility and all sorts of other diseases (brief, must-watch videos here and here).  And genetically-engineered meatisn’t even tested for human safety.)

But government agencies like the FDA go to great lengths to cover up the potential health damage from genetically modified foods, and to keep the consumer in the dark about what they’re really eating.  (Indeed, the largest German newspaper – Süddeutsche Zeitung – alleges that the U.S. government helped Monsanto attack the computers of activists opposed to genetically modified food.)

The EPA recently raised the allowable amount of a glyphosate – the main ingredient in Monsanto’s toxic Roundup – by 3,000% … pretending that it won’t have adverse health effects.

As if that’s not crazy enough, Monsanto wants to raise the stakes. Specifically, the use of Roundup is (1) creating superweeds and (2) a situation where more and more pesticides have to be used.

So Monsanto is lobbying hard for approval of Agent Orange-ready plants.  (No, this isn’t the Onion … it’s real.)

Where is this vicious cycle leading?

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/02/roundup-pesticide-75-air-water-sampled-causes-kidney-failure.html

How Roundup Weedkiller Can Promote Cancer, New Study Reveals

Roundup herbicide (glyphosate) is in our air, rain, groundwater, soil and most food in the U.S., and an increasing body of research reveals it has cancer-promoting properties.

Researchers from the Indian Institute of Toxicology Research have recently confirmed the carcinogenic potential of Roundup herbicide using human skin cells (HaCaT ) exposed to extremely low concentrations of the world’s best selling herbicide.

The researchers previously reported on glyphosate’s tumor promoting potential in a two-stage mouse skin carcinogenesis model[i] through its disruption of proteins that regulate calcium (Ca^2+- ) signaling and oxidative stress (SOD 1), but were unable in these investigations to identify the exact molecular mechanisms behind how glyphosate contributes to tumor promotion.

The new study, published in the peer-reviewed journal ISRN Dermatology,[ii] sought out to clarify the exact mode of tumorigenic action, finding the likely mechanism behind glyphosate’s cancer promoting properties is through the downregulation of mitochondrial apoptotic (self-destructive) signaling pathways, as well as through the disruption of a wide range of cell signaling and regulatory components. Cell proliferative effects were induced by concentrations lower than .1 mM, and as low as 0.01 mM, which is four orders of magnitude lower than concentrations commonly used in GM agricultural applications (e.g. 50 mM). The fact that lower concentrations were more effective at inducing proliferation than higher concentrations (which suppressed cell growth), indicates that Roundup is a potent endocrine disrupter, and further highlights why conventional toxicological risk assessments are inadequate because they do not account for the fact that as concentrations are reduced certain types of toxicity — e.g. endocrine disruption — actually increase.

The researchers used the product Roundup Original (glyphosate 41%, polyethoxethyleneamine (POEA) ≅15%—Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO, USA), and observed the following changes to human skin cells induced through exposure to this chemical mixture:

• Significant increases in cell proliferation (via disruption of CA2+ levels, i.e. decreased levels)
• Increases oxidative stress, as measured by levels of ROS (reactive oxygen species)
• Cell-cycle dysregulation, marked by an accumulation of cells in S-phase (hallmark feature of cancer)
• Increased proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), a marker for increased cell proliferation
• Increased Bromodeoxyuridin (BrdU), a marker for increased cell proliferation
• Decreases in the level of the protein IP3R1, an indication of resistance to cell death
• Increases in Bcl-2 protein, a tumor promoter gene product
• Decreases in Bax proteins, a tumor suppressor gene product
• Caspase suppression (associated with prevention of cell death)
• Changes in the expression of the Ca2+- binding family of proteins (S100 family) S100A6/S100A9, associated with various cancers.

It is important to emphasize that while the researchers observed cell proliferation-associated changes in the expression of the Ca2+- binding proteins S100A6/A9 following glyphosate exposure to human skin cells, the implications of these findings reach beyond the skin cell lineage. They explained that related modifications of the expression pattern of S100A6/A9 protein have also been found in “hepatocellular carcinoma [15], lung cancer [16], colorectal cancer [17], and melanoma [18].”

The study included a diagram (shown below) representing graphically the multiple ways in which glyphosate disrupts cellular structure/function to contribute to uncontrolled cell proliferation.

