pesticides

Zika, microcephaly, and pesticides: Half-truths, hysteria, and vested interests

Posted by

0


People who think pesticides might have something to do with the microcephaly outbreak in Brazil are being attacked as irrational conspiracy theorists. Claire Robinson takes a closer look at who’s peddling the myths.

Adult mosquito emerging_from pupa

I recently published an article on reports by the Argentine doctors’ group, Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Towns, and the Brazilian public health researchers’ group Abrasco, which raised the issue of the potential role of the larvicide pyriproxyfen in the apparent surge in babies born with birth defects involving abnormally small heads (microcephaly). Pyriproxyfen is added to drinking water stored in open containers to interfere with the development of disease-carrying mosquitoes, thus killing or disabling them.

The Ecologist published a version of my article which, together with the original publication on GMWatch, quickly went viral, triggering a lot more media coverage. This in turn met with a furious backlash involving what has seemed at times like a “shouting brigade” condemning anyone who thinks the Argentine report worth taking seriously.

Yet at times this chorus of condemnation has been extraordinarily hypocritical, condemning the Argentine doctors as enemies of fact and accuracy while getting the most basic of facts wrong about what the doctors are actually suggesting.

Pesticide defenders invent “pesticide causes Zika” conspiracy theory

Take, for instance, the Washington Post food columnist, Tamar Haspel. Haspel tweeted: “No, GMOs and pesticides aren’t the Zika culprits. Could we evaluate groups by how often they spread fact-free theories? A cred rating.”

Tamar Haspel Zika Tweet

Andrew Noymer, a social epidemiologist at the University of California, Irvine, replied: “Pesticide is not Zika culprit but it hasn’t been definitively ruled out as birth defect culprit. Got it? Good.”

In response to Noymer’s challenge, Haspel claimed that she was just using Zika as Twitter “shorthand” for microcephaly! Noymer retorted, “Well then you’re just misinformed.

Andrew Noymer Tamar Haspel Twitter

It wasn’t just Haspel who seemed to accuse the supposed “conspiracy theorists” of linking the pesticide to Zika. Grist food writer Nathanael Johnson also appeared to fall into the trap with a headline attacking a “bogus theory connecting Zika” to the pesticide industry. But the Argentine doctors only ever suggested the larvicide pyriproxyfen might be a culprit in microcephaly. Nobody ever claimed pesticides cause the Zika virus!

Another well-known GMO supporter, Julie Kelly, made a similar mistake when she damned the Hollywood actor Mark Ruffalo for tweeting what she said was an “egregiously inaccurate” article that blamed “pesticides – not mosquitos – for transmitting the Zika virus”.

Just good friends

This is not to say that some of the initial coverage of the pesticide theory didn’t suffer from real inaccuracies. One red herring was set running by the Argentine doctors themselves when they wrongly identified the company that makes the larvicide as a subsidiary of Monsanto.

In fact, Sumitomo Chemical is a long-term strategic partner of Monsanto’s – they’ve been working together for nearly two decades, but Monsanto doesn’t own the company. Even so, it’s a perhaps understandable error given the closeness of the companies’ cooperation in Brazil and Argentina. In any case, it’s an error that I was careful to avoid in my Ecologist piece, which correctly identified the larvicide manufacturer as only a strategic partner.

Nevertheless, it’s an error that was seized upon by Nathanael Johnson, for instance, with his headline, “A bogus theory connecting Zika virus to Monsanto could give mosquitoes a boost”.

Nathanael Johnson Headline

Ironically, that headline, as we’ve noted, is more misleading than the error about the extent of the Monsanto connection.

“Pesticides could be involved” – leading virologist

What is also misleading about Johnson’s headline is the suggestion that the pesticide theory (in relation to microcephaly, of course, not Zika) can be batted off as “bogus”. The idea that this particular pesticide – and/or other pesticides – could be linked to the birth defect problem in Brazil is not something that can simply be dismissed out of hand.

Although it’s been claimed that Dr Francis Collins, director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, “spoke out against the ‘sketchy’ report” of the Argentine doctors, Collins actually described their theory not as bogus but as “interesting”.

And the biologist Dr Pete Myers, in an editorial comment posted on the online news service Environmental Health News, pointed out that the reason the pesticide hypothesis is, as Collins rightly says, “sketchy”, is the lack of adequate investigation of pesticides before they are released on to the market:

“[These are] dueling hypotheses [as to whether the Zika virus or the larvicide is responsible for the microcephaly increase] with great consequences for getting it right, or wrong. We would be in a better position to make the choice if pesticides were tested more rigorously before being used.”

In fact, one of the world’s leading virologists, Dr Leslie Lobel, recently told The Guardian that it is not clear that the microcephaly cases in Brazil are linked to the Zika virus and that there was “a strong possibility pesticides could be involved and this needed to be studied”.

The reason it needs to be studied is because, as Myers’ points out, there’s a relative lack of hard and independently generated data on pesticides like pyriproxyfen, thanks to an inadequate regulatory system. The Argentine doctors are not to blame for this regulatory failure and they should not be censured for flagging up questions about the chemical.

Axes to grind

Why are some people so keen to dismiss the doctors’ suggestion out of hand?

It’s been suggested that those flagging up the possibility of a connection between pyriproxyfen and microcephaly have a hidden agenda. For example, Professor Andrew Batholomaeus, one of the “experts” quoted by the Science Media Centre of Australia in defence of the larvicide’s safety, said: “Journalists covering this story would do well to research the background of those making and reporting the claims as the underlying story and potential public health consequences may be far more newsworthy than the current headlines.”

But it’s surely no surprise if Argentine physicians, who have had to deal at first hand with the suffering caused by the GMO soy revolution in Argentina with its accompanying pesticide onslaught, should be particularly alert to the role of pesticides in health and development issues in Latin America – and suspicious of the safety claims of chemical corporations.

The doctors say their local communities are facing an exploding health crisis, which includes children suffering unusual birth defects. And in neighbouring Brazil the country’s National Cancer Institute says the release of GM crops has helped make the country the largest consumer of agrochemicals in the world.

Industry-friendly attackers

Also, some of those leading the attacks on the pesticides hypothesis could also be accused of having an agenda. Julie Kelly, for instance, uses her National Review article to attack Mark Ruffalo not just for drawing attention to the larvicide theory but also over his campaigning on climate change and fracking, his support for sustainable energy, and his publicly confronting the CEO of Monsanto over the impact of his company’s products.

