This is a well researched article that spells out the present
deficiencies in the present applications of the GMO protocol. Until
recently, I had little reason to not give the industry a pass. Yet
we are seeing ample evidence of the mad scientists from hell hard at
work cooking results to order. This is bad enough to send the whole
industry right back to square one and to completely rethink now they
do research.
If I did some of this nonsense around a gold mine, I would be off to
jail.
And yes, minimize all GMO consumption. An item here and there will
not be a problem but it must not be part of your daily diet.
With countries now rejecting USA exports, I do not think that this
grand experiment will last a lot longer. It has not hit the crisis
point yet but it is certainly brewing up.
GMOs and Health:
The Scientific Basis for Serious Concern and Immediate Action
Sunday, June 9th 2013
at 12:45 pm
Written By:
Nathan Daley, MD, MPH
OMG, GMOs!
You might ask, "why
all the fuss about agricultural genetically modified organisms
(GMOs)?" After all, regulatory agencies have approved these
technologies for widespread application and consumption, so they must
be safe, right? Well, the truth is that there is no agency and
no industry that works to protect our health. At
best, the EPA, USDA, and FDA attempt to respond to our disease after
the cause is widespread. At that point only risk reduction,
rather than risk avoidance, can be achieved. This has been
the case historically with radium paint, tobacco, particulate air
pollution, water pollution, asbestos, lead, food-borne illnesses, and
DDT. A number of the various 80,000 chemicals in production will
likely be added to this list in the future while the majority of them
that actually do contribute to disease (often in combination and in
complex ways) will never be scientifically associated with disease.
This is because science is far from perfect, scientific
methodology is always biased and often manipulated, and scientific
interpretation by stakeholders and decision makers is alarmingly
inept (I'm not being political or condescending, these are well
known and easily observed facts).[
you really do need open debate for it to work at all – arclein ]
The situation with
agricultural GMOs is unique compared to other technologies. While
genetic engineering of food crops has been ongoing for 15 years, it
is currently experiencing a major boom with the potential for
widespread worldwide application. Yet, few people understand how a
GMO food could really be so much different than a non-GMO food in
regard to health and disease effects. GMO foods look like non-GMO
foods and so we don't experience the same hesitation and aversion to
consuming them like we would, say, a clearly labeled bottle of virus
and pesticide in tomato juice. Therefore, the quality of public
education, consumer awareness, and informed public discussion about
this technology has the potential to alter the future of GMO
agriculture for better or worse.
In this article, I'll
first briefly mention the relative paucity of risk assessment studies
on GMOs and the unbelievable weaknesses of the industry
studies that have been done. Then, drawing from
numerous independent studies, I will explore the routes by which
agricultural GMOs may cause adverse health effects.
GMOs Have Never Been
"Proven" Safe
Let me be clear;
despite the following negative review of industry science, this
article is not a hatchet job against the agricultural GMO industry
but, rather, a vehicle for consolidated scientific information on the
safety or risks of GMO foods intended to allow readers to make
informed choices about this technology. It is just that,
well, the science coming from the industry tends to raise serious
concerns and suggests that the agricultural GMO industry has little
concern for protecting public and ecosystem health. Before
we dive into the independent non-industry studies which suggest
potential harm from GMO crops and foods, we must first look at the
studies which supposedly demonstrate the safety of GMO crops and
foods. A critique of these studies remained impossible for
some time as the data was kept private, until French
researchers obtained a court order for their release. This
team of researchers, lead by Joel Spiroux de Vendomois, then analyzed
the raw data from studies on three varieties of GMO corn owned by
Monsanto. Yet, it immediately became apparent that this data
was not extremely helpful as the study methodology was profoundly
insufficient. In a 2010 paper published in the International
Journal of Biological Sciences[1], the researchers summarize several
major flaws in the study. I'll list just a few of them here:[
I want to say that this finding is completely unexpected and
discloses a culture of research recklessness at Monsanto, surely
driven by over the top cost avoidance. This culture will not end
until massive law suits drive change. Arclein ]
1. For each of the
three varieties of GMO corn tested, only a single study was
done. However, a central tenet of sound science is that the results
are reproducible and replicated by other studies, preferably those
done by different researchers.
