Pages

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

American Life Expectancy Declines -- reprint

Here's another informative article from Dr. Mercola's website. I endorse everything he says in this reprint. 


American Lifespan Declines as Obesity and Opioid Epidemic Takes Its Toll

December 21, 2016 

By Dr. Mercola
For the first time in two decades, life expectancy has declined in the U.S.1,2,3 Obesity appears to have a major role along with the rising rates of eight leading causes of death, including heart disease, stroke, diabetes and dementia, the latter of which rose by 15.7 percent rise between 2014 and 2015.
The latest data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) show life expectancy for both men and women in the U.S. dropped between 2014 and 2015, from 76.5 years in 2014 to 76.3 in 2015 for men, and from 81.3 to 81.2 for women.
As noted by BBC News:4 "A decline of 0.1 years in life expectancy means people are dying, on average, a little over a month earlier — or two months earlier for men."

Rises in Preventable Deaths Push Life Expectancy Downward

In all, there were 86,212 more deaths in 2015 compared to 2014, and as of 2015, the U.S. ranks 29th out of 43 countries for life expectancy,5 lagging behind countries like Chile, Costa Rica, Slovenia, Korea and the Czech Republic. In 2014, the U.S. ranked 28th.6
Moreover, according to Dr. Peter Muennig, a professor of health policy and management at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health, this decline in life expectancy is a "uniquely American phenomenon." No other developed countries experienced this decline.
Dr. Jiaquan Xu, the report's lead author, noted that the decline in life expectancy is primarily caused by a rise in several categories of preventable deaths,7 again highlighting the failure of the American health care system to properly address the root causes of chronic disease.

More Than Half of All Americans Are Chronically Ill

The cost of health care in the U.S. also increased over the past year, now accounting for an astounding 17 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).8 But even though the U.S. spends more than $3 trillion on health care each year, it is the worst performing system ranked by multiple aspects of care.9
Recent research also demonstrates half of Americans are living with chronic illness.10I don't know about you, but I find this statistic absolutely astounding. Half the people in the U.S have some type of chronic illness.
According to study authors Elizabeth Reisinger Walker, Ph.D., an assistant research professor, and Dr. Benjamin Druss, professor at Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University:11
"The health of individuals in the [USA] is increasingly being defined by complexity and multi-morbidity, the co-occurrence of two or more chronic medical conditions."

Opioid Addiction Likely Part of Declining Life Expectancy in US

Opioid addiction appears to be one significant contributor to declining life expectancy in the U.S.12,13 In all, more than 50,000 Americans died from drug overdoses last year, a rise of 11 percent from 2014.
Heroin deaths rose by 23 percent between 2014 and 2015, deaths from synthetic opioids, including fentanyl, rose by 73 percent, while deaths from prescription opioids like Oxycontin and Vicodin rose by 4 percent. Prescription pain killers alone killed 17,536 people last year.
According to Robert Anderson, who oversees death statistics at the CDC: "I don't think we've ever seen anything like this. Certainly not in modern times."

US Anti-Obesity Campaign Declared a Failure

As noted in a 2014 study,14 childhood obesity worsened between 1999 and 2012. This included all classes of obesity, but in particular severe obesity, which poses the greatest risk to a child long-term.
Now, another CDC report concludes that America's battle against the bulge — and especially childhood obesity — has indeed failed.15 According to CDC director Dr. Tom Frieden:16
"The data speak for themselves. If you look for the goal we set for ourselves, and look at what happened, we didn't achieve it."
Rather than lowering obesity rates for toddlers and children, the obesity rate has grown since 2009 (the year Frieden was appointed to the CDC), and now exceeds 17 percent.
This also refutes any claims that First Lady Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" campaign, launched in 2010, has made a dent in childhood obesity. It has been a miserable failure because it never integrated foundational nutrition advice due to corporate conflicts.
Her campaign unwisely focused on exercise rather than addressing children's diets. According to recent research, nearly 60 percent, in fact of the food Americans eat is ultra-processed, and less than 1 percent of daily calories comes from vegetables.17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24
Basically, more than half of what the average American eats in any given day are convenience foods that can be bought at your local gas station. Moreover, those ultra-processed foods account for 90 percent of the added sugar consumption in the U.S.
This kind of diet is hardly going to result in healthy children, and until this changes, we're not going to see any dramatic improvement in childhood obesity or childhood disease rates.
Sadly, the failure of Obama's anti-obesity campaign was the result of massive interference and manipulation by the junk food industry, discussed in my article, "How the First Lady's Organic Garden Became a Junk Food Campaign."