National Review article

Kelly, who is married to a lobbyist for the agricultural commodities giant ADM, is a self-declared member, along with Monsanto personnel, of the Kevin Folta “fan club” – Kevin Folta being the GMO-loving/Roundup-drinking scientist who denied having any links to Monsanto even though he’d received $25,000 from the company for his biotech communication programme and had other notable industry connections besides.

Interestingly, Tamar Haspel appears far from keen to explore the ties between companies like Monsanto and academics at public universities like Kevin Folta, and has herself been accused of collaborating closely with the agrochemical industry and of batting for Monsanto.

And perhaps the most virulent attack on the Argentine doctors, published predictably in Forbes, was contributed by another Folta fan. Kavin Senapathy also regularly co-authors pieces with Henry Miller, a climate skeptic and staunch defender of DDT and other controversial pesticides, not to mention the tobacco industry.

So where does this leave us?

Yes, the Argentine doctors and some of their supporters may be said to have an agenda, but as we have seen, that charge can just as easily be levelled against some of those keen to debunk their concerns.

The connection to Monsanto may have been overstated by the doctors, and even more by some news outlets, but it wasn’t invented – Sumitomo Chemical is Monsanto’s long-term strategic partner.

There has also been a misplaced attack on those of us who have drawn attention to the concerns of the Brazilian public health researchers about pyriproxyfen and other chemicals. I’ll be looking at that in a subsequent article.

And as one of the world’s leading virologists has also flagged up the need to take seriously that notion that pesticides could be involved, I’m going to be looking more at this critical issue, including what scientists do and don’t know about pyriproxyfen.

Microcephaly: Pesticides once again in the crosshair

Posted by

0


Microcephaly: Pesticides once again in the crosshairs

Doctors and researchers say the widespread use of the toxic chemicals heavily promoted by the chemical and pharmaceutical industry to combat mosquitoes is not preventing the spread of Zika virus, but is putting at risk the health of the general population

Below is an interesting article by the Argentine journalist Dario Aranda, who has reported for years on the problems caused by the spraying of pesticides on GM soy and other crops.

The article explains how concerns about the spread of dengue and theZika virus, and the microcephaly increase in Brazil, are being exploited by pesticide firms.

Microcephaly is a birth defect in which the baby is born with an abnormally small head.

Although evidence is now beginning to emerge that suggests that the Zika virus may have a role in some cases of microcephaly, Aranda reports the concerns of researchers that pesticides may also be a factor.

He also reveals the immense lobbying effort by pesticide companies, in collaboration with government officials, behind the organisation of vast spraying programmes to combat Zika-carrying mosquitoes, even though the mosquitoes are known to be resistant to many chemicals. The companies’ lobby group is even reportedly promising people that they can “save human lives and prevent malformations” by opening the doors and windows of their houses during the spraying, so that the pesticide can penetrate their homes.

The critical perspective presented in Aranda’s article has all but been stamped out in the English-speaking media. There is a determined effort to convince the world that there can only be one cause of the microcephaly increase and that is the Zika virus. But this hypothesis still lacks the kind of evidence that could prove causality.

Between the notion that all the microcephaly cases are solely caused by Zika, and the opposing notion that Zika is not responsible, there are many plausible intervening hypotheses. These include the possibility that Zika is a co-factor, together with other agents such as pesticides, or that Zika is responsible for some, but not all, of the cases of microcephaly and that pesticides may be responsible for other cases. All possible hypotheses should be explored and firm conclusions should only be drawn on the basis of evidence of causality.

A climate of fear is being generated around the Zika virus that is not as yet justified by the state of the evidence. The resulting panic is being exploited by corporate interests that are indifferent to the risks of exposing people to the mass spraying of inadequately tested pesticides, many of which are endocrine disruptors, reproductive toxins, and/or linked to birth defects.

An 18-year study just revealed how bad pesticides are for bees

Posted by

0


For years, there’s been suspicion that a class of pesticides known as neonicotinoids are bad for bees. The chemicals, which farmers apply to their crops to keep away insects that munch through their harvests, are among the most used bug-killers out there.

But ecologists have worried the chemicals also affect the insects that help support harvests.

Bees have been mysteriously disappearing in what’s called colony collapse disorder, which some scientists believe neonicotinoids are contributing to.

That’s a problem because the pollination work bees do is hugely valuable. Commercially managed honeybees produce about $US15 billion in value for the US alone and wild American bees another $US9 billion.

There’s finally a study that tries to actually parse out the effects neonicotinoids have on bees in the wild. It looks at 62 different wild bee species in the UK.

That’s important because while only three species of bees and bumblebees are kept by beekeepers and used commercially, experts believe there are closer to 250 wild species in the UK and 4,000 in the US. And while we don’t manage them, we do benefit from their pollination.

The new study, which was published August 16 in the journal Nature Communications, also looks at an 18-year timespan that begins before neonicotinoids were introduced in 2002. That means the researchers could actually establish a baseline for how bees were doing before farmers began widely using the chemicals.

Neonicotinoids are used particularly on rapeseed, one variety of which is turned into canola oil. During the month or two they bloom, the flowers turn swaths of the British countryside a shocking yellow.

Some bees like the flowers; some don’t. So the scientists were able to divvy bees up by their taste for rapeseed, then look at how their populations changed over almost two decades of surveys.

For a few bees, the scientists estimate about a fifth of their population declines was due to neonicotinoids.

That’s not enough to kill off bees taken by itself. But pesticides aren’t the only challenge bees are facing. Climate change, differences in how we use the land and what plants they can feed on, and parasites and diseases that infect bees are also putting a dent in populations.

And it doesn’t necessarily mean we should stop using neonicotinoids cold turkey. “It needs to be taken in a very holistic perspective, you can’t just say as long as we can save the bees everything else can go to hell, that’s not where you want to be at,” lead scientist Ben Woodcock told the BBC.

Both the Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates pesticides in the US, and the European equivalent are already in the process of re-evaluating their rules for neonicotinoids.

The study isn’t quite the gold standard of science, since the researchers were just watching what happened from changes already in place rather than carefully controlling circumstances so that pesticide exposure was the only difference between groups.

But that kind of study is really hard to do in ecology – and getting a long-term, large-scale look at a range of species is better information than we’ve had before.

Evidence piles up for popular pesticides’ link to pollinator problems

Posted by

0


The link between pollinator problems and neonicotinoids, a group of agricultural pesticides commonly associated with declines in honeybees, continues to build with two new studies published this week.

