Category: nature

Posted on

The herbicide Round-Up found more dangerous than glyphosate alone

The herbicide Round-Up contains glyphosate which is considered the active ingredient but research suggests that the supposedly inert ingredients in the mixed product make Round-Up as much as 125 times more dangerous to health than glyphosate alone. An international society for science has assembled a review of literature on the topic within the following article:

Round-Up ready crops have been found to require more water and do less well in drought situations than normal crops. Pigs fed GMO based foods were found to become significantly healthier when the farmer switched to non GMO based feed for them.

Glyphosate residues have been found to drop after individuals switched to a diet based on non GMO, organic foods and autism symptoms were found to improve for individuals who were switched to a non GMO organic food diet. Single case studies may be considered anecdotal and not worth considered but each and every patient is a single case study for themselves.

How many people need to get sick in the U.S. before we decide that we would rather not be experimented on by agribusiness and the processed food industry?

Excerpts from the article:

Glyphosate widespread in the environment and in our bodies

“Due to the official ‘safe’ status of glyphosate, data on how much we are being exposed have been scarce, forcing citizen activists and civil society organizations to find out for themselves. Friends of the Earth Europe commissioned an analysis of 182 volunteers across 18 EU countries and found detectable levels in 44 % of urine samples [13] with concentrations ranging from 0.16 ug/L average in Switzerland, to 1.82ug/L in Latvia. Of the UK citizens tested, 7 out of 10 were positive. In the US, urine samples show concentrations 8 times those in Europe [13]. The analysis, commissioned by Moms Across America, also tested 10 mother’s breast milk, which came up positive for glyphosate with levels ranging from 76 µg/L to 166 µg/L (76-166 ppb) (see [14]). These levels are 760 to 1600 times higher than the European Drinking Water Directive allows for individual pesticides, and raise obvious concerns as they fall within the range of concentrations at which developmental toxicity has been observed in animal studies (see below). This analysis is the only study on breast milk to date, as no government or public health body has found it necessary to carry out any study on bioaccumulation in internal organs and tissues or in breast milk fed to infants.”

Health of American citizens deteriorating

“One argument for the safety of GM food and their associated pesticides is that the US has been consuming them for years without ill effect. However, in the absence of labelling GM foods, it is illegitimate to make such a claim. On the contrary, there has been a drastic deterioration of public health in the US since GM crops were introduced. A new publication by Swanson and colleagues plots the rise of 20 chronic diseases using available US government data, all correlating closely with increasing glyphosate application to corn and soy crops, especially over the past several years. The diseases included cancers, Parkinson’s, autism, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, digestive disease and kidney failure [62]. Correlation does not prove causation, but such strong association certainly cannot be dismissed, especially in combination with the plethora of other evidence from laboratory studies, and the experiences of doctors in their clinics and farmers in the fields. For a detailed analysis of the study please see [67] Marked Deterioration of Public Health Parallels Increase in GM Crops and Glyphosate Use, US Government Data Show ( SiS 65).”

Read more: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Roundup_of_Roundup.php

/Disclaimer: This information is provided for educational purposes within the guidelines of fair use. While I am a Registered Dietitian this information is not intended to provide individual health guidance. Please see a health professional for individual health care purposes./

Posted on

U.S. ranks 68th on health and wellness compared to 133 developed nations

The U.S. ranked 68th for the category “Health and Wellness” in a comparison of 133 developed nations. That ranks in the lower half of the group. Economically the U.S. ranks within the top few nations and ranks in the top in many of the other categories that were assessed. However the Health and Wellness ranking or the U.S. is low in comparison not only to other nations but also to the U.S. ranking for many of the other 53 categories that were used to assess a nation’s ‘social progress,’ — suggesting that the healthcare strategies that have already been in use or were recently implemented in the U.S. in an effort to improve the health and wellness of U.S. citizens need to be reviewed and redesigned if we hope to achieve better results.

https://hbr.org/2016/08/why-americans-are-so-angry-despite-americas-strong-economy?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=harvardbiz

We may be able to afford ineffective health care over the short term of a few sickly generations but we can’t afford ineffective health care for ever. Somebody has to remain healthy enough to be able to take care of the increasing numbers of chronically ill people.