2. Only the rat was
used as a toxicological model. Rats are useful models for
the human detoxification systems, but poor models for human
reproductive and embryological systems. Remember, rat
studies "proved" that thalidomide was safe for pregnant
women to use... but the rabbit studies done AFTER thousands of
babies were harmed "proved" that it caused birth defects!
Scientific proof is only as good as the scientific studies, which are
always limited and narrowly focused.
3. The studies
lasted only 3 months and were done on young adult rats.
Yet, captive rats live about 24 months. No studies looking at
late life outcomes from this brief exposure or studies which used
lifelong exposure to GMOs were performed. This is clearly a
problem unless human consumers are only supposed to eat GMO foods for
no longer than 9 years between the ages of 10 and 20. Yet, GMO
food technology has been released (without labeling) with the
intention of lifelong consumption.[
we already have lifetime results that raise serious concerns -
arclein ]
4. No reproductive or
developmental studies were done. Yet GMO foods do not carry a label
declaring that their safety during pregnancy has not been evaluated.
Instead, they are unlabeled and meant to be consumed by both genders,
at all ages and developmental stages, including during pregnancy and
infancy.
5. Adverse
outcomes were only considered if they occurred in both genders!
Clearly genders are different. For instance, women are much
more likely to get breast cancer than men, and one must have a
prostate to get prostate cancer. In the industry studies,
increases in prostate cancer in male rats and increases in mammary
tumors in female rats would apparently have been omitted since they
differed between genders. This explains exactly what
happened to their findings that male rats eating GMO corn had an 11%
increase in heart size while female rats eating GMO corn had a 40%
increase in serum triglycerides[2]. It is not clear
what to make of these findings, but they should not have been omitted
and, instead, should have been used to encourage more numerous and
longer duration (lifespan) studies before the worldwide release of
GMO corn.[ this is direct
evidence of deliberate data manipulation – arclein ]
6. Adverse
outcomes which are consider "normal" in old rats were
omitted in this young rat population. For instance, the
researchers did not consider "chronic progressive nephropathy",
a kidney disease common in older rats, to be a problem even though it
was occurring in young, 5 month old, rats eating the GMO corn.
Now, I can attest that
modern toxicology students training at respectable universities are
taught to do much better work than this. We can only speculate about
the reasons such limited study methodologies were chosen.
Nonetheless, these are the studies which the FDA determined to be
sufficient for the approval of the three GMO corn varieties
represented. As if the major flaws in the study methodologies were
not enough to warrant a different decision, the French team of
researchers found a number of concerning associations upon
re-analyzing the raw data[3]. They summarize:
"Our analysis
clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize
consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were
mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying
organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were
also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and hematopoietic
system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal
toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM
corn."[
reviewing the same data we have a list of fresh concerns demanding
additional research which was not done – arclein ]
This is not the only
group of researchers to demonstrate an association between GMO
consumption and adverse health outcomes. Despite the industries
resistance to providing GMO varieties to outside researchers for
independent studies, there are still dozens of studies available to
the public for review. I'll synthesize the findings of several
of these studies below in considering the possible mechanisms by
which agricultural GMOs may cause problems. In general, the
health effects of agricultural GMOs are mediated through at least
three routes; 1. Directly though ingestion, 2. Indirectly through GMO
associated pesticide exposure and ingestion, and 3. Indirectly
through environmental and ecosystem effects.
Effects of GMO
ingestion:
Ingesting GMOs can
affect both the microbiome and human cells. The microbiome is
the microorganism population which lives on and in the human body.
Most of it exists in or on the mouth, nose, stomach, intestines, and
skin. The gut microbiome has received considerable attention
due to its apparently profound effect on the immune system, not to
mention its effect on food digestion. The gut microbiome is
involved in determining the risk of autoimmune diseases, allergic
diseases, cardiovascular disease, and some infectious diseases like
osteomyelitis. The microbiome can get out of balance
(called dysbiosis) and produce severe diseases such as
Clostridium difficile overgrowth and more mild disorders like small
bowel bacterial overgrowth and irritable bowel syndrome. The
bottom line is that a balanced microbiome is critical for health and
we are just now beginning to appreciate how serious the consequences
of dysbiosis may be.