Pyrgus scriptura butterfly

Butterflies of Northern California join the ranks ofhoneybees, bumblebees, moths and other organisms that may be feeling the effects of the infamous insecticides. Butterfly species in California’s Central Valley have dipped since the 1990s — around the same time that neonicotinoids were introduced. Matthew Forister of the University of Nevada and his colleagues report August 16 in Biology Letters that those two events may be linked.

Tracking 67 butterfly species at four locations for at least two decades, the researchers found that a decline in the number of species at each site corresponds most closely to increased neonicotinoid use in the area (as opposed to land development, warmer summers or other potential drivers). Individual butterfly species in areas with higher pesticide use experienced the steepest declines. The results line up with a 2015 study of European butterflies that tallied fewer species over a wider range.

Also reported this week, a team of British scientists similarly builds on earlier work in wild bees. Researchers at the University of York mapped population data for 62 wild bee species sprinkled across the United Kingdom along with neonicotinoid treatment in local oilseed rape (Brassica napus) fields over 18 years.

Within species, a population’s odds of going extinct increased with use of the pesticides, the team writes in the August 16 Nature Communications. That goes for both wild bees that forage on oilseed rape, and those that don’t — though populations of known foragers were three times as likely to disappear.

Taken together, the results add some long-term data to the idea that even though wild species aren’t pollinating neonicotinoid-doused crops, the effects of exposure may still appear at the regional and national level.

Pesticides Found in Your Food Linked to Diabetes, Liver, Kidney and Brain Disease

Posted by

0


Pesticides Found in Your Food Linked to Diabetes, Liver, Kidney and Brain Disease

 Long-term exposure to pesticides has been linked to infertility, birth defects, endocrine disruption, neurological disorders and cancer, so it’s a common-sense conclusion that fewer pesticides in our food supply would result in improved health among the general population.

In fact, one of the strongest selling points for eating organic food is that it can significantly lower your exposure to pesticides and other harmful chemicals used in conventional agriculture, and this measure in and of itself may help protect your long-term health and/or improve any health conditions you may have.

Since organic standards prohibit the use of synthetic pesticides and herbicides, organic foods are, as a rule, less contaminated, and studies have confirmed that those who eat a primarily organic diet have fewer toxins in their system.

Sadly, the chemical technology industry wields great power — so great that our government has largely turned a blind eye to the obvious, which is that too many toxic chemicals, in too great amounts, are being allowed in the growing of food. As noted in the featured film, “From DDT to Glyphosate:”

“Just as was the case in the 1950s with DDT and tobacco, we are on the brink of disastrous damage to health worldwide. This short film begins to explain why, and what we can do.”

Help Educate Those You Love

“From DDT to Glyphosate” is just half an hour long, yet it’s an excellent introduction to the dangers of pesticides.

The ‘Silent Spring’ Continues

In 1962, American biologist Rachel Carson wrote the groundbreaking book “Silent Spring,” in which she warned of the devastating environmental impacts of DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane), suggesting the chemical may also have harmful effects on human health.

She rightfully questioned the logic and sanity of using such vast amounts of a chemical without knowing much about its ecological and human health impact.

Her book triggered a revolution in thinking that gave birth to the modern environmental movement, and the public outcry that resulted from her book eventually led to DDT being banned for agricultural use in the U.S. in 1972.

Unfortunately, DDT was simply replaced with other equally unsafe and untested chemicals. Today, we’re also exposed to even vaster amounts of pesticides, and a wider variety of them, which is why it’s so important to share the above film with as many people as possible.

Consider this: the very same companies that developed chemical warfare weapons during World War II simply transitioned into agriculture after the war, and many of the same warfare chemicals are now sprayed on our food.

The notion that these chemicals are good for humans, the environment and the business of agriculture is a fabricated one.

Genetic Engineering Fuels the Chemical Agriculture Engine

As noted in the film, 80 percent of genetically engineered (GE) crops are designed to withstand herbicide application; most often glyphosate-based herbicides, such as Monsanto’s Roundup. As a result, we’re ingesting far greater quantities of pesticides than ever before.

The question is, where’s the breaking point? There’s reason to believe we may have crossed the threshold already. Health statistics suggest the average toxic burden has become too great for children and adults alike, and toxins in our food appear to play a primary role.

According to Dr. Joseph E. Pizzorno, founding president of Bastyr University, the first fully accredited multidisciplinary university of natural medicine and the first National Institutes of Health-funded center for alternative medicine research, toxins in the modern food supply are now “a major contributor to, and in some cases the cause of, virtually all chronic diseases.”

Watch the video. URL:https://youtu.be/mF2iS5vIamg

New Way to Boost Crop Production Doesn’t Rely on GMOs or Pesticides

Posted by

0


Researchers are fiddling with the plant equivalent of gut bacteria.

A new treatment for cotton seeds draws on beneficial microbes that live inside plants—much like the good bacteria in our own guts—to help the crops thrive in dry conditions.

The microbe-enhanced cotton, the first product from startup Indigo Agriculture, is already growing on 50,000 acres spread across five different states in the southern United States. Indigo CEO David Perry says the treatment increases yield as much as irrigation can. The company also today announced a new $100 million investment round that brought its venture funding total to $156 million.

Many experts argue that global agricultural productivity is not growing fast enough to keep up with the increase in global demand for food. Intense competition for land and pressures to reduce chemical fertilizer and pesticide use have led technologists to search for new ways to increase yield. Adding beneficial microbes to crops could be an effective but less controversial alternative to genetic engineering.

A field of cotton from seeds treated with Indigo’s microbes.

Seed treatments containing such microbes are part of an emerging class of agricultural technologies known as “biologicals.” The microbiome—the communities of bacteria and fungi that live in the soil around the roots, on the surface of the plant, and inside the plant tissue—contributes to a plant’s health and growth. The idea is that by isolating these good bacteria and fungi and then adding them back into the plant, they could stimulate more growth and make crops healthier.

Agriculture companies including Monsanto have already released a number of microbial products. But most of what’s on the market now is focused on organisms that live in soil. Indigo’s focus is on so-called endophytes, or the bacteria and fungi that actually live in the plant tissue. Researchers have studied the interactions between these particular microbes and their plant hosts for several decades, but are just now beginning to realize how to apply what they’ve learned, according to Betsy Arnold, a professor of plant sciences and ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona, and an academic collaborator with Indigo.

On the left are cotton plants grown with Indigo’s seed treatment. On the right are untreated crops.

