# Lifestyles & Discussion > Personal Health & Well-Being >  The List Of Products And Foods That Have Tested Positive For Monsanto's Carcinogenic Glyphosat

## donnay

> *THE LIST OF PRODUCTS AND FOODS THAT HAVE TESTED POSITIVE FOR MONSANTOS CARCINOGENIC GLYPHOSATE*
> 
> Alex Pietrowski, Staff Writer
> Waking Times
> 
> Monsanto is receiving considerable global backlash after the agrochemical and seed giant was found guilty of malice and of covering the fact that their flagship product can cause cancer.
> 
> At issue is glyphosate, the active chemical ingredient in Monsantos Roundup and Ranger herbicides. For years, evidence has been mounting that glyphosate is carcinogenic, which is quite alarming considering that it is the most widely used (and overused) agricultural chemical ever.
> 
> ...


https://www.wakingtimes.com/2018/08/...ic-glyphosate/

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Is there any relationship between gluten problems and glyphosate levels?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> https://www.wakingtimes.com/2018/08/...ic-glyphosate/


The usual "dosage matters" applies- "detectable levels" are parts per billion.   You would have to consume hundreds of pounds of these items every day to reach any problem levels. 

But to be safe, it is best to avoid all foods since all foods will contain measurable levels of some sort of toxin.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/weed-k...oods-1.4055532




> The amounts of glyphosate found in the products typically measured in the hundreds of parts per billion, or less than 0.000001 per cent.



https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2...phosate-study/




> EWG detected glyphosate in breakfast foods in the parts per billion range (ppb), which is insignificant to human health. 
> 
> “Only trace amounts of glyphosate were found (made possible due to advances in analytical chemistry) and these were far below the levels that are permitted,” Charles said. And according to USA Today, “…. the amount allowed in grains [by the EPA] is 30 parts per million.” 
> 
> The levels of glyphosate found by EWG ranged from 0-6% of what are universally considered acceptable levels—30ppm—set by both the US and the EU. And that government-determined level is itself considered incredibly conservative as it is. By the EPA’s standard, *you’d have to eat 30 bowls or more of cheerios a day, every day, for more than a year to even approach the US limit, which is itself set 100 times or more lower than what might actually harm someone*. EWG just made up its own, ridiculous, scare standard, which is 14,000 times lower than the EPA’s.
> 
> *Everything is made up of chemicals*, either organic or inorganic. The reality is that the human body has evolved to deal very effectively with minute quantities of chemicals in the world. This is why very few pesticides, most of which are natural, can harm us. Natural chemical pesticides, found in almost every plant, evolved as defensive measures to repel or kill pests like insects that prey on plants.

----------


## donnay

> The usual "dosage matters" applies- "detectable levels" are parts per billion.   You would have to consume hundreds of pounds of these items every day to reach any problem levels. 
> 
> But to be safe, it is best to avoid all foods.
> 
> https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/weed-k...oods-1.4055532



From the very article above:




> To some scientists and related officials, none of these products individually contain high enough levels of glyphosate to pose a health risk, however, *others argue that consuming trace amounts leads to dangerous accumulations within the body,** as it is known to bio-accumulate in major organs and bones.*

----------


## donnay

> Is there any relationship between gluten problems and glyphosate levels?


I think as time goes on and more information becomes available I am sure you will see a connection.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> From the very article above:


Waking Times is not a reliable source. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-waking-times/

https://www.innovationfiles.org/poin...n-breast-milk/




> Claims of Bioaccumulation: Even if the findings claimed are repeatable, they confirm what has long been known: that *glyphosate is rapidly eliminated from the body.* This is* the opposite of bioaccumulation,* and nothing presented suggests any reason to reconsider the well founded understanding that* glyphosate does not bioaccumulate*.


One reason it does not bioaccumulate is that it is not fat soluble so you can't store it in your fatty tissues.  




> The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention note, “Just because we can detect levels of an environmental chemical in a person’s blood or urine does not necessarily mean that the chemical will cause effects or disease. Advances in analytical chemistry enable us to measure low levels of environmental chemicals in people, but separate studies of varying levels of exposure determine whether specific levels cause health effects.”  *Food naturally contains a wide-array of potentially toxic chemicals such as cyanide, strychnine, carototoxin, and arsenic but they are usually present at levels that do no harm.*  Any chemical, whether natural or human-made can hurt us if we consume too much of it.  Even table salt or iron can kill if too much is consumed.  The mere presence of glyphosate in serum, urine or mother’s milk is not a cause for alarm unless the levels are above those known to do harm.  Over 4 decades of research studies and real-world use, including studies on large numbers of people who have been exposed to glyphosate, have allowed regulators to understand and set safe levels of exposure.  Research has also established that the low levels of glyphosate sometimes found in bodily fluids pose no threat to health.  WHO, EFSA, EPA and other regulatory agencies around the globe have concluded that trace levels of glyphosate in food should be of no more health concern than the presence of myriad potentially toxic chemicals that occur naturally in food.”