United Nations Calls Out Junk Food as Real Culprit in Malnutrition

Obesity is not the only problem associated with a processed junk food diet. On the flip side, you have malnutrition. According to the United Nations (UN) special rapporteur on the right to food, Hilal Elver, Ph.D., the impact of processed food on public health is "alarming."  As reported by Civil Eats:25
"Earlier this fall [Elver] told the United Nations General Assembly that, despite all the high-profile work being done around the globe to fight hunger and malnutrition, 'the world is not on track to reach globally agreed nutrition targets.'
Addressing leaders from around the globe, Elver was not afraid to name the culprit.
'Today's food systems are dominated by industrial food production and processing' … coupled with trade policies that result in 'large food corporations … flooding the global market with nutrient poor yet energy-dense foods that are relatively inexpensive.'"
A lot of people don't know this, but the right to adequate food is part of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights26 and the 1976 International Covenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights.27 In countries that have ratified them, these are both legally binding agreements that provide a framework for legal action when these rights are violated. Curiously, the U.S. never ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights.
In participating countries, lawsuits against the government have led to a variety of food entitlement programs for children and other vulnerable groups such as indigenous communities and prisoners. Most importantly, these agreements also address nutrition, not just availability of cheap junk food. In other words, they provide a human rights' framework for access to REAL food, not just denatured "belly-fillers."

Real Food Access and Health Go Hand in Hand

As explained by Civil Eats:
"Why the need for civil society groups to sue governments over the right to food? A significant part of what's gone wrong, Elver explains, is that international trade policies have allowed large food corporations to sell lots of soda, fast food and other high-calorie, nutrient-poor products made with cheap refined grains, corn sweetener and vegetable oil … [M]uch of this production is also controlled globally — in terms of seeds, fertilizers and pesticides — by a very few large companies."
According to Elver, lack of access to nutritious food is an indicator of socioeconomic inequality, and when a bag of chips is cheaper than an apple, this inequality ripples out into our health statistics. As noted by Elver, "We now know that this kind of highly sugar intensive, saturated fat heavy and salty food really makes you sick."
The fact that the U.S. never ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights means that in the U.S., the right to food is a policy issue, not a human right, and Americans cannot take the government to court over lack of food access or lack of nutritional value. According to Elver, access to programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for underprivileged women and children would also be quite different if the U.S. supported the right to food concept.
Elver also stresses that in order to protect and ensure the human right to adequate food, the global community must move away from the industrial model toward more sustainable systems. We simply cannot sustain a global population on commodity crops like corn and soy, and the United States' health statistics is a perfect demonstration of what happens when you try.

More Children Suffering From Type 2 Diabetes

With the rise of obesity has come a rise in the number of American children who suffer from type 2 diabetes. In a nationwide representative study28 between 2001 and 2009, researchers found that while the prevalence of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes increased, the rate of increase of the preventable type 2 diabetes was significantly higher than type 1.
Dr. Robin Goland, co-director of the Naomi Berrie Diabetes Center at Columbia University Medical Center, calls these "big numbers" and went on to say:29
"In my career, type 1 diabetes was a rare disease in children and type 2 disease didn't exist. And I'm not that old."
Indeed, once thought to be an exclusive adult metabolic disorder, in the past 20 years, type 2 diabetes in children has jumped from less than 5 percent of all newly diagnosed cases to more than 20 percent, and obesity plays an important role in this trend.30
Childhood obesity leads to insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes more quickly than in adults, and is associated with both metabolic and cardiovascular complications in children and adolescents.31 Severe insulin resistance is also associated with an increase in morbidity and mortality in young adults and a higher risk of hypertension, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic syndrome.
This rising tide of children suffering from obesity and type 2 diabetes suggests we can expect ever increasing indirect and direct cost of care and loss of life in coming years.