Recent advances in DNA sequencing and inexpensive computing have made it more economical to perform computational analysis on huge databases of microbial genetic information in search of insights that might help improve crops. Indigo has built a database of tens of thousands of individual microbes isolated from crops that thrive under harsh conditions. The company’s scientists use machine learning and other techniques to probe that data in search of new insights.

Tyler McClendon, president of Oxbow Agriculture, which is currently growing 1,000 acres of Indigo’s cotton, says he believes Indigo’s focus on isolating specific microörganisms that seem to help plants thrive under stress makes more sense than the “broad based,” soil-focused approaches other companies are taking.

McClendon says Indigo’s business model is also unique, in that the final cost of the technology to the farmer is tied to a “measurable increase in crop yield.” Under the traditional model, farmers must pay for everything up front and then hope for the best, says Perry. Indigo doesn’t ask for much financial commitment up front, he says. Instead, he says, “we ask for a share of the value we create at harvest.” McClendon says this kind of approach makes farmers more receptive and could speed the adoption of new biotechnologies.

The 14 Kinds Of Produce With The Highest Levels Of Pesticides

Posted by

0


The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has released its annual Shopper’s Guide, including its 2015 Dirty Dozen list, a useful tool for identifying (and avoiding) the most pesticide-contaminated produce on the market.

EWG analysts uses U.S. Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration (USDA) pesticide-residue testing results as a basis for ranking 48 different fruits and vegetables. The total number of pesticides detected on a crop and the percent of samples tested with detectable pesticides are also factored in. The report is timely, given that a recent study found people who buy organic produce have much lower levels of organophosphate insecticides inside of their bodies compared to people eating conventionally grown fruits and veggies. Pesticides have been linked to a number of health problems, including certain cancers and lower IQ in children.

dirtiest produce

“The bottom line is people do not want to eat pesticides with their fruits and vegetables,” said Ken Cook, EWG’s president and cofounder. “That’s why we will continue telling shoppers about agricultural chemicals that turn up on their produce, and we hope we will inform, and ultimately, empower them to eat cleaner.”

The list also includes two additional produce items—leafy greens and hot peppers—since they are frequently contaminated with insecticides that are particularly toxic to human health, EWG notes.

2015 Dirty Dozen List
1. Apples
2. Peaches
3. Nectarines
4. Strawberries
5. Grapes
6. Celery
7. Spinach
8. Sweet Bell Peppers
9. Cucumbers
10. Cherry Tomatoes
11. Snap Peas (Imported)
12. Potatoes
+ Leafy Greens
+ Hot Peppers
(Check out the “Clean 15” Produce List.)

Dig Deeper: Get the Full EWG Report

Other Important Findings
• Nearly two-thirds of the 3,015 produce samples tested by the USDA in 2013 contained pesticide residues.
• Nonorganic apples tend to have the most pesticide residues because the chemicals are applied to the crop before and after harvest to preserve the fruit longer.

• 99% of apple samples, 98% of peaches, and 97% of nectarines tested positive for at least one pesticide residue.
• The average potato had more pesticides by weight than any other type of produce.
• A single grape sample and a sweet bell pepper sample contained 15 pesticides.
• Single samples of cherry tomatoes, nectarines, peaches, imported snap peas, and strawberries showed 13 different pesticides each.

“We are saying eat your fruits and vegetables,” says Sonya Lunder, EWG’s senior analyst. “But know which ones have the highest amounts of pesticides so you can opt for the organic versions, if available and affordable, or grab a snack off the Clean 15.”

Zika Makes It Rain Pesticides With Your Taxpayer Money

Posted by

0


Last month, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would provide $622 million to fight Zika virus, which some believe may be associated with suspected cases of the birth defect microcephaly. That money was intended to get U.S. health agencies through the end of September.1

Zika Virus Warning

Story at-a-glance

  • The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a $1.1 billion Zika funding bill, which still falls short of the $1.9 billion the White House had called for
  • A rider inserted into the bill would allow pesticides to be sprayed over ditches, streams and other waterways protected by the Clean Water Act for a period of 180 days, with no permit required
  • Critics argued the bill has nothing to do with combating Zika and, instead, has been on the table for years, with the majority pushing for its passage “under whatever name” was convenient at the time

Now the House has passed a $1.1 billion Zika funding bill, which still falls short of the $1.9 billion the White House had called for. Of the hefty sum, $230 million would go to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to help with vaccine development.

Another $476 million would go to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for mosquito control and “readiness and response activities,” while $85 million would go to the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) for the development of rapid diagnostic tests, STAT News reported.2

The money would be further divided among the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which would get $175 million for mosquito control.

The bill, which still needs to be approved by the Senate, has been heavily criticized not only because of spending cuts being used for the bill’s funding, but also because it contains a number of additional controversial policy changes.

Zika Bill Paves the Way for Unchecked Pesticide Spraying

A Clean Water Act permit is generally required to spray pesticides in areas where they might end up in water. The permit is intended to keep the toxic chemicals from contaminating water, but now the Zika virus has been used as an excuse to do away with this common-sense precaution.

A rider inserted into the bill would allow pesticides to be sprayed over ditches, streams and other waterways protected by the Clean Water Act for a period of 180 days, with no permit required whatsoever.3

Critics argued the bill would do little to help fight Zika virus, since mosquito control agencies already have authority to apply pesticides in emergency situations to prevent the spread of infectious disease without applying for permits.

Opponents say the bill has nothing to do with combating Zika and, instead, has been on the table for years, with the majority pushing for its passage “under whatever name” was convenient at the time.4

Politico reported, “ … opponents … point out that the country’s waterways are heavily burdened by pesticide runoff, and say the permitting regime doesn’t impede necessary mosquito control.”5

Military Personnel Likely to Be First Guinea Pigs for Zika Vaccine

Scientists at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) in Silver Spring, Maryland are racing to develop a Zika vaccine that may soon become one more shot that military personnel are required to receive.

At the Institute’s Pilot Bioproduction Facility (PBF), researchers are growing Zika virus in monkey liver cells, then inactivating the virus, isolating the particles and injecting them into animals to study the resulting immune response.6

After the results are published, they’ll move on to testing in primates and then to human “guinea pigs” as early as this fall.

While it’s fairly common knowledge that military personnel are often subjected toexperimental vaccines, many are not aware that the military is actively involved in vaccine development. But as WIRED noted:7

“Today, the military maintains one of the biggest, smartest and most robust communicable disease-fighting labs in the country. Before Zika came along, there was Japanese encephalitis, dengue, chikungunya and West Nile.”

