New Review Links Roundup to Diabetes, Autism, Infertility and Cancer

Posted on Apr 18 2013 - 6:13pm by Sustainable Pulse

A new peer-reviewed scientific review paper has been released in the US stating that glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup are contributing to gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.

Death from Roundup

The review paper states that “glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of …food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body. Here, we show how interference with CYP enzymes acts synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria, as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport. Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.”

For the full study click here .

“The paper gives good arguments why it’s vital to oppose the recent capitulation by UK supermarkets to accepting products from animals raised on GM feed,” GM Watch stated.

Glyphosate (N-phosphonomethylglycine), the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup®, is the main herbicide in use today in the United States, and increasingly throughout the World, in agriculture and in lawn maintenance, especially now that the patent has expired. 80% of genetically modified crops, particularly corn, soy, canola, cotton, sugar beets and most recently alfalfa, are specifically targeted towards the introduction of genes resistant to glyphosate, the so-called “Roundup Ready® feature”. In humans, only small amounts (~2%) of ingested glyphosate are metabolized to aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), and the rest enters the blood stream and is eventually eliminated through the urine.

Studies have shown sharp increases in glyphosate contamination in streams in the Midwestern United States following the mid 1990s, pointing to its increasing role as the herbicide of choice in agriculture. A now common practice of crop desiccation through herbicide administration shortly before the harvest assures an increased glyphosate presence in food sources as well . The industry asserts that glyphosate is nearly nontoxic to mammals, and therefore it is not a problem if glyphosate is ingested in food sources. Acutely, it is claimed to be less toxic than aspirin. As a consequence, measurement of its presence in food is practically nonexistent.

A vocal minority of experts believes that glyphosate may instead be much more toxic than is claimed, although the effects are only apparent after a considerable time lapse. Thus, while short-term studies in rodents have shown no apparent toxicity, studies involving life-long exposure in rodents have demonstrated liver and kidney dysfunction and a greatly increased risk of cancer, with shortened lifespan.

Follow Sustainable Pulse on Facebook here

About the Author

Sustainable Pulse provides the general public with the latest global news on GMOs, Sustainable Food and Sustainable Agriculture from our network of worldwide sources.

50 Comments so far. Feel free to join this conversation.

  1. Brian John April 19, 2013 at 00:39 - Reply

    You should make it clear that this study — of very great importance — is a review paper and not a scientific study reporting new lab or field research. But the authors should be congratulated in drawing together many strands from the literature and flagging up what a lethal product Roundup is.

    • henry April 19, 2013 at 11:17 - Reply

      Thank you Brian – the article has been edited to make sure that it is clear that this was a review paper.

  2. athena steffensen April 19, 2013 at 03:14 - Reply

    Why are they trying to poison us with this legal genocide :(

    • Lynn Grant April 22, 2013 at 00:45 - Reply

      They keep poisoning us because we let them get away with it – at least our government lets them. The people need to take over and stop giants like Monsanto from carrying on. Makes me sad. :-(

    • Liz May 3, 2013 at 11:23 - Reply

      Why do they keep poisoning us?
      Money – appears to be the short answer.

  3. shano April 19, 2013 at 04:53 - Reply

    No wonder Monsanto told farmers it was “Biodegradable” for decades.

    Only recently has this lie been exposed, and now the results of incredible overuse of this chemical are becoming obvious.

  4. Abysmom April 20, 2013 at 01:28 - Reply

    Are these people for real? ROUNDUP IS A POISON PEOPLE!! NO S**T IT’S LETHAL!!! IT WASN’T MADE FOR PEOPLE TO CONSUME FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!! WHERE THE HELL DID THE COMMON SENCE IN THIS COUNTRY GO? GET A FLIPPIN GRIP!!!!

    • teri May 19, 2013 at 23:33 - Reply

      When the poison is integrated into the flesh of the foods we eat (including meat) how do you suggest we avoid consuming it?? Apparently YOU are the one who needs to “get a grip”…on reality.

  5. Mrmars April 20, 2013 at 07:07 - Reply

    This is pseudoscience at its best! It should get an award.

    • Rebecca Gavin April 21, 2013 at 19:21 - Reply

      I suspect the same thing. I am not a scientist, therefore my knowledge isn’t great enough to analyze this as thoroughly as I might something more in my line of study. But several things should be noted….1) The Journal Entropy is an open source journal, and the authors of papers have to pay to be published….so that tells you right away that this is not a high level scientific paper. 2) The authors do not list their credentials, if they were Ph.D.’s they would do so. One of them claims to be an independent scientist and research but his email domain is accoustictracks.net. The other appears to be somehow connected to the Computer Science Dept. at MIT. Not exactly authoritive sources. 3) Their conclusions appear to me to be speculation, since actual studies demonstrating a cause and effect between glyphosate and each of these diseases don’t appear to exist. 4) One of the studies cited in the references is the Seralini study, which has been roundly discredited. 5) I don’t know what their peer review process is like, but they promise it will be done within 60 days, presumably at no charge by the reviewers, who could be anybody. It is highly doubtful that many accomplished, well established scientists would be willing to do speed reviews of articles for an open source journal. People are so easily impressed, and so gullible. Make something look official and scientific, and they just take it for granted that it must be scientifically sound. I can’t assess it on that level, I make no pretenses. But a little bit of curiosity and skepticism has already revealed a number of red flags. I would like to see a qualified response to this.