Several studies have
shown that the organisms (mostly bacteria) of the microbiome can
take up genes from GMO foods[4],[5]. "Conjugation",
or gene transfer, is a common trick used by bacteria to evolve and
adapt. This is one mechanism by which antibiotic resistance
perpetuates. The consequences of GMO gene transfer to intestinal
bacteria involve the expression of the gene and/or insertional
mutagenesis. The frequency with which these consequences will
occur is not known, but they will occur to some degree at least.
Intestinal bacteria
which begin to express the GMO gene will then be producing the same
active proteins which define the GMO. For example, intestinal
bacteria could start producing the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)
pesticidal toxin that has been inserted into potatoes, corn, and
soybeans. The exact effect of this toxin on humans, if any, is not
well established but it has been found in a study of Canadian
women, including pregnant women and their fetuses[6].
Insertional
mutagenesis refers to the gene inserting itself into another coding
gene and, thus, causing a gene mutation by disrupting the code.
This may produce more severe results as it is a well known
mechanism by which viruses may cause cancer, cell death, or cellular
dysfunction.
These same mechanisms,
gene transfer and insertional mutagenesis, can affect human cells
just the same. While intestinal cells are likely to be the most
affected, GMO genes which pass into the blood intact may affect just
about any cell and tissue in the body. It is quite possible
that GMO foods are regularly resulting in the genetic modification of
the humans consuming them! There are many unknowns here and
I suspect that there remains a lot to be discovered, but we should
not let the absence of evidence be mistaken for the evidence of
absent harm. We should, instead, demand more information and
more research! [
The problem of course is that the food is clearly not genetically
safe, particularly if we are using something already risky. This is
not a neutral protocol which it actually needs to be – arclein ]
Effects of GMO
associated pesticide exposure and ingestion:
Another route of
possible harms from GMO foods comes from the exposure to and
ingestion of GMO associated pesticides. The most successful GMO
crops have been the "Roundup Ready" or glyphosate resistant
varieties of corn, soybean, and cotton. The same genes have
been inserted into alfalfa, wheat, and canola (rapeseed) but these
have not yet been widely introduced. The result of glyphosate
resistance is that glyphosate can then be applied without
discrimination to area or dose. In the past, the use of a
pesticide like glyphosate to control weeds had to be balanced with
the cost of losing crop due to inadvertently heavy crop exposure.
Glyphosate spraying has dramatically increased with the introduction
of glyphosate resistant crops. This logically increases the
risk for excessive occupational exposure, the magnitude of
environmental contamination with glyphosate, and the direct and
indirect exposures to the general public and consumers of GMO foods
(including livestock). Presumably, the glyphosate residue on
(and inside... it can't be washed out) glyphosate resistant food
products is higher than that on non-resistant varieties, but data
supporting this is scarce. I've failed to find any study which
quantifies and contrasts the amount of pesticide residue between GMO
and non-GMO foods. More research is needed, but again we can't
assume that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It
is simply unknown if there are any differences, but assuming so is a
very logical assumption.
Glyphosate appears to
produce a plethora of problems. Let's begin with the microbiome
again. Studies have shown that glyphosate may contribute to the
contamination of chicken and beef with pathogenic (disease causing)
bacteria like E. coli. The reason is that glyphosate
produces a dysbiosis within livestock consisting of the overgrowth of
pathogenic bacteria. It turns out that many of the most
dangerous bacterial pathogens are resistant to glyphosate (perhaps
due to the gene transfer discussed above), yet some of the most
healthy bacteria are quite sensitive to it. The result is a
decline in healthy bacteria and proliferation of pathogenic
bacteria. Glyphosate in chicken feed resulted in the
proliferation of salmonella and clostridium species (both of which
cause food poisoning and infection in humans) and a decline in
enterococcus, bifidobacterium, and lactobacillus (species thought
to be the foundation of a healthy microbiome)[7]. Enterococcus
and lactobacillus are especially important in preventing the
overgrowth of Clostridum botulinum and researchers have suggested, as
a result, that glyphosate induced dysbiosis is causing an increase in
botulism in cows[8]. The same phenomena has been shown to occur
within the human microbiome as well, and it is reasonable to propose
that the increasing prevalence of Clostridium difficile dysbiosis, a
potentially fatal disorder that is also plagued by increasing
antibiotic resistance, may be one of its many consequences.
