Healthy Farming News

Laboratory testing commissioned by the organizations Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse revealed that glyphosate is now showing up virtually everywhere.

Laboratory testing commissioned by the organizations Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse revealed that glyphosate is now showing up virtually everywhere.

The analysis revealed glyphosate in levels of 76 μg/L to 166 μg/L in women's breast milk. As reported by The Detox Project, this is 760 to 1,600 times higher than the EU-permitted level in drinking water (although it's lower than the U.S. maximum contaminant level for glyphosate, which is 700 μg/L.).6

This dose of glyphosate in breastfed babies' every meal is only the beginning. An in vitro study designed to simulate human exposures also found that glyphosate crosses the placental barrier. In the study, 15 percent of the administered glyphosate reached the fetal compartment.7

The documentary also features the director and founder of Moms Across America, who states they found glyphosate in her son's urine around the same time as the onset of symptoms of autism. 

Seneff has also pointed out correlations between increased glyphosate use over recent years and skyrocketing autism rates.She identified two key problems in autism that are unrelated to the brain yet clearly associated with the condition — both of which are linked with glyphosate exposure:

  • Gut dysbiosis (imbalances in gut bacteria, inflammation, leaky gut and food allergies such as gluten intolerance)
  • Disrupted sulfur metabolism / sulfur and sulfate deficiency

Interestingly, certain microbes in your body actually break down glyphosate, which is a good thing. However, a byproduct of this action is ammonia, and children with autism tend to have significantly higher levels of ammonia in their blood than the general population.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. Previous research on animals, including rats, has led to similar findings.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. Previous research on animals, including rats, has led to similar findings.

In 2012, the first-ever lifetime feeding study evaluating the health risks of glyphosate and GE foods found that rats fed a type of GE corn that is prevalent in the U.S. food supply developed massive mammary tumors, kidney and liver damage, and other serious health problems after a feeding trial of two years. According to the authors:5

"The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11 [percent] in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1ppb in water), were studied [two] years in rats. In females, all treated groups died [two to three] times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in [three] male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone- and sex-dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable.

Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments.

In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5 [to] 5.5 times higher ... Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3 [to] 2.3 greater. Males presented [four] times more large palpable tumors than controls, which occurred up to 600 days earlier."

The findings were a nail in the coffin for the pesticide/biotech industry, but then the journal began to receive Letters to the Editor alleging fraud and calling upon the editors to retract the paper.

After what the journal described as a "thorough and time-consuming analysis" of the study, they said they found "no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data." All they could find "wrong" with the research was that it used a low number of animals, but they, quite outrageously, retracted this important paper nonetheless. Even the retraction statement admits that the results presented are "not incorrect" but rather may be "inconclusive."