----------


## donnay

> Waking Times is not a reliable source. 
> 
> https://www.innovationfiles.org/poin...n-breast-milk/
> 
> 
> 
> One reason it does not bioaccumulate is that it is not fat soluble so you can't store it in your fatty tissues.



*A Roundup of Roundup® Reveals Converging Pattern of Toxicity from Farm to Clinic to Laboratory Studies*
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Roundup_of_Roundup.php

----------


## Zippyjuan

> *A Roundup of Roundup® Reveals Converging Pattern of Toxicity from Farm to Clinic to Laboratory Studies*
> http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Roundup_of_Roundup.php


From the people who brought you "Death Camp Fukushima!" Billions dying! 




> a *doubling or tripling of general mortality rates*.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Waking Times is not a reliable source. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-waking-times/
> 
> https://www.innovationfiles.org/poin...n-breast-milk/
> 
> One reason it does not bioaccumulate is that it is not fat soluble so you can't store it in your fatty tissues.


Are you going to drink a shot of it every morning to prove that it is “rapidly elimnated from the body”?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Waking Times is not a reliable source. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-waking-times/



I love these new sites that bill themselves as "fact check," but then offer little to no facts.  Your own site partially CALLED "fact check" is--itself--loaded with value judgments that are not facts.  They can't even spell words correctly.  An example from your link. "...well know purveyor of pseudoscience..."  Where are the facts to back the opinion that the site he* vilifies is _well known_?

Most of your site's critique is adjective phrases like "reliable source" without any facts to back up those phrases.



*I use the word "he" for clarity.  In fact, your article has no author listed at the top of the page.  It doesn't even have a date.  Facts, indeed!

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> The usual "dosage matters" applies- "detectable levels" are parts per billion.


I have already said that parts per billion can be significant in measuring toxicity.  For example, some toxins in city water are unacceptable at a few parts per billion.  Your logic is that of a wide-eyed kindergartner--a number with all those whopping zeros doesn't matter!

----------


## angelatc

> Is there any relationship between gluten problems and glyphosate levels?


Aside from the fact that there's no evidence to support 99% of gluten problems or the fact that glyphosate is not actually proven cancerous, you mean?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Aside from the fact that there's no evidence to support 99% of gluten problems or the fact that glyphosate is not actually proven cancerous, you mean?


I’m not on the anti-gluten band wagon, as it currently appears to mostly be a psychosomatic and fad issue.

But the question is scientifically valid, and worth exploring. Increasing levels of glyphosate may have some effects on sensitive people, and that reaction could be mistaken for a gluten problem, when it is really a contamination issue.

----------


## angelatc

> I have already said that parts per billion can be significant in measuring toxicity.  For example, some toxins in city water are unacceptable at a few parts per billion.  Your logic is that of a wide-eyed kindergartner--a number with all those whopping zeros doesn't matter!


You and I get along.  But what part of this confuses you?




> The levels of glyphosate found by EWG ranged from 0-6% of what are universally considered acceptable levels—30ppm—set by both the US and the EU. And that government-determined level is itself considered incredibly conservative as it is. By the EPA’s standard, you’d have to eat 30 bowls or more of cheerios a day, every day, for more than a year to even approach the US limit, which is itself set 100 times or more lower than what might actually harm someone. EWG just made up its own, ridiculous, scare standard, which is 14,000 times lower than the EPA’s.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> You and I get along.  But what part of this confuses you?


I didn't actually read any of the thread.  I now mostly just come here to mess with Zip.

----------


## angelatc

> I’m not on the anti-gluten band wagon, as it currently appears to mostly be a psychosomatic and fad issue.
> 
> But the question is scientifically valid, and worth exploring. Increasing levels of glyphosate may have some effects on sensitive people, and that reaction could be mistaken for a gluten problem, when it is really a contamination issue.


But we're talking about the same people who insist MSG is dangerous, gluten is irritating, and  glyphosate is cancerous.  There is no evidence or even any documentation to support that theory.