Beyond the microbiome
the situation may be even worse. It is well known that
glyphosate and its metabolites are genotoxic (causing DNA damage),
and cytotoxic (causing cell death or dysfunction) to human
cells. [9],[10] Exactly how these toxic attributes
manifest as disease is more complex, but the following studies point
to several possibilities.
Numerous studies have
implicated the pesticides paraquat, rotenone, lindane, and dieldrin
in the development of Parkinson's disease due to their ability to
kill dopaminergic neurons, and it appears that glyphosate may have
similar capabilities[11]. Several case reports of
Parkinson's disease onset after chronic and acute glyphosate exposure
have indeed suggested that glyphosate may contribute to the
development of the disease, but more research is needed
here[12],[13]. When studied in cultures of nerve cells, however,
glyphosate did cause cell death through self-destruction (apoptosis)
and self-consumption (autophagy)[14]. Therefore, the biological
mechanism behind neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson's and
Alzheimer's disease is definitely induced by glyphosate, lending
additional credibility to the association. A recent review
article not only associated glyphosate with Parkinson's disease but
also "gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart
disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer's
disease".[15]
Epidemiological
studies have suggested an association between chronic glyphosate
exposure and certain cancers. One study, done in Sweden,
found that those diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma were 3.04
times more likely to report a history of glyphosate exposure compared
to those without cancer, suggesting that glyphosate may increase the
risk of this disease[16]. Another study, using populations in
Iowa and North Carolina, suggested a possible association between
glyphosate exposure and multiple myeloma[17].
Glyphosate also
appears to be a potent endocrine disruptor with pronounced effects on
testosterone production in males. Studies on male rats
demonstrate the glyphosate inhibits testosterone related enzymes and
decreases the levels of testosterone in a dose-dependent
manner[18]. Compared to control rats, those exposed to
the highest dose of glyphosate produced only ½ of the testosterone.
Another rat study utilized doses of glyphosate which have been found
in samples of human urine (1 ppm) and demonstrated that this dose
reduces testosterone production by 35%[19]! The same study
showed that higher doses cause testicular cell death. A study
on human reproductive cell lines demonstrated that endocrine
disrupting effects start at a dose of 0.5 ppm. Genotoxic
effects started at a dose of 5 ppm and cytotoxic effects started at
10 ppm[20]. The glyphosate residual that is allowed by federal
regulations is 400 ppm in animal feed, 200 ppm in spearmint and
peppermint tops, 85 ppm in sunflower and safflower seeds, 30 ppm in
barely and cereal grains like rice, 30 ppm in molasses, 20 ppm in
soybean, and 5 ppm in corn, legumes and quinoa, just to name a
few[21]. Assuming that the average person has 5 liters of
blood, one could experience blood levels of glyphosate at 0.5 ppm
from eating 125 grams (or roughly 4.4 ounces) of soybeans or 29 grams
(1 ounce) of sunflower seeds (note that small bags of sunflower seeds
are often 5 ounces or more).
In addition to
glyphosate toxicity, we should be concerned about possible toxicity
from other GMO associated pesticides like Bt (bacillus thuringiensis)
toxin. The effects of ingesting this GMO crop produced
pesticide have hardly been studied. I found only one study, an
in vitro study on human cells, and the results indicate the Bt toxins
Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac do trigger cell death at moderate
concentrations[22]. Additionally, these pesticides appear to
interact with glyphosate (which often accompanies them on food) with
unpredictable consequences.
The issue of
interaction effects in toxicology is a very serious one that is
poorly studied or not studied at all. Of 80,000 chemicals in
production, very few have been studied in combination, let alone the
extremely common combinations that are found in the environment and
in various products. For instance, glyphosate is rarely used
alone, yet studies still evaluate its toxicity alone.
