Poisoning YOU: The Last Roundup
Results
of Glyphosate Pee Test Are in ‘And It’s Not Good News’
[In April],
Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) volunteered
to take a urine test to see if glyphosate—the cancer-linked weedkiller—is
in their system. Forty-eight MEPs from 13 different European Union countries
participated in the test, and now the results are in.
Greens take the #MEPee to highlight
'probably carcinogenic' effects of #glyphosate https://t.co/3GW9jZchk1 pic.twitter.com/RWpBUkrP2x
According to
ELISA test results from the accredited Biocheck Laboratory in Germany:
“All participants excreted glyphosate by urine.”
The
experiment was spearheaded by the Green Party in the European Parliament,
which wants a ban on the controversial herbicide in the European Union.
The group
noted in a press release of their so-called “#MEPee” test:
On average,
the MEPs had 1.7 micrograms/liter of glyphosate in their urine, 17 times higher
than the European drinking water norm (0.1 microgram/litre). This means that
everyone we tested was way above the limit for residues of pesticides in
drinking water.
Of the 48
participants, EU-parliament members from Belgium, France and Germany made up
more than 80 percent of the whole investigated participants. The test showed
that EU-parliament members from Lithuania, Spain and Croatia had the highest
concentrations of glyphosate. The lowest concentrations were in the urines of
participants from Italy, Finland and Ireland.
“Nevertheless
all investigated EU-parliament members were glyphosate contaminated. This will
show glyphosate is also in the food chain of members of the EU-parliament,” the
report states.
Glyphosate,
which the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC) declared a possible carcinogen last March, is the main
ingredient in Monsanto’s widely used weedkiller, Roundup. It is also found in
herbicides manufactured by Syngenta and Dow.
The Greens
conducted the test ahead of European Parliament’s April 13 resolution that opposed the European Union’s relicensing
of glyphosate.
The results of our #MEPee test on #glyphosate are in
and it's not good news for the 48 MEPs https://t.co/wMUCNhfKBn
pic.twitter.com/DyqDO4i6Gj
Despite
fierce opposition from European Parliament, countries such as France,
Sweden, Italy and the Netherlands, and the 1.4 million people who have signed a petition calling on an
EU ban, the European Commission—the executive body of the European
Union—reportedly plans to relicense glyphosate for nine years.
According to
the Green Party, the European Commission’s latest proposal, which will be voted
on May 19, will “plough ahead with a full-fledged approval of glyphosate’s
license for nine years.”
“It
considers only symbolically if at all the European Parliament’s resolution
calling for a very limited scope of approval. Responsibility for the protection
of operators and for multiple risks is discharged onto Member States in a
non-legally binding manner,” the party said. “We are pissed off that our
governments want to allow this poison for another nine years! No politician
should have this in his or her body, and not a single citizen either!”
Glyphosate
approval in the EU expires at the end of June. The chemical has been the
subject of incredible controversy in Europe especially after the European Food
Safety Authority famously rejected
the IARC’s classification of glyphosate as a possible carcinogen
in November.
Agri-business
giant Monsanto has also
vehemently denied glyphosate’s health and cancer risks and demanded a
retraction of the IARC report.
The
Green Party’s MEPee test was inspired by a German study “Urinale 2015,”
which sampled glyphosate concentrations in urine from more than 2,000
participants.
“The study
found that the scale of the glyphosate problem is enormous, with detected
concentrations in urine between five and 42 times over the maximum value of
residues for drinking water in Europe,” the Green Party pointed out. “No less
than 99.6 percent of all citizens who took part in this survey had higher
residue levels. This means that virtually all citizens are contaminated with
glyphosate.”
A number of
other studies have detected glyphosate—the “most
widely applied pesticide worldwide”—in feminine
hygiene products, everyday food
items and, yes, human bodies. A 2013 Friends of the Earth Europe study reported people in 18 European countries have
traces of glyphosate in their urine.
European
Parliament votes to ban most uses of glyphosate
by Oliver
Tickell
The
EU Parliament has responded to the health concerns of millions by calling on the
Commission to severely restrict permitted uses of the toxic herbicide glyphosate,
including an effective ban on pre-harvest dessication of crops.
This
resolution opposes approval of glyphosate for most uses, and takes aim at the
excessive length of the approval proposed by the Commission, which must now
address these concerns.
The European
Parliament today [April] adopted a resolution strongly opposing the
Commission's proposal to reapprove the controversial weedkiller glyphosate for
use in Europe for 15 years.
The
resolution flags significant concerns with the Commission's proposal, notably
calling for significantly restricting the uses for which glyphosate - best
known in Monsanto's 'Roundup' formulation - could be approved.
The
Parliament's vote precedes a decision by EU government representatives on
whether or not to support the Commission proposal to approve
glyphosate for use in the EU. This may take place at the next EU
pesticides committee meeting on 18-19 May.
