The Adverse Effects of Glyphosate
Right now, it seems like no matter how hard the scientific establishment and the large pharmaceutical companies (i.e., Monsanto, Bayer) try to hide the adverse effects of glyphosate, a popular herbicide, they cannot hide it all. As discussed in one my latest articles, “A Perfect Example of Conflict of Interest in the Scientific Community, Glyphosate Research,” the scientific community seems to be hard-pressed to deter negative information regarding glyphosate because of its deep funding ties to the GMO industry.
Naturesearch is an international journal of science and is perhaps one of the most prestigious journals to be published in from a scientific or academic perspective, and on April 23 of this year, Washington State University researchers published an article entitled “Assessment of Glyphosate Induced Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Pathologies and Sperm Epimutations: Generational Toxicology” [1]. Essentially, the authors were investigating whether glyphosate caused multigenerational damage to rats which would be passed down through generations.
The researchers exposed pregnant rats to the herbicide between their eighth and 14th days of gestation. The dose produced no apparent ill effects on either the parents or the first generation of offspring, but this study does not end there. In the second and third generation, the researchers saw “dramatic increases” in several pathologies [1].
In the second generation, there were dramatic increases in testis, ovary, and mammary gland diseases, as well as other health issues including obesity. In the third generation, males saw a 30% increase in prostate diseases, which was three times higher than the male control population, the third generation of rats which were not exposed to glyphosate. For the females in the third generation, they experienced a 40% increase in kidney disease, which was four times higher than the female control population.
The Washington State University researchers called this phenomenon “generational toxicology,” and they have seen it over the years in performed on fungicides, pesticides, jet fuel, BPA (a compound in plastics), DEET (a compound in insect repellants), and the herbicide atrazine [1].
This was not the only study Washington State University has done on the effects of glyphosate. In 2018, the university published a study entitled “Estimated Residential Exposure to Agricultural Chemicals and Premature Mortality by Parkinson’s Disease in Washington State” [2]. The goal of that study was to determine whether there was a correlation or relationship between the agricultural application of glyphosate and premature mortality from Parkinson’s disease within the state of Washington, and they found “Individuals exposed to land-use associated with glyphosate had 33% higher odds of premature mortality than those that were not exposed” [2]. Interestingly as well, the researchers in this study examined several agricultural chemicals, and glyphosate showed the highest correlation. One other chemical, Paraquat showed a correlation, but it was not statistically significant to draw any definite conclusions. The rest of the chemicals studied did not show any correlations. Interestingly enough, the most world’s most heavily applied herbicide is glyphosate, and glyphosate is the active ingredient in the most popular residential weed killer product. I cannot say specifically the name of the product I am referring to for liability reasons, but I am sure you know what it is.
Additionally, Washington State University published an article in the journal Mutation Research-Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis entitled “Exposure to Glyphosate-Based Herbicides and Risk for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Meta-Analysis and Supporting Evidence” [3]. In that study, the researchers found that exposure to glyphosate increases the risk of some cancers by more than 40% [3]. The senior author Lianne Sheppard, a professor in the University of Washington departments of Environmental & Occupational Health Sciences and Biostatistics, stated: “Our analysis focused on providing the best possible answer to the question of whether or not glyphosate is carcinogenic” [4].
As seen above, I have presented three studies which claim there is a correlation between glyphosate and some disease. However, the FDA still claims “glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic in humans” [5] even though the International Agency for Research on Cancer determined that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans [7]. Why is this the case? Well, some argue Monsanto, which is now owned by Bayer, captured the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and twisted science to keep glyphosate on the market [6].
Even since the creation of glyphosate, Monsanto has continuously protected it, and it all started back in the 1970s. The EPA was created in 1970 and glyphosate entered the market in 1974. Because the EPA was still young, it had many chemicals to review when glyphosate was released, and the EPA did not finish its toxicology testing guidelines until 1986 [8]. Even at that time, the EPA relied heavily on the initial data of glyphosate.
The earliest example of Monsanto pushing against the EPA with their glyphosate product took place in 1973. In 1973, biologist Robert D. Coberly at the EPA’s Toxicology Branch Registration Division recommended since glyphosate had the tendency to cause eye irritation, the word “Danger” should appear on the label of the “residential week killer product which contained glyphosate” (again, I cannot say the name of the weed killer because of liability reasons, but we all know what residential weed killer product I am talking about) [8].
As a result, Monsanto senior staffer L.H. Hannah wrote a letter to the EPA which protested the recommendation that “Danger” should be written on the table. The EPA was reluctant to back down, but Monsanto persisted, and the word changed from “Danger” to “Caution” [8].
Even throughout the 1970s and 1980s, many EPA scientists raised a concern about glyphosate, and there seemed to be a battle between the EPA and Monsanto. To read this whole story, see reference [8].
So, by now, I hope you understand the negative health aspects of glyphosate and the quarrels between Monsanto and the EPA, but how can you protect yourself from glyphosate?
First, I recommend eating organic foods. Glyphosate is commonly used with GMO crops as a desiccant, meaning glyphosate is sprayed on crops before harvest to dry them out, but studies have shown, even though these crops are washed, glyphosate is still apparent in food, including restaurant food [9]. Eating organically is the only way to prevent ingesting glyphosate this way because organic crops are not sprayed with this toxic compound.
Second, I recommend taking three products to promote a healthy immune system: Healthmasters’ Potassium Iodine, Healthmasters’ Ultimate D3/K2, and Healthmasters’ Excellent C. These products help to promote a healthy immune system and may help negate any effects the glyphosate in your diet may have in your body regarding your immune system.
Third, I recommend taking Healthmasters’ GHI Cleanse. This product helps to detoxify the gastrointestinal, hepatic, and inflammatory systems and may help detoxify your body of glyphosate which may have accumulated due to your diet.
If you have any questions about these products, please feel free to call us at 800.726.1834.
References:
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-42860-0
[2] https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/12/2885/htm
[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383574218300887
[4] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190214093359.htm
[5] https://www.fda.gov/food/pesticides/questions-and-answers-glyphosate
[6] https://inthesetimes.com/features/monsanto_epa_glyphosate_roundup_investigation.html
[7] https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/
[8] https://inthesetimes.com/features/monsanto_epa_glyphosate_roundup_investigation.html
