sustainablepulse--2020-07-13--New Studies Show Glyphosate Causes Reproductive Health Damage

Five peer-reviewed animal studies from the U.S. and Argentina released over the last two weeks have focused minds on the infertility crisis being caused by glyphosate-based herbicides .
In stunning revelations from a study on female mice from the Department of Animal Science at Iowa State University it was revealed that ovarian weight and follicle number were altered at a glyphosate dose level of 2 mg/kg and that chronic low-level exposure to glyphosate altered the ovarian proteome , which could ultimately impact ovarian function .
The dose levels used in this study were low compared to most previous studies and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only just above the dose considered safe by the U.S. government ( 1.75 mg/kg bw/day ) .
Such a dose should show no damaging effects on health , as the official ‘ safe ’ level is set by reducing a dose that shows health damage by one hundred-fold .
Mice and rat studies are the best models used to evaluate possible health damage to humans of exposure to environmental contaminants such as glyphosate .
Ovarian follicles are small sacs filled with fluid that are found inside a female ’ s ovaries .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ menstrual cycle .
Each has the potential to release an egg for fertilization .
Follicles and their size and status are a vital part of assessing fertility .
What is the Ovarian Proteome ?
The main constituents of adult ovaries are hormone producing ovarian stromal cells .
Transcriptome analysis shows that 73 % ( n=14387 ) of all human proteins ( n=19670 ) are expressed in the ovary and 173 of these genes show an elevated expression in ovary compared to other tissue types .
Argentinian Studies Show Glyphosate is an Endocrine Disruptor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National University of Litoral in Sante Fe , Argentina have published three concerning peer-reviewed papers including two studies on ewes and rats and one review .
The study on prepubertal ewe lambs concluded that “ neonatal exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides ( GBH ) decreased cell proliferation and altered the expression of molecules that control proliferation and development in the uterus .
All these changes might have adverse consequences on uterine differentiation and functionality , affecting the female reproductive health of sheep .
Glyphosate-based herbicides may be responsible for uterine subfertility ( infertility ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( EDC ) .
” The exposure to endocrine-disrupting compounds ( EDCs ) , such as glyphosate-based herbicides ( GBHs ) , during early life could alter female fertility .
In this study the researchers exposed the ewe lambs to a glyphosate-based herbicide for the first 45 days of life at a dose of 2 mg/kg of body weight/day and them compared to controls who were not exposed to glyphosate-based herbicides .
In this study rats were fed 2mg/kg of body weight/day of glyphosate alone and a glyphosate-based herbicide from 9 days in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The fertility of their pups when they became adults was shown to be damaged .
Both glyphosate alone and in formulation increased preimplantation losses , increased serum 17β-estradiol in early pregnancy and disrupted uterine implantation-related genes .
The study concluded that perinatal exposure to glyphosate alone or a glyphosate-based herbicide disrupted critical hormonal and uterine molecular targets during the receptive state , possibly associated with the implantation failures .
The researchers also concluded in a review that glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides are endocrine disruptors .
The also stated that glyphosate-based herbicides alter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low doses of glyphosate may alter ovarian and uterine functions , estrogenic potential of GBH depends on pure glyphosate and/or its adjuvants .
University of Georgia Review Emphasizes Risk on Reproductive Health of Farm Animals A review paper prepared by researchers at the Department of Poultry Science in the University of Georgia concentrated on the risk to farm animals of exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides .
The researchers stated that “ the adoption of genetically engineered ( GE ) crops in agriculture has increased dramatically over the last few decades .
Among the transgenic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ glyphosate are among the most common .
Weed resistance to glyphosate-based herbicides ( GBHs ) has been on the rise , leading to increased herbicide applications .
This , in turn , has led to increased glyphosate residues in feed.
” They concluded that “ although glyphosate has been considered to be generally safe to animal health , recent studies have shown that GBHs have potential to cause adverse effects in animal reproduction , including disruption of key regulatory enzymes in androgen synthesis , alteration of serum levels of estrogen and testosterone , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gametogenesis .
Our review emphasizes known effects of GBHs on reproductive health as well as the potential infertility risk GBH residues pose to animal agriculture.
” These new peer-reviewed studies and reviews follow on from the Global Glyphosate Study pilot results , which were published in 2019 , that showed that exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides was associated with androgen-like effects , including a statistically significant increase of anogenital distance ( AGD ) in males and females , delay of first estrous and increased testosterone in females .
AGD , the distance between the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sensitive marker of prenatal endocrine disruption affecting the genital tract development .
Exposure to different chemicals including pesticides has been linked previously to altered AGDs and other endocrine effects .
The Director of Sustainable Pulse , Henry Rowlands , concluded Monday ; “ It is now vital that government regulators take strong action to protect global reproductive health from this ubiquitous weedkiller .
”

Five peer-reviewed animal studies from the U.S. and Argentina released over the last two weeks have focused minds on the infertility crisis being caused by glyphosate-based herbicides.
Iowa State University Study Reveals Changes to Ovarian Proteome
In stunning revelations from a study on female mice from the Department of Animal Science at Iowa State University it was revealed that ovarian weight and follicle number were altered at a glyphosate dose level of 2 mg/kg and that chronic low-level exposure to glyphosate altered the ovarian proteome, which could ultimately impact ovarian function.
The dose levels used in this study were low compared to most previous studies and the highest dose of 2 mg/kg is only just above the dose considered safe by the U.S. government (1.75 mg/kg bw/day). Such a dose should show no damaging effects on health, as the official ‘safe’ level is set by reducing a dose that shows health damage by one hundred-fold.
Mice and rat studies are the best models used to evaluate possible health damage to humans of exposure to environmental contaminants such as glyphosate.
What are Ovarian Follicles? Ovarian follicles are small sacs filled with fluid that are found inside a female’s ovaries. They secrete hormones which influence stages of the menstrual cycle. Each has the potential to release an egg for fertilization. Follicles and their size and status are a vital part of assessing fertility. What is the Ovarian Proteome? The main constituents of adult ovaries are hormone producing ovarian stromal cells. Transcriptome analysis shows that 73% (n=14387) of all human proteins (n=19670) are expressed in the ovary and 173 of these genes show an elevated expression in ovary compared to other tissue types.
Argentinian Studies Show Glyphosate is an Endocrine Disruptor and Causes Infertility
Researchers at the The National University of Litoral in Sante Fe, Argentina have published three concerning peer-reviewed papers including two studies on ewes and rats and one review.
Ewe Lamb Study Reveal Damage to Reproductive Health
The study on prepubertal ewe lambs concluded that “neonatal exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) decreased cell proliferation and altered the expression of molecules that control proliferation and development in the uterus. All these changes might have adverse consequences on uterine differentiation and functionality, affecting the female reproductive health of sheep. Glyphosate-based herbicides may be responsible for uterine subfertility (infertility), acting as an Endocrine Disrupting Chemical (EDC).”
The exposure to endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs), such as glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs), during early life could alter female fertility.
In this study the researchers exposed the ewe lambs to a glyphosate-based herbicide for the first 45 days of life at a dose of 2 mg/kg of body weight/day and them compared to controls who were not exposed to glyphosate-based herbicides.
Rat Study Shows Infertility in Next Generation
In this study rats were fed 2mg/kg of body weight/day of glyphosate alone and a glyphosate-based herbicide from 9 days in to pregnancy until they weaned their pups.
The fertility of their pups when they became adults was shown to be damaged. Both glyphosate alone and in formulation increased preimplantation losses, increased serum 17β-estradiol in early pregnancy and disrupted uterine implantation-related genes.
The study concluded that perinatal exposure to glyphosate alone or a glyphosate-based herbicide disrupted critical hormonal and uterine molecular targets during the receptive state, possibly associated with the implantation failures.
The researchers also concluded in a review that glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides are endocrine disruptors. The also stated that glyphosate-based herbicides alter reproductive outcomes in females, exposure to low doses of glyphosate may alter ovarian and uterine functions, estrogenic potential of GBH depends on pure glyphosate and/or its adjuvants.
University of Georgia Review Emphasizes Risk on Reproductive Health of Farm Animals
A review paper prepared by researchers at the Department of Poultry Science in the University of Georgia concentrated on the risk to farm animals of exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides.
The researchers stated that “the adoption of genetically engineered (GE) crops in agriculture has increased dramatically over the last few decades. Among the transgenic plants, those tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate are among the most common. Weed resistance to glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) has been on the rise, leading to increased herbicide applications. This, in turn, has led to increased glyphosate residues in feed.”
They concluded that “although glyphosate has been considered to be generally safe to animal health, recent studies have shown that GBHs have potential to cause adverse effects in animal reproduction, including disruption of key regulatory enzymes in androgen synthesis, alteration of serum levels of estrogen and testosterone, damage to reproductive tissues and impairment of gametogenesis. Our review emphasizes known effects of GBHs on reproductive health as well as the potential infertility risk GBH residues pose to animal agriculture.”
Sustainable Pulse Conclusion
These new peer-reviewed studies and reviews follow on from the Global Glyphosate Study pilot results, which were published in 2019, that showed that exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides was associated with androgen-like effects, including a statistically significant increase of anogenital distance (AGD) in males and females, delay of first estrous and increased testosterone in females.
AGD, the distance between the anus and the genitals, is a sensitive marker of prenatal endocrine disruption affecting the genital tract development. Exposure to different chemicals including pesticides has been linked previously to altered AGDs and other endocrine effects.
The Director of Sustainable Pulse, Henry Rowlands, concluded Monday; “It is now vital that government regulators take strong action to protect global reproductive health from this ubiquitous weedkiller.”


