Monsanto's Roundup disaster

[zymos]

I can't believe I'm going to argue on Monsanto's side, but show me any published scientific data that shows a link between orally ingested IGF and lymphoma.

 

[rasputin]

Well, the burden of proof is on you, no? I didn't claim it wasn't unhealthy for human consumption, which is how this started.

You're right in that there is no hard scientific data available showing a definitive, without-a-shadow-of-a-doubt link. The FDA clearly lied about it, no surprise there. The ACS says, we don't know. We think it's bad but we can't say with 100% certainty. Admire the conviction to the scientific method but sometimes you have to read between the lines, especially when there are players like Monsanto involved.

I think linking the cause & effect will remain elusive because 1) products w/it are falling fast from the market in the US & there has been no public will to investigate, just a 'No GM!' knee jerk reaction, which is equally as bad as the inverse reaction and 2) there is no need to study it in Europe or Japan or Australia.

But here's a piece of info to chew on, just to think about the possible connection and whether or not this is a road worth heading down.

As reported in a May 9 article in The Lancet, women with a relatively small increase in blood levels of the naturally occurring growth hormone Insulin-like Growth Factor I (IGF-1) are up to seven times more likely to develop premenopausal breast cancer than women with lower levels. Based on those results, the report concluded that the risks of elevated IGF-1 blood levels are among the leading known risk factors for breast cancer, and are exceeded only by a strong family history or unusual mammographic abnormalities. Apart from breast cancer, an accompanying editorial warned that elevated IGF-1 levels are also associated with greater than any known risk factors for other major cancers, particularly colon and prostate.

This latest evidence is not unexpected. Higher rates of breast, besides colon, cancer have been reported in patients with gigantism (acromegaly) who have high IGF-1 blood levels. Other studies have also shown that administration of IGF-1 to elderly female primates causes marked breast enlargement and proliferation of breast tissue, that IGF-1 is a potent stimulator of human breast cells in tissue culture, that it blocks the programmed self-destruction of breast cancer cells, and enhances their growth and invasiveness.

These various reports, however, appear surprisingly unaware of the fact that the entire U.S. population is now exposed to high levels of IGF-1 in dairy products. In February 1995, the Food and Drug Administration approved the sale of unlabelled milk from cows injected with Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone, rBGH, to increase milk production. As detailed in a January 1996 report in the prestigious International Journal of Health Services, rBGH milk differs from natural milk chemically, nutritionally, pharmacologically and immunologically, besides being contaminated with pus and antibiotics resulting from mastitis induced by the biotech hormone. More critically, rBGH milk is supercharged with high levels of abnormally potent IGF-1, up 10 times the levels in natural milk and over 10 times more potent. IGF-1 resists pasteurization, digestion by stomach enzymes, and is well absorbed across the intestinal wall. Still unpublished

1987 Monsanto tests, disclosed by FDA in summary form in 1990, revealed that statistically significant growth stimulating effects were induced in organs of adult rats by feeding IGF-1 at low dose levels for only two weeks. Drinking rBGH milk would thus be expected to significantly increase IGF-1 blood levels and consequently to increase risks of developing breast cancer and promoting its invasiveness.

Faced with escalating rates of breast, besides colon, prostate and other avoidable cancers, FDA should withdraw its approval of rBGH milk, whose sale benefits only Monsanto while posing major public health risks for the entire U.S. population. A Congressional investigation of FDA's abdication of responsibility is well overdue.

Source: Cancer Prevention Coalition

Contact: Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., Professor of Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, Chicago, and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, 312-996-2297

 

[zymos]

You're asking me to prove a negative?

OK- I point to my inability to find any study showing rBGH milk causing cancer as proof that it doesn't cause cancer. What are you expecting?

Sorry, that's just silly...


The reason most countries have banned it is because of the precautionary principle, which I support, not because of proven science.

EDIT- you edited while I was typing this...

 

[chefro420]

Europe errs on the side of stupidity. Just like Germany's closure of their nuclear plants a few months ago. There are now rolling blackouts projected in the coming months.