Junk Food Kills

The root cause of most health problems can be traced back to a poor diet. Most Americans spend the majority of their food dollars on processed foods, most of which contain one or more of the three ingredients that promote the most chronic disease, namely corn, soy and sugar beets, all three of which are also typically genetically engineered (GE) and contaminated with toxic pesticides.
In short, processed foods are killing people prematurely, and if we want to reverse the current disease and mortality trends in the U.S., we have to get serious about cleaning up our food supply and increasing access to real food.
The processed food industry is responsible for creating a "lifestyle disease epidemic" the World Health Organization (WHO) says is "a much greater public health threat than any other epidemic known to man."32 Just as agriculture has become one of the most significant environmental polluters rather than being a leading environmental steward, the food industry has become a leading source of ill health rather than a source of nutrition, health and wellbeing.
In my view, this is thoroughly unacceptable. Marketing junk food to kids and knowingly increasing diabetes, obesity, cancer and heart disease rates is unacceptable. The ever-increasing use of toxic pesticides that contaminate food and destroy the soil is unacceptable. Creating vast amounts of pollution and antibiotic resistance is unacceptable.
Spending tens of millions of dollars to defeat legislation and regulation that would protect environmental and human health is unacceptable, and Big Food does all of these things as part of routine business. The way you fight back is by changing your own purchasing habits. While there are "food deserts" in inner cities, most people are not forced to buy processed foods for lack of options.

The Role of Endocrine Disruptors

Yet another factor driving disease statistics in the U.S. is the excessive exposure to toxic endocrine disrupting chemicals. According to one recent analysis, if exposure to certain household chemicals — including phthalates, DDT, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and perfluoroalkyl — were to be reduced by 25 percent, it would reduce the rate of obesity and type 2 diabetes by an estimated 13 percent.33,34 According to the authors:
"The present study confirms substantial contribution, especially of mixtures of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, to adult type 2 diabetes, and large annual costs of medical care … Our findings also speak the need for a strong regulatory framework that proactively identifies chemical hazards before they are widely used, and the use of safer alternatives …
The European Union is actively considering regulations to limit such exposures, and the USA recently revised the Toxic Substances Control Act, but does not consider endocrine disruption. In the absence of such a framework, newly developed synthetic chemicals may emerge as diabetogenic exposures, replacing banned or substituted hazards as contributors."
Your purchasing decisions can make a big difference in your exposure to these kinds of chemicals, and subsequently your health. In one study,35 young girls who switched to phthalate-free personal care products lowered their phthalate levels by 27 percent.
Taking personal responsibility and seeking out non-toxic products appears to be the only way to really stay safe, as the chemical industry maintains a stronghold over regulatory agencies in both the U.S. and Europe. The French magazine Le Monde recently published a three-part investigative series in which it accuses the European Commission of ignoring the science on endocrine disruptors. The series has been translated and republished by Environmental Health News.36,37,38

To Optimize Your Weight and Health, Eat Real Food, Avoid Toxins and Stay Active

The statistics discussed in this article reveal a grim reality. People around the world, and Americans in particular, are suffering the effects of a failed food system that places immediate profits over long-term health. There's really no way around it; if you're concerned about your weight and health, you need to address the quality of your food and the ratio of carbs, fats and protein you eat.
Don't make the mistake of trying to figure out which processed foods are "good" for you and which ones aren't. A far more effective rule is to simply eat real food, as close to its natural state as possible. If you're still struggling with excess weight after you've cleaned up your diet, you may want to reconsider the timing of your meals.
Intermittent fasting can be very effective for helping your body shift from sugar- to fat-burning mode. If you are overweight, I would strongly encourage you to do a number of water fasts, as that will radically jumpstart your body's ability to burn fat as your primary fuel.
In addition to that, you need to evaluate and address your toxic exposures. Most pesticides can be avoided by eating certified organic foods. If you buy organic produce and grass-fed animal products you'll also cut your exposure to genetically engineered (GE) ingredients, artificial sweeteners and harmful processed fats.
But that's not your only route of exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals. Household cleansers, personal care products and anything containing flame retardants (and that includes everything from furniture and clothing to electronics and baby products) are other common sources.
Last, but certainly not least, increase your physical activity level. This includes standing up more during your work day and walking more. Ideally, aim for 7,000 to 10,000 steps a day. Later you can add on a more regimented workout routine, which will really help maximize all the other healthy lifestyle changes you've implemented. But for general health and longevity, staying active throughout each day and avoiding sitting takes precedence. 