sustainablepulse--2020-07-14--UN Experts Call on Rich Countries to End Export of Banned Pesticides

Three dozen United Nations ( UN ) human rights expert called last Thursday on wealthy countries to end the “ deplorable ” practice of exporting banned toxic chemicals and pesticides to poorer nations that lack “ the capacity to control the risks ” .
A statement issued by UN special rapporteur on toxics , Baskut Tuncak , revealed that at least 30 countries last year shipped substances to Latin America , Africa and Asia that were banned from use on their own soil in order to protect human health or the environment .
He said he had highlighted concerns about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banned chemicals in reports on exporting countries like Denmark , Germany , the United Kingdom and Switzerland .
Tuncak said – in a statement endorsed by 35 of his fellow experts on the UN Human Rights Council – that wealthier nations often create “ double standards ” that allow the trade and use of banned chemicals in parts of the world where regulations are less strict .
He added that the “ racialised nature of these standards can not be ignored ” as the dangers were “ externalised ” to “ communities of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
This shifting of the dangers posed by toxic chemicals to communities of colour was a “ grave concern ” that could also be found within rich countries , with “ respect to the siting of polluting industries and the dumping of hazardous waste ” .
“ In nearly every case there is no legitimate public interest justification , ” Tuncak continued .
“ These loopholes are a political concession to industry , allowing their chemical manufacturers to profit from inevitably poisoned workers and communities abroad , all the while importing cheaper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unsustainable consumption and production patterns .
It is long-overdue that states stop this exploitation.
” The call comes after an investigation by Unearthed and Swiss NGO Public Eye earlier this year revealed that the world ’ s five biggest pesticide manufacturers – all of which are headquartered in Europe or the United States – were making more than a third of their leading products income from the sale of highly hazardous pesticides ( HHPs ) .
More than half of their income from HHP sales came in low- and middle-income countries like Brazil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these major agrochemical companies are able to produce hazardous pesticides in the countries where they are sold .
However , in many others , they are manufactured and exported from European countries in which their use has long been prohibited .

Three dozen United Nations (UN) human rights expert called last Thursday on wealthy countries to end the “deplorable” practice of exporting banned toxic chemicals and pesticides to poorer nations that lack “the capacity to control the risks”.
A statement issued by UN special rapporteur on toxics, Baskut Tuncak, revealed that at least 30 countries last year shipped substances to Latin America, Africa and Asia that were banned from use on their own soil in order to protect human health or the environment.
He said he had highlighted concerns about the shipping of toxic pesticides and other banned chemicals in reports on exporting countries like Denmark, Germany, the United Kingdom and Switzerland.
Tuncak said – in a statement endorsed by 35 of his fellow experts on the UN Human Rights Council – that wealthier nations often create “double standards” that allow the trade and use of banned chemicals in parts of the world where regulations are less strict.
He added that the “racialised nature of these standards cannot be ignored” as the dangers were “externalised” to “communities of African descent and other people of colour”. This shifting of the dangers posed by toxic chemicals to communities of colour was a “grave concern” that could also be found within rich countries, with “respect to the siting of polluting industries and the dumping of hazardous waste”.
“In nearly every case there is no legitimate public interest justification,” Tuncak continued. “These loopholes are a political concession to industry, allowing their chemical manufacturers to profit from inevitably poisoned workers and communities abroad, all the while importing cheaper products through global supply chains and fuelling unsustainable consumption and production patterns. It is long-overdue that states stop this exploitation.”
The call comes after an investigation by Unearthed and Swiss NGO Public Eye earlier this year revealed that the world’s five biggest pesticide manufacturers – all of which are headquartered in Europe or the United States – were making more than a third of their leading products income from the sale of highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs).
More than half of their income from HHP sales came in low- and middle-income countries like Brazil and India.
In some cases, these major agrochemical companies are able to produce hazardous pesticides in the countries where they are sold. However, in many others, they are manufactured and exported from European countries in which their use has long been prohibited.


sustainablepulse--2020-07-16--Joel Salatin and Dr. Sina McCullough on their New Book ‘Beyond Labels’ – Sustainable Pulse Interview