Glyphosate products contain adjuvants or surfactants that enhance its
herbicidal activity. One study did, in fact, look at the
effects of glyphosate and its adjuvants (like POE-15) on human cell
lines. The results showed that the combination was much more
toxic than glyphosate alone[23]!
It needs to be
mentioned that the levels of glyphosate exposure from food and the
complexity and doses of pesticide combinations (and their
interactions) are likely to increase as a result of progressing
glyphosate resistance. Just like antibiotic resistance among
pathogenic bacteria, the target plants (i.e. weeds) for glyphosate
are rapidly evolving a resistance to the pesticide as a result of its
intensive use[24]. In order for glyphosate to work on these
plants, higher and higher doses are needed, or additional pesticides
must be applied simultaneously. Currently there are 24 weed species
listed with resistance to glycine pesticides, the pesticide class of
glyphosate[25].
To be fair, internal
studies done by Monsanto (the owner and producer of glyphosate) in
the early 1980's show glyphosate to be relatively non-toxic.
These are the studies submitted to regulatory agencies for approval
and then used to set regulatory limits on public exposure and
environmental contamination. For example, the EPA uses this 30
year old data for its Integrated Risk Assessment System (IRIS).
These reviews often take 10-20 years to complete due to inadequate
EPA funding, making them outdated the moment they are published!
Again, no one is out there protecting our health. You can
browse the EPA glyphosate review here if interested:
Environmental and
ecosystem effects of agricultural GMOs:
In addition to the
possible harm of GMOs and GMO associated pesticides on the
microbiome, cells, and physiology of humans and other mammals, there
is concern about environmental effects (which always end up affecting
the health of the environment's inhabitants as well). These
environmental effects involve the same or similar mechanisms as those
above. For example, GMO genes can transfer to environmental
(soil and aquatic) microorganisms as well as native plants (like
grasses) and possibly other food crops (like organic corn and soy,
the fields of which may become contaminated with GMO seeds)[26].
Additionally, GMO
associated pesticides or toxins may negatively impact helpful insects
(like predator or carnivorous arthropods) as well as target insects,
selecting for the emergence or immigration of new, more resistant,
pests[27]. Similarly, intensive use of glyphosate may kill
plants which support critical pollinators. For instance,
glyphosate use has reached levels which are now killing milkweed,
thus jeopordizing the monarch butterfly habitat and leading to a
decline in their numbers.
Additionally,
glyphosate and Bt toxin accumulate in the soil due to serial
applications, leading to escalations in soil contamination, and
glyphosate has been shown to contaminate most agricultural
watersheds[28],[29].
The environmental
effects of GMOs and GMO associated pesticides have barely been
studied and the consequent effects on biodiversity and groundwater
(drinking water) are uncertain.
Don't Throw the
Bathwater Out With The Bathwater
To be fair, I need to
mention the supposed intentions behind GMO agriculture promoted by
the industry. Clearly, there is a profit motive as there exists
a powerful synergistic feedback cycle in the consumption of
proprietary pesticides and proprietary pesticide resistant seeds.
However, GMO advocates sincerely, I believe, also hope that the
technology can do good in the world.
For instance, "Golden
Rice" is genetically modified rice which possesses the genes to
produce beta-carotene. Beta-carotene is the precursor to
vitamin A in humans, and in regions of Africa and Asia, vitamin A
deficiency is extremely common (causing a number of severe problems
such as blindness). Therefore, this rice could
effectively reverse the epidemic of vitamin A deficiency. Such
medical and public health applications of GMO technology do appear to
be much more reasonable than the pesticide resistant varieties (which
are largely admired because they make agriculture more simple).
However, the potential health implications of medical or public
health oriented GMO technology are largely the same as all other GMO
technology with regard to gene transfer and insertional mutagenesis.
Even more relevant,
however, is that the vitamin A deficiency in much of the world can be
remedied in several other ways, many of which will have additional
health benefits than just supplying beta-carotene. The
vitamin A deficiency in much of the world is a result of a subsidized
grain (largely rice) diet, which is a product of World Bank, World
Trade Organization, and UN economic incentives and agreements aimed
at increasing the economic output of developing nations. If
the people of these nations were growing food for themselves and not
for export, they would likely grow more diverse plant foods.