      • Bill Hudson April 22, 2013 at 20:05 - Reply

        Oh my lord, the authors cite the well-known UFO and ‘face on mars’ crank Richard Hoagland.

        • Richard April 26, 2013 at 04:25 - Reply

          Ignorance is bliss…..

      • Richard May 6, 2013 at 03:05 - Reply

        Hi Rebecca,
        the answer is simple. The powers that be have prevented or destroyed most of the study evidence. This company is commanding control over the food supply. Do you trust this corporate giant who also gave us Agent Orange, DDT, PCB’S , rBGH, all of which were touted as safe, and then later proven otherwise? I’m not touching the stuff with a 50 ft pole.

      • teri May 19, 2013 at 23:36 - Reply

        It’s a review of other scientific studies. they have taken from MANY studies and consolidated the information. In that, it is completely valid. What you need to do is look at the studies they cite. Are they legit? Are they peer reviewed? Have they been replicated? I have not yet gone through the studies cited but I cannot dismiss the findings of THIS paper without looking at the studies it is citing…and neither can you.

    • Kendra April 22, 2013 at 18:42 - Reply

      If this is psuedoscience than what you consider to be real science is completely backwards. Just sayin’…. We are starving for independent studies of chemicals and GMOs. And we are sick of profit hungry biotech corporations paying for evidence to support their never ending greedy behavior. Its not even about science, this is about human rights.

  6. LEO G YOUNGER April 21, 2013 at 05:41 - Reply

    We need labeling of genetically engineered or genetically modified foods and fibers and additives and organisms. We must have the right to know. Thank you for this article.

    • MaryAnna M April 21, 2013 at 20:47 - Reply

      No, they shouldn’t have to be labeled because they should be ILLEGAL to sell as food!!

      • The Butler June 20, 2013 at 13:49 - Reply

        If they were labelled then there would be no need to make them illegal because no-one would buy them. One of the basic rules of a free market is that all participants have full access to all available information. On this issue (as with many others) the government and multi-national corporations collude to make markets less free.

  7. weedman April 21, 2013 at 23:17 - Reply

    This is a load of manipulated bullshit. No link to the official study and a quote supposedly in the quoted article calling the subject of the unbiased scientific study “insidious” speaks a great deal as to the amount of actual scientific effort that was put into this. Sad to see science twisted for political reasons.

    • no synthetic pesticides April 23, 2013 at 05:14 - Reply

      Maybe if you’d actually read the article, you would have seen the link to the study. As far as twisted political reasons, that is exactly the reason we are having to fight for GMO food labeling – the political infiltration of our government by the biotech industry. Oh yes, and they won’t allow testing on their GMO seeds because of the proprietary technology. Talk about biased, give me a break. How about I give you this unlabeled bottle of brown liquid to drink. I’m sure you’d have no problem with that since the company told you it was safe.

    • Judy Hayner April 24, 2013 at 04:55 - Reply

      Please note the link to the original study, which was a review of other studies.

    • teri May 19, 2013 at 23:45 - Reply

      It’s a review of other scientific studies. they have taken from MANY studies and consolidated the information. In that, it is completely valid. What you need to do is look at the studies they cite. Are they legit? Are they peer reviewed? Have they been replicated? I have not yet gone through the studies cited but I cannot dismiss the findings of THIS paper without looking at the studies it is citing…and neither can you.

      However, just ONE study, from a very well respected professional journal, is sufficient for me to believe that this review has merit.

      “Altogether, the significant biochemical disturbances and physiological failures documented in this work confirm the pathological effects of these GMO and R treatments in both sexes, with different amplitudes. We propose that agricultural edible GMOs and formulated pesticides must be evaluated very carefully by long term studies to measure their potential toxic effects.” From: “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize” published in Food and Chemical Toxicology Volume 50, Issue 11, November 2012, Pages 4221–4231

      Sorry, your arguments don’t hold water.

  8. LUIS MELGAR April 22, 2013 at 19:20 - Reply

    EL GLIFOSATO SE USA DIRECTAMENTE PARA LAS MALESAS NO PRA LOS CULTIVOS, Y NO TIENE ACTIVIDAD EN EL SUELO.