In Beyond Labels , Joel Salatin , a farmer who is blazing the trail for regenerative farm practices , and Sina McCullough , a PhD .
in Nutrition who actually understands unpronounceable carbon chains , bring you on a journey from generally unhealthy food and farming to an ultimately healing place .
Why should the public look ‘ Beyond Labels ’ – are labels and certification seals simply not the best way to find out what is in their food ?
Joel : The level of clever speak and obfuscation in labels is literally mind boggling .
Free range doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factory farms and vegetables grown without soil .
And then you have Generally Recognized As Safe ( GRAS ) .
Sina , what ’ s that all about ?
Sina : Most of us assume the food in the grocery store is safe to eat because we assume somebody has tested it for safety .
But that ’ s not always the case .
GRAS is a great example of how food labels tell just one side of the story ; the story the food manufacturer wants you to know .
For example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in our food supply and unless you are actively trying to avoid them , you ’ re likely consuming multiple chemicals in every meal .
Most of them have not been safety tested by the FDA and most are not regulated by the FDA .
We don ’ t know how those chemicals affect our long-term health .
We also have no idea what happens when those chemicals are combined .
For instance , what happens when the brominated vegetable oil in Mountain Dew® is combined with the disodium inosinate in Doritos® ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ combinations .
This regulatory loophole started in 1958 when Congress passed the Food Additive Amendment .
The purpose was to test chemicals for safety before adding them to our food .
But that amendment contains the GRAS exemption .
When a chemical is declared to be GRAS , it means the FDA does not test that chemical for safety , nor does it regulate the use of that chemical .
The company who makes the chemical determines if that chemical is safe for you to eat .
All they need is an “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be GRAS and usually those “ experts ” have financial ties to the company .
Even worse , once a chemical is declared GRAS , the company can immediately begin adding it to your food and they don ’ t have to notify the FDA !
The notification process is voluntary .
In addition , these chemicals are not listed as GRAS on the food label .
Consequently , unless you research each chemical , you probably won ’ t know if what you are eating has been safety tested .
The GRAS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of humanity .
Not only have chemicals been declared GRAS that were later discovered to be carcinogenic , GMOs ( genetically modified organisms ) made it to your dinner plate largely because they were “ presumed ” by the FDA to be GRAS .
GRAS is just one example of why you have to look beyond the label to understand what ’ s really in your favorite box of cereal or package of cookies .
Once you take a deep dive into labels , including the food regulations that shape those labels , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the consumer ; they are not keeping you safe .
Joel : I ’ ve come to the conclusion that if you ’ re selecting based on label claims , you ’ re already disconnected and perhaps ignorant about the food provenance .
That sounds harsh , but if you ’ re depending on a label to vet your food , you ’ re probably going to be misled .
For example , USDA inspection on eggs has nothing to do with salmonella ; it only measures shape , shell quality , meat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t hurt you ) , size , air cell and albumen viscosity .
It has nothing to do with things that could hurt you .
How is Beyond Labels empowering – does it not just put off people from eating a healthy diet as it points out so many things that have to be looked out for and even suggests moving home !
?
Sina : Many food and health books point out a plethora of problems while filling the reader with fear .
Then , they either offer no solutions or unrealistic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a recipe for failure .
In BEYOND LABELS , we use a completely different approach .
The main purpose of BEYOND LABELS is to empower the individual to take charge of their health and wellness .
We strive to accomplish that goal through compassion , love , and grace .
For example , Joel and I recognize that we each walk our own path , therefore , it ’ s important to accept others where they are and gently encourage them to take the next step when they are ready .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a continuum , or road map , with maximal health , happiness , freedom , trust and personal responsibility on one side and the opposites – sickness , sadness , dependence , lack of trust , and victim-hood – on the other side .
The beauty of this road map is that you get to choose where you want to be .
You also choose your own goal , whether that be upgrading from conventional to organic processed foods , cooking one meal from scratch , buying some local produce , growing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a homestead .
We provide practical , budget-friendly tips to help you move along the entire continuum .
You may not reach the end of the continuum and that ’ s okay .
I ’ m not there either .
You choose your own path and move forward at your own pace while we offer encouragement and motivation .
It ’ s similar to a “ choose your own adventure ” book .
In that regard , we meet you where you are , which sets you up for success .
Joel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we consistently get from readers is how nonjudgmental and non-prejudicial BEYOND LABELS actually is .
We went to great lengths to let people know that we all start somewhere .
We also don ’ t hold back at challenging folks to make progress .
Isn ’ t that what life is all about ?
Who wants to be stuck in a not good place ?
As we move toward the last quarter of the book , we encourage home gardening ( including herbs ) , and even back yard chickens .
While this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ livestock book , we believe that discussing this as part of a food security and healthy eating journey brings an additional desire for participation .
That is one of the strong threads throughout the book : nobody will do this for you ; you must decide to get on the field and play in the game .
What things do you both actually do when you go out to buy food – do you spend hours worrying about what to eat every day ?
Sina : In the beginning , yes .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the research to figure out how to read food labels and how to tease out the many nuances of our food supply so that I could find foods that truly heal .
It took months .
And , I did feel overwhelmed and stressed at times mainly because I was learning about the many loopholes , exceptions , and confusing statements of food labels .
However , now , if I come across a new food item online or in the grocery store , I still do the necessary research to determine if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it takes very little time because now I know what I ’ m looking for .
Joel and I did much of that research for you in BEYOND LABELS .
We tried to simplify the process while saving you time , effort , and money .
The real beauty of this book is that , for the first time in history , a doctor and a farmer have joined forces to share how we think about food and how we make food choices based on our knowledge , principles , and intuition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think and how to decide is more important than the ultimate decision .
Joel : That ’ s exactly right .
My greatest hope is that Sina and I can free you from the prison of inadequacy .
So that you realize you are completely capable of nurturing yourself and the ones you love .
Sina : When you have trust and confidence in yourself , you don ’ t worry any more .
Shopping for food or discerning between the latest dietary crazes is no longer stressful .
Joel and I believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tools you need to thrive .
You just have to tap into your innate abilities and then you will find that you can discern any new food label or any new diet advice you may encounter .
Joel : Another area that requires discernment is eating at restaurants and participating in social gatherings .
We address both in BEYOND LABELS .
My background is so different than yours , Sina , that I confess to not having as much of a pit bull mentality in these arenas .
You can obsess to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companions can have an enjoyable time .
Yes , I do occasionally embarrass dining-out companions by asking if the chicken is pastured ( “ Pasteurized ?
” is usually the server ’ s response ) .
But in general , I have a cast iron stomach and handle about anything , as long is it ’ s not McDonald ’ s ( you have to draw the line somewhere ) .
Due to your previous health issues , Sina , you ’ ve had to be diligent in these situations .
Consequently , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the book for socializing without being unsociable .
Sina : I know how difficult it can be to eat out or socialize while adhering to a diet designed around food sensitivities , allergies , and an overall desire to decrease the toxic load on my body .
It can be isolating and stressful .
Fortunately , I ’ ve found solutions for every situation I encounter , whether it be running late while running errands , traveling by plane or car , attending parties or holiday gatherings , or hosting my own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no doubt that going against the grain can be difficult .
Just like Joel and I encourage you to take small steps in BEYOND LABELS , I encourage you to allow people the time and space to catch up with you .
In my experience , I ’ ve found that the people who truly care about me will understand and support my decision .
In fact , now when I bring food to gatherings , most people want to know what I ’ m eating and they usually ask for the recipe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as you ’ ve tried to be unobtrusive in social situations , though , some people get offended at even a hint of differentiation .
It can ’ t be helped .
But if we ’ re moving somewhere , we ’ re going to make some waves .
That ’ s just the way it is .
If you were to summarize the most important steps for someone to make when changing from an unhealthy to a healthy diet and lifestyle what would they be ?
Joel : Stop eating processed food @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its sophisticated techno-gadgetry to prepare , process , package , and preserve whole foods .
Hydrate-drink lots of water and no sugary soft drinks .
Sleep 8 or 8.5 hours a night .
Forgive everyone who has wronged you .
Sina : I agree with Joel .
In addition , switch to organically/regeneratively-grown or raised food .
That single change can dramatically reduce your toxic burden on your body because the organic label does not allow produce to contain GMOs , be sprayed with most pesticides or herbicides , grown using sewage sludge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heavy metals ) or most synthetic fertilizers , or irradiated .
And , in terms of meat and poultry , the animal can not be given hormones or most antibiotics and must be fed an organic diet .
In terms of a healthy lifestyle , the best detoxification protocol you can follow is an emotional detox .
Our culture tends to focus on the physical body and biological markers when restoring health .
However , releasing negative , stuck emotions that you have carried with you , sometimes since childhood , is one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ body , mind and spirit .
In fact , spontaneous remissions from chronic diseases , such as cancer , have occurred through emotional detoxification .
It ’ s such a critical component to health and wellness that I include it in my daily routine .
Joel : Probably I should add turning off the TV and using your entertainment time and money to find your integrity provenance .
It may be a local farmer and it may be a great farm that ships to your doorstep , but the most important aspect is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ active role in your journey and not just wait for the FDA or USDA or labels to make that journey for you .
The title of the book is ‘ Beyond Labels ’ but in fact you do point out some important certification seals to look out for – what is your gold standard seal combination to look out for when shopping for food ?
Sina : It would be fantastic if we all grew our own food and/or shopped solely from our local regenerative farmers .
However , that ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shops in the grocery store to some extent , including Joel and I .
And , in that setting , labels are the primary tool at our disposal for helping us make informed decisions .
Again , in BEYOND LABELS , the goal is not to be “ perfect.
” The goal is to meet yourself where you are and lovingly encourage yourself to move forward one step at a time .
When I ’ m in the grocery store , I look for the quartet : USDA Organic seal plus the Non-GMO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seal plus the Land to Market Ecological Outcome Verified seal .
If you don ’ t know the ins and outs of each of those seals , pairing them may seem redundant .
However , each seal contains gaps – some of which are substantial .
So , I pair these seals together to fill in those gaps in order to reduce my toxic burden when shopping for processed foods in the grocery store .
Joel : Sina , you ’ re much more charitable than I am on this topic .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around and around on this because here at Polyface Farm ( our farm ) we don ’ t use any seals or certifications whatsoever and have yet to find one that we can live with .
All that said , we do buy government certified organic bananas .
So obviously I have a soft spot for a seal somewhere .
My rules for certifications are straightforward : they must be financed by the buyer not the seller ; the leadership must come from the buying end and not the selling end ; they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be just a pass-fail system .
What are the nutrition levels like of people in the U.S. – what specific improvements need to be made as a whole to improve the nutritional situation ?
Joel : The U.S. leads the world in noninfectious disease morbidity .
This is not a place to be number one .
It ’ s indicative of the Standard American Diet .
Sina , you ’ re the expert ; take it from here .
Sina : In America , we are seeing a rise in micro-nutrient deficiencies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American is deficient or inadequate in at least one nutrient .
And , sometimes , it only takes one nutrient deficiency to develop a disease .
For instance , some autoimmune disease can develop if you are deficient in vitamin D. Insulin resistance can result from chromium deficiency .
And , lack of magnesium can result in high blood pressure .
But here ’ s the kicker : an individual can take a multivitamin and mineral every day and still develop a disease from nutrient deficiencies .
That ’ s exactly what happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multivitamin and mineral supplement every day yet I developed deficiencies in 15 nutrients .
Two of the deficiencies were so severe that I was diagnosed as borderline for both beriberi and pellagra .
Both of those disease can lead to death and both were eradicated in America in the early to mid-1900s .
Yet , we are seeing a resurgence of these types of nutrient deficiency diseases largely from our diet and lifestyle choices .
Joel : Interestingly , we see this nutritional deficit on American farms , both in plants and animals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we use a lot more drugs in our livestock than in our humans .
And some herbicides , like glyphosate , are technically categorized as antibiotics .
As plants and animals become immunologically weaker , the “ toxic rescue chemistry ” ( a phrase popularized by the late great Charles Walters ) needed to prop up survival continues to increase .
What we see in the human population reflects perfectly what we see on our farms .
Sina : To correct the problem , we need to focus on building a robust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I have done in BEYOND LABELS .
Depression , heart disease , obesity , diabetes , asthma , allergies and other inflammatory conditions are all associated with the types and quantities of bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract .
Yet , numerous studies have concluded that Americans are losing their microbial diversity – perhaps by as much as 30 % .
The good news is that diet and lifestyle are critical factors in determining the diversity and number of bacteria that make up your unique microbiome .
Therefore , you can re-balance your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simple changes , such as : switching to organic , eating fermented foods and prebiotics , not eating preservatives , adding herbs and spices into your diet , drinking clean water , getting out in nature and breathing in the microbial diversity , cycling your foods , and practicing gratitude .
How do you define regenerative agriculture and are there any labels or signs out there that can show consumers that the produce they are buying has been produced in a regenerative way ?
Joel : I define it as healing .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ healing , it ’ s part of the sickness .
That means it should create more soil , more potable water , more breathable air , and more social connectedness to our ecological umbilical .
Sina : Well said , Joel .
When shopping in the grocery store , you can look for the Land to Market Ecological Outcome Verified ( EOV ) seal .
The EOV seal was created by The Savory Institute .
It ’ s a quick and easy way to identify products that contain raw materials that were grown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I encourage you to visit your local farms and verify the farming practices for yourself .
Identifying good farms is a skill anyone can develop if you put some time on it .
Once you ’ ve visited a few farms , you get pretty good at spotting things .
Our seal of approval is the fact that we have a 24/7/365 open door policy for anyone in the world to come anytime and see anything anywhere unannounced .
We call that customer validated full transparency .
Good farms should be aesthetically and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ starting to grow your own food and even relocating – is this really possible for everyone ?
Joel : Perhaps it ’ s not possible for everyone , but at least cogitating about it is always a healthy exercise .
Who would have thought that 5 months ago that 40 percent of corporate office space would never be used again ?
Sometimes big steps of progress require big steps of change .
Sina : Growing your own food and relocating are just two steps along the road map .
You don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are 72 steps to choose from so don ’ t limit yourself .
However , if you are interested in growing your own food , we offer solutions that almost anyone can implement regardless of space and time limitations , such as : growing a single herb in your kitchen window , growing sprouts in a Mason jar , and planting seeds for lettuce in a pot on your front porch .
Joel : In the book , we address urban production at miniature scale .
Goodness , anyone can have an earthworm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ food scraps and make fertilizer for your house plants .
Don ’ t ever let perfect be the enemy of better .
Please find Beyond Labels for Sale on Amazon here