Beta-carotene is widely abundant in the plant kingdom.
Basically any plant food with a yellow, red, orange, and dark green
color is likely to contain significant amounts of beta-carotene.
Essentially, rice is not the solution to the vitamin A deficiency, it
is the cause of it. This is a larger problem and a more
difficult one to reverse, for sure, but we need to recognize the
difference between real solutions which address the root problem and
superficial solutions which simply compensate for one consequence of
the problem. Failure to do so will accelerate our decline down
the slippery slope of unintended consequences.
For additional
research on GMOs on the GreenMedInfo.com database: Health Guide:
GMO Research
[1].
de Vendômois JS, Cellier D, Vélot C, Clair
E, Mesnage R, Séralini GE. Debate on GMOs health risks
after statistical findings in regulatory tests. Int J Biol Sci. 2010
Oct 5;6(6):590-8.
[2].
Gilles-Eric Séralini, Dominique Cellier, Joël Spiroux de Vendomois
. New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified
maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Arch Environ
Contam Toxicol. 2007 May;52(4):596-602. Epub 2007 Mar 13.
[3].
de Vendômois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini
GE. A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on
mammalian health. Int J Biol Sci. 2009 Dec 10;5(7):706-26.
[4].
Carl-Alfred Alpert, Denis D G Mater, Marie-Claude Muller,
Marie-France Ouriet, Yvonne Duval-Iflah, Gérard Corthier.
Worst-case scenarios for horizontal gene transfer from Lactococcus
lactis carrying heterologous genes to Enterococcus faecalis in the
digestive tract of gnotobiotic mice.Environ Biosafety Res. 2003
Jul-Sep;2(3):173-80.
[5].
M Gruzza, M Fons, M F Ouriet, Y Duval-Iflah, R Ducluzeau.
Study of gene transfer in vitro and in the digestive tract of
gnotobiotic mice from Lactococcus lactis strains to various strains
belonging to human intestinal flora. Microb Releases. 1994
Jul;2(4):183-9.
[6].
Aris A, Leblanc S. Maternal and fetal exposure to
pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern
Townships of Quebec, Canada. Reprod Toxicol. 2011
May;31(4):528-33. doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2011.02.004. Epub 2011 Feb
18.
[7].
Shehata AA, Schrödl W, Aldin AA, Hafez
HM, Krüger M.
The effect of glyphosate on potential pathogens and beneficial members of poultry microbiota invitro.
Curr Microbiol. 2013 Apr;66(4):350-8. doi:
10.1007/s00284-012-0277-2. Epub 2012 Dec 9.
[8].
Krüger M, Shehata AA, Schrödl W, Rodloff A.
Glyphosate suppresses the antagonistic effect of Enterococcus
spp. on Clostridium botulinum. Anaerobe. 2013 Feb 6. pii:
S1075-9964(13)00018-8. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2013.01.005. [Epub
ahead of print]
[9].
F Mañas, L Peralta, J Raviolo, H García Ovando, A Weyers, L
Ugnia, M Gonzalez Cid, I Larripa, N Gorla. Genotoxicity of AMPA, the
environmental metabolite of glyphosate, assessed by the Comet assay
and cytogenetic tests. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2009 Mar
;72(3):834-7. Epub 2008 Nov 14.
[10].
Benachour N, Séralini GE. Glyphosate formulations
induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic, and
placental cells. Chem Res Toxicol. 2009 Jan;22(1):97-105. doi:
10.1021/tx800218n.
[11].
Taetzsch T, Block ML. Pesticides, Microglial NOX2,
and Parkinson's Disease. J Biochem Mol Toxicol. 2013
Feb;27(2):137-49. doi: 10.1002/jbt.21464. Epub 2013 Jan 24.
[12].
Wang G, Fan XN, Tan YY, Cheng Q, Chen SD.
Parkinsonism after chronic occupational exposure to glyphosate.
Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2011 Jul;17(6):486-7. doi:
10.1016/j.parkreldis.2011.02.003. Epub 2011 Mar 2.
[13].
Barbosa ER, Leiros da Costa MD, Bacheschi LA, Scaff
M, Leite CC. Parkinsonism after glycine-derivate exposure. Mov
Disord. 2001 May;16(3):565-8.