  9. anne m April 23, 2013 at 05:06 - Reply

    Europe and the UK (and numerous other countries) are way ahead of the game, Round Up should have been banned long ago. Corporations have so many people fooled. I feel sorry for the folks out there who don’t believe the products and GMO food Monsanto are forcing on us are dangerous. Darwin had so much insight.

    • virginia April 26, 2013 at 02:56 - Reply

      in addition to all the damage, there is the fact that every state’s weeds are now resistant to glyphosphate. it’s pretty much useless at killing weeds, but not at harming our waterways, amphibians, mammals, and humans.

      • fred waelchli April 29, 2013 at 20:04 - Reply

        well that’s quite a statement: … every state’s weeds are now resistant to glyphosate….? when was the last time you have been in fields sprayed with glyphosate? yes there are weeds resistant to glyphosate (i.e. fleabane, giant ragweed and recently kochia) which is a concerne but from there to say – every states’s weeds – is, at least for the time being, untrue.

        • Richard April 30, 2013 at 18:10 - Reply

          the weeds are becoming resistant…mother nature is fighting back. same goes for the insects with pesticide use. keep spraying, your fields will be full of superweeds, and superbugs, it’s just a matter of time.

        • elizabethzen May 12, 2013 at 21:31 - Reply

          As you say, there may not be superweeds in every state “for the time being” but is it wise to wait until the problem is even more difficult and costly to correct? The increasing use of expensive herbicides will make food prices rise (unless government subsidies pick up the tab with taxpayer dollars) so that consumers will have to pay more for less desirable food.

  10. sharil May 3, 2013 at 06:52 - Reply

    organic. all the way. money grubbing fools. i am from farmers. they would be appalled.

  11. Liz May 3, 2013 at 11:50 - Reply

    According to a report from the agribusiness research consultancy Stratus, nearly half of all US farmers had Roundup resistant weeds in the 2012 season – twice as many as in 2011. The report also says resistance is spreading faster every year. And now over a quarter of farms have at least 2 resistant weeds – more than twice as many as 2 years before. So that’s also increasing fast. It’s reported on the Stratus website on 25th January 2013, by Kent Fraser.

    • Liz May 3, 2013 at 12:00 - Reply

      One giant ragwort per 10 sq metres in a field of maize will reduce the yield by 50%. So the Biotech industry wants to make crops resistant to even more toxic herbicides – like 2,4-D (an ingredient of Agent Orange!) as well as Roundup. Mmmmm – nice!!
      But another problem is that because genetics are more complicated that the industry would have us believe, it seems that adding extra traits can decrease yield, according to a new study funded by the US Department of Agriculture, University of Wisconsin.

    • Richard May 4, 2013 at 09:15 - Reply

      Thank you liz…Round up is totally ineffective, makes the weeds worse, and causes health issues, what is not to love people ???

      • Richard May 4, 2013 at 09:28 - Reply

        All of us who already intuitively know this stuff is bad don’t need any proof..just common sense

  12. elizabethzen May 12, 2013 at 21:13 - Reply

    Whether or not superweeds have become a serious issue for EVERY state, they are a growing problem. Glyphosate-resistant weeds are the inevitable result of repeatedly spraying weeds with glyphosate. The most glyphosate-resistant weeds in each generation survive and reproduce. Those glyphosate resistant weeds that survive grow larger and stronger because they no longer have any competition for root space, water, or sunshine from the less resistant weeds. If the glyphosate resistant superweeds are sprayed with a new formulation of herbicide, the process will continues with each surviving generation of weeds becoming more difficult to control with herbicides. The only way to reverse this disaster is to stop using herbicides. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002092839.htm

  13. Barb May 15, 2013 at 01:20 - Reply

    All those who think the issues of health are bunk, or that we’re crazy… can easily spray the roundup, let your kids, and pets roll in it. Eat all the foods that have the most roundup pesticide on them… and then we’ll see who is right.
    Just keep the crap away from those of us who know better. You can just keep drinking the kool aid.
    Also know this, anyone with “credentials” would be signing their professional death warrant. No one who speaks against these monsters can survive, they are “run out of town on a rail” so to speak. That is why others must speak for them. Also, like the Pharmaceutical industry, 95% of the research is controlled by Monsanto minions not honest people worrying if you or I are protected.
    “Trust us we made it, we tested it”.

    • richardm May 27, 2013 at 06:52 - Reply

      Thank you. Couldn’t have said it better Barb, you hit the nail right in the head. Sums it all up in a nutshell

  14. Dillard May 16, 2013 at 07:52 - Reply

    We now have GMH! Genetically Modified Humans! Autism has shot up from 1 in 10000 to 1 in 84. Even the lead scientist for the CDC says it is not US as humans…but it is a ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE! If you do not understand what I am saying…go back to rock or planet you are from and remain there! Wake up you media, paid off, morons that do not truly care about humans!!!!!!!!

Leave A Response