In Beyond Labels, Joel Salatin, a farmer who is blazing the trail for regenerative farm practices, and Sina McCullough, a PhD. in Nutrition who actually understands unpronounceable carbon chains, bring you on a journey from generally unhealthy food and farming to an ultimately healing place.
Please find Beyond Labels for Sale on Amazon here
Why should the public look ‘Beyond Labels’ – are labels and certification seals simply not the best way to find out what is in their food?
Joel: The level of clever speak and obfuscation in labels is literally mind boggling. Free range doesn’t mean pasture. Organic include factory farms and vegetables grown without soil. And then you have Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS). Sina, what’s that all about?
Sina: Most of us assume the food in the grocery store is safe to eat because we assume somebody has tested it for safety. But that’s not always the case. GRAS is a great example of how food labels tell just one side of the story; the story the food manufacturer wants you to know.
For example, there are roughly 10,000 chemical additives in our food supply and unless you are actively trying to avoid them, you’re likely consuming multiple chemicals in every meal. Most of them have not been safety tested by the FDA and most are not regulated by the FDA. We don’t know how those chemicals affect our long-term health. We also have no idea what happens when those chemicals are combined. For instance, what happens when the brominated vegetable oil in Mountain Dew® is combined with the disodium inosinate in Doritos®? Nobody knows because nobody is testing for combinations.
This regulatory loophole started in 1958 when Congress passed the Food Additive Amendment. The purpose was to test chemicals for safety before adding them to our food. But that amendment contains the GRAS exemption. When a chemical is declared to be GRAS, it means the FDA does not test that chemical for safety, nor does it regulate the use of that chemical. The company who makes the chemical determines if that chemical is safe for you to eat. All they need is an “expert” to declare the chemical to be GRAS and usually those “experts” have financial ties to the company.
Even worse, once a chemical is declared GRAS, the company can immediately begin adding it to your food and they don’t have to notify the FDA! The notification process is voluntary. In addition, these chemicals are not listed as GRAS on the food label. Consequently, unless you research each chemical, you probably won’t know if what you are eating has been safety tested.
The GRAS loophole carries severe consequences for the health of humanity. Not only have chemicals been declared GRAS that were later discovered to be carcinogenic, GMOs (genetically modified organisms) made it to your dinner plate largely because they were “presumed” by the FDA to be GRAS.
GRAS is just one example of why you have to look beyond the label to understand what’s really in your favorite box of cereal or package of cookies. Once you take a deep dive into labels, including the food regulations that shape those labels, you realize that most do not protect the consumer; they are not keeping you safe.
Joel: I’ve come to the conclusion that if you’re selecting based on label claims, you’re already disconnected and perhaps ignorant about the food provenance. That sounds harsh, but if you’re depending on a label to vet your food, you’re probably going to be misled. For example, USDA inspection on eggs has nothing to do with salmonella; it only measures shape, shell quality, meat and blood spots (which don’t hurt you), size, air cell and albumen viscosity. It has nothing to do with things that could hurt you.
How is Beyond Labels empowering – does it not just put off people from eating a healthy diet as it points out so many things that have to be looked out for and even suggests moving home!?
Sina: Many food and health books point out a plethora of problems while filling the reader with fear. Then, they either offer no solutions or unrealistic, cookie-cutter solutions. It’s a recipe for failure. In BEYOND LABELS, we use a completely different approach.
The main purpose of BEYOND LABELS is to empower the individual to take charge of their health and wellness. We strive to accomplish that goal through compassion, love, and grace. For example, Joel and I recognize that we each walk our own path, therefore, it’s important to accept others where they are and gently encourage them to take the next step when they are ready. That’s why the backbone of BEYOND LABELS is a continuum, or road map, with maximal health, happiness, freedom, trust and personal responsibility on one side and the opposites – sickness, sadness, dependence, lack of trust, and victim-hood – on the other side.
The beauty of this road map is that you get to choose where you want to be. You also choose your own goal, whether that be upgrading from conventional to organic processed foods, cooking one meal from scratch, buying some local produce, growing one herb in your kitchen or moving to a homestead. We provide practical, budget-friendly tips to help you move along the entire continuum. You may not reach the end of the continuum and that’s okay. I’m not there either. You choose your own path and move forward at your own pace while we offer encouragement and motivation. It’s similar to a “choose your own adventure” book. In that regard, we meet you where you are, which sets you up for success.
Joel: One of the most gratifying responses we consistently get from readers is how nonjudgmental and non-prejudicial BEYOND LABELS actually is. We went to great lengths to let people know that we all start somewhere.
We also don’t hold back at challenging folks to make progress. Isn’t that what life is all about? Who wants to be stuck in a not good place? As we move toward the last quarter of the book, we encourage home gardening (including herbs), and even back yard chickens. While this is not a gardening book or a livestock book, we believe that discussing this as part of a food security and healthy eating journey brings an additional desire for participation. That is one of the strong threads throughout the book: nobody will do this for you; you must decide to get on the field and play in the game.
What things do you both actually do when you go out to buy food – do you spend hours worrying about what to eat every day?
Sina: In the beginning, yes. I put in the necessary time and did the research to figure out how to read food labels and how to tease out the many nuances of our food supply so that I could find foods that truly heal. It took months. And, I did feel overwhelmed and stressed at times mainly because I was learning about the many loopholes, exceptions, and confusing statements of food labels. However, now, if I come across a new food item online or in the grocery store, I still do the necessary research to determine if I will add it to my diet but it takes very little time because now I know what I’m looking for.
Joel and I did much of that research for you in BEYOND LABELS. We tried to simplify the process while saving you time, effort, and money. The real beauty of this book is that, for the first time in history, a doctor and a farmer have joined forces to share how we think about food and how we make food choices based on our knowledge, principles, and intuition. After all, knowing how to think and how to decide is more important than the ultimate decision.
Joel: That’s exactly right. My greatest hope is that Sina and I can free you from the prison of inadequacy. So that you realize you are completely capable of nurturing yourself and the ones you love.
Sina: When you have trust and confidence in yourself, you don’t worry any more. Shopping for food or discerning between the latest dietary crazes is no longer stressful. Joel and I believe that you already have the instincts and the tools you need to thrive. You just have to tap into your innate abilities and then you will find that you can discern any new food label or any new diet advice you may encounter.
Joel: Another area that requires discernment is eating at restaurants and participating in social gatherings. We address both in BEYOND LABELS. My background is so different than yours, Sina, that I confess to not having as much of a pit bull mentality in these arenas. You can obsess to the point that neither you nor your companions can have an enjoyable time. Yes, I do occasionally embarrass dining-out companions by asking if the chicken is pastured (“Pasteurized?” is usually the server’s response). But in general, I have a cast iron stomach and handle about anything, as long is it’s not McDonald’s (you have to draw the line somewhere).
Due to your previous health issues, Sina, you’ve had to be diligent in these situations. Consequently, you’ve got several good tips in the book for socializing without being unsociable.
Sina: I know how difficult it can be to eat out or socialize while adhering to a diet designed around food sensitivities, allergies, and an overall desire to decrease the toxic load on my body. It can be isolating and stressful. Fortunately, I’ve found solutions for every situation I encounter, whether it be running late while running errands, traveling by plane or car, attending parties or holiday gatherings, or hosting my own celebrations.