Demand for Abortions Rises in Latin America

An unintended consequence of the Zika virus has been a significant increase in abortions in Latin American countries, where abortion is generally illegal or highly restricted.

The trend began after a November 2015 warning by the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), which alerted Latin America that Zika virus may be linked to birth defects including microcephaly and other brain abnormalities, and vision and hearing defects.

In turn, some countries took the unprecedented step of warning women to avoid pregnancy, which, as noted by a recent study in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), left women with few options.8

Researchers from the University of Cambridge looked into rates of abortion requests through Women on Web (WoW), which is a nonprofit group that provides access to abortion medications, and found significant increases now compared to five years before the PAHO warning.

Countries that advised women to avoid getting pregnant had the greatest rise in abortion demand. In both Brazil and Ecuador, the number of such requests rose by 108 percent, followed by a 93 percent rise in Venezuela and a 76 percent increase in Honduras.

Colombia had a 39 percent increase while Costa Rica and El Salvador saw rises of 36 percent. Not all of these increases were among women who had contracted Zika; many were among women who simply feared they might, the researchers noted.

They also believe their numbers underestimate the true demand for abortions, as they only assessed requests through WoW; many other women may have sought abortions via other underground methods.

Is Zika Really a Public Health Emergency?

Perhaps the most controversial of all is whether or not Zika virus is the health emergency it’s being portrayed as. It’s possible Zika-carrying mosquitoes could be involved in suspected cases of microcephaly, but there are other factors that should be considered as well.

For starters, the outbreak occurred in a largely poverty-stricken agricultural area of Brazil that uses large amounts of banned pesticides.

Between these factors and the lack of sanitation and widespread vitamin A and zinc deficiency, you already have the basic framework for an increase in poor health outcomes among newborn infants in that area.

Environmental pollution and toxic pesticide exposure have been positively linked to a wide array of adverse health effects, including birth defects. For instance:

  • Vitamin A deficiency has been linked to an increased risk of microcephaly
  • The CDC lists malnutrition and exposure to toxic chemicals as known risk factors
  • The CDC also notes certain infections during pregnancy, including rubella, cytomegalovirus, toxoplasmosis and others, are risk factors

Mosquito Experts Say Zika Is Unlikely to Become Established in the U.S.

The U.S. is in the midst of launching a $1.1 billion fight against Zika virus — even though in the states, no local mosquito-borne Zika virus disease cases have been reported.9 Yet fear levels are high and rising, perhaps far out of proportion with the actual risk.

Even mosquito experts are questioning the extent of emergency that actually exists. Chris Barker, Ph.D., a mosquito-borne virus researcher at the University of California, Davis School of Veterinary Medicine, told WebMD:10

“I think the risk for Zika actually setting up transmission cycles that become established in the continental U.S. is near zero.”

Barker expects Zika to go the way of other tropical diseases spread by mosquitoes, such as dengue fever and chikungunya, in the U.S. with perhaps small clusters of outbreaks in southern states and little activity elsewhere.

The rising panic of Zika is reminiscent of many past diseases that failed to cause the devastation health officials warned of. Remember SARS, bird flu, swine flu andEbola? Or even the measles “outbreak” in 2015?

There was widespread fear, outrage and panic that the disease would sweep across the U.S., affecting populations from border to border. Calls for experimental drugs and vaccines were made and millions, if not billions, of dollars were spent. And for what?

In most cases, the diseases fizzled out on their own, exacting a far less sensational health toll than the media and, often, the government had you believe.

If You’re Worried About Mosquitoes, Here’s How to Repel Them Naturally

We’re in the midst of prime mosquito season for much of the U.S. Typically, mosquito season is viewed as more of an itchy nuisance than a health threat, but that has changed somewhat this year, at least perceptually since Zika virus’ connection to birth defects is still being explored. If, however, mosquitoes are bothersome for you, there are some steps you can take to encourage them to live elsewhere without dousing yourself or your backyard with pesticides.

Draining standing water, including pet bowls, gutters, garbage and recycling bins, spare tires, bird baths, children’s toys and so on, is important. This is where mosquitoes breed, so if you eliminate standing water, you’ll eliminate many mosquitoes. Planting marigolds around your yard also works as a bug repellent because the flowers give off a fragrance that bugs do not like. This is a great way to ward off mosquitoes without using chemical insecticides.

A simple house fan could also help keep mosquitoes at bay if you’re having a get-together in your backyard or, for a longer-term solution, try installing a bat house (bats are voracious consumers of insects, especially mosquitoes).

It’s best to avoid using bug zappers in your yard, as these may actually attract more mosquitoes while killing beneficial insects. Insect foggers designed to clear insects out of your backyard should also be avoided, as they require the use of strong, potentially harmful, pesticides and don’t offer lasting protection.

Even those clip-on repellents and fans that are widely sold are best avoided, as they contain even more toxic ingredients than repellents that can be applied to your skin, and they pose an inhalation hazard.11

Some experts also recommend supplementing with one vitamin B1 tablet a day from April through October, and then adding 100 milligrams of B1 to a B100 Complex daily during the mosquito season to make you less attractive to mosquitoes. Regularly consuming garlic may also help protect against mosquito bites, as may the following natural insect repellents:

  • Cinnamon leaf oil (one study found it was more effective at killing mosquitoes than DEET12)
  • Clear liquid vanilla extract mixed with olive oil
  • Wash with citronella soap, and then put some 100 percent pure citronella essential oil on your skin. Java Citronella is considered the highest quality citronella on the market
  • Catnip oil (according to one study, this oil is 10 times more effective than DEET13)

Pesticides, Birth Defects and Brain Damage in Children

Posted by

0


The recent number of articles in the popular press concerning loss of intellect among children exposed to chlorpyrifos is important in the use of this pesticide. Although in-home use of chlorpyrifos was restricted in the U. S in 2000, it is widely used in agriculture, and is a serious risk to health and intellect for people working and living in proximity to fields. Detectable levels of chlorpyrifos detected in New York City children, raises the question of exposure via food.

spraying pesticides

Across the U. S. we learn that students are doing poorly in school, often blaming the teachers and their unions. Are teachers no longer competent to teach or have children been “dumbed-down” by exposure to this neurotoxin?

The State of California is considering restriction on use, but is prepared for strong opposition from the pesticide and big agricultural industries.

