Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
Exposure to a chemical found in the weed killer Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides is significantly associated with preterm births, according to a new University of Michigan study.
The study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, found that the presence of the chemical in women's urine in late pregnancy was linked to an increased risk for premature birth, while the association was inconsistent or null earlier in the pregnancy.
"Since most people are exposed to some level of glyphosate and may not even know it, if our results reflect true associations, then the public health implications could be enormous," said senior author John Meeker, professor of environmental health sciences and senior associate dean for research at the U-M School of Public Health.
[...] The researchers decided to measure glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA)—one of the primary degradation products of the herbicide—by testing urine, since the chemicals are not metabolized by mammals. They tested the urine of 247 pregnant women at the first and third study visit of their pregnancy, at 16-20 weeks and 24-28 weeks.
Looking at preterm births (babies born at less than 37 weeks of pregnancy) and comparing them to controls, the research team found that the odds of preterm birth were significantly elevated among women with higher urinary concentrations of glyphosate and AMPA at the third visit, while associations with levels at the first visit were largely null or inconsistent.
The researchers say that AMPA is formed not only from the degradation of glyphosate, but from other common industrial chemicals as well. AMPA is also highly persistent and can take months to break down in the environment.
"Despite the potential for widespread exposure to glyphosate and AMPA, there is very little information regarding the health effects of exposure during pregnancy," Silver said. "Ours is the first study to measure AMPA, and only the second to measure glyphosate in relation to birth outcomes."
Journal Reference:
Monica K. Silver, et al. Prenatal Exposure to Glyphosate and Its Environmental Degradate, Aminomethylphosphonic Acid (AMPA), and Preterm Birth: A Nested Case–Control Study in the PROTECT Cohort (Puerto Rico), Environmental Health Perspectives (DOI: https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/EHP7295)
Related Stories
Justice Michael Lee handed down his judgement in the class action against widely-used herbicide Roundup on Thursday afternoon.
The case, launched by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, claims Roundup's active ingredient glyphosate caused the cancer of more than 800 Australian non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients.
Justice Lee ruled there is not enough current evidence to say glyphosate is carcinogenic and capable of causing non-Hodgkin lymphoma in humans.
The judge only needed to consider the question of general causation – not the specific claims of lead applicant Kelvin McNickle or the other class action group members.
Justice Lee ordered the proceedings be dismissed.
Bayer, which acquired Roundup's producer Monsanto in 2018, has previously stated glyphosate-based herbicides have been rigorously tested in hundreds of studies and it is safe when used as directed.
Related:
•Study First to Link Weed Killer Roundup to Convulsions in Animals
•US Supreme Court Rejects Bayer's Bid to End Roundup Lawsuits
•Bayer Loses Appeal of Ruling That its Weed Killer Causes Cancer
•Widely Used Herbicide Linked to Preterm Births
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 25 2021, @07:52PM (1 child)
Roundup/glyphosate was first brought to the market in the 70s. When things are executed on such a scale that you don't really have a control sample (since basically everybody in America is huffing glyphosate by now, regardless of diet) separating cause from effect becomes near impossible, because you have no control sample. And it's not made any easier by the fact that companies like Monsanto have an army of "scientists" saying whatever they're supposed to say, and endless influence in government ensuring the same.
For instance the head of the FDA under Obama was Michael R. Taylor [wikipedia.org] - a Monsanto lobbyist, VP, and lawyer who most famously argued that companies should be allowed to knowingly include a minimal amount of carcinogenic compounds into processed foods - that guy was the head of the government agency responsible for food safety in America for the better part of a decade.
The only point I make with this is that unforeseen consequences are a thing (regardless of whether or not this study's findings end up being validated), as are folks working to ensure no such things are discovered - especially when there are large sums of money involved. This is something increasingly often forgotten in society. A society that's changed an immense amount and is seeing an ever larger number of macro scale physiological and psychological issues, with no clear cause.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 26 2021, @05:37AM
What dosage is associated with "huffing" glyphosate?
Well, he's right. At some point, reducing carcinogenic compounds (at least the ones that weren't always present) in your food kills more people than it saves. We may already be past that point.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 25 2021, @07:54PM (25 children)
Glyphosate is sprayed on grains and legumes shortly before harvest to dry the crop before mechanical harvesting. You are eating this crap unless you only buy 'organic'.