The globalization of markets has helped some workers while it may have left other groups less well off than they had been. Globally incomes have improved for groups of people in some areas of the world but have held stable or dropped in other areas. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/07/this-chart-reveals-the-most-dramatic-change-in-incomes-since-the-first-industrial-revolution?utm_content=bufferd61fe&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

In some categories used to assess social progress the U.S. has been dropping in comparison to other developed nations and we are now on par or worse than some third world nations including the area of ‘Health and Wellness.’  http://usuncut.com/class-war/america-third-world-country/

Male fertility in 1992 was estimated to be at a rate of 1710 births per 1000 males on average (or 1.7 children per male aged 15-44) and 1960 births per every 1000 females (or 1.9 children per female aged 15-44). https://www.census.gov/population/documentation/twps0014.pdf

However either fertility has decreased or the desire to father children has decreased because the rate of children fathered by men aged 15-44 years in 2002 was at a rate of 1.0 children per male and the rate dropped yet more to 0.9 children per male aged 15-44 years between 2006-2010.  http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr051.pdf

So in 1992 the average 15-44 year old male had 1.7 children while in 2002 the average 15-44 year old male in the U.S. had 1.0 children and between 2006-2010 the average male aged 15-44 years old only had 0.9 children.

It might seem like everything is for sale in a capitalist nation but — you can’t buy health and while you might be able to buy fertility treatments and in vitro fertilization it turns out that nature has ways we are only beginning to discover. In vitro fertilization (egg meets sperm in a test tube) may leave the child with DNA from the male’s mitochondria which wouldn’t be as likely to occur during natural fertilization. Few of the male mitochondria enter the egg during normal fertilization and the egg has ways to destroy any male mitochondria that are able to enter. Normally only the maternal mitochondrial DNA is left in a newly fertilized zygote. (The first new life form is a single celled egg/sperm combo called the zygote.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_mtDNA_transmission

Excess male mitochondria may be involved in some cases of male infertility.  http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.496.2503&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The markers that help an egg identify male mitochondria for destruction may be species specific according to research performed with lab animals. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC41980/pdf/pnas01486-0478.pdf

We don’t know what we don’t know — until we learn it — and we are learning that we can’t really pollute our environment and food supply with estrogen mimetics and other toxic additives, herbicides and pesticides, if we hope to have “Health and Wellness”. As U.S. citizens we are constitutionally supposed to have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Health and wellness – and the ability to have children naturally – seems like part of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Should ‘corporate people’ have a right to profit off human citizen’s ability (or inability) to procreate or should ‘corporate people’ have a right to profit off a human citizen’s right to decide how they deliver their baby or how they feed their baby? Would it be fair to the non-corporate people (formerly known as humans) if the government ruled that all infants will be conceived in a test tube; and will be delivered by C-section; and will be fed exclusively with formula; or will be fed exclusively by breast milk whether the mother is able to or not?

Part of “health and wellness” might be the freedom to make individual choices based on individual differences. Some regulations protect the corporate ‘right to access to the consumer’ more than they protect the consumer’s right to access safe products and services. Midwives have been harassed for centuries and even burned as witches while medical schools and medical associations are regulated as safe providers of maternal care. History has shown that men didn’t wash their hands even after being told that it was causing increased maternal deaths due to infections. The pioneering doctor that tried to get other doctors to wash their hands was harassed during his own career for his work — but his name lives on in textbooks though, at least, (Ignaz Semmelweis). Midwives knew about sanitation but it took a male doctor ruining his career to get other male doctors to eventually start washing their hands in between attending pregnant women.

Hand washing helped promote improved “Health and Wellness” in the U.S. and elsewhere but it took a while to catch on. What other health practices are needed? We won’t know if we continue to not listen to pioneering scientists. Currently alternative information frequently is being dismissed as “debunked” or “Quack,” but history revealed that Ignaz Semmelweis was not the quack and likely the midwives who were burned as witches didn’t quack either. (A Monty Python reference is hiding there for Monty Python fans.)