However, there’s no doubt that going against the grain can be difficult. Just like Joel and I encourage you to take small steps in BEYOND LABELS, I encourage you to allow people the time and space to catch up with you. In my experience, I’ve found that the people who truly care about me will understand and support my decision. In fact, now when I bring food to gatherings, most people want to know what I’m eating and they usually ask for the recipe!
Joel: I think as much as you’ve tried to be unobtrusive in social situations, though, some people get offended at even a hint of differentiation. It can’t be helped. But if we’re moving somewhere, we’re going to make some waves. That’s just the way it is.
If you were to summarize the most important steps for someone to make when changing from an unhealthy to a healthy diet and lifestyle what would they be?
Joel: Stop eating processed food; use your kitchen and all of its sophisticated techno-gadgetry to prepare, process, package, and preserve whole foods. Hydrate-drink lots of water and no sugary soft drinks. Sleep 8 or 8.5 hours a night. Forgive everyone who has wronged you.
Sina: I agree with Joel. In addition, switch to organically/regeneratively-grown or raised food. That single change can dramatically reduce your toxic burden on your body because the organic label does not allow produce to contain GMOs, be sprayed with most pesticides or herbicides, grown using sewage sludge (which can contain high levels of heavy metals) or most synthetic fertilizers, or irradiated. And, in terms of meat and poultry, the animal cannot be given hormones or most antibiotics and must be fed an organic diet. In terms of a healthy lifestyle, the best detoxification protocol you can follow is an emotional detox. Our culture tends to focus on the physical body and biological markers when restoring health. However, releasing negative, stuck emotions that you have carried with you, sometimes since childhood, is one of the best ways to heal the body, mind and spirit. In fact, spontaneous remissions from chronic diseases, such as cancer, have occurred through emotional detoxification. It’s such a critical component to health and wellness that I include it in my daily routine.
Joel: Probably I should add turning off the TV and using your entertainment time and money to find your integrity provenance. It may be a local farmer and it may be a great farm that ships to your doorstep, but the most important aspect is to take charge, to take an active role in your journey and not just wait for the FDA or USDA or labels to make that journey for you.
The title of the book is ‘Beyond Labels’ but in fact you do point out some important certification seals to look out for – what is your gold standard seal combination to look out for when shopping for food?
Sina: It would be fantastic if we all grew our own food and/or shopped solely from our local regenerative farmers. However, that’s not realistic for most people. Nearly everyone shops in the grocery store to some extent, including Joel and I. And, in that setting, labels are the primary tool at our disposal for helping us make informed decisions. Again, in BEYOND LABELS, the goal is not to be “perfect.” The goal is to meet yourself where you are and lovingly encourage yourself to move forward one step at a time.
When I’m in the grocery store, I look for the quartet: USDA Organic seal plus the Non-GMO Project seal plus the Glyphosate Residue Free seal plus the Land to Market Ecological Outcome Verified seal. If you don’t know the ins and outs of each of those seals, pairing them may seem redundant. However, each seal contains gaps – some of which are substantial. So, I pair these seals together to fill in those gaps in order to reduce my toxic burden when shopping for processed foods in the grocery store.
Joel: Sina, you’re much more charitable than I am on this topic. As you know, we went around and around and around on this because here at Polyface Farm (our farm) we don’t use any seals or certifications whatsoever and have yet to find one that we can live with. All that said, we do buy government certified organic bananas. So obviously I have a soft spot for a seal somewhere. My rules for certifications are straightforward: they must be financed by the buyer not the seller; the leadership must come from the buying end and not the selling end; they should recognize all steps toward improvement and not be just a pass-fail system.
What are the nutrition levels like of people in the U.S. – what specific improvements need to be made as a whole to improve the nutritional situation?
Joel: The U.S. leads the world in noninfectious disease morbidity. This is not a place to be number one. It’s indicative of the Standard American Diet. Sina, you’re the expert; take it from here.
Sina: In America, we are seeing a rise in micro-nutrient deficiencies. It’s estimated that every American is deficient or inadequate in at least one nutrient. And, sometimes, it only takes one nutrient deficiency to develop a disease. For instance, some autoimmune disease can develop if you are deficient in vitamin D. Insulin resistance can result from chromium deficiency. And, lack of magnesium can result in high blood pressure. But here’s the kicker: an individual can take a multivitamin and mineral every day and still develop a disease from nutrient deficiencies. That’s exactly what happened to me. I took a high-quality multivitamin and mineral supplement every day yet I developed deficiencies in 15 nutrients. Two of the deficiencies were so severe that I was diagnosed as borderline for both beriberi and pellagra. Both of those disease can lead to death and both were eradicated in America in the early to mid-1900s. Yet, we are seeing a resurgence of these types of nutrient deficiency diseases largely from our diet and lifestyle choices.
Joel: Interestingly, we see this nutritional deficit on American farms, both in plants and animals. Many folks don’t realize that we use a lot more drugs in our livestock than in our humans. And some herbicides, like glyphosate, are technically categorized as antibiotics. As plants and animals become immunologically weaker, the “toxic rescue chemistry” (a phrase popularized by the late great Charles Walters) needed to prop up survival continues to increase. What we see in the human population reflects perfectly what we see on our farms.
Sina: To correct the problem, we need to focus on building a robust microbiome, which is exactly what Joel and I have done in BEYOND LABELS. Depression, heart disease, obesity, diabetes, asthma, allergies and other inflammatory conditions are all associated with the types and quantities of bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract. Yet, numerous studies have concluded that Americans are losing their microbial diversity – perhaps by as much as 30%. The good news is that diet and lifestyle are critical factors in determining the diversity and number of bacteria that make up your unique microbiome. Therefore, you can re-balance your microbiome and thereby create resilience by making simple changes, such as: switching to organic, eating fermented foods and prebiotics, not eating preservatives, adding herbs and spices into your diet, drinking clean water, getting out in nature and breathing in the microbial diversity, cycling your foods, and practicing gratitude.
How do you define regenerative agriculture and are there any labels or signs out there that can show consumers that the produce they are buying has been produced in a regenerative way?
Joel: I define it as healing. If it’s not part of the healing, it’s part of the sickness. That means it should create more soil, more potable water, more breathable air, and more social connectedness to our ecological umbilical.
Sina: Well said, Joel. When shopping in the grocery store, you can look for the Land to Market Ecological Outcome Verified (EOV) seal. The EOV seal was created by The Savory Institute. It’s a quick and easy way to identify products that contain raw materials that were grown using regenerative farm practices.
Joel: I encourage you to visit your local farms and verify the farming practices for yourself. Identifying good farms is a skill anyone can develop if you put some time on it. Once you’ve visited a few farms, you get pretty good at spotting things. Our seal of approval is the fact that we have a 24/7/365 open door policy for anyone in the world to come anytime and see anything anywhere unannounced. We call that customer validated full transparency. Good farms should be aesthetically and aromatically sensually romantic.
Beyond Labels suggests starting to grow your own food and even relocating – is this really possible for everyone?
Joel: Perhaps it’s not possible for everyone, but at least cogitating about it is always a healthy exercise. Who would have thought that 5 months ago that 40 percent of corporate office space would never be used again? Sometimes big steps of progress require big steps of change.
Sina: Growing your own food and relocating are just two steps along the road map. You don’t have to choose that path. There are 72 steps to choose from so don’t limit yourself. However, if you are interested in growing your own food, we offer solutions that almost anyone can implement regardless of space and time limitations, such as: growing a single herb in your kitchen window, growing sprouts in a Mason jar, and planting seeds for lettuce in a pot on your front porch.
Joel: In the book, we address urban production at miniature scale. Goodness, anyone can have an earthworm kit under the kitchen sink to eat food scraps and make fertilizer for your house plants. Don’t ever let perfect be the enemy of better.
Please find Beyond Labels for Sale on Amazon here