The keywords to search on, for more information, are:
glyphosate desiccation
Major agricultural universities including University of Minnesota recommend the practice.
Humans are stupid.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 25 2021, @09:46PM (4 children)
https://www.ecowatch.com/roundup-cancer-1882187755.html [ecowatch.com]
Holy fuck, you are correct. It's to kill the plants so the seeds 'dry' faster.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Tuesday May 25 2021, @10:48PM (3 children)
Isn't this the same stuff where they put a label on the 55gal drums saying it must stay 100 feet from any water source, river, or stream? (can't remember actual distance, maybe yards).
So nice to know they are using it in industrial food processing. Guess I should start washing beans really well, or just stop eating them.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 25 2021, @11:04PM (2 children)
Always, always wash your produce. There may not be Glyphosate on it, but that isn't the only nasty thing that sticks to them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 26 2021, @03:14AM (1 child)
I've started to grow my own, because you can't trust the farmers to not food poison people with e. Coli. Once that gets on leafy greens, it's nearly impossible to remove.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 26 2021, @05:38AM
Indeed. Do it yourself, if you want the poisoning done right.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 25 2021, @11:02PM (6 children)
Right before is a bit of a misnomer. Crop dry down is a recommended practice and there are a number of applicants and processes you can use to accomplish it. Glyphosate is one of them and if done properly should not lead to uptake by the plant. Of course, some people choose to use glyphosate and some people don't apply it correctly. That said, for most US crops, glyphosate is not used in this manner, except for northern or wet states and those with similar hardiness and climate zones. Personally, I don't use it and don't know anyone who does, but I'm sure the opposite is true for farmers in Canada or the UK.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday May 26 2021, @03:41AM (5 children)
Except that it's been prety well established that *any* glyphosphate(and most other herbicides and pesticides) use at any stage of plant development results in some uptake into the grains. Maybe not much, depending on the particular species and chemical, but definitely not zero.
I don't immediately recall any studies looking specifically at desiccation uses - but you're intentionally poisoning the plant to cause it to "panic" and put all its available resources into producing more/larger seeds, basically investing in its children in the face of its own imminent death. Stands to reason that, at best, it's going to add a final "booster shot" of the poison that's killing it to the grains. It's not like the poison kills the plant without getting absorbed. And if it could "filter out" the poison, it wouldn't be dying.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 26 2021, @04:59AM (4 children)
They've done studies and when done properly there is no residue or traces in the grain, although it does affect grain protein content. But as I said, it can be really difficult to use it properly. That is one reason why it is rare in the U.S. because other processes work better here and are cheaper too. You also don't treat them to create more or larger seeds, you do it to prevent weeds, artificially shorten the growing season, promote desiccation, and improve yields by preventing loss. That is another reason why they are rarely used in the US like this because they don't have to worry about those issues around harvest in most agricultural areas, leading to little benefit but high cost from doing so.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 26 2021, @07:33AM (1 child)
Paid by... Monsato? When you have a study DESIGNED to not show traces and not to measure residue smaller than some value, you have precisely this. A study to pull that wool over everyone eyes so they can sell more chemicals. And what could possibly go wrong with it? If people later find problems with it, blame it on scientists. If roundup ends up in food and is detected, they can blame it on farmers since they must have done it wrong. Even you are saying that here -- 'if done properly'. For the chemical to kill the plant, the plant needs to take it in, otherwise it will not be dead. You don't need to be a scientist to know this.
You know what - I would have believed a study when you find traces, as they must be found and measured. If the study said that some tiny tiny amount was found, ok, at least it's reliable data. But saying no traces found is just bullshit and the study is meaningless as it was clearly engineered to not find anything. And yes, if I did that experiment, I can put that grain in a mass spectrometer and I can find roundup and its metabolites in the grain and then estimate the total amount of the uptake at various stages of plant lifecycle. What they probably did is put a chemical reagent in a tube and then say 'yaeah, looks clear to my eyeball, what do you think Bob? Yeap, no traces'.