So if we want America to continue to be great than we need to review and redesign our nation’s strategies for promoting individual health and wellness because whatever we’re doing hasn’t been very effective while it has been costing us more than other developed nations — and health and wellness includes the ability to have healthy children.

Disclaimer: Opinions are my own and the information is provided for educational purposes within the guidelines of fair use. While I am a Registered Dietitian this information is not intended to provide individual health guidance. Please see a health professional for individual health care purposes.

Posted on

Glyphosate was created as an antibiotic and mineral chelator but is being used as an herbicide

Every cell in our bodies depends on mitochondria to produce energy from stored sugar. Mitochondria are actually bacterial in origin. They are smaller than human cells and have their own DNA that is different from the the human cell DNA. Glyphosate is presumably safe for use in the human food supply because it only affects a metabolic pathway found in plants and bacteria however if every cell of our human bodies also depends on mitochondria which are bacterial in origin then is the antibiotic glyphosate truly safe for human use? Or for use in food for farm animals – which also depend on mitochondria to produce energy from sugar (glucose is the form of sugar that is broken down for energy within mitochondria).

A concerned scientist has been studying the topic for years and has been writing about the topic, read more: http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/roundup-the-nontoxic-chemical-that-may-be-destroying-our-health/   The topic is dangerous to write about however within the current business world which seems to be oriented to support corporate profit  over the long term viability of our ecosystem. The authors of that paper have been labeled ‘debunked’ or something similarly dismissive.

Glyphosate is being sprayed on invasive plants in wild areas and within waterways that are overgrown with invasive plants. However the affects of the antibiotic and mineral chelator on the desirable plants and wildlife is not known. A mineral chelator generally has been thought of as helpful, the phrase refers to chemicals that can bind onto a mineral and help transport it into cells or into the body from the gut. A mineral chelator that binds onto toxic minerals and helps transport them into the body might be not helpful or a mineral chelator that binds onto nutrients in the soil and prevents them from being absorbed by the plant would also be not helpful to the plant or possible to the humans or animals eating the plant.

Glyphosate was first patented as an antibiotic and as a mineral chelator before it was developed into an herbicide.

Glyphosate has been found in all samples of California wine that was tested in one study and it was found in over 40% of organically grown honey that was tested in another study and in over 60% of the commercially produced samples of honey. The chemical can be difficult and expensive to screen for using many of the typical methods however another method was used for screening the samples of honey:

“The a1nalytical program included the extraction of glyphosate from the various matrices and the subsequent determination of glyphosate residues by enzyme linked immune sorbent assay (ELISA).” “(Figure 4) depicts the concentration of glyphosate in honey samples grouped by growing method of source pollen: organic (11 samples) and traditional (58 samples); 5 of the 11 organic samples had glyphosate concentrations above the method LOQ with a range of 26 to 93 ng/g and a mean of 50 ng /g. Of the fifty-eight non-organic honey samples, thirty-six samples, or sixty-two percent (62%), contained glyphosate concentrations above the method LOQ, with a range of 17 to 163 ppb and a mean of 66 ppb.”

Read more: http://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/survey-of-glyphosate-residues-in-honey-corn-and-soy-products-2161-0525.1000249.php?aid=36354

Figure 5 includes data comparing samples of honey produced in countries that don’t allow GMO Round-Up Ready crops with samples from countries that do. Samples from countries that don’t allow GMO crops had an average of 31 ng /g of glyphosate compared to 71 ng/g of glyphosate found in the samples of honey produced in countries that do allow GMO crops.  “Although glyphosate is not acutely toxic to bees, it is chronically toxic to animals and is reported to disrupt the endocrine system [35,36] and a recent study indicates that honey bees exposed to increasing sub-lethal concentrations of glyphosate exhibit a decrease in acetyl cholinesterase (AChE) activity [37].” Further study is recommended in order to further assess whether glyphosate might be adding to the loss of bee hives that has been associated with use of neonicotinoid chemicals. Read more: http://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/survey-of-glyphosate-residues-in-honey-corn-and-soy-products-2161-0525.1000249.php?aid=36354