[+] Sources and References

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

... Proof that Monsanto is Evil--Scientific Fraud Repost

Monsanto Celebrates Approval of New Dicamba Herbicide and Fights Dirty to Silence Cancer Scientists

November 22, 2016 |


By Dr. Mercola

The promise that transgenic crops would lead to "greener" agriculture and less chemicals has not come to pass. Instead, more and more chemicals are being used on our food and the feed we raise our livestock on.

Since the introduction of transgenic crops two decades ago, herbicide-resistant weeds have become a serious problem. At least 35 weed species are now resistant to glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Monsanto's broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup.1

Studies2 have also linked glyphosate to increases in Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS), a deadly plant disease that causes plants to turn yellow and die — including crops that have never been sprayed with the herbicide but were planted in a field that received an application the previous season.

To stay on top of the resistant weed problem, farmers not only apply more pesticides, they also mix different pesticides together to prevent the weeds from adapting to a single formula. Newer genetically engineered (GE) seeds are also designed to resist even more toxic combinations. 

Alarming Levels of Glyphosate Found in Popular Foods


According to independent testing by The Detox Project, glyphosate is present at "alarming levels" in many popular processed foods.3,4
Scientists have found glyphosate can alter gene function in the livers and kidneys of rats at levels as low as 0.05 parts per billion (ppb). Meanwhile, Cheerios was found to contain more than 1,125 ppb of glyphosate, Doritos more than 481 ppb and Ritz crackers more than 270 ppb.
As noted by Dave Murphy, executive director of Food Democracy Now!:
"It's time for regulators at the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] and the White House to stop playing politics with our food and start putting the wellbeing of the American public above the profits of chemical companies like Monsanto."

FDA Suspends Glyphosate Testing

Meanwhile, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has suspended testing for glyphosate residues in food, citing "disagreement and difficulties with establishing a standard methodology to use," along with "equipment issues."5 The agency is "unsure" when testing will resume.
According to FDA spokeswoman Megan McSeveney, preliminary results indicated there were "no violations of legal tolerance levels allowed for glyphosate" in the foods tested.
However, it's important to remember that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) significantly raised allowable levels of glyphosate in foods back in 2013, and evidence suggests the legal tolerance levels are likely far too high for safety.
Allowable levels in flax, soybean and canola were doubled, from 20 parts per million (ppm) to 40 ppm — just 10 ppm below the level at which Roundup may cause cell death, according to research published in 2011.
Permissible glyphosate levels in many other foods were raised to 15 to 25 times previous levels. Root and tuber vegetables, with the exception of sugar, got one of the largest boosts, with allowable residue limits being raised from 0.2 ppm to 6.0 ppm. The level for sweet potatoes was raised to 3 ppm.

Current Glyphosate Limits Are Probably Unsafe

As noted in The Detox Project's report on glyphosate, animal research shows that at 0.1 ppb, roundup altered genes in livers and kidneys and caused severe organ damage.
At 10 ppb, toxic effects were found in fish livers. At 700 ppb, which is the permitted level for glyphosate in U.S. tap water, kidney and liver alterations in rats occurred.
Compare that to the level of glyphosate found in General Mills' Cheerios: 1,125 ppb (which equates to 1.125 ppm). Also remember that that's just ONE food, and people eat a wide array of glyphosate-containing foods each day. As noted in the report:6
"[A]s a result of the combination of exposures through drinking water and a regular diet of processed food, total exposure is much greater than industry scientists and U.S. regulators ever anticipated.
With this new information, it's time for the EPA to dramatically reduce the acceptable daily intake level of glyphosate and ban the practice of pre-harvest spraying of all food crops, especially wheat, oats and barley, immediately."