It's the same shit that happens when you look at ingredients of something and there is 'hydrogenated fat' and then the label says 'trans-fat free' and 'Transfats - 0g'. While in fact the food industry lobbied that if there is less than 0.5g of transfat per serving, they can label it as transfat tree and 0g transfats. It's a disgrace.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28 2021, @02:52AM
No, people who have done it include the lofted Joel Ransom offered in another comment. You know it is possible to grow things without using any on it and then use it just to kill the crops after they reach physical maturity, right? It is called "controlling variables." It doesn't bioaccumulate in the grain itself, unlike other parts of the plant and unlike other variety of plants. Is there contamination from the chaff in processing? Absolutely and I never said their isn't, but that isn't the same thing as saying it is in the grain.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 26 2021, @09:04AM (1 child)
Lies! They found traces in ALL samples in every study I reviewed, but typically below 30 ppm (the legal limit in the USA) outside of case studies. Look up Joel Ransom's data.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 27 2021, @02:56AM
Not from desiccation and not in the grain.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 26 2021, @02:28AM (11 children)
Maybe not this specifically (or maybe it is [cbsnews.com]), but I'd wager that practices like this are behind the uptick in perceived gluten sensitivity in the population - it may not be a problem with gluten at all, but a problem with how the wheat is processed.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 26 2021, @05:02AM
Would you happen to know if gluten sensitivity higher in the UK or Canada? They use it much more as a pre-harvest treatment there compared to the USA. There may be some confounding variables in the comparison, but it would go a long way in proving a connection.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 26 2021, @05:43AM (9 children)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 26 2021, @12:48PM (8 children)
There are certainly diseases that increase in diagnosis with awareness, and there are certainly diseases currently undiagnosed that would dramatically increase if given a name and set of symptoms described in the literature.
We became aware of gluten sensitivity through its effects on our older son's autism symptoms. That old saw about "autism was always here" is true, but doesn't explain the recent (last 25 years) increases in prevalence and severity - not even close. Just because we used to throw those with autism symptoms into institutions and forget about them doesn't explain all the new cases.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 26 2021, @02:03PM (7 children)
Actually it can explain that factor of three [cdc.gov] increase. Observation bias can be quite powerful and there's a lot of autism that wouldn't have been reported in the past. Whatever the cause, that will come out in time.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 26 2021, @04:56PM (6 children)
Last I bothered to listen to the Autism Dx rates it was something on the order of 1/50. Factor of 3 is 1/150 - and that may well be due to increased awareness, but if you go back before the theatrical release of Rain Man, Dx rate was less than 1/10,000. You'll need to find another factor of 65x somewhere - and, again, awareness, spread of "what is Autism" etc. explain a lot of that but not all, not even close to all. It does not explain the current prevalence of high severity cases I have seen in the schools for the past 15 years, not even when you factor in all the "retards" who used to get thrown into the holding pens back in the '70s.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 2) by pdfernhout on Thursday May 27 2021, @12:05AM
https://drhyman.com/blog/2010/12/09/breakthrough-discovery-on-the-causes-of-autism/ [drhyman.com]
"The causes of mitochondrial dysfunction are well known, specifically as it relates to metabolism and the brain, and I have documented them in my books UtraMetabolism and The UltraMind Solution. They include environmental toxins(iv)—mercury, lead and persistent organic pollutants(v)—latent infections, gluten and allergens (which trigger inflammation) sugar and processed foods,(vi) a nutrient-depleted diet,(vii) and nutritional deficiencies.(viii) These are all potentially treatable and reversible causes of mitochondrial dysfunction that have been clearly documented. I found all these problems in Jackson, and over a period of 2 years we slowly unraveled and treated the underlying causes of his energy loss which included gut inflammation, mercury, and nutrient deficiencies. Over time, the tests for his mitochondrial function and oxidative stress (as well as levels of inflammation and nutrient status) all normalized. When they became normal, so did Jackson. He went from full-blown regressive autism to a normal, bright beautiful 6-year-old boy."
Not saying that applies in all autism cases which no doubt have many causes. But what is sad is that so many doctors don't even try to help.
Lead is another example:
"Lead: America’s Real Criminal Element; The hidden villain behind violent crime, lower IQs, and even the ADHD epidemic."