sustainablepulse--2020-07-19--Pesticides Increase Transmission of Debilitating Snail Fever Affecting Hundreds of Millions of Peopl

Pesticides Increase Transmission of Debilitating Snail Fever Affecting Hundreds of Millions of People

Widespread use of pesticides , including the world ’ s most used herbicide , glyphosate , can speed the transmission of the debilitating disease schistosomiasis ( snail fever ) , while also upsetting the ecological balances in aquatic environments that prevent infections , a new study led by researchers at the University of California , Berkeley has found .
Schistosomiasis ( also known as Snail Fever and Bilharzia ) is a disease of poverty that leads to chronic ill-health , according to the World Health Organization .
Infection is acquired when people come into contact with fresh water infested with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parasitic blood flukes , known as schistosomes .
The microscopic adult worms live in the veins draining the urinary tract and intestines .
Most of the eggs they lay are trapped in the tissues and the body ’ s reaction to them can cause massive damage .
Schistosomiasis affects almost 240 million people worldwide , and more than 700 million people live in endemic areas .
The infection is prevalent in tropical and sub-tropical areas , in poor communities without potable water and adequate sanitation .
The study , published in the July @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , found that agrochemicals can increase the transmission of the schistosome worm in myriad ways : by directly affecting the survival of the waterborne parasite itself , by decimating aquatic predators that feed on the snails that carry the parasite and by altering the composition of algae in the water , which provides a major food source for snails .
“ We know that dam construction and irrigation expansion increase schistosomiasis transmission in low-income settings by disrupting freshwater ecosystems , ” said UC Berkeley ’ s Christopher Hoover , a doctoral student in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the study .
“ We were shocked by the strength of evidence we found also linking agrochemical pollution to the amplification of schistosomiasis transmission.
” The findings come as the connections between environment and infectious disease have been laid bare by the COVID-19 pandemic , which is caused by an emerging pathogen thought to be linked to wildlife .
“ Environmental pollutants can increase our exposure and susceptibility to infectious diseases , ” said Justin Remais , chair of the Division of Environmental Health Sciences at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ From dioxins decreasing resistance to influenza virus , to air pollutants increasing COVID-19 mortality , to arsenic impacting lower respiratory tract and enteric infections — research has shown that reducing pollution is an important way to protect populations from infectious diseases.
” After combing through nearly 1,000 studies gathered in a systematic literature review , the research team identified 144 experiments that provided data connecting agrochemical concentrations to components of the schistosome life cycle .
They then incorporated these data into a mathematical model that captures the transmission dynamics of the parasite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agrochemicals following their application to agricultural fields and estimates the resulting impacts on infections in the nearby human population .
The researchers found that even low concentrations of common pesticides — including atrazine , glyphosate and chlorpyrifos — can increase rates of transmission and interfere with efforts to control schistosomiasis .
Agrochemical amplification of parasite transmission was not inconsequential .
In the study communities in the Senegal River Basin in West Africa , the excess burden of disease attributable to agrochemical pollution was on par with disease caused by lead exposure , high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We need to develop policies that protect public health by limiting the amplification of schistosomiasis ( snail fever ) transmission by agrochemical pollution , ” Hoover said .
“ More than 90 % of schistosomiasis cases occur in areas of sub-Saharan Africa , where agrochemical use is expanding .
If we can devise ways to maintain the agricultural benefits of these chemicals , while limiting their overuse in schistosomiasis-endemic areas , we could prevent additional harm to public health within communities that already experience a high and unacceptable burden of disease.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Jason R. Rohr of the University of Notre Dame ; Luke Strgar of UC Berkeley ; Arathi Arakala of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University ; Manoj Gambhir , formerly of Monash University , in Melbourne , Australia ; and Giulio A .
De Leo and Susanne H. Sokolow of Stanford University .

Widespread use of pesticides, including the world’s most used herbicide, glyphosate, can speed the transmission of the debilitating disease schistosomiasis (snail fever), while also upsetting the ecological balances in aquatic environments that prevent infections, a new study led by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley has found.
Schistosomiasis (also known as Snail Fever and Bilharzia) is a disease of poverty that leads to chronic ill-health, according to the World Health Organization. Infection is acquired when people come into contact with fresh water infested with the larval forms (cercariae) of parasitic blood flukes, known as schistosomes. The microscopic adult worms live in the veins draining the urinary tract and intestines. Most of the eggs they lay are trapped in the tissues and the body’s reaction to them can cause massive damage.
Schistosomiasis affects almost 240 million people worldwide, and more than 700 million people live in endemic areas. The infection is prevalent in tropical and sub-tropical areas, in poor communities without potable water and adequate sanitation.
The study, published in the July edition of the journal Lancet Planetary Health, found that agrochemicals can increase the transmission of the schistosome worm in myriad ways: by directly affecting the survival of the waterborne parasite itself, by decimating aquatic predators that feed on the snails that carry the parasite and by altering the composition of algae in the water, which provides a major food source for snails.
“We know that dam construction and irrigation expansion increase schistosomiasis transmission in low-income settings by disrupting freshwater ecosystems,” said UC Berkeley’s Christopher Hoover, a doctoral student in environmental health sciences and lead author of the study. “We were shocked by the strength of evidence we found also linking agrochemical pollution to the amplification of schistosomiasis transmission.”
The findings come as the connections between environment and infectious disease have been laid bare by the COVID-19 pandemic, which is caused by an emerging pathogen thought to be linked to wildlife.
“Environmental pollutants can increase our exposure and susceptibility to infectious diseases,” said Justin Remais, chair of the Division of Environmental Health Sciences at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health and senior author of the study. “From dioxins decreasing resistance to influenza virus, to air pollutants increasing COVID-19 mortality, to arsenic impacting lower respiratory tract and enteric infections — research has shown that reducing pollution is an important way to protect populations from infectious diseases.”
After combing through nearly 1,000 studies gathered in a systematic literature review, the research team identified 144 experiments that provided data connecting agrochemical concentrations to components of the schistosome life cycle. They then incorporated these data into a mathematical model that captures the transmission dynamics of the parasite. The model simulates concentrations of common agrochemicals following their application to agricultural fields and estimates the resulting impacts on infections in the nearby human population.
The researchers found that even low concentrations of common pesticides — including atrazine, glyphosate and chlorpyrifos — can increase rates of transmission and interfere with efforts to control schistosomiasis. Agrochemical amplification of parasite transmission was not inconsequential. In the study communities in the Senegal River Basin in West Africa, the excess burden of disease attributable to agrochemical pollution was on par with disease caused by lead exposure, high sodium diets and low physical activity.
“We need to develop policies that protect public health by limiting the amplification of schistosomiasis (snail fever) transmission by agrochemical pollution,” Hoover said. “More than 90% of schistosomiasis cases occur in areas of sub-Saharan Africa, where agrochemical use is expanding. If we can devise ways to maintain the agricultural benefits of these chemicals, while limiting their overuse in schistosomiasis-endemic areas, we could prevent additional harm to public health within communities that already experience a high and unacceptable burden of disease.”
The research team included Samantha L Rumschlag and Jason R. Rohr of the University of Notre Dame; Luke Strgar of UC Berkeley; Arathi Arakala of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University; Manoj Gambhir, formerly of Monash University, in Melbourne, Australia; and Giulio A. De Leo and Susanne H. Sokolow of Stanford University.


sustainablepulse--2020-07-20--Appeals Court Upholds Groundskeeper’s Roundup Cancer Trial Win over Monsanto

In yet another court loss for Monsanto owner Bayer AG , an appeals court rejected the company ’ s effort to overturn the trial victory notched by a California school groundskeeper who alleged exposure to Monsanto ’ s glyphosate herbicides caused him to develop cancer , though the court did say damages should be cut to $ 20.5 million , USRTK reported .
The Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District of California said Monday that Monsanto ’ s arguments were unpersuasive and Dewayne “ Lee ” Johnson was entitled to collect $ 10.25 million in compensatory damages and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ In our view , Johnson presented abundant—and certainly substantial— evidence that glyphosate , together with the other ingredients in Roundup products , caused his cancer , ” the court stated .
“ Expert after expert provided evidence both that Roundup products are capable of causing non-Hodgkin ’ s lymphoma… and caused Johnson ’ s cancer in particular.
” The court further noted that “ there was overwhelming evidence that Johnson has suffered , and will continue to suffer for the rest of his life , significant pain and suffering.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that scientific findings about glyphosate ’ s links to cancer constituted a “ minority view ” was not supported .
Notably , the appeals court added that punitive damages were in order because there was sufficient evidence that Monsanto acted with “ willful and conscious disregard of others ’ safety.
” Mike Miller , whose Virginia law firm represented Johnson at trial along with the Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman firm of Los Angeles , said he was cheered at the court ’ s confirmation that Johnson developed cancer from his use of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ award of punitive damages for “ Monsanto ’ s willful misconduct.
” “ Mr Johnson continues to suffer from his injuries .
We are proud to fight for Mr Johnson ’ s and his pursuit of justice , ” Miller said .
Monsanto owes annual interest at the rate of 10 percent from March of 2018 until it pays the final judgment .
It was just two months after Bayer bought Monsanto , in August 2018 , that a unanimous jury awarded Johnson $ 289 million , including $ 250 million in punitive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monsanto ’ s herbicides cause Johnson to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma , but that the company knew of the cancer risks and failed to warn Johnson .
The lawsuit involved two Monsanto glyphosate herbicide products – Roundup and Ranger Pro .
The trial judge lowered the total verdict to $ 78 million but Monsanto appealed the reduced amount .
Johnson cross appealed to reinstate the $ 289 million verdict .
The Johnson trial was covered by media outlets around the world and put a spotlight on questionable Monsanto conduct .
Lawyers for Johnson presented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ records showing Monsanto scientists discussing ghostwriting scientific papers to try to shore up support for the safety of the company ’ s products , along with communications detailing plans to discredit critics , and to quash a government evaluation of the toxicity of glyphosate , the key chemical in Monsanto ’ s products .
Internal documents also showed that Monsanto expected the International Agency for Research on Cancer would classify glyphosate as a probable or possible human carcinogen in March of 2015 ( the classification was as a probable carcinogen ) and worked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cancer scientists after they issued their classification .
Tens of thousands of plaintiffs have filed lawsuits against Monsanto making claims similar to Johnson ’ s , and two additional trials have taken place since the Johnson trial .
Both those trials also resulted in large verdicts against Monsanto .
In June , Bayer said it had reached a settlement agreement with attorneys representing 75 percent of the roughly 125,000 filed and yet-to-be filed claims initiated by U.S. plaintiffs who blame exposure to Monsanto ’ s Roundup for their development of non-Hodgkin lymphoma @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 8.8 billion to $ 9.6 billion to resolve the litigation .
But lawyers representing more than 20,000 additional plaintiffs say they have not agreed to settle with Bayer and those lawsuits are expected to continue to work their way through the court system .
In a statement issued after the court ruling , Bayer said it stands behind the safety of Roundup : “ The appeal court ’ s decision to reduce the compensatory and punitive damages is a step in the right direction , but we continue to believe that the jury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inconsistent with the evidence at trial and the law .
Monsanto will consider its legal options , including filing an appeal with the Supreme Court of California .
”