GM food kills people??? Phfft How stupid does one have to be to believe this shit?

Where did I say GM food kills people? I think it may have unknown effects on the environment and people. I'm more talking about the tons of roundup sprayed everywhere though . What happened to the people down in the cocoa field that got sprayed with it ? Nothing good..... Also , once all the resistant weeds spread , is there a good alternative to roundup ? I don't think so .......


Hmmm , rolling black outs , or nuclear fallout everywhere . Japan is a cluster fuck right now . Id take black outs . Recently they were saying 25% or something of US nuclear plants need further upgrades to protect from earthquakes.

 

[rasputin]

It's only a negative if you cling to the assumption that rBGH is safe for human consumption. I don't make that assumption so I didn't see it as asking to prove a negative, moreso asking to prove your position with scientific data like you asked of me. Where is the data showing it is safe? The FDA?

Like I said, you gotta read between the lines. If you think info like this will be handed to you willingly, think again. We can't expect others to do our thinking for us.

I'm sure people in the 60s and 70s asked where the studies were on tobacco causing cancer. Too bad it wasn't until the late 80s, early 90s we learned tobacco companies were actively suppressing that information, including studies they themselves paid for! Gotta love it.

Did you not read the quote I posted? There is a study showing rBGH milk causes cancer in rats if you follow the logic. Rats induced with higher levels of IGF-1 than those that naturally occur in their body showed statistically significant growth stimulating effects on organs. Drink rBGH milk, with the elevated levels of IGF-1, and what do you think will happen to your organs?

Don't get it twisted. You say you don't like Monsanto. And I see where you're coming from. I just think you're being overly rigid considering. I don't like conjecture or heresy or bullshit. Just the facts, ma'm. But I also understand that there are large interests involved that don't allow for the free flow of information. We have to dig for it because others don't want us to see it.

 

[chefro420]

Humor me... what about rBGH?

That's why all young american woman have huge asses!!



What about Roxarsone, by are good corporate buddies Pfizer

?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-Hydroxy-3-nitrobenzenearsonic_acid

Which until recently was in all are chicken meat , mmmmmmmmmmmm. Reactive ......

 

[foomar]

The following frightening list is just the agrochems and residuals which my water company is legally obliged to monitor , every single one is present in my tapwater , many close to the safety limit.

The obvious one missing is Glysophate , despite is vast use over twenty years or more , it fucks fish and aquatic ecosystems in very low ppm,s and really should be part of water quality analysis.

Some of these compounds have not been in use for decades but are still present , a trip down memory lane for old gardeners like me.

1,2-Dichloroethane
2, 3, 6 - TBA
2, 4 - DB
2, 4, 5 - TCPA0
2,4-D
Aldrin
Alpha-HCH
Ametryn
Atrazine
Azinphos methyl
Benazolin
Bentazone
Beta - HCH.00
Bromacil
Bromoxynil
Captan
Carbenazim
Carbetamide
Carbophenophion
Chlordane A
Chlorfenvinphos
Chlorothalonil
Chlorotoluron
Chlorpyriphos Ethyl
Chlorpyriphos Methyl
Cis - Permethrin
Clopyralid
Cypermethrin
D.D.E. - Ortho Para
D.D.E. - Para Para
D.D.T. - Ortho Para
D.D.T. - Para Para
Delta - HCH
Deltamethrin
Demeton-S-Methyl
Diazinon
Dicamba
Dichlobenil
Dichlofluanid
Dichlorprop
Dichlorvos
Dieldrin
Diflufenican
Dimethoate
Disulfoton
Diuron
Endosulfan A
Endosulfan B
Endrin0
Fenitrothion
Fenoprop
Fenpropidin
Fenpropimorph
Fenvalerate
Gamma - HCH
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Heptenophos
Hexachlorobenzene
Malathion
Mecoprop
Metaldehyde
Metazachlor
Methabenzthiazuron
Methoxychlor
Mevinphos
Parathion
Pendimethalin
Phorate
Phosalone
Pirimicarb
Pirimiphos-Methyl
Propachlor
Propazine
Propetamphos
Propiconazole
Propyzamide
Simazine
Trans - Permethrin
Triazophos
Triclopyr
Trietazine

Does anyone have a water supplier that tests for roundup or is it a general ommission ?

