Glyphosate Cancer Cover-up: Control Animals in Studies Also Ate Glyphosate-Contaminated Food

[Created4]

Dr. Anthony Samsel was recently interviewed by Tony Mitra, where he discussed certain documents he has in his possession from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that allegedly show Monsanto knew about research connecting glyphosate to cancer since the 1970s.

In this follow-up interview, Dr. Samsel discusses how the rat chow used in the laboratory feeds he analyzed were all contaminated with glyphosate. This is significant, as it means standard rat chow used in scientific studies have probably been contaminated since they started using GMO feeds that had been sprayed with glyphosate.

Dr. Samsel says that this is very problematic for the scientific community, because glyphosate is a contaminate, and should not be present in the feed of control animals used in scientific studies. He mentioned a recent folic acid study that reportedly showed a link between folic acid and mammary tumors, which he states is very contentious, and he points out that the animal chow consumed by the lab rats would have certainly been contaminated with glyphosate, which is now linked to cancer. The Purina lab chows are made from conventional corn, soy, and other GMO ingredients sprayed with glyphosate.



Source.

[tod evans]

So honest studies would have to be conducted using animals and food from another land mass.

That makes sense, now where on the planet are both crops and test animals grown that haven't been subjected to some chemical carcinogen that'll skew the results?

I'm afraid mankind has sprayed or sprinkled one concoction or another on most fertile land masses in the world......

[angelatc]

This has already been discussed and debunked. Europe has run similar studies using European foods and found no differences, so in essence their studies actually backfired and proved ONCE AGAIN that there is zero evidence of any harm from GMO food.

(mod edit) the anti-GMO movement is not driven by fact. They are driven by power, and they are using scientific ignorance coupled with carefully crafted hysteria to seek control of the world's food supply.

[Created4]

So honest studies would have to be conducted using animals and food from another land mass.

That makes sense, now where on the planet are both crops and test animals grown that haven't been subjected to some chemical carcinogen that'll skew the results?

I'm afraid mankind has sprayed or sprinkled one concoction or another on most fertile land masses in the world......

Yes, that's just it. The new "normal" and baseline is contaminated food and drugged people. So any studies supposedly showing no negative consequences of something just mean "less than normal." But they don't define "normal."

If you can find truly uncontaminated food today, it is automatically "health food."

Is it Normal to be Sick?

[angelatc]

Yes, that's just it. The new "normal" and baseline is contaminated food and drugged people. So any studies supposedly showing no negative consequences of something just mean "less than normal." But they don't define "normal."

Thus soundly proving the aforementioned scientific illiteracy with a nice tinge of hysteria thrown in for effect.

The old "normal" was an average lifespan of age 35.

[tod evans]

Thus soundly proving the aforementioned scientific illiteracy with a nice tinge of hysteria thrown in for effect.

The old "normal" was an average lifespan of age 35.

Hot damn!

My grandma told me since I was 16 that I was livin' on borrowed time, she'd be glad to know she was right.....

[Created4]

Hot damn!

My grandma told me since I was 16 that I was livin' on borrowed time, she'd be glad to know she was right.....

How Long did YOUR Ancestors Live While Eating BACON, LARD, & WHOLE MILK?

[tod evans]

^^^^^^^^^I still live like that! ^^^^^^^^^^^

[donnay]

Glyphosate cover-up? Some people do not understand how much deception is going on in the scientific community. Scientist are like mercenaries, their loyalties goes to the highest bidders.

[tod evans]

Glyphosate cover-up? Some people do not understand how much deception is going on in the scientific community. Scientist are like mercenaries, their loyalties goes to the highest bidders.

Yeah but..........

These are people who read and pay attention to labels in stores in order to procure their food.

Every one of 'em could eat better, save money and not sweat science if they'd just befriend a local farmer and rancher.

There's no amount of excuses that'll excuse such laziness..

When locker plants closed down by the thousands the average US diet went to hell.....

[Zippyjuan]

Rats Drinking Glyphosate Contaminated Water Live Longer
(and the data comes from a study intended to show it caused cancer) http://mylespower.co.uk/2013/06/29/d...n-live-longer/

To understand how the paper ‘proves’ the link between roundup and prolonged life in men, we first need to talk about the experiment itself. The experiment involved 100 male and 100 female albino Sprague-Dawley rats, who were divided into groups of 10. For each sex, a control group was fed on plain water and standard maize. Six groups were fed with 11%, 22% and 33% of GM-maize, either treated with Roundup or not. The final three groups were fed with the control maize, but had access to water contaminated with 1.1×10-8% (the contaminating level of some regular tap waters), 0.09% (concentrations found in some GM feed) and 0.5% (half of the minimal agricultural working dilution) of Roundup. The results apparently showed that 50% of males and 70% of females died prematurely, compared with only 30% and 20% in the control group.

If we look at the paper you will see there is something very strange with the table of data showing the mortality rates of the rats – it’s missing. For a paper that boasts about the death count of female rats fed GM-maize, this is very strange; especially considering they went to the trouble of producing a table that shows the rates of cancers in the rats in all groups. Instead of a nice neat table of data, we get six graphs to interpret the data from. Firstly, it should be said that these graphs are a mess. They use a series of lines differing in thickness to show the difference in the groups’ mortalities, with a dotted line representing the control group. The problem is that the lines are not different colours and frequently overlap making it difficult to see what is going on. They also have many other dotted lines going vertically for no reason and use the same key to show different things. For example, the think line represents rats that have been fed on 33% GM-maize but it also represents rats that have been given water contaminated with 0.5% Roundup herbicide. What we are left with is an almost unreadable mess and I believe that’s the whole point: it’s a mess so people don’t notice that the paper shows a link between Herbicide and long life in male rats.

