Order Robyn's newest book, Seeding Innovation: BUY IT NOW
Order Robyn's newest book, Seeding Innovation: BUY IT NOW
Menu

Health

55-in-the-kitchen

Kickin’ Cancer: 10 Months of Lessons about Life, Food and Health

, 0

I was diagnosed with ovarian cancer last fall, but my medical adventures started a month earlier while on vacation in August. During a tour of Stonehenge, I noticed a blood blister in my mouth and bright red pin pricks on my leg. I desperately tried not to hyperventilate, but knew in my heart that I was dealing with a second bout of ITP – an immune driven platelet disorder.

The discovery found us in a National Health Service emergency room in London the following day. After my diagnosis, we adjusted our plans and I continued care in Holland while we visited family. By the time we returned home my platelets were recovering, but I was not. I was suffering.

A DIFFERENT DIAGNOSIS

At first I didn’t know what caused the gas and bloating. Could it be the large doses of prednisone, an 80 mg metabolic wallop designed to suppress my overactive immune system? In a vain attempt to calm my symptoms, I tried drinking ginger tea, experimented with my diet, and tapped into acupuncture, yoga, exercise, and every other resource to no avail. The discomfort, gas, and bloating only worsened over time. When the pain topped out at 8-9, I found myself thinking, “I don’t know if I can keep this up.” I didn’t have to.

By mid September I asked my doctor to run tests that would rule out ovarian cancer. I can imagine that she probably rolled her eyes. With over 30 years of working with me, she either tolerates or is resigned to having me direct much of my health care. Soon Dr. Bhai called me with the results. She wasn’t able to rule out ovarian cancer, and I scheduled a biopsy the following week. In quick succession I saw a medical oncologist, then Dr. Vasilev, my gynecological oncologist, and we planned a course of treatment.

MORE INSIGHT, MORE LEARNING

My world spun crazily around me, my husband aged 20 years in two weeks, and I instinctively stepped up for the challenge ahead.

I often wonder why I seamlessly shift into this mode, a bizarrely calm and battle ready stance, navigating what must be done, but I do. Mostly I wasn’t all that surprised by the diagnosis. I’ve always known I was a high risk for ovarian cancer. However, as I step away from this stage of the journey, I want to share what I understand, and what I’ve learned.

ALL LIFE FORMS ARE INTERCONNECTED

From Micropia, the first museum dedicated to the study of microbes in the world. Amsterdam, The Netherlands
From Micropia, the first museum dedicated to the study of microbes in the world. Amsterdam, The Netherlands

We all grow cancer cells. Problems occur when the immune system is unable to shut those cells down, and they start replicating without restraint. Ideally the human body is able to manage this dance, but we are living in complicated times. In my case, heavy doses of prednisone could have primed the pump for tumor promotion. Or cancer cells can run amok from any number of environmental triggers.

Human activity spews over 10,000 chemicals into the environment every year and we only track about 200 of them. Many are known endocrine disruptors, including pesticides, herbicides, insecticides and other agents used in agriculture. These agents compromise our metabolism, our health and our lives. They compromise all life forms because all life is interconnected.

CANCER AND THE FOOD WE EAT, THE PRODUCTS WE USE

I know I can’t control all the chemicals that contribute to my body burden, but I can limit exposure to endocrine disruptors associated with living my life. Our landscaping and herb garden are managed organically. I purposefully limit exposure to endocrine disruptors in my household, using soap, vinegar and baking soda as the primary cleaning agents. I purchase organic and bio-dynamic food, grass fed, pastured, and beyond.

At the initial meeting with my oncologist, board certified in functional and integrative medicine, he asked about my diet. I laid it all out as he nodded in appreciation and told me, “Keep doing all of that.” I choose to eat whole foods grown as responsibly and sustainably as possible, mostly because I understand that I am voting with my dollars for my health, and the health of the planet.

CANCER AND HEALTH

I’m a healthy cancer patient, as strange as that sounds, and basically blew away the medical staff with my body’s capacity to navigate chemotherapy. My body is strong, well nourished in the best possible sense, and capable of fighting the good fight. In fact, the powerful lesson I learned over the past 10 months is that despite my diagnosis, my body was ideally prepared for the battle ahead.

Eating close to the earth, cooking from scratch, lots of physical movement, plenty of sleep, some wine with dinner, good times with friends and family. So many ways I live my life contribute to my health, and yet none of it prevented me from developing disease. Everything I do helps me survive.

EATING WELL TO PREPARE FOR WHATEVER LIFE BRINGS

I didn’t get tripped up with the “Why me?” but others do. During treatment I heard other cancer patients lament that they had done everything ‘right’. I realized they bought into a promise promoted by too many in the medical world–a promise that can’t be delivered. I knew I needed to change how I talk about food, health, and risk of disease.

I no longer encourage clients to eat, exercise, or whatever to reduce risk. What a set up! I now tell clients that eating well and taking care of ourselves serves a larger purpose: preparation for whatever we may encounter. Whatever challenge, whatever hardship, whatever opportunity. My journey was easier because I was already on board.

There is no guarantee that how we live our lives will eliminate risk of disease. However, eating well and living well reinforces all of our resources. I never second guessed what I could have done differently because I was already doing what I could. Without regret and other distractions, I was free to focus on the task at hand.