In yet another court loss for Monsanto owner Bayer AG, an appeals court rejected the company’s effort to overturn the trial victory notched by a California school groundskeeper who alleged exposure to Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicides caused him to develop cancer, though the court did say damages should be cut to $20.5 million, USRTK reported.
Source: USRTK By Carey Gillam
The Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District of California said Monday that Monsanto’s arguments were unpersuasive and Dewayne “Lee” Johnson was entitled to collect $10.25 million in compensatory damages and another $10.25 million in punitive damages.
“In our view, Johnson presented abundant—and certainly substantial— evidence that glyphosate, together with the other ingredients in Roundup products, caused his cancer,” the court stated. “Expert after expert provided evidence both that Roundup products are capable of causing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma… and caused Johnson’s cancer in particular.”
The court further noted that “there was overwhelming evidence that Johnson has suffered, and will continue to suffer for the rest of his life, significant pain and suffering.”
The court said that Monsanto’s argument that scientific findings about glyphosate’s links to cancer constituted a “minority view” was not supported.
Notably, the appeals court added that punitive damages were in order because there was sufficient evidence that Monsanto acted with “willful and conscious disregard of others’ safety.”
Mike Miller, whose Virginia law firm represented Johnson at trial along with the Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman firm of Los Angeles, said he was cheered at the court’s confirmation that Johnson developed cancer from his use of Roundup and that the court affirmed the award of punitive damages for “Monsanto’s willful misconduct.”
“Mr Johnson continues to suffer from his injuries. We are proud to fight for Mr Johnson’s and his pursuit of justice,” Miller said.
Monsanto owes annual interest at the rate of 10 percent from March of 2018 until it pays the final judgment.
It was just two months after Bayer bought Monsanto, in August 2018, that a unanimous jury awarded Johnson $289 million, including $250 million in punitive damages, finding that not only did Monsanto’s herbicides cause Johnson to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but that the company knew of the cancer risks and failed to warn Johnson. The lawsuit involved two Monsanto glyphosate herbicide products – Roundup and Ranger Pro.
The trial judge lowered the total verdict to $78 million but Monsanto appealed the reduced amount. Johnson cross appealed to reinstate the $289 million verdict.
The Johnson trial was covered by media outlets around the world and put a spotlight on questionable Monsanto conduct. Lawyers for Johnson presented jurors with internal company emails and other records showing Monsanto scientists discussing ghostwriting scientific papers to try to shore up support for the safety of the company’s products, along with communications detailing plans to discredit critics, and to quash a government evaluation of the toxicity of glyphosate, the key chemical in Monsanto’s products.
Internal documents also showed that Monsanto expected the International Agency for Research on Cancer would classify glyphosate as a probable or possible human carcinogen in March of 2015 (the classification was as a probable carcinogen) and worked out a plan in advance to discredit the cancer scientists after they issued their classification.
Tens of thousands of plaintiffs have filed lawsuits against Monsanto making claims similar to Johnson’s, and two additional trials have taken place since the Johnson trial. Both those trials also resulted in large verdicts against Monsanto.
In June, Bayer said it had reached a settlement agreement with attorneys representing 75 percent of the roughly 125,000 filed and yet-to-be filed claims initiated by U.S. plaintiffs who blame exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup for their development of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Bayer said it will provide $8.8 billion to $9.6 billion to resolve the litigation. But lawyers representing more than 20,000 additional plaintiffs say they have not agreed to settle with Bayer and those lawsuits are expected to continue to work their way through the court system.
In a statement issued after the court ruling, Bayer said it stands behind the safety of Roundup: “The appeal court’s decision to reduce the compensatory and punitive damages is a step in the right direction, but we continue to believe that the jury’s verdict and damage awards are inconsistent with the evidence at trial and the law. Monsanto will consider its legal options, including filing an appeal with the Supreme Court of California.”


sustainablepulse--2020-07-20--Bayer Investors Investigate Company’s Directors for Possible Securities Fraud over Roundup Cancer Ca

Bayer Investors Investigate Company’s Directors for Possible Securities Fraud over Roundup Cancer Cases

Two top international law firms are investigating claims on behalf of Bayer investors concerning whether or not certain of the German company ’ s officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices , related to the Monsanto takeover and following high profile Roundup weedkiller cancer cases .
The legal announcement on Monday from Pomerantz LLP called on investors to join a class action case that will investigate Bayer ’ s officers and/or directors .
Hagens Berman has also urged investors in Bayer who suffered $ 1 million or more in losses to submit their losses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They stated that a securities fraud class action is pending , and certain investors may have valuable claims that would make them eligible to be a lead plaintiff .
Hagens Berman continued that documents revealed in trial show that if Bayer had indeed performed due diligence , it would have known of the great risk acquiring Monsanto truly threatened .
“ We ’ re focused on investors ’ losses and proving Bayer knowingly misled investors about its knowledge or Roundup risks or claimed due diligence , ” said Reed Kathrein , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Pomerantz LLP announcement continued ; “ On August 10 , 2018 , a jury in the action Johnson v. Monsanto Co. , No .
CGC-16-550128 ( Cal .
Super .
Ct. , Cnty .
of S.F . )
( the “ Johnson Case ” ) found unanimously that the glyphosate-based Roundup weedkiller manufactured by Bayer ’ s subsidiary Monsanto Company ( “ Monsanto ” ) was a “ substantial factor ” in causing the plaintiff to develop non-Hodgkin ’ s lymphoma and that Monsanto knew , or should have known , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and failed to warn of this severe health hazard .
The jury also found that Monsanto acted with “ malice or oppression ” and should be punished for its conduct .
Accordingly , the jury ordered Monsanto to pay $ 39 million in compensatory damages and $ 250 million in punitive damages .
On this news , the price of Bayer ADRs declined $ 3.00 per ADR , or 11.28 % , to close at $ 23.59 per ADR .
Then , on October 22 , 2018 , although the court in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damages from $ 250 million to $ 39 million to match the compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff , the court otherwise denied Monsanto ’ s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and Monsanto ’ s motion for a new trial , and upheld the jury ’ s verdict , ruling that “ there is no legal basis to disturb the jury ’ s determination that plaintiff ’ s exposure to [ glyphosate-based herbicides ] was a substantial factor in causing his [ non-Hodgkin ’ s lymphoma ] .
” On this news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 1.90 per ADR , or 8.64 % , to close at $ 20.10 per ADR .
Finally , on March 19 , 2019 , a jury in the action Hardeman v. Monsanto Co. , No .
3:16-cv-525 ( N.D .
Cal . )
—the first federal Roundup cancer lawsuit to proceed to trial—issued a verdict on causation in phase one of the bifurcated trial , finding that plaintiff ’ s “ exposure to Roundup was a substantial factor in causing his non-Hodgkin ’ s lymphoma.
” On this news , the price @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ADR , or 9.25 % , to close at $ 17.85 per ADR.
” In late June Bayer-Monsanto announced that the company will make a total payment of $ 10.1 billion to $ 10.9 billion ( €9.1 billion to €9.8 billion ) to settle the non-Hodgkin ’ s Lymphoma Roundup litigation in the U.S.. Roundup is the most sold glyphosate-based herbicide in the world .
The settlement covers approximately 75 % of the current Roundup litigation involving approximately 125,000 filed and unfiled claims overall .
The details of the settlement are still being @ @