Fewer samples of wine produced in California were tested but 100% of the samples (n=10) were found to have glyphosate contaminants. The wine produced from grapes grown organically  did have less of the contaminant than the commercially produced wine. That may not help the people living in the areas where grapes are grown for the California wine: “According to the CA Dept of Health, breast cancer rates in the Sonoma, Napa and Mendocino counties is 10 to 20 percent higher than the national average.” “German scientists have shown that 0.1 ppb of glyphosate, which is patented as an antibiotic, has been shown to destroy the beneficial gut bacteria and promote the proliferation of pathogenic gut bacteria.(2)” “0.1ppt of glyphosate has also been shown to stimulate the growth of breast cancer cells.(3)” “Glyphosate has also been shown to increase antibiotic resistance, which could be leading to superbugs (9)” Read more:  https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/yesmaam/pages/680/attachments/original/1458830087/GlyphosateContaminationinWinePressReport_(2).pdf?1458830087

So how much glyphosate might be too much? — Not much if 0.1 ppb is enough to destroy our beneficial gut bacteria and 0.1 ppt is enough to stimulate growth of breast cancer cells. And if it’s presence in the environment is increasing the risk of more pathogens developing antibiotic resistance than any of it might already have been too much for people with antibiotic resistant pneumonia.

And how much glyphosate might be deadly? — Twenty milliliters was not quite enough for at least one suicidal patient who did manage to make herself sick with a antibiotic resistant bacterial infection after ingesting the 20 ml of glyphosate in a suicide attempt (this is sad but is not uncommon – many people commit suicide by eating agricultural chemicals). (Twenty milliliters would be equal to about 4 teaspoons of glyphosate.) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289481/

How many ppb in one milliliter? –> search engine –>

“This is the same as grams per 1,000 liters, which may be converted to milligrams per liter (mg/L). Therefore, 1 g/ m3 = 1 mg/L = 1 ppm. Likewise, one milligram per cubic meter (mg/m3) is the same concentration in water as one microgram per liter (ug/L), which is about 1 ppb.”

So not much glyphosate is needed to cause negative health effects in humans and in the environment. It can break down quickly but may also take up to twenty years to completely break down. If excessive amounts of glyphosate are allowed to accumulate it may become difficult for normal seeds to be able to grow and genetic modification might be necessary for producing any viable crops in areas where glyphosate residue becomes prevalent (such as in any countries that allow GMO crops and use of glyphosate as a desiccant.)

How much might be too much in nature? One part per million (1 ppm) equivalent to what might be found in the environment of countries that use glyphosate was found to be enough of a dose to produce deformities in 60% of the tadpoles of a tree frog. “Jayawardena et al. (2010) found nearly 60% malformations in tadpoles of the tree frog Polypedates cruciger treated with an environmentally relevant concentration of 1 ppm Roundup.” The formulated product (glyphosate plus surfactants or other additives) was found to be more harmful to offspring than the glyphosate alone. How much is too much in our food supply? We don’t know for sure but we are beginning to know more about how much may be present in our food supply: “Residues of up to 17 mg/kg of glyphosate have been found in harvested soybean crops [10].”

Back to the search engine –> “1 mg/kg = 1000 ppb” So –> “Residues of up to [17000 ppb or 17,000,000 ppm] of glyphosate have been found in harvested soybean crops.” Which seems like it would be enough to cause malformations in at least 60% of tree frog tadpoles if they were exposed to Round-Up Ready soy.

