But what is most disturbing, and which may make its comparison to Agent Orange all the more appropriate, is its potential teratrogenicity, i.e. ability to cause fetal malformations.
A 2003 study of pregnant, glyphosate/Roundup-exposed rats indicated the formulation exhibited significant tetragenicity. The researchers commented: "We may conclude that glyphosate-Roundup is toxic to the dams and induces developmental retardation of the fetal skeleton."
A study published in 2004 revealed that glyphosate exhibits endocrine-disruptive and embryotoxic effects. Researchers found the chemical alters the expression of the enzyme aromatase in both fetal and placental cells and tissue -- changes which indicate it may contribute to birth defects and abnormal fetal development.
Another study published in 2009 showed that glyphosate formulations induce cell death and necrosis in human umbilicial, embryonic and placental cells.
Now that glyphosate has been found in the majority of air and rain samples tested in the US, and is now likely contaminating our wells, springs and aquifers, exposure is not only likely, its inevitable -- the difference being only a matter of degree.
Eating, Breathing, Drinking ... Dying?
The precautionary principle, which is not employed here in the US, would require that if a company produces a novel chemical compound like glyphosate, and would like to use it commercially, it would have to prove its safety to humans before it is released into the environment.
Animal and cell research clearly shows glyphosate is harmful, but because we use a "weight of evidence standard" in this country, the burden of proof that it is harmful to humans is actually on those being harmed by it.
Had Monsanto been required to prove its safety in humans, it is doubtful they would have been able to. There was already enough damning animal research available, and proving a toxic chemical in human studies would require harming them, which is unethical.
This is why the precautionary principle is so powerful and necessary to protect us from corporations like Monsanto. We would not be eating, drinking and breathing glyphosate today, if it had been employed earlier. Instead, chemical companies use animal experiments to determine a LD50 (the dose at which 50% of the animals die), from which an "acceptable level of harm" is extrapolated and applied to humans, in what is called a toxicological risk assessment.
An acceptable level of harm? This way of thinking is abusive, especially when applied to the unborn and infants.
Will it take additional decades of cumulative "acceptable" exposures, and thousands of "mysterious" miscarriages, birth defects, and developmental problems for us to understand how serious the problem is? Or, should we listen to Monsanto, their scientists, and the governmental regulatory agencies that they populate with elected and unelected officials on their payroll, who say it is relatively harmless?
Act Now! Support The California Ballot Initiative
Learn about the California ballot initiative that will force GMO foods to be labeled. This is the front line of the struggle against the continued assault on human and environmental health by corporations like Monsanto.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