Back in the “Dark Ages”—a mere 50 years ago—when I was a medical student and intern at Wayne State University, I rotated through Children’s Hospital in Detroit. It was staffed by some of the most thoughtful and kind physician/professors I have ever met. I attended a clinic named “FLK” otherwise known as Funny Looking Kid clinic. There we saw children who had abnormal looking faces, abnormal body parts, and, often impaired intelligence. Many of the children required complicated medical care, but I don’t recall much discussion as to why they had these abnormalities that had dramatically cut short their futures and altered the lives of their families.

Realizing you have given birth to a child with birth defects is devastating—not only for the child, but for the family, and for society in general. If the child survives infancy, it means being “different” and having to cope with disability, and with having to learn alternative ways to function. For many families, it means 24/7 care of a child who can never live independently. For society the costs can be enormous—surgery (often multiple), medications, social services, special education, special equipment, then alternative living arrangements, if and when family cannot care for their child, now grown to a non-functional adult.

Although the neurotoxicity of pesticides has been known for decades, recently, several national magazines, have named the pesticide, chlorpyrifos (Dursban/ Lorsban), as an agent causing loss of intelligence, as well as birth defects and structural brain damage.

Dr. James Hamblin’s article in March 2014 issue of The Atlantic, titled “The Toxins that Threaten Our Brains.” listed 12 commonly used chemicals, including chlorpyrifos, which is marketed as Dursban and Lorsban. The exposures described in the Atlantic articles were urban, so we do not know exactly how widespread is this epidemic is, especially if we do not include agricultural areas such as in California, Hawaii and the mid-West..

That same month, The Nation published articles by Susan Freinkel “Poisoned Politics” and Lee Fang “Warning Signs” who reported adverse effects from exposure to Dursban and Lorsban.

Dr. Hamblin’s article generously cites Drs. Philip Landrigan of Mt. Sinai in New York City and Philippe Grandjean of Harvard that a “’silent pandemic’ of toxins has been damaging the brains of unborn children.”

Dr. Landrigan chaired a 1998 meeting of the Collegium Ramazzini International Scientific Conference, held in Carpi, Italy.   In attendance was Dr. Grandjean, whose research found “Methylmercury as a hazard to brain development.” Dr. Richard Jackson, from the U. S. CDC was also in attendance, as well as U.S. governmental and university members.

At that Collegium Ramazzini International Scientific Conference, on October 25, 1998, I presented definitive data in my paper: “Chlorpyrifos (Dursban) exposure and birth defects: report of 15 incidents, evaluation of 8 cases, theory of action, and medical and social aspects.” This presentation followed my earlier publications beginning in 1994 wherein I reported damage to the unborn from the same pesticide.

The Ramazzini organization sent my paper to the European Journal of Oncology for publication. Since my paper reported birth defects, not cancer, the paper has received little notice, but the attendees, including the EPA, have known of the findings for 16 years.

Currently a new battle is occurring in Hawaii over the use of pesticides, especially by Dow AgroSciences, DuPont Pioneer, BASF Plant Science, and Syngenta on the island of Kauai where giant seed companies develop Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and other specialized seeds. The pesticides used there include alachlor, atrazine, chlorpyrifos, methomyl, metalochlor, permethrin and paraquat. The author, Paul Koberstein fromCascadia Times estimates that annually, more than 2000 pounds of chlorpyrifos are used per acre per year on Kauai, compared to less than 0.025 averages for the U. S. Mainland.

In addition to Hawaii, areas in California include workers and families from the Imperial Valley and other intensive agricultural areas where pesticide use is extensive. Using the Koberstein data, annual use of chlorpyrifos in California is approximately 1500 pounds/ acre.

Neurological Damage: Before and After Birth

Birth defects arise as a result of two mechanisms—damage to a gene, prior to fertilization, or damage to the growing cells of the fetus after life in the womb has begun. Differing from genetic damage, such as occurs in Down syndrome or Trisomy-21, the latter damage results from exposure of the developing fetus to agents called teratogens. For many years Mongolism was the name applied to children with growth delays, similar facial and hand features and intellectual deficits.

Chlorpyrifos is a unique pesticide. It is a combination of an organophosphate and a trichlorinatedpyridinol (TCP.) TCP is not only the feedstock used in the manufacture of chlorpyrifos, but also a contaminant in the product, and a metabolic breakdown product that is known to cause central nervous system abnormalities (hydrocephaly and dilated brain ventricles), and other abnormalities (cleft palate, skull and vertebral abnormalities) in fetuses as reported by Dow Chemical Co.

In March 1995, I was asked to fly to Arkansas to see a child whose mother had been exposed to the pesticide Dursban (chlorpyrifos) early in the pregnancy of her daughter.

Mrs. S had been working in a bank when in mid-March, 1991, she noticed a man spraying the baseboards behind the station where she worked as a teller. She said she asked the man if was okay to be in the area since she was pregnant, and she said the man told her it was “perfectly safe. She said the spraying had occurred around 4 PM, and that she worked at the bank until 6:30 PM, and when she went home that evening she had nausea and a” bit of headache.” She said she retuned to work the next day, felt nausea, but worked most of the day. An electrical fire at the drive-in window followed the pesticide event, and a technician used of a “fogger” that sprayed a “citrus-like” chemical that was intended to deodorize the smoke odor. Mrs. S. said she worked at the bank until about April of that year, and then worked at a credit union until her daughter was born in September.

When Mrs. S. was about five months pregnant she had an ultrasound, which showed that her baby had enlarged ventricles in her brain. Further examination revealed absence of the septum pellucidum, a central portion of her brain. Mrs. S. had additional follow up at a university center as well as with her own physician that showed normal amniocentesis and normal chromosomes.

Both Mr. & Mrs. S. said that caring for the daughter A. has been a severe financial and emotional drain, sometimes requiring them to be up 72 hours to try to soothe A’s crying.

A. had surgery to repair her cleft lip when she was six months old, and repair of her cleft palate and left eyelid when she was a year old.

Both cleft lip and palate can now be repaired (in areas with skilled surgeon, and insurance or other funds) but until they are, the child has difficulty feeding and risks poor nutrition, upper respiratory and lung problems as a result of aspiration of food.

Additional diagnostic procedures indicated that A has a cleft left eye (failure of her eye to fuse during development), and she cannot blink her eye or move the left side of her face. A. was unable to sit up on her own by the time she was a year old, had to have food pureed until she was two, then her parents realized that when A neared her 4thbirthday, she could not hear, when they began a program of sign language with the aid of a speech therapist.