The researchers summarized their findings as follows:

In conclusion, in this study, we demonstrated that glyphosate may possibly exert proliferative effect in HaCaT cells by activating Ca2+ binding proteins to promote the imbalance of intracellular Ca2+ homeostasis and lessen SOD1 to increase ROS generation. This effect was partially reversed by treatment with antioxidant NAC indicating connections between oxidative stress and hypocalcaemia. Reduced Ca2+ levels enhance Bcl-2 and decrease Bax, subsequently leading to decrease in cytochrome c to stimulate further decrease of caspase 3 via the downregulation of IP3R1 level, thus halting apoptosis. The present study for the first time provides insight into the mechanism of glyphosate-induced neoplastic potential in mammalian skin system.

It should be noted that their observation that the carcinogenicity of Roundup may be suppressed by the antioxidant n-acetyl-cysteine (NAC), which is a precursor to the cellular detoxifier and antioxidant known as glutathione and a readily available dietary supplement, has important implications, owing to how widespread exposure to Roundup herbicide has become, both through environmental exposures in air, soil, rain and groundwater, as well as in the tens of thousands of unlabeled products containing GM ingredients contaminated with physiologically significant levels of this chemical.

This study adds to a growing body of research demonstrating the carcinogenicity of Roundup herbicide. Only five months ago, the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology published a study indicating that glyphosate is estrogenic and drives breast cancer cell proliferation in the parts-per-trillion range. To view the growing body of research on Roundup’s potential to contribute to cancer initiation or promotion view our toxicology citations here: Roundup Toxicology Research.

Reflecting on the Implications

We leave the reader with some final reflections on the implications of this research. The wholesale dismissal of attempts to differentiate GMO from conventional products through accurate labeling is based on the idea that they are ‘substantially equivalent.’ But, this fallacious approach is based on the mistaken view that the only difference between GMO and non-GMO crops of feed and food importance is the presence of either the novel transgenes inserted into them or their novel transgene protein products.

The discover of Roundup’s extreme toxicity destroys that argument, and calls into question the credibility of any would-be ‘scientist’ or pro-GMO advocate who would propose otherwise.  How so? The fact is that the majority of approved GM plants have been genetically engineered to be “Roundup Ready,” i.e. resistant to glyphosate, which means that the land they are grown upon is basically carpet-bombed with the chemical mixture to kill any living plant other than the glyphosate-resistant GM monocultures. The GM plants take up glyphosate, convert some of it to a similarly toxic metabolite AMPA, and survive the chemical exposure, while maintaining residues of both chemicals post-harvest — which ultimately means that the consumer will be exposed to these compounds through their food.

This means that if you are not consuming foods that are explicitly GM free, you are being exposed to glyphosate (and glyphosate metabolites) on a daily basis. The difference, therefore between GMO and non-GMO is vastly more significant than simply the presence or absence of novel transgenes or their proteins.  It is the difference, candidly, between being exposed (poisoned) with a chemical with likely carcinogenicity or not being exposed to it.  For a more elaborate explanation read: Extreme Toxicity of Roundup Destroys GM/non-GM ‘Substantial Equivalence’ Argument.

Lastly, consider if Roundup (glyphosate) ‘weed-killer’ bore a warning sign ‘may cause cancer,’ or the tens thousands of products made with GM ingredients contaminated with it. Would there be any justifiable reason to resist GMO labeling? No, to the contrary, the focus would be on banning them immediately, instead of cow-towing to the powers that be to allow us the choice not to be poisoned by default.

Despite the so called “science” and “reason” based GMO proponents who think it makes sense to have mattresses labeled, but not food you put into your body, the actual empirical, peer-reviewed and published research – not ghost-written or funded by biotech corporations themselves – says that this omnipresent herbicide has multiple models of carcinogenicity, and in concentration ranges far below agricultural application, as far down as to the parts-per-trillion range. It is time those paying lip service to the ‘evidence-based’ model of GMO risk assessment, and who recklessly promote the dystopian interests of biotech corporations, address the evidence itself, or stop co-opting powerful sounding terms like “Science” to justify their highly irrational and ultimately biased and self-serving perspectives on the subject.

Read the full article here: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/how-roundup-weedkiller-can-promote-cancer-new-study-reveals-1

References

[i] Jasmine George, Sahdeo Prasad, Zafar Mahmood, Yogeshwer Shukla. Studies on glyphosate-induced carcinogenicity in mouse skin: a proteomic approach. J Proteomics. 2010 Mar 10;73(5):951-64. Epub 2010 Jan 4. PMID: 20045496

[ii] Jasmine George, Yogeshwer Shukla. Emptying of Intracellular Calcium Pool and Oxidative Stress Imbalance Are Associated with the Glyphosate-Induced Proliferation in Human Skin Keratinocytes HaCaT Cells.