 

[grapeman]

Humor me... what about rBGH?

From wiki

Human health

Human health concerns centre around three areas:

• rBST and its byproducts
• increased levels of IGF
• secondary effects, e.g. the increased use of antibiotics to treat mastitis

The Food and Drug Administration, World Health Organization, American Medical Association, American Dietetics Association, and the National Institute of Health have independently confirmed that dairy products and meat from BST treated cows is safe for human consumption.[1]
Oral consumption: The overall composition of the milk including the fat, protein and lactose content are not altered substantially by the use of rBST in dairy cows. The milk may have a slight change in fat content within the first few weeks of rBST treatment as the cow is allowed to adjust their metabolism and feed intake. The changes in the fat content have been shown to be temporary. The composition of the milk has been examined in more than 200 different rBST treated milk experiments. Natural variation within milk is normal with or without rBST treatment in cows. This is due to genetics, location, feed, age and other environmental factors. The fat content within milk is of high concern due to the nutritional value of the milk changing with fat content. The fat content can also change the flavor of the milk. Cows that are in negative energy balance can have longer chained unsaturated fats which is similar to the fats found in rBST treated cow's milk. Protein in milk content has also been studied and was shown to have no apparent change in rBST treated cows. Nutritionally important minerals that are normally in milk were also unaltered within rBST cow's milk. These mineral studies also showed no significant change in vitamin content. Freezing point, pH, thermal properties, and other manufacturing characteristics of milk was shown to be the same in rBST milk and non-rBST treated milk.[15] Insulin-like growth factor(IGF), normally occurs in bovine and human milk. The rBST treated cows were shown to have an increased level of IGF within its milk content. This increase was shown to be no more than the amount of IGF in early-lactation untreated cows or in the rBST content of human milk. It has also been shown that IGF administered orally has no effect on the organism which ingested it. This is because IGF is denatured within the stomach.[15] IGF is produced by the cow in response to BGH injections,[16] and it is this hormone which increases growth and milk production. Bovine and porcine IGF-I are identical to human IGF-I, while IGF-II differs among animal species.[17]
Injected IGF: Neither IGF-1 or IGF-2 are absorbed by the stomach or intestine after ingestion.[15] The link of IGF to cancers in humans due to rBST use in dairy cattle are unfounded. Injected or naturally occurring IGF serum levels plays a role in the formation of new tumours [18][19] [20] and increased levels of IGF-1 may be linked to increased risk of breast, colon, and prostate cancer. [21] [22] However IGF is involved in many biological processes so it is not possible to assign a clear-cut cause and effect relationship. IGF-1 is not denatured by pasteurisation, so consumption of milk from rBST treated dairy cows will increase the daily oral intake of IGF-I, but serum levels will not be effected due to the denaturing effect within the stomach.[15]


I just don't see the deaths here. Am I missing something?

 

[quitelost]

Just because a chemical doesn't cause direct deaths doesn't discount that it is or may be responsible for other human health problems and environmental issues...

 

[foomar]

You will see few if any deaths that can be directly linked , the frequency of cancers or other issues within a population will increase and the average age of onset will fall , usefull data will be available in a decade or two.

Given the complexity of human hormones and brain structure , and the serious lack of knowledge in these areas , i do not want to ingest a chemical like glysophate which chellates or locks up trace metallic elements and does not even exist in nature.

 

[elmanito]

From wiki

Pffffft, good scientific source LMAO

Namaste

 

[grapeman]

You will see few if any deaths that can be directly linked , the frequency of cancers or other issues within a population will increase and the average age of onset will fall , usefull data will be available in a decade or two.

Given the complexity of human hormones and brain structure , and the serious lack of knowledge in these areas , i do not want to ingest a chemical like glysophate which chellates or locks up trace metallic elements and does not even exist in nature.