A’s brother B. was born two years later, and is well, sleeping thought the night when he was two weeks of age.

I was given a tour of the bank where Ms. S worked by its’ Senior Vice-President, and to minimize stress to A, I examined her in the presence of her pediatrician. I also accompanied her parents to their home where I could observe A. at her home environment. A. was a small-boned child who walked with a wide-based, unsteady gait and who made audible sounds, but no language content. Her head was enlarged with hydrocephaly and a small bruise due to a recent, commonly occurring fall.

Her abnormalities included to following, and were characteristic of findings in other children: low-set, tapering ears, wide-spaced nipples, and frequent infections. This litany is not to horrify readers, but to bring to attention to the burdens imposed upon this child, her parents, and society as a whole. I evaluated seven more children, two families each having two children with similar, but more severe medical conditions.

With the exception of child #1, the seven children were profoundly retarded, were diapered, could not speak, and required feeding.

I first met C & D in 1996, along with their parents and handsome, healthy older brother, at their attractive home on the West Coast. Both D (a girl) and C (a boy) were lying flat, diapered, mouths open, fists clenched, staring into space, and being fed by bottle. Even today, looking at thephotograps reminds me what a enormous burden was dealt to that family.

Ultimately I evaluated eight children, and identified seven more, reported by Dow Chemical Co., the manufacturer, to EPA on November 2, 1994, with reporting delays of as long as seven years from when the corporation first learned of them. I obtained the reports via a Freedom of Information request (FOI) from EPA. The reports were labeled with the revealing name: “DERBI”—or—“Dow Elanco Research Business Index.”

When I saw seven more children, all of who looked like siblings, (much as Trisomy-21 or Down Syndrome children do) it became clear to me, that the cause was linked to Dursban, the pre-natal exposure common to each.

Among the Dursban-exposed children, all 8 had both brain and palate abnormalities, seven had widespread nipples and growth retardation, six had low vision or blindness and six had genital abnormalities, five had brain atrophy and external ear abnormalities, four children had absence of the corpus collosum that is the critical connection between the two hemispheres of the brain. Chromosomal studies were normal in all 8 families. All families reported stress and enormous financial burden to care for their children.

In addition to the children with birth defects, I also evaluated a number of families and a group of adults who had been exposed at their work site. Of the workers, all 12 complained of headache, and three of dizziness. Eight had findings of central nervous system damage, and six had peripheral nervous system damage. The patients reported upper respiratory and chest symptoms, as well as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and four had incontinence. The families also reported abnormalities and deaths in their household pets.

In February 1996, my deposition in the first case was taken by three groups of attorneys representing the defendants, two principally defending Dow Elanco. I was questioned for three 8-hour days. Ultimately a list of 565 exhibits was accumulated that included over 10,000 pages of materials that I supplied and relied upon for my opinion. These materials included Dow documents and correspondence, EPA documents, legal depositions, basic embryology, biochemistry and toxicology of chlorpyrifos, medical records of other exposed children, patents, books, articles, etc, etc.

Chlorpyrifos was designed to be neurotoxic in action. It is an interesting pesticide, in that it has not only an organophosphate portion, but also it has three chlorine atoms attached to a pyridinol ring. This ring is trichloropyridinol (TCP), a significant hazard, because it is fat-soluble, and persistent, up to 18 years as claimed by Dow Chemical Co. TCP also forms the body of trichlophenoxyacetic acid, part of Agent Orange, also linked to birth defects and cancer. In a war that ended in 1975, Agent Orange continues as a risk to the Vietnamese, and to military troops that were stationed there.

According to multiple Dow documents, TCP is the feedstock for production of chlopryrifos, a contaminant in the product, and a metabolic breakdown product. TCP has been demonstrated to cause central nervous system anomalies (hydrocephaly and dilated brain ventricles) as well as cleft palate, skull and vertebral abnormalities in the fetus at doses nontoxic to the mother, similar to the defects seen in affected children.

That TCP caused birth defects was known by Dow in 1987, but not reported to EPA until five years later in 1992. TCP is used to manufacture chlorpyrifos, and as such, comes under regulation of Section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), rather than the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Control Act (FIFRA.) Though there was regulatory difference, TSCA states very clearly “any person who manufactures, processes or distributed in commerce a chemical substance or mixture, or who obtains information which reasonable supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injure to heath or the environment, shall immediately inform the Administrator of such information. [Emphasis added.] From 1976 to 1982, I was a member of a 16 person Advisory Committee to the EPA for TSCA, Chairman of the Risk-Benefit Assessment Group from 1977 to 1979, and a member of the Carcinogen Policy Sub-group from 1977 to 1981. It was clear that risks and benefits do no accrue to the same party. In the case of chlorpyrifos, the risks are to the unaware public, and the benefits to the corporation.

The Legal System is Not the Same as the Justice System

Bernard P. Whetstone was a well-established attorney who handled the initial birth defects case in Little Rock, Arkansas, and was aware of another case in that state. Mr. Whetstone was a “Southern Gentleman” with a soft drawl who had earned both a bachelor and doctorate of jurisprudence, and started practice in 1934. In 1995, he worked with Davidson and Associates until he retired in 1999 at age 86. Mr. Whetstone died in 2001.

I was required to appear in court in Little Rock, where Judge Eisley ruled that I was not qualified. Hard to believe that 10,000 pages of documents is not adequate, but that opinion was softened because he ruled that all the plaintiff’s experts were not qualified. Another physician/ toxicology expert and I evaluated additional patients (adults) who developed multiple adverse effects, including central nervous system damage, so Dow, employing the Eisley decision, argued successfully in other court jurisdictions that we were not qualified to give an opinion.

The main Dow law firm was Barnes and Thornburg from Indianapolis, where DowElanco, the co-manufacturer, Eli Lilly is located. Eli Lilly is a manufacturer of both pharmaceuticals and pesticides. Barnes & Thornburg has over 500 attorneys in 12 cities and appeared to be very well staffed and funded.