----------


## angelatc

> Are you going to drink a shot of it every morning to prove that it is “rapidly elimnated from the body”?


Are you equipped to set up the study and monitor the results?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Are you equipped to set up the study and monitor the results?


Arrange the grant and I could put it together.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> But we're talking about the same people who insist MSG is dangerous, gluten is irritating, and  glyphosate is cancerous.  There is no evidence or even any documentation to support that theory.


Yes, but that goes both ways. On the other side we have government telling us what is safe or not, and their track record isn’t very good either.

----------


## opal



----------


## opal



----------


## angelatc

> Yes, but that goes both ways. On the other side we have government telling us what is safe or not, and their track record isn’t very good either.


What do you mean?  I think their track record is very good. My beef is that I think the're over cautious.  For example, I read somewhere that something upwards of 90% of things that work in mouse studies don't work in human studies.  What if the inverse is also true?  What if 90% of the research that dead ends at mouse studies would have worked in human studies?

----------


## angelatc

> 


God I hate this place some days.
  THere is almost no truth to anything in this, but I already know nothing we say will convince you.

----------


## angelatc

> 


Go educate yourself. You just showed us all what a tool you are.

1. You have no idea what young corn or soy looks like.  Because if he was spraying anything except those plants with Round-Up, they would die.  Therefore, we know that either he wants to kill his crops (unlikely) or he's spraying something else. 

2.  It's a greenhouse.  Round-Up is a weed-killer.  Why the $#@! would someone need to spray weedkiller in a greenhouse?

3. "not safe to breath"  Seems legit

4.  Quick - name 2 things that are both safe to eat and safe to breathe.


Now is the time when you call all begin to whine about how mean I am.

----------


## angelatc



----------


## angelatc

> I’m not on the anti-gluten band wagon, as it currently appears to mostly be a psychosomatic and fad issue.
> 
> But the question is scientifically valid, and worth exploring. Increasing levels of glyphosate may have some effects on sensitive people, and that reaction could be mistaken for a gluten problem, when it is really a contamination issue.


Read this: https://foodscienceinstitute.com/201...-with-science/

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Read this: https://foodscienceinstitute.com/201...-with-science/


Yeah. Courtrooms, the ultimate (non) scientific measurement.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> What do you mean?  I think their track record is very good. My beef is that I think the're over cautious.  For example, I read somewhere that something upwards of 90% of things that work in mouse studies don't work in human studies.  What if the inverse is also true?  What if 90% of the research that dead ends at mouse studies would have worked in human studies?


They are both over cautious and intertwined with crony corporatists. Not a good combination. They hinder new developments and are prone to regulatory capture by the big companies.

Luckily, when something really, truly, and obviously works, it can cut through the bureaucracy rather quickly (but maybe not monopoly patent controls). For instance, the miracle breakthrough on Hep-C treatment was delayed not by the FDA, but by a company that had a key patent, and then took the time to develop a knock-off of their former partners key component, so that they didn't have to share the cure.

Then there have been the miracle treatments for hair loss and ED...

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> What do you mean?  I think their track record is very good. My beef is that I think the're over cautious.  For example, I read somewhere that something upwards of 90% of things that work in mouse studies don't work in human studies.  What if the inverse is also true?  What if 90% of the research that dead ends at mouse studies would have worked in human studies?


About their track record... I'm sure it's much better than many of the snake oil salesmen and contaminated food peddlers, but there have been plenty of drugs and food additives that have been removed/recalled from their "OK list" due to not being safe enough.

Hydrogenated oils may not kill you in a day, but over time, they have proven to be pretty bad.

----------


## angelatc

Took me a while, but I found the original, with the caption: "David Geisler of Possum Run Greenhouse in Bellville, Ohio, uses an electrostatic sprayer to apply a fungicide to poinsettia plants. SEM technology showed that this type of sprayer covered plants more evenly than cold fogger sprayers."

My scientist friends assured me that the full PPE gear isn't required when applying glyphosate because it's not very toxic.





>

----------


## Created4

> Is there any relationship between gluten problems and glyphosate levels?



*Gluten Intolerance and the Herbicide Glyphosate: A National Epidemic*

*Glyphosates Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases*

*Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases II: Celiac sprue and gluten intolerance*

----------


## donnay

*What is glyphosate and what is its relationship to the chronic disease epidemic worldwide*
https://www.real.video/5823700159001

----------