Monsanto Dicamba Herbicide Gets the Green Light

The EPA recently approved Monsanto's latest weed killer, XtendiMax with VaporGrip Technology,7,8 which goes along with its Roundup Ready Xtend cotton and soybeans — GE plants designed to tolerate both glyphosate and dicamba.
With this approval, use of dicamba on cotton and soy fields is expected to jump from less than 1 million pounds to more than 25 million pounds annually!9 Previously, dicamba could only be used to kill weeds prior to planting. It was not permitted on growing crops.
The "VaporGrip" refers to chemical technology said to make the dicamba less prone to vaporization and drift — problems associated with older dicamba herbicides (and a reason why they are not permitted during growing season).
Monsanto has been sharply criticized for releasing dicamba-resistant seeds before receiving approval for the less drift-prone herbicide, as many farmers felt they had no choice but to illegally use older dicamba herbicides on the new seeds — a decision that turned out to have devastating consequences for their neighbors.10
As reported by Eco Watch:11
"Over the summer, such activities caused 10 states to report widespread damage on thousands of acres of non-target crops such as peaches, tomatoes, cantaloupes, watermelons, rice, cotton, peas, peanuts, alfalfa and soybeans.
And last month, a dicamba drift dispute between Arkansas farmers resulted in one farmer being shot to death."

Concerns Abound Over Monsanto's Dicamba Herbicide

The question is, will this Vapogrip Technology actually be enough to prevent a repeat of these kinds of crop disasters? As noted by weed scientist Aaron Hager, reduced-volatility does not eliminate the potential for drift.
Dicamba is so toxic, it doesn't take much to damage sensitive crops growing down-wind, and XtendiMax comes with very specific instructions for application that must be followed to a T in order to prevent problems.
Questions about its impact on biodiversity also abound. As noted by Nathan Donley, a Center for Biological Diversity scientist:12
"Once again the EPA is allowing for staggering increases in pesticide use that will undoubtedly harm our nation's most imperiled plants and animals. Iconic species like endangered whooping cranes are known to visit soybean fields, and now they'd be exposed to this toxic herbicide at levels they've never seen before …
Pesticide resistant superweeds are a serious threat to our farmers, and piling on more pesticides will just result in superweeds resistant to more pesticides. We can't fight evolution — it's a losing strategy … We can't spray our way out of this problem. We need to get off the pesticide treadmill."

Did Monsanto Engineer Dependency on Illegal Pesticide?

Why DID Monsanto release its dicamba-resistant seeds before receiving approval for XtendiMax? As mentioned, dicamba has so far been illegal for use during growing season (due to its high volatility and drift potential).
Some critics have suggested Monsanto may have released the dicamba-resistant seeds early in order to create an indisputable and urgent need for a dicamba herbicide to go with them, thereby increasing the chances of gaining approval of the controversial weed killer. As noted by The Depauw:13
"Since the release of Xtend [cotton and soybean seeds], thousands of acres of soybeans have been destroyed across Arkansas, Tennessee, and Missouri. Though Monsanto warns against the use of dicamba on its website, it does so directly below its description of its newly available dicamba-resistant soybeans.
Further proof that such a dependency was orchestrated is the fact that Monsanto has invested over $1 billion in the production of dicamba, though its use on genetically modified crops is still illegal.
If Monsanto truly did intend to create a dependency on a product that required an illegal pesticide, it arguably holds some moral responsibility for the death of Mike Wallace [Ed. Note: Arkansas farmer shot to death during a dispute over dicamba crop damage] and the economic hardship that other farmers have faced as a result of crop damage from dicamba drift."
Part of the blame must also fall on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) however, since the dicamba-resistant seeds gained USDA approval even though dicamba was still illegal for use during growing season.