I see. Just like the second hand smoke bullshit eh?

Fucking people and the fucking things they worry about cracks me up. Why not go back to the good old days (100 years ago) when the life expectancy was @55 years.

You fucking children have too much time on your hands with no perspective of history at all.

 

[foomar]

Are you seriously suggesting it is safe to smoke around your children ?

Guess asbestos is fine by you and radiation is nothing to worry about , bring on global warming the grapes will love it.

 

[elmanito]

The use of glyphosate for non-commercial purposes will be prohibited by the Dutch government and probably it will not even survive when the European REACH law will come in action, so bye bye Roundup.

https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-32372-64.html?zoekcriteria=%3fzkt%3dUitgebreid%26pst%3dStaatsblad%257CStaatscourant%257CTractatenblad%257CParlementaireDocumenten%26vrt%3dglyfosaat%26zkd%3dInDeGeheleText%26dpr%3dAfgelopenWeek%26spd%3d20110916%26epd%3d20110916%26sdt%3dDatumPublicatie%26ap%3d%26pnr%3d1%26rpp%3d10&resultIndex=0&sorttype=1&sortorder=4

Namaste

 

[grapeman]

Are you seriously suggesting it is safe to smoke around your children ?

Guess asbestos is fine by you and radiation is nothing to worry about , bring on global warming the grapes will love it.

I'm seriously telling you that second hand smoke is complete bullshit.

Try to find the World health Organization's 1998 largest ever study debunking 2nd hand smoke that was swept under the carpet and never reported in your msnbc, cnn, nbc, cbs, abc news.

Hmmmmm. Yeah, CO2 is driving climate change too eh?... Just like you won't hear that CERN's new study proves that cosmic radiation accounts for at least 1/2 if not all climate change.

Just pay your taxes and move along..... nothing to see here.

 

[quitelost]

I saw a documentary where a professor traveled around and measured the quantity of fine particles from second hand smoke in different locations. In many situations these levels were higher than those inhaled by someone smoking a cigg. Please explain how all these fine particles don't cause disease. This professor claimed that particles of this size were very dangerous and especially at the alarmingly high quantitys dectected in most locations. Sorry don't remember the name of the doc.

 

[foomar]

I'm seriously telling you that second hand smoke is complete bullshit.

Would you really expose an infant , say your own grandchild , to this risk ?

Am a heavy smoker but fully support bans in indoor public spaces.

 

[grapeman]

Would you really expose an infant , say your own grandchild , to this risk ?

Am a heavy smoker but fully support bans in indoor public spaces.

I consider myself a common sense person. I like the bans on smoking indoors. I don't blow smoke in my grand kids face. I smoke cigars outside.... even when they are there outside with me (gasp).

But now the rob reiners of the world have taken this smoking bullshit way too far. No smoking in whole cities, no smoking at the beach, no smoking in your own homes.

It only took 30 years for the socialistic teacher's union to brainwash kids about the fallacy of 2nd hand smoke, and now they vote. The teacher's union has moved on to moved the bullshit of AWG.

If someone who is 18 wants to smoke, I could care less. Even if he walks by me in the street.

Seriously, google the World health Organizations study on 2nd hand smoke. You'll find it if you want to and you'll see, in the largest study ever on 2nd hand smoke that you get more toxins from walking down a sidewalk next to a street then you do from 2nd hand smoke.

 

[grapeman]

Just because a chemical doesn't cause direct deaths doesn't discount that it is or may be responsible for other human health problems and environmental issues...

Yeah, like eating too much Broccoli.

Or too much fish. Or too much sucrose. Or too much (fill in the fucking blank here).

Look around you. See all those 80+ year olds still living?

OMFG. They lived through the DDT dark days of mankind and are still alive.

Grow the fuck up. You're gonna die and you can't do anything about that.

But (gasp) we are living longer then ever!!! How the fuck about that?

 

[dizzlekush]

someones a little sour. but those grapes sure look sweet