Maybe it is completely safe for everyone — except the 2% who are developing autism and the 5.3 million people living with Alzheimer’s Disease.  North Dakota has the highest rate of mortality due to Alzheimer’s Disease and Nevada has the lowest rate.  http://www.alzheimers.net/resources/alzheimers-statistics/

“Most glyphosate used at harvest time is done on spring and durum wheat, and mostly in the northern tier States (North Dakota & Montana) and ...”  This article is debunking a different article about use of glyphosate as a desiccant – this article states that is actually a rare practice – except possibly in North Dakota and Montana. Read more:  http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2014/11/glyphosate-use-in-wheat/

The search engine suggests that glyphosate has been used for invasive plant control in Nevada but did not turn up agricultural references. A study on use of glyphosate for helping establish native plants in an area with invasive plants. The glyphosate use on the invasives did help with getting the native plantings established instead. http://sfc.smallfarmcentral.com/dynamic_content/uploadfiles/152/Nevada.pdf

The search term results: https://www.google.com/search?q=use+of+glyphosate+in+Nevada&rlz=1C1CHWA_enUS600US600&oq=use+of+glyphosate+in+Nevada&aqs=chrome..69i57.4494j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The search turned up a paper that has since been retracted after it was published due to some delay in the peer review process but the paper can still be viewed. It suggests there is a correlation between glyphosate use which causes an increased need for nitrogen based fertilizers because the glyphosate can affect soil bacteria that normally would make nitrogen more available so more nitrogen based fertilizer is required and which can lead to more nitrogen dioxide being released into the air which can affect ADHD risk and is also a gas involved in global warming. the paper turned up in my search terms because Nevada didn’t have some data that other states had made available. States with data available regarding glyphosate use between 2006-2009 suggest that Arizona and Utah used less than in previous years,

It took fifty years or so before corporate control of science regarding cancer risk and smoking was freely available to consumers and it has taken twenty or so years to reveal Exxon’s role in denying the impact of fossil fuel use on climate change. It may take a while to reveal that spraying an antibiotic and mineral chelator is bad for soil health and health of other life forms. In the mean time I will continue to try to avoid sources of Round-up. It may be the combination of the adjuvants/surfactants that are used with the glyphosate that makes it more of a risk for neurodegenerative harm such as autism or ADHD than studies with glyphosate alone have suggested or it may be the changes in nitrogen based fertilizer use as suggested by the (retracted) article on ADHD and Round-Up.

/Disclosure: This information is provided for educational purposes within the guidelines of fair use. While I am a Registered Dietitian this information is not intended to provide individual health guidance. Please see a health professional for individual health care purposes./

Posted on

‘The Horse With No Name’ might have been called Heatstroke

A popular song from the 70’s is a good reminder to pack salty snacks and plenty of water when travelling. The song “A Horse With No Name,” was written by Dewey Bunnell at age 19, one of the three members of the musical group America. He describes it as a travelogue song about the deserts he and his family travelled through during his childhood. The artist adds that he was also trying to capture the feeling of the desert portrayed in a painting by Salvador Dali and “the strange horse” pictured in a piece of metamorphosis art by M. C. Escher.  The artwork can be seen with the full article: [1] [lyrics]

The song has always stood out in my memory because of the vivid descriptions of wandering lost and hot in the desert for at least nine days – he let the nameless horse go after nine days. Heatstroke can cause hallucinations. I always assumed that the song was about a friendly imaginary horse that was released when the author found himself. Some cultures have rites of passage into adulthood or for spiritual reasons that include times spent alone while fasting (not eating). The person on a vision quest might go off into the wilderness without food or water in the hopes of receiving visions that might help guide them in their future. Hopefully most of them survived the fasting process and had a future to enjoy. The body can survive without food longer than without water but add extreme dry desert heat and visions of nameless horses might seem pretty tame.

PS Don’t leave your child or pet alone in a locked vehicle because it can heat up quickly. [2] And they might write a pop song about the experience later in life or they might feel sick.

And if you have to work (or play) in extreme heat than have adequate water throughout your work day. [3] A salty snack might help replace lost electrolytes if sweating is excessive.

Disclaimer: This information is being provided for educational purposes within the guidelines of Fair Use and is not intended to provide individual health care guidance.