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposure-gasoline-crime-increase-children-health/ [motherjones.com]
Or in the words of Stephen Ilardi (regarding depression, but applies more generally especially when you consider environmental toxins including pesticides which were derived from nerve gas):
https://tlc.ku.edu/ [ku.edu]
"We were never designed for the sedentary, indoor, sleep-deprived, socially-isolated, fast-food-laden, frenetic pace of modern life.”
Good luck with helping your son have a good life. He's lucky to have a parent like you!
The biggest challenge of the 21st century: the irony of technologies of abundance used by scarcity-minded people.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 27 2021, @05:17AM (4 children)
That sounds more like observation bias combined with changes in what counted as autism. Sorry, I'm not buying that minor changes in pesticide use results in autism rates that huge - especially given that no one has shown a strong correlation to glyphosate, TV watching, vaccines, smart people breeding, or other alleged causes over the decades.
My take is that the primary causes of such elevated rates of autism are simple - more physicians and psychologists are aware of the symptoms and there's more generous criteria for diagnosis, possibly combined with economic incentives to diagnose autism (much as there is for the attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder). I think that can account for most of that factor of 200 change in diagnosis rate.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday May 27 2021, @01:18PM (3 children)
Sorry, I don't give a flip what you buy or don't buy.
Lead in the atmosphere was a relatively simple one to trace and prove, and that took decades to dislodge out of industrial use.
Organic chemicals are a much more complex stew and the fight over "proof of causality" may never end.
Do I think there's a single "autism spray" that was unleashed on the world in 1989 ramping up to today's epidemic? No. Autism catches too many underlying conditions, with too many presentations, too many genetic factors... but I also believe that a combination of environmental factors have ramped up both the prevelance and severity of cases around the globe.
In reality, I'm glad I don't know the exact cause - because if I did know the exact cause, even if I had irrefutable proof of the (or a bundle of) exact cause(s) - it would be a demoralizingly frustrating existence having that information and watching the world fight back against changes to improve the state of things for a minority of the population.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 27 2021, @02:45PM (2 children)
Sounds like you should have the same tracing and proving before continuing with this argument.
In other words, you have no evidence. I allow that there could be some connection, but people have been seeing causation from correlation for a long time.
Do we even have evidence that the incidence of autism has changed in the past 30 years? It'd be one thing, if the same rigorous procedures were used to diagnose autism back then as now, but that's not the case.
In other words, you're pushing a Cassandra fantasy.
Here's my take. We should require solid evidence of harm before we harm humanity's ability to produce food.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday May 27 2021, @05:03PM (1 child)
Sounds like you should go fuck yourself with an MDMA bearing GMO Zucchini because it hasn't been proved to cause any harm yet.
I think we do, but I'm sure you'd gleefully push the argument that global warming lacks evidence too... and if you continue that attitude a little further you can join the Flat Earth society.
Humanity can (still, for another couple of decades at least) produce more food than we need, what glycophosphate and the rest are doing is funneling profits in a particular direction while allegedly reducing overall costs. What they are failing to report are the externalized costs of their methods - which may be less than their temporary cost reductions, but we don't even need those cost reductions in the first place.
Would we have to redirect some resources out of TV and film production, sofa based navel contemplation and bureaucratic obstructionism into working the food supply chain if we didn't use glycophosphate at all? Yeah, maybe 1%, maybe less.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 27 2021, @11:36PM
Sounds like you're trying to use a precautionary principle fallacy here. You clearly have not tried to prove it doesn't cause any harm yet.
I never have pushed the argument that global warming lacks evidence. I have pushed successfully the argument that global warming has not been shown to be an urgent problem now - including your efforts on the matter, of course. And the failures of reasoning that lead to the global warming hysteria also follow for many other sorts of hysteria. I don't mind differences of opinion, but why should I change my opinion in the absence of evidence to support your claims?
What happens if we need more than a couple of decades?
Not much point to redirecting resources, if you're crippling the ability of those resources to grow food.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 26 2021, @08:59AM
Wow. Thank you for this. I had no idea. What a pain. It's highly water soluble so washing should suffice but... I can't wash my flour or oats. Argh.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ElizabethGreene on Tuesday May 25 2021, @08:00PM
Here's a working link to the paper.