A recent news release noted that William W. Wales, who spent more than 30 years in the legal department of The Dow Chemical Company and Dow AgroSciences LLC, had joined Barnes & Thornburg LLP’s Indianapolis office as a partner in the firm’s litigation and corporate departments. “Bill’s depth and breadth of experience in a variety of matters will be a tremendous asset to many of our clients who are dealing with similar issues,” said Joseph G. Eaton, Vice Chair of the firm’s Litigation Department and Co-Chair of the Toxic Tort Practice Group. Joseph Eaton is one of the attorneys who took my extensive deposition. They were the most aggressive law firm I had ever encountered, and I have testified in more than 700 depositions and/or court appearances

In defense of their product, the Dow attorneys argued that there were no reports of levels of pesticides used or actual, existing levels—a questionable tactic, since the corporation has never suggested or requested that such records be obtained.

Although the EPA stopped home use of Dursban in 2000, Lorsban is widely used in agriculture, on ornamentals, and places where women, the unborn and children are exposed. For many, this exposure is without their knowledge or consent. How is this allowed to happen?

Is the continuing use of Dursban/ Lorsban due to successful advertising, and recommendations from country and state agricultural agents, or is it an inept or politically adept EPA?

We must recall, September 2001, when the then administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and former governor of New Jersey Christie Whitman said on September 13, 2001, “EPA is greatly relieved to have learned that there appears to be no significant levels of asbestos dust in the air in New York City.” A week later, Whitman said: “Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, DC that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink.”

In 2008, the U. S. EPA named Dow as an Energy Star Partner of the Year for excellence in energy management and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Dow’s fleet of skilled lawyers have managed to save Dow from liability, such as when they achieved a reversal of a $925 million judgment for the contamination of the area around Rocky Flats, the Colorado facility that produced plutonium triggers for hydrogen bombs. And, a lawsuit filed by Vietnamese, damaged by Agent Orange against Dow and Monsanto was dismissed.

Dow is a multinational corporation and the third largest chemical manufacturer in the world, with earnings more than $57 billion in 2013. In addition to the manufacture of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and genetically modified seeds, Dow also manufactures multiple plastics, polystyrene, polyurethane, synthetic rubber, biphenyl-A as well as many other chemicals.

What are the chances that the use of Lorsban will be curtailed in the agricultural areas of Hawaii, California and elsewhere? Given what we know of the financial strength of the Dow Corporation, the weakness of the EPA, and our paid-for Congress, the outlook does not look promising.

The Burden of Brain Damage

If the top corporate officials were required to care for one of these severely brain-damaged children for a week, would it change their minds about the ethics of manufacturing chlorpyrifos and corporate profits?

There is not a teacher who can teach brain-damaged children to read and do math, which raises the larger question being proposed: are children’s lack of learning due to poor teachers, or to subtle brain damage? If children are being damaged to various degrees, profoundly in the situation of the 15 children sited in my research, to “mild” learning and/or behavioral problems, ranging from decreased IQ, Asperger’s, hyperactivity, autism, etc., how much is attributable to exposure to pesticides such as Dursban/Lorsban? If we blame poor teaching, and teachers’ unions, but don’t stop the use of brain-damaging pesticides, where does that leave our U. S, society as a source of creativity and intellect in this world?

Pesticides found to cause trans-generational mental disorders and obesity … Harmful traits are inherited for THREE generations

Posted by

0


From an early age, we are inundated with the helpless belief that our genes are set in stone – a fixed code – a destiny that we cannot control. The study of epigenetics debunks this mythical mindset, revealing how external factors change our gene expression throughout our lifetime.

Pesticides

The field of epigenetics examines more closely the relationship between our genes and our environment, and how man-made chemicals influence cellular processes, ultimately changing the expression of our genes. Some chemicals may inactivate genes that are normally active. Other chemicals may activate genes that would typically lay dormant. These chemically-induced changes in gene behavior can initiate health problems, especially in the womb, during childhood development and puberty.

Pesticides of the past alter gene expression from one generation to the next

Now the field of epigenetics is discovering a disturbing new trend. Man-made chemical pesticides (such as the persistent pollutant DDT), are altering gene expression through multiple generations, destroying the inherent health of entire bloodlines. This means pesticides are silently changing the expression of genes, generation after generation, and the damage is being carried on, restricting future generations’ ability to live harmoniously with their environment. The pesticides are interfering with people’s natural relationship with their bodies and the world around them. The damage of past pesticides (such as DDT) is being carried out and expressed in the genes of new generations of people who may not even consider the banned pollutant to be a threat.

When a parent’s gene expression has been manipulated by pesticides, those changes can be inherited by the next generation. The pesticide poisons of the past century are literally rewriting the gene expression of future generations, victimizing the next of kin from the start. The trans-generational damage has now been recognized across three generations. The damage can be observed in childhood cancer cases that are linked directly back to parental pesticide exposure. Lymphoma risk increases two-fold for children whose parents were pesticide applicators. Pesticide applicators who applied pesticides without proper protection give birth to children who are at greater risk of developing childhood cancers.

In 2012, biologists experimented with pesticides on mice. The genetic changes that occurred were passed down through three generations, eliciting mental disorders and obesity in the offspring. Through the same genetic mechanisms, these effects are observed in humans.

2,4-D herbicide initiating changes in cell cycle control, human stress response, and DNA repair

The commonly-used herbicide 2,4-D damages cellular DNA. Medical researchers discovered the herbicide’s genotoxic effects in 2004, showing how it causes chromosomes to break apart in human blood cells. In 2005, “environmentally realistic levels,” of 2,4-D were found to change gene expression for important functions of the body, including immunology, stress response, cell cycle control and DNA repair.

Egyptian geneticists found that the bone marrow cells of mice were being deconstructed in the presence of 2,4-D, as the chromosomes broke apart.

University of Minnesota researchers couldn’t deny the fact that 2,4-D was causing severe changes in men who worked with the herbicide and had high levels of the chemical metabolites in their urine. The researchers found that the men were silently enduring chromosome aberrations and hormonal fluctuations that would ultimately affect their mental state, metabolism, homeostasis and sex drive.

Glyphosate is a catalyst for disease processes

Glyphosate herbicide alters genetic expression of humans by destroying the microbiome of the exposed persons. MIT researchers documented the role of glyphosate in damaging the gastrointestinal tract of humans, and depleting good species of bacteria that the body needs to detoxify and stimulate immune response. Glyphosate is a catalyst for disease processes, and is behind the widespread epidemics of heart disease, diabetes, obesity, autism, infertility and cancer that are ravaging people stuck on the Western diet of glyphosate-infested food products.

The more we eliminate pesticides from our lives, the quicker we allow our cellular processes to normalize and self regulate, allowing our genes to express health and vitality.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/053340_pesticides_genetic_expression_transgenerational_effects.html#ixzz43nuYg3NQ