While the
374 to 225 vote is non-binding on the Commission and EU governments, it will
nonetheless carry strong moral weight since it comes from the EU's only elected
body directly representing EU citizens and will force a discussion of the
issues raised.
The
resolution calls for no approval of glyphosate - recently determined to be "probably carcinogenic"
by the WHO's cancer watchdog, the IARC - for many uses now considered
acceptable, including:
- non-professional uses;
- in or close to public parks,
playgrounds and gardens;
- where integrated pest management
systems are sufficient for necessary weed control.
It also calls for the renewal to be limited to just seven years instead of the
15 proposed by the Commission.
Pre-harvest
'desiccation' strictly limited
The
resolution additionally demands strict limits on 'pre-harvest' applications on
crops,
with a strong recital calling such uses "unacceptable".
This refers to the practice of spraying crops up to two weeks before harvest to
'desiccate' the plants and make harvesting easier.
Pre-harvest
application of glyphosate is a clear route for human exposure to glyphosate via
the harvested crop. Currently glyphosate formulations are licenced for a wide
range of crops including wheat, barley, oats, oilseed rape (canola), linseed,
field beans and peas.
This use of
glyphosate is believed to be the main source of the herbicide and its residues in
bread and NGOs including the UK's Soil
Association are campaiging to stop this use.
The
resolution further calls for:
- An independent review of overall
toxicity of glyphosate;
- A call on the Commission and EFSA
to immediately disclose all scientific evidence for the positive
classification of glyphosate, given the overriding public interest in
disclosure;
- A call on the Commission to test
and monitor glyphosate residues in foods and drinks produced in the Union
as well as in imported produce;
- Strong criticism of the
Commission for accepting an incomplete dossier with regard to endocrine
disruption;
- strong criticism of the problem
of resistances of weed created by glyphosate, and the toxic spiral by
agro-biotech companies adding further resistances to plants.
'The Commission and EU
governments must take note'
After the
vote, Green food safety and public health spokesperson Bart
Staes said: "The
European Parliament has today highlighted serious concerns with the proposal to
re-approve glyphosate for use in Europe and the Commission and EU governments
must take note.
"We
would have preferred if MEPs had followed the recommendation of the
Parliament's environment committee in clearly calling for an outright rejection
of the re-approval of glyphosate. However, this resolution opposes approval of
glyphosate for most of its uses, and takes aim at the excessive length of the
approval proposed by the Commission.
"This
is a shot across the bow of the Commission and it must now work with EU governments
to address these concerns, rather than pushing ahead with its proposed
reapproval."
Although
falling short of the full ban demanded by the Greens and campaigners, the
passage of the resolution represents a huge victory for all those who have opposed
the Commission's proposal to re-licence for all existing uses for 15 years and
heavily lobbied their MEPs. Over 1.4 million people have signed an Avaaz petition opposing the relicencing of glyphosate.
The passing
of the resolution also represents some skilful political footwork by the Greens
in the EU Parliament. While they wanted a complete ban on glyphosate, they worked with other
political groups to impose restrictions that would secure a majority of votes
from other parties - even though the Greens opposed the final resolution as
falling short of a complete ban.
"There
is growing opposition among EU governments to reapproving glyphosate for use in
the EU and we hope today's vote, combined with major public opposition, will
convince more governments to change their minds on glyphosate", Staes continued.
"Given
the serious health and environmental concerns and conflicting scientific advice
regarding glyphosate, it is scandalous that the EU Commission proposed to
continue to allow its use for 15 more years, without any restrictions on its
use.
"With
the WHO assessment having concluded the substance is probably carcinogenic, EU
governments must heed these concerns and reject the Commission's
proposal."
Rural
residents still left at risk
However
pesticides campaigner Georgina Downs points out that even if the Parliament's
position was adopted by EU Governments, millions of rural residents would still
be at risk from agricultural use of glyphosate:
"The
European Parliament vote has seemingly recognised the risk to the health of
transient bystanders and non-professional users of pesticides but left at risk
from exposure and adverse impacts the group with one of the highest levels of
exposure which is rural residents living in the locality of sprayed crop fields
...
"There
are many millions of rural residents across the EU (including babies, children,
pregnant women, the elderly, people already ill and/or disabled) who have no
protection at all from exposure to this (or indeed any other) pesticide that is
often sprayed in the locality of their homes and gardens."
In a
statement, Avaaz gave the vote a cautious welcome, pointing out that "with mounting public concern the
vote in the European Parliament could be a major influencing factor for the
decision of the Commission on a new license."
Pascal
Vollenweider, Avaaz Campaign Director, added: "This vote shows European politicians are beginning
to listen to the citizens they represent and independent science, but we will
still be glyphosate lab rats for 7 more years. Two-thirds of Europeans want to suspend glyphosate until it is proven safe and it's
now up to the Commission to put public health before corporate profits."