Update: Feds and States Probe Monsanto-Bayer Merger

A couple of months ago Monsanto accepted Bayer AG's $56 billion takeover offer.14,15,16 The merger would result in the largest seed and pesticide company in the world. With the merger of these two giants, 59 percent of the global seeds and 64 percent of the world's pesticides would be provided by four companies in total.17,18
Many called on anti-competition regulators to investigate the merger,19 and a federal antitrust probe is now in fact underway. Several U.S. state attorney generals are also expected to join. The planned merger of DuPont and Dow Chemical Co. is also being investigated. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:20
"The involvement of the state attorneys general increases scrutiny of the mega-deals and will complicate what are already expected to be tough and lengthy reviews by U.S. antitrust enforcers … The states are concerned that the companies may raise pesticide and herbicide prices for farmers following a merger, and have less incentive to compete to introduce better and cheaper products …
While it is up to the Justice Department to decide whether to file a lawsuit to stop a merger, states provide information on how the mergers would affect their jurisdictions and conduct joint calls to gather data from the companies, as well as critics and supporters of the deals."

Monsanto Ramps Up Assault on Researchers

In other related news, Monsanto is ramping up its assault on the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) team of scientists that, last year, declared glyphosate a probable human carcinogen.21 Glyphosate, of course, is the active ingredient in Monsanto's flagship product, Roundup.
Believe it or not, Monsanto and CropLife America are now lobbying to strip the IARC of its U.S. funding. The IARC is a respected research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), and the agency's research has been a deciding factor in the banning of many toxic substances that would otherwise continue to threaten human life and well-being.
Monsanto and its allies are also demanding the EPA "fully repudiate the IARC classification and green-light continued use of glyphosate herbicides," the Huffington Post reports.22 They already derailed public EPA meetings scheduled to take place in October, 2016, to examine the available science on glyphosate, by challenging the EPA's choice of scientists for the advisory panel. According to the Huffington Post:
"[I]ndustry ally U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith is taking EPA officials to task for engaging with IARC on glyphosate concerns, demanding that EPA instead rely on the "sound science" that the industry promotes. Smith, Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, accuses IARC of playing an "activist role" and EPA officials, of aiding that effort …
Monsanto, which is fending off lawsuits by people who claim Roundup gave them cancer, has also been demanding IARC members turn over documents related to their work. The company has labeled the IARC findings as "junk science," and claims the IARC members are part of an "unelected, undemocratic, foreign body."
The industry message to EPA is loud and clear: Independent research and international scientific findings should not take precedence over protection of a multi-billion-dollar agent like glyphosate. The public can only watch, wait, and hope that the EPA doesn't listen."

IARC Scientists 'Stunned' But Not Backing Down

According to an IARC statement, while some of the working group members23 do feel "intimidated" by the threats, they reaffirm the integrity of their work. It's well worth noting that the IARC's scientists are considered elite independent experts, culled from well-respected institutions all over the world. Said Francesco Forastiere, head of occupational epidemiology at the Lazio Regional Health Service in Italy and IARC working group member:
"We were not expecting this strong reaction and what happened. We were doing our job. We understood there were other issues ... economic consequences. But none of us had a political agenda. We simply acted as scientists, evaluating the body of evidence, according to the IARC criteria."

EU Authorities Accused of Scientific Fraud

Meanwhile, in Germany another fight is brewing over glyphosate-related science. Peter Clausing, Ph.D., D.Sc., a former industry toxicologist who is now in the employ of Pesticide Action Network Germany, claims the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) committed scientific fraud when they contradicted the IARC, concluding that glyphosate is non-carcinogenic. According to GM Watch:24
"Clausing made this accusation in front of five judges at the Monsanto Tribunal, held in The Hague from 14–16 October. The background to this latest allegation of foul play by the EU authorities over glyphosate is the high-level dispute over whether or not the pesticide causes cancer.
In March 2015 the World Health Organization's cancer agency IARC concluded that glyphosate was a probable human carcinogen. BfR did not agree, stating that a classification for carcinogenicity is not "warranted" for glyphosate. EFSA sided with BfR, saying that 'glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans and the evidence does not support classification with regard to its carcinogenic potential.'
But Clausing told the Monsanto Tribunal that BfR's and EFSA's statements are contradicted by evidence contained in BfR's own reports on glyphosate and the draft report submitted to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) by the German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health."