Two top international law firms are investigating claims on behalf of Bayer investors concerning whether or not certain of the German company’s officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices, related to the Monsanto takeover and following high profile Roundup weedkiller cancer cases.
The legal announcement on Monday from Pomerantz LLP called on investors to join a class action case that will investigate Bayer’s officers and/or directors.
Hagens Berman has also urged investors in Bayer who suffered $1 million or more in losses to submit their losses now for evaluation by their legal team. They stated that a securities fraud class action is pending, and certain investors may have valuable claims that would make them eligible to be a lead plaintiff.
Hagens Berman continued that documents revealed in trial show that if Bayer had indeed performed due diligence, it would have known of the great risk acquiring Monsanto truly threatened. “We’re focused on investors’ losses and proving Bayer knowingly misled investors about its knowledge or Roundup risks or claimed due diligence,” said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.
The Pomerantz LLP announcement continued; “On August 10, 2018, a jury in the action Johnson v. Monsanto Co., No. CGC-16-550128 (Cal. Super. Ct., Cnty. of S.F.) (the “Johnson Case”) found unanimously that the glyphosate-based Roundup weedkiller manufactured by Bayer’s subsidiary Monsanto Company (“Monsanto”) was a “substantial factor” in causing the plaintiff to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and that Monsanto knew, or should have known, the risks associated with exposure to the chemical and failed to warn of this severe health hazard. The jury also found that Monsanto acted with “malice or oppression” and should be punished for its conduct. Accordingly, the jury ordered Monsanto to pay $39 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages.
On this news, the price of Bayer ADRs declined $3.00 per ADR, or 11.28%, to close at $23.59 per ADR.
Then, on October 22, 2018, although the court in the Johnson Case reduced the award of punitive damages from $250 million to $39 million to match the compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff, the court otherwise denied Monsanto’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and Monsanto’s motion for a new trial, and upheld the jury’s verdict, ruling that “there is no legal basis to disturb the jury’s determination that plaintiff’s exposure to [glyphosate-based herbicides] was a substantial factor in causing his [non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma].”
On this news, the price of Bayer ADRs declined $1.90 per ADR, or 8.64%, to close at $20.10 per ADR.
Finally, on March 19, 2019, a jury in the action Hardeman v. Monsanto Co., No. 3:16-cv-525 (N.D. Cal.) —the first federal Roundup cancer lawsuit to proceed to trial—issued a verdict on causation in phase one of the bifurcated trial, finding that plaintiff’s “exposure to Roundup was a substantial factor in causing his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.”
On this news, the price of Bayer ADRs declined $1.82 per ADR, or 9.25%, to close at $17.85 per ADR.”
In late June Bayer-Monsanto announced that the company will make a total payment of $10.1 billion to $10.9 billion (€9.1 billion to €9.8 billion) to settle the non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Roundup litigation in the U.S.. Roundup is the most sold glyphosate-based herbicide in the world.
Glyphosate Box Glyphosate Residue Free Certification for Food Brands – Click Here Test Your Food and Water at Home for Glyphosate – Click Here Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Our Your Long-Term Exposure
The settlement covers approximately 75% of the current Roundup litigation involving approximately 125,000 filed and unfiled claims overall. The details of the settlement are still being negotiated.


sustainablepulse--2020-07-24--As Evidence of ‘Hormone Disruptor’ Chemical Threats Grows, Experts Call for Stricter Regulation

A growing number of chemicals in pesticides , flame retardants , and certain plastics have been linked to widespread health problems including infertility in women and men , diabetes , and impaired brain development , a set of reviews of hundreds of studies concludes .
Led by NYU Grossman School of Medicine , a team of environmental health experts analyzed research published in the past five years on endocrine disruptors , as well as American and European policies to regulate them .
These chemicals are believed to interfere with the function of hormones , signaling compounds made in glands that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Published online July 21 in the journal The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology , the new reports focused on the health concerns and regulations to control “ chemicals of concern , ” endocrine disruptors common in industrial and household goods .
These include perfluoroalkyl substances ( PFAS ) , toxins found in nonstick pans and waterproof clothing , and bisphenols , substances used in many plastics and can linings .
Exposure to certain chemicals found in industrial and household goods has been linked in new studies to obesity ; to endometriosis , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the outside of the womb ; and to polycystic ovary syndrome , a significant cause of infertility .
The recent reviews add 17 ties between certain medical conditions and endocrine disruptors to a list of 15 others already identified by a 2015 joint investigation led by the United Nations and the World Health Organization .
For example , new findings suggest that PFAS , bisphenols , and certain pesticides may damage semen .
In addition , the review identifies numerous new studies that link brain-related health concerns , such as IQ loss and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to flame retardants and chemicals found in certain pesticides .
“ These newer studies have strengthened the evidence linking endocrine disruptors to physical and especially neurological health issues , ” says one of the reviews ’ lead authors , Linda Kahn , MPH , PhD , a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Pediatrics at NYU Langone Health .
“ Our review of American and European policies argues that current regulations meant to reduce exposure to this class of chemicals are falling short , ” adds Dr. Kahn .
“ While further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause and effect , urgent action is needed now because the public is already paying the costs through serious and long-lasting health problems.
” The team ’ s policy review found a lack of a consistent definition of endocrine disruptors across countries .
The authors are concerned that current U.S. regulations are based only on exposure to large doses of chemicals , not small , everyday doses over many years , even though recent findings demonstrate that such chemicals are cumulatively dangerous at low levels .
“ Our understanding of endocrine disruptors has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect against them have not , ” says the senior author of the reports , Leonardo Trasande , MD , MPP , the Jim G. Hendrick , MD , Professor at NYU Langone .
“ What ’ s needed are more rigorous tests of commercial chemicals that account for these complexities.
” Dr. Trasande , who also serves as director of the Division of Environmental Pediatrics in NYU Langone ’ s Department of Pediatrics , calls for stricter controls akin to nationwide efforts to reduce exposure to cancer-causing substances .
He suggests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ international program that identifies hazards so they can be effectively regulated before use , rather than after they may have already caused harm .
Dr. Trasande says more research is needed to corroborate or disprove the health effects identified in these studies , as well as to evaluate the economic costs of exposure to these chemicals .
He notes that the Environmental Protection Agency established a protocol in the late 1990s to better regulate these chemicals .
However , the effort made little headway , Dr. Trasande explains , largely because of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lobbying by the chemical and manufacturing industries .

A growing number of chemicals in pesticides, flame retardants, and certain plastics have been linked to widespread health problems including infertility in women and men, diabetes, and impaired brain development, a set of reviews of hundreds of studies concludes.
Led by NYU Grossman School of Medicine, a team of environmental health experts analyzed research published in the past five years on endocrine disruptors, as well as American and European policies to regulate them. These chemicals are believed to interfere with the function of hormones, signaling compounds made in glands that circulate to influence processes throughout the body.
Published online July 21 in the journal The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, the new reports focused on the health concerns and regulations to control “chemicals of concern,” endocrine disruptors common in industrial and household goods. These include perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), toxins found in nonstick pans and waterproof clothing, and bisphenols, substances used in many plastics and can linings.
Exposure to certain chemicals found in industrial and household goods has been linked in new studies to obesity; to endometriosis, a painful and abnormal growth of tissue on the outside of the womb; and to polycystic ovary syndrome, a significant cause of infertility.
The recent reviews add 17 ties between certain medical conditions and endocrine disruptors to a list of 15 others already identified by a 2015 joint investigation led by the United Nations and the World Health Organization. For example, new findings suggest that PFAS, bisphenols, and certain pesticides may damage semen. In addition, the review identifies numerous new studies that link brain-related health concerns, such as IQ loss and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), to flame retardants and chemicals found in certain pesticides.
“These newer studies have strengthened the evidence linking endocrine disruptors to physical and especially neurological health issues,” says one of the reviews’ lead authors, Linda Kahn, MPH, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Pediatrics at NYU Langone Health.
“Our review of American and European policies argues that current regulations meant to reduce exposure to this class of chemicals are falling short,” adds Dr. Kahn. “While further research is needed to more firmly establish cause and effect, urgent action is needed now because the public is already paying the costs through serious and long-lasting health problems.”
The team’s policy review found a lack of a consistent definition of endocrine disruptors across countries. The authors are concerned that current U.S. regulations are based only on exposure to large doses of chemicals, not small, everyday doses over many years, even though recent findings demonstrate that such chemicals are cumulatively dangerous at low levels.
Test Your Hair for Long-Term Exposure to Pesticides
“Our understanding of endocrine disruptors has evolved, but the regulations in place to protect against them have not,” says the senior author of the reports, Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, the Jim G. Hendrick, MD, Professor at NYU Langone. “What’s needed are more rigorous tests of commercial chemicals that account for these complexities.”
Dr. Trasande, who also serves as director of the Division of Environmental Pediatrics in NYU Langone’s Department of Pediatrics, calls for stricter controls akin to nationwide efforts to reduce exposure to cancer-causing substances. He suggests that a much-needed step is establishing an international program that identifies hazards so they can be effectively regulated before use, rather than after they may have already caused harm.
Dr. Trasande says more research is needed to corroborate or disprove the health effects identified in these studies, as well as to evaluate the economic costs of exposure to these chemicals. He notes that the Environmental Protection Agency established a protocol in the late 1990s to better regulate these chemicals. However, the effort made little headway, Dr. Trasande explains, largely because of a perceived lack of conclusive studies and fierce lobbying by the chemical and manufacturing industries.