Group
of Farmers Files Lawsuit Against Monsanto Claiming RoundUp Gave Them All Cancer
A group of
Nebraska farmers diagnosed with cancer is suing Monsanto, maker of
agricultural chemicals and GMO seed. The farmers allege that glyphosate, the
popular Monsanto herbicide, caused them to develop cancer and that the company
intentionally misled the public about the dangers of the world’s most widely
used herbicide.
The lawsuit
was filed last Wednesday in federal court in Lincoln, Nebraska. The farmers are
seeking punitive damages, alleging defective design, failure to warn,
negligence and breach of warranty.
Glyphosate
is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup brand herbicide, which is
advertised as being able to kill almost any weed. However, the company claims
it is safe to use on food. Monsanto’s Roundup Ready GMO seeds are designed to
resist the chemicals so the plants can still grow after being sprayed.
The lawsuit
also claims that Monsanto “concealed or systematically sought to discredit”
research showing links between glyphosate and cancer and continues to do so.
“Monsanto
championed falsified data and has attacked legitimate studies that revealed
Roundup’s dangers. Monsanto led a campaign of misinformation to convince
government agencies, farmers and the general population that Roundup is safe.
Its continuing denial extends to the date of this Complaint,” the lawsuit states.
Glyphosate was designated as a probable cause of cancer in
March 2015 by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research
on Cancer. The report noted glyphosate is most frequently associated with
non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other hematopoietic cancers, including multiple
myelomas, lymphocytic lymphoma, and B-cell lymphoma.
All of
the farmers in the group have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Later in
2015, California announced plans to label
glyphosate as a carcinogen based on the IARC’s classification. Monsanto has
fought back against the declaration with a lawsuit.
Several
countries have banned or restricted glyphosate since its classification as
a possible carcinogen by the IARC, including the Netherlands, France, Bermuda
and Sri Lanka.
According to
the farmers’ lawsuit, Roundup is used on more than 100 varieties of crops, and
the volume of glyphosate applied to crops grown in the U.S. has increased from
85 million pounds in 2001 to 185 million pounds by 2007.
“Glyphosate
is found in rivers, streams, and groundwater in agricultural areas where
Roundup is used. It has been found in food, the urine of exposed persons, and
in the urine of urban dwellers without direct contact with glyphosate,”
according to the complaint.
Monsanto has
been the target of a series of new lawsuits including in India
and Burkina
Faso, both related to its BT Cotton. The company is also being sued by 7 major US
cities including Portland, Seattle,
and San
Diego.
GMO policy
is also in focus for the 2016 election season as Vermont’s labeling law is the
first in the nation to require labels for GMO ingredients. Vermont’s law takes
effect in July 2016. In March, the
U.S. Senate voted 48-49 against SB 2609, a bill that would have blocked
states from making their own GMO labeling laws. Senate Bill 2609, the Biotech
Labeling Solutions Act has been called the DARK Act, an acronym for Deny
Americans the Right to Know.
The new
Vermont law has some companies planning to label all products with GMO
ingredients including MARS,
maker of M&M’s and SNICKERS, fruit
company Del Monte, and other large food conglomerates like Kellogg’s,
and General
Mills.
- Scroll down
through ‘Older Posts’ at the end of each section
Do you LIKE this uniquely informative site?
Hours of effort by a genuinely incapacitated invalid are
required every day to maintain, write, edit, research, illustrate, moderate and
publish this website from a tiny cabin in a remote forest.
Now that most people view these posts on mobile devices,
sites like this earn an ever diminishing pittance from advertising…
Like what you see? Please give anything you can -
Contribute any amount and receive at least one
New Illuminati eBook!
(You can use a card securely if you don’t use Paypal)
Please click below -
Spare Bitcoin
change?
Xtra Images – http://www.permaculturenews.org/images/roundup_killing_machine.jpg
https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/styles/400x300/public/l_glyphosate_2013.png?itok=zgzC6Lan
https://buelahman.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/dees-mon28_n.jpg
And see
New Illuminati’s OWN Youtube Videos
-
DISGRUNTLED SITE ADMINS PLEASE NOTE –
We provide
a live link to your original material on your site (and links via social
networking services) - which raises your ranking on search engines and helps
spread your info further!
This site
is published under Creative Commons (Attribution) CopyRIGHT (unless an
individual article or other item is declared otherwise by the copyright
holder). Reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged - if you
give attribution to the work & author and include all links in the original
(along with this or a similar notice).
Feel free
to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you
never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember
attribution!
If you
like what you see, please send a donation (no amount is too small or too large)
or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…
Live long
and prosper! Together we can create the best of all possible worlds…