Scientific Integrity and Credibility Is on the Line

According to Clausing, BfR and EFSA included five mouse studies in their evaluation — all of which actually showed that male mice experienced a statistically significant increase in one or more types of cancer. Three of the studies showed a significant increase in malignant lymphoma. Two showed a clear dose-dependence.
Clausing also noted that these findings alone exceed the EU's criterion for the classification of glyphosate as a 1B carcinogen (substances presumed to have carcinogenic potential for humans), which would result in an automatic ban.
The only way to avoid a ban for a 1B carcinogen would be to prove that exposure is "negligible." But, as noted in the article, "The law does not allow industry and regulators to argue that the doses we are exposed to are below permitted levels and therefore safe." Clausing also showed that Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) guidelines for industry testing of chemicals had been violated.
"Interestingly, the IARC reviewed the available animal studies and concluded, like Clausing, that they showed that glyphosate caused an increase in cancer. Why the difference of opinion between IARC and the German authorities?
The answer is given in BfR's own report on IARC's findings. Unlike the German authorities, IARC applied the superior statistical analysis — the trend test. Also unlike the German authorities, IARC did not violate OECD guidelines by claiming that a second type of statistical analysis cancelled out the findings of the first," GM Watch writes.
On the whole, it appears BfR and EFSA are simply dancing to Monsanto's tune. It's become quite clear that Monsanto and its allies are ready to go to great lengths to save glyphosate — including trying to cut U.S. funding to a premier independent cancer research organization under WHO. But are BfR, EFSA and the EPA really going to undermine their own scientific credibility just to protect the profits of a chemical company? That's a serious question these agencies will ultimately have to make a decision on.

To Build a Safer Food System, Start Close to Home

The fact of the matter is that chemical cocktails are not a necessity for ample food production. Granted, many areas would now need serious intervention to improve and rebuild soil quality, which has been destroyed by decades of mechanized farming and chemicals, but it can be done.
Monsanto lauds its new dicamba herbicide as "the answer" to glyphosate-resistant weeds, completely ignoring the clear fact that this formulation will simply create weeds resistant to more than one chemical, thereby putting farmers at an even greater disadvantage! Not to mention the fact that more foods will now be contaminated with even more toxic pesticides.
The EU recently approved imports of Monsanto's Roundup Ready Xtend soybeans, so Europeans also need to beware of the potential for dicamba exposure through food. We simply must get off the pesticide treadmill. The health and well-being of our children and the environment depend on it.
As an individual, you can help steer the agricultural industry toward safer, more sustainable systems by growing your own foods and buying what you cannot grow from local farmers you trust. By far, processed foods are the most likely to contain GE ingredients, so avoiding processed foods of all kinds, including condiments, is one of the best ways to avoid them — and the toxic chemicals sprayed on these crops.
If everyone were to refuse to buy products containing GMOs, insisting on feeding their families pesticide-free, GMO-free foods, the food industry would have no choice but to respond. It's really just a matter of creating a massive trickle-down effect.
This is where your true power lies. Indeed, there's a way out of this mess, and it starts with each person making different purchasing choices for themselves and their families. If you live in the U.S., the following organizations can help you locate farm-fresh foods:
EatWild.com provides lists of farmers known to produce wholesome raw dairy products as well as grass-fed beef and other farm-fresh produce (although not all are certified organic). Here you can also find information about local farmers markets, as well as local stores and restaurants that sell grass-fed products.
Weston A. Price has local chapters in most states, and many of them are connected with buying clubs in which you can easily purchase organic foods, including grass fed raw dairy products like milk and butter.
The Grassfed Exchange has a listing of producers selling organic and grass-fed meats across the U.S.
This website will help you find farmers markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies.
A national listing of farmers markets.
The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, hotels and online outlets in the United States and Canada.
CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.
The FoodRoutes "Find Good Food" map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSAs and markets near you.
The Cornucopia Institute maintains web-based tools rating all certified organic brands of eggs, dairy products, and other commodities, based on their ethical sourcing and authentic farming practices separating CAFO "organic" production from authentic organic practices.
If you're still unsure of where to find raw milk, check out Raw-Milk-Facts.com and RealMilk.com. They can tell you what the status is for legality in your state, and provide a listing of raw dairy farms in your area.
The Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund25 also provides a state-by-state review of raw milk laws.26 California residents can also find raw milk retailers using the store locator available at www.OrganicPastures.com.

[+] Sources and References