All Journal Entries Journals

Toxic Herbicides in Breast Milk, Placentas,Umbilical Cords

Apr 22, 2014 - 8 comments

A recent study showed the toxic herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) in the breast milk of a significant percentage of American women, even those actively trying to avoid chemical contaminants
Glyphosate was also found in urine and drinking water samples at levels 10 times higher than those in the EU when tested in 2013
A Canadian study found Bt toxin in the umbilical cords and circulating blood of 93 percent of pregnant women tested
US corn and soy fields are creating an ecologic crisis, turning grasslands into lifeless, barren expanses, ruining topsoil, and decimating already endangered wildlife
Kansas Representative Mike Pompeo has introduced the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act, and your help is needed to prevent its passage

Post a Comment
189897 tn?1441130118
by Sandman2, Apr 23, 2014
Whoa, get your facts straight.  It was found in 3 out of 10 samples sent in.  That is a long way from a significant percentage of Am. Women.  Significant - yes, for the 10 people in the sample only.  And the sample was not random and really has no statistical reliability.

1236893 tn?1487770007
by gymdandee, Apr 23, 2014
A bold new study has shown that the herbicide glyphosate passes through breast milk. Glyphosate is used in agriculture on genetically modified crops and is best known as the main ingredient in Monsanto’s RoundUp. This study, facilitated by Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse, is the first of its kind. The research team found “high” levels of glyphosate in 30 percent of breast milk samples tested.

189897 tn?1441130118
by Sandman2, Apr 24, 2014
  This is a quote from the study in Sustainable Pulse.  "In the first ever testing on glyphosate herbicide in the breast milk of American women, Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse have found ‘high’ levels in 3 out of the 10 samples tested."  Note that your study never mentioned that only 10 people were tested.   the trouble with getting your news from, "Inquisitr's daily viral news" is that it is just that - viral with not a lot of extra research done.
     I have no trouble with doing more research into breast milk contamination.  I do have a problem with the lead sentence of, "A recent study showed the toxic herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) in the breast milk of a significant percentage of American women, even those actively trying to avoid chemical contaminants ."    10 people does not represent a significant percent of American women.  And the fact that the samples came from women who are actively actively trying to avoid chemical contaminants.  That is scary.  But, "The highest glyphosate level was detected in a mother from Florida (166 ug/l) and the other two mothers with ‘positive’ results were from Virginia (76 ug/l) and Oregon (99 ug/l)."   This really leads to many more questions about where the mothers lived in relationship to fields (since they avoided GMO foods, etc). So yes, more research is definitely needed.  I just don't like scary headlines.

1236893 tn?1487770007
by gymdandee, Apr 25, 2014
My Study! This wasn't my study!!

Avatar universal
by AlternativeDrMom, Oct 08, 2014
Hello!  The problem here is:  who is going to fund a randomized, statistically significant study on this?  Not Monsanto!  Not even, probably, the US government, going by their recent history.  So who then?

If 10 women got together and sent their blood samples in and ***three*** came back with high levels of glyphosate in breast milk, that should sound loud alarms and calls for further study!  Poo-pooing and dissing this information simply because it is not statistically significant when the deck is stacked heavily in favor of *never* discovering what the actually statistically significant number is, is totally irresponsible!  Every nursing mom or mom-to-be, every dad, every parent out there or anyone who ever wants to be a parent, every grandparent should be concerned about this.

This constant I-am-smarter-than-you and I-understand-statistics-and-you-don't party line is ridiculous!  Who is looking out for us out there???  Anybody???

1236893 tn?1487770007
by gymdandee, Oct 08, 2014
Hello AlternativeDrMom, Apparently only a few! not enough. I know Sandman2 isn't!!

Avatar universal
by Paxiled, Oct 09, 2014
None of this is the scariest thing -- the effect of this substance on beneficial flora is of far more importance.  There are so many warnings out on this stuff now, Sandman, that we should be listening.  The important issue here is that Monsanto is essentially forcing this stuff on us -- because of wind, pollen spreading and the like this is an experiment with no containment.  It's out in the open air.  Even organic fields are being contaminated.  And all just to sell more of an herbicide that poisons our land, water supply, etc.  We can grow wonderful crops without this stuff -- we can't avoid it in our lives if it isn't regulated more carefully.  One thing on the soil issue, however -- this is an old problem, it isn't due to Monsanto.  We destroyed most of our topsoil a long time ago with poor farming practices, long before Roundup came into being.  We know how to do better, we just have to do it.

1236893 tn?1487770007
by gymdandee, Oct 09, 2014
Buffer requirements (205.202)
If an adjoining farm is applying prohibited substances to their land (such as pesticides, herbicides or synthetic fertilizers),
an adequate barrier/distance between certified crops and the neighboring farm needs to be in place. The size of the
required buffer depends on the method of application of the prohibited material and/or the physical nature of the border
(open, hedgerow, etc.). The buffer needs to be sufficient to prevent prohibited substances used on the conventional farm
from contacting the organic crops. VOF recommends a minimum 50 foot buffer zone, unless the buffer consists of a dense hedgerow. In this case, a 30 foot minimum buffer may be sufficient.
For example, an organic hayfield immediately adjacent to a conventional cornfield would have to create at least a 50-foot
buffer that is left fallow or harvested and sold separately as non-organic hay. Harvests of buffer hay must be stored
separately from the organic hay and sales of buffer hay must be documented as non-organic.
Buffer crops cannot be fed to organic animals. Buffer zones must be maintained for at least three years after the last application of prohibited pesticides or fertilizers on the adjacent land.

Post a Comment