[14].
Gui YX, Fan XN, Wang HM, Wang G, Chen SD.
Glyphosate induced cell death through apoptotic and
autophagic mechanisms. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2012
May-Jun;34(3):344-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ntt.2012.03.005. Epub 2012 Apr
4.
[15] Samsel
A, Seneff S. Glyphosate's Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and
Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern
Diseases. Entropy. 2013; 15(4):1416-1463.
[16].
Lennart Hardell, Mikael Eriksson, Marie Nordstrom. Exposure to
pesticides as risk factor for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and hairy cell
leukemia: pooled analysis of two Swedish case-control studies.Leuk
Lymphoma. 2002 May;43(5):1043-9
[17].
Anneclaire J De Roos, Aaron Blair, Jennifer A Rusiecki, Jane A
Hoppin, Megan Svec, Mustafa Dosemeci, Dale P Sandler, Michael C
Alavanja. Cancer incidence among glyphosate-exposed pesticide
applicators in the Agricultural Health Study. Environ Health
Perspect. 2005 Jan ;113(1):49-54.
[18].
R M Romano, M A Romano, M M Bernardi, P V Furtado, C A
Oliveira. Prepubertal exposure to commercial formulation of the
herbicide glyphosate alters testosterone levels and testicular
morphology. Arch Toxicol. 2010 Apr;84(4):309-17. Epub 2009 Dec
12.
[19].
Clair E, Mesnage R, Travert C, Séralini GÉ.
A glyphosate-based herbicide induces necrosis and apoptosis in
mature rat testicular cells in vitro, and testosterone decrease at
lower levels. Toxicol In Vitro. 2012 Mar;26(2):269-79. doi:
10.1016/j.tiv.2011.12.009. Epub 2011 Dec 19.
[20].
Gasnier C, Dumont C, Benachour N, Clair E, Chagnon
MC, Séralini GE. Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and
endocrine disruptors in human cell lines. Toxicology. 2009 Aug
21;262(3):184-91. doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2009.06.006. Epub 2009 Jun 17.
[21] U.S.
Code of Federal Regulations. Accessed 3-15-13 at:
[22].
R Mesnage, E Clair, S Gress, C Then, A Székács, G-E
Séralini. Cytotoxicity on human cells of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac Bt
insecticidal toxins alone or with a glyphosate-based herbicide. J
Appl Toxicol. 2012 Feb 15. Epub 2012 Feb 15.
[23].
R Mesnage, B Bernay, G-E Séralini. Ethoxylated adjuvants of
glyphosate-based herbicides are active principles of human cell
toxicity. Toxicology. 2012 Sep 21. Epub 2012 Sep 21.
[24].
Green JM, Owen MD. Herbicide-resistant crops: utilities
and limitations for herbicide-resistant weed management. J Agric
Food Chem. 2011 Jun 8;59(11):5819-29. doi: 10.1021/jf101286h.
Epub 2010 Jun 29.
[25].
Heap I. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds;
available at http://www.weedscience.com, 2010, accessed April 15,
2010.
[26].
María L Zapiola, Carol A Mallory-Smith. Crossing the divide: gene
flow produces intergeneric hybrid in feral transgenic creeping
bentgrass population. Mol Ecol. 2012 May 24. Epub 2012 May 24.
[27].
Astrid T Groot, Marcel Dicke . Insect-resistant transgenic plants in
a multi-trophic context. Plant J. 2002 Aug;31(4):387-406.
[28].
Richard H Coupe, Stephen J Kalkhoff, Paul D Capel, Caroline
Gregoire. Fate and transport of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic
acid in surface waters of agricultural basins. Pest Manag Sci.
2012 Jan ;68(1):16-30. Epub 2011 Jun 16.
[29].
Dani Degenhardt, David Humphries, Allan J Cessna, Paul Messing,
Pascal H Badiou, Renata Raina, Annemieke Farenhorst, Dan J Pennock.
Dissipation of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in water
and sediment of two Canadian prairie wetlands. J Environ Sci
Health B. 2012 ;47(7):631-9.
No comments:
Post a Comment