Long-term Toxicity of a Roundup Herbicide and a Roundup-Tolerant Genetically Modified Maize 2

The paper shows that male rats drinking pure water will have a 50% higher mortality rate than those drinking water contaminated with 0.5% Roundup herbicide. Unlike the other graphs in which the results don’t make sense (for example, more male rats die eating 11% GM-maize and sooner than those fed 0%, 22% and 33%), there is a clear correlation between the amount of Roundup herbicide consumed and life expectancies. Rats drinking water contaminated with 1.1×10-8% had a 11% less mortality rate, 0.09% contamination had a 22% less mortality rate and 0.5% contamination had a 33% less mortality rate. If this paper is correct then the more herbicide you drink, the longer you would live.

[donnay]

[donnay]

Yeah but..........

These are people who read and pay attention to labels in stores in order to procure their food.

Every one of 'em could eat better, save money and not sweat science if they'd just befriend a local farmer and rancher.

There's no amount of excuses that'll excuse such laziness..

When locker plants closed down by the thousands the average US diet went to hell.....

Not all people have access to farmers and ranchers, unfortunately.

I believe this is the way they will control our food...when that day comes, we are going to be truly f*cked.

[dannno]

The old "normal" was an average lifespan of age 35.

That's because a lot of people died really young. Of those who made it past 20 or so, I believe the average age of that subgroup was higher than our average age today.

[Acala]

Dr. Samsel says that this is very problematic for the scientific community, because glyphosate is a contaminate, and should not be present in the feed of control animals used in scientific studies.

If the contaminant is in the food of the test animals it should also be in the food of the control animals. The conditions of the test animals and the control animals should be as alike as possible with the exception of the variable being studied.

[Created4]

If the contaminant is in the food of the test animals it should also be in the food of the control animals. The conditions of the test animals and the control animals should be as alike as possible with the exception of the variable being studied.

That's the main point. If the variable being tested is glyphosate, then all these studies supposedly showing it is safe are suspect. But in other studies, the contaminate should be in NEITHER the test animals or the control animals.

[Zippyjuan]

I would be curious about the actual amounts found. At small enough levels you can find it in everything. Was there enough to matter? Glyphosate is also found in organic foods. http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/the...ood-an-update/

Even grass fed beef may be consuming it. http://www.alderspring.com/organic-b...rass-fed-beef/

Headlines screaming "contaminated" sound like you could die from eating any amount. In the interview he cites 0.35 parts per million which is barely measurable and not a significant amount.

[Zippyjuan]

I found what I think is the source of his info (He doesn't conduct any studies- just writes papers).

http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-n...cides-and-gmos

Laboratory rat feeds contaminated with pesticides and GMOs

New study throws doubt on findings of safety in pesticide and GMO studies. Claire Robinson reports

Laboratory rodent feeds are highly contaminated with pesticides, toxic metals, PCBs, and GMOs, according to a new study soon to be published in the journal PLOS ONE.

The study casts doubt on claims of safety drawn from hundreds of thousands of animal feeding trials performed for regulatory approvals of pesticides and GMOs.

For the study, the team of Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini at the University of Caen in France analyzed the dried feed of laboratory animals sourced from 5 continents. These diets are commonly fed to rats used to test the safety of pesticides and GMOs. The study investigated 13 samples of rat feeds for traces of 262 pesticides, 4 heavy metals, 17 dioxins and furans, 18 PCBs and 22 GMOs.

The researchers found that all the feeds contained significant concentrations of several of these products at levels likely to cause diseases by disrupting the endocrine and nervous system of the animals. Considering all the contaminants measured, these diets, when consumed over a long-term experimental period, would be considered by standard measurements to pose a very high hazard to health.

For example, residues of glyphosate, used on 80% of GMO crops and widely used to “dry down” non-GMO crops before harvest, were detected in 9 of the 13 diets. Eleven of the 13 diets contained GMOs that are grown with large amounts of Roundup.

This is a problem for public health because regulators use tests on animals fed on these diets to assess the safety of any one pesticide or GMO by looking at the difference between the exposed animal and the controls. If the treatment (exposed) and control groups are both eating an uncontrolled assortment of pesticides or GMOs, any actual toxic effect arising from the pesticide or GMO under test, unless the effect is massive in size, will be lost amid the “noise” caused by the jumble of potentially and known toxic substances.

At the bottom of the piece:

Note: The new paper is still under embargo by the journal, PLOS ONE. Publication is expected soon.

And then I also found this article: http://www.nature.com/news/study-lin...racted-1.14268

Study linking GM maize to rat tumours is retracted
Publisher withdraws paper despite authors' objections, citing weak evidence.

Bowing to scientists' near-universal scorn, the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology today fulfilled its threat to retract a controversial paper claiming that a genetically modified (GM) maize causes serious disease in rats, after the authors refused to withdraw it.


The paper, from a research group led by Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen, France, and published in 20121, showed “no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data”, said a statement from Elsevier, which publishes the journal. But the small number and type of animals used in the study mean that “no definitive conclusions can be reached”. The known high incidence of tumours in the Sprague–Dawley strain of rat ”cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed in the treated groups”, it added.

The paper’s retraction was the latest in a series of setbacks for Séralini and his group. The publication of his team's study was greeted by a storm of protest from scientists, and both the EFSA and Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment In Berlin slammed the paper for providing inadequate data to support its conclusions.