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP7295 [nih.gov]
(Score: 2) by bmimatt on Tuesday May 25 2021, @08:05PM (1 child)
it seems to be linked to the bee colony collapse problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 25 2021, @09:43PM
you are thinking about the neonicotinoids - a pesticide.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 25 2021, @08:20PM
So glad you took over Monsanto, eh?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday May 25 2021, @08:21PM (3 children)
That's ok, we can fix it in post
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 26 2021, @02:34AM (2 children)
So say the NICU docs and their billing offices...
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday May 26 2021, @01:51PM (1 child)
I don't see how this is offtopic - if NICU means neonatal intensive care unit it is relevant.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday May 26 2021, @04:40PM
Apparently, someone didn't know what NICU meant and they didn't DDG it. It's the #1 hit on Duck Duck Go and essentially the #1 hit on Google.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Tuesday May 25 2021, @09:36PM (11 children)
They do promise that Roundup works fast to remove unwanted things growing in your bush...
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 25 2021, @10:01PM (6 children)
Will remove everything in your bush that is not genetically engineered to resist it, not only the unwanted things.
So, contact fucking Monsanto services for your birthing needs. (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 25 2021, @11:09PM
While it is broad-spectrum, there are plants that are naturally immune to its effects. The problem is that grasses aren't one of those categories and most of our crops that people can think of off-hand are grasses.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 26 2021, @02:37AM (4 children)
Gotta use licensed seed, delivered personally by your new Monsanto lords. Anybody remember Braveheart?
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday May 26 2021, @04:46PM (3 children)
While Braveheart was a movie that supported the ideals of freedom. The main character had his balls and/or other bits removed with a most likely rusty and cruel instrument, then was summarily executed. Why did you bring that disturbing image to my mind again?
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 26 2021, @05:02PM (2 children)
I was thinking more of the wedding night ceremony instituted by the new ruler where the bride would be bed by the English lord before her husband - that was Braveheart, wasn't it?
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday May 26 2021, @06:01PM (1 child)
Indeed that was Braveheart, but that's a pretty poor comparison with the topic of the article. Now, if you'd made a reference to the East India Trading Company, you might have got somewhere.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 26 2021, @06:08PM
I thought it was an apt analogy for Monsanto's policy of "licensed seed." You can't use your own, we demand that you use ours and pay us for it.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 25 2021, @11:42PM (2 children)
Watched the previous owner (a relative) use Roundup to keep down grass & weeds in the gravel side-driveway. Didn't like it, but they were infirm to the point that they could no longer pull weeds.
Since inheriting the place, I've resisted chemical use and recently started trying a new tactic. An indoor-outdoor carpet in the entryway was due for replacement. Instead of throwing it away, I've put it over a patch of the weeds. So far it seems to be doing a pretty good job of killing them. No further chemicals required (except the ones used originally to make the rubber-backed carpet. Once one patch is dead, I'll move the carpet to an adjacent area. A little raking up of anything remaining, some rain (or hose) to clean the gravel and the driveway should look good again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 26 2021, @03:17AM (1 child)
Probably the safest methods other than pulling is to either steam the weeds so they can't retain moisture or cover them. Both generally work but aren't always practical.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 26 2021, @07:35AM
You don't need steam. Just pour some very hot water on them. Works better than any chemical.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday May 26 2021, @04:49PM
Where's the crude humor mod, when you need one? Now, what would that be a +1 or -1? Maybe, leave it up to the user when setting up an account. Do you like crude humor? Yes/No (Answering yes will give a +1 to all crude humor mods for your viewing pleasure or -1 for your displeasure.)
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 26 2021, @02:26AM (3 children)
A lot of these studies don't test Roundup, they only test glyphosate (or byproducts).
Roundup contains much more than glyphosate and what Monsanto and "regulators" call inert isn't what I would call inert.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/ [scientificamerican.com]
So all those research and studies implying Roundup is safe but only tested glyphosate? Worse than useless.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 26 2021, @04:32AM (1 child)
I think that it shows how much ability monsanto has that they have been able to prevent researchers from releasing tests that used roundup.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday May 26 2021, @04:54PM
Sounds like they've been good at rounding up the competition and exterminating them.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 26 2021, @07:43AM
From you link
So, if you want organic only, you may also get these chemicals as well.