Today I’m inspired to continue my work, writing, speaking, and counseling as I help others learn to how to enhance, support or restore their metabolic health. I’m just starting to rebuild my practice, and I am looking for opportunities. I’m open to speaking at local events and educational venues, open to new private clients, and happy to work in the community. Contact me if you have specific ideas or opportunities to share. Call me if you would like to figure out an approach to food that works for you.

Originall published at MuchMorethanFood.com.

construction-worker-pulling-rope_zyq3gdUO_L

Got Stress? Meet the Magic Mineral Magnesium

, 2

Life can get absolutely crazy, especially if you have kids.

We have four of them, three teenagers and a pre-teen. I’ve made it this far, which is a good sign! But the ninja skills required to coordinate the moving parts of four kids and a husband, on top of the work and every other obligation, requires an incredible focus and the fact that I cannot afford to get sick.

I didn’t always operate this way. I lived on diet soda and fat-free food (if you can call it that) for years. I had a tendency to run hard, play hard and drive myself straight into the ground. I’d crash. Total wipe out.

And then when the health of my kids were hit with different conditions, conditions now impacting so many children today, I had to reassess. I had to keep my family healthy, and I could not afford to go down.

My background is finance and motherhood. I was a straight A, MBA number cruncher. I knew nothing about food and began reaching out to doctors, pediatricians and dietitians to learn.

There have been a lot of things that have surprised me along the way, but I think one of the most surprising things continues to be that some of the easiest solutions are right in front of us. Things like reducing exposure to pesticides, artificial dyes, GMOs, since we don’t know the long-term impact.

But one day, sitting in the pediatrician’s office, he asked, “Do you guys take magnesium?” We were there because one of the kids was dealing with a bullying situation at school, and the stress was high.

“No, why?” And he started listing the benefits and the fact that 80% of Americans could be deficient.

“How did this happen?” I asked, thinking about my 104 year old grandmother. He wasn’t sure, so I got digging into the research.

It turns out that current industrial agricultural methods take from the soil more than they give.

It turns out that current industrial agricultural methods take from the soil more than they give. Monoculture (growing the same crop year in and year out, which depletes the soil of nutrients), synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and aggressive tilling further deplete minerals and trace elements from the soil and leave it vulnerable to erosion. This means much of the produce that we eat today has fewer nutrients than before these methods were utilized. In other words, this new way of farming stripped our soil. The word is “chelation”. And chemicals like glyphosate strip away key things like copper, zinc and magnesium. No one knows this better than Dr. Don Huber, a professor emeritus and retired military colonel who bravely spoke out on this.

As I dug into the research, I learned that a carrot you eat today can have 10 to 25 percent fewer vitamins and minerals than a carrot did twenty-five years ago.

And magnesium is one of those minerals that has been depleted. And it’s an important one.

True to form, I thought, “If magnesium can truly do all of this, why isn’t everyone talking about this? And how have I never heard of it?”

Because unfortunately, not enough docs get enough nutrition and this training (launching the industry for registered dietitians).

And here’s what I learned.

Every day, hundreds of complex chemical reactions occur in your body—and helping to regulate more than 350 of them is the hardworking mineral Magnesium.

Most of us are woefully deficient in this powerhouse of a mineral. Some doctors estimate that 80% of Americans aren’t getting enough magnesium. According to the National Institute of Health, an adult body contains approximately 25 g magnesium, with 50% to 60% present in the bones and most of the rest in soft tissues.

According to Dr. Frank Lipman, “Every day, hundreds of complex chemical reactions occur in your body—and helping to regulate more than 350 of them is the hardworking mineral Magnesium. Keep magnesium levels high and you’ll help protect your body against heart disease, high blood pressure, osteoporosis, type-2 diabetes, migraines, insomnia and depression.”

Shoot! Who wouldn’t want that?

So where to find this magic mineral and which company makes one of the greatest?

Read on to Part 2.

gmos get more chemicals

NAS Report on GMOs: What the Experts Actually Said

, 0

After an expert panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences issued a long-awaited report on genetically engineered foods, much of the news coverage said it gave GMOs an unqualified seal of approval. In fact, the report pointed to an array of concerns and unanswered questions. Here are the top ten findings of the report that most traditional and social media missed—or got plain wrong.

  1. You can’t generalize about GMOs. The panel was careful to say you can’t generalize about genetic engineering, and we should instead be looking at each product (or new trait) to assess the benefits and costs, not the process. The report warns against making sweeping generalizations, such as assuming all GMOs are safe.
  2. Some traits may not be safe. While the report found no evidence that a handful of currently commercialized traits pose food safety risks, the panel was careful to say other traits could pose risks.
  3. Allergens are hard to detect. In particular, the panel found that technology providers and regulators could miss potential allergens and called again for post-market testing.
  4. The GMO regulatory process is broken. The report found many flaws in the GMO regulatory process and called for regulatory reforms as well as more research.
  5. GMO crops do not increase crop yield. The panel explained why GMOs don’t—and never were designed to—increase yields, and also found no evidence that GMO crops are actually increasing yields.
  6. Herbicide use is up and headed higher. Although insecticide spraying has gone down on Bt corn and cotton, the use of herbicides on GMO crops (some of which are engineered to withstand applications of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsnto’s Roundup) has been going up and will keep increasing. In recent years, farmers have been forced to turn to mixtures of weed killers as weed resistance spreads.
  7. Herbicides may be dangerous. Though the panel said herbicide toxicity is more important than volume, the panel punted on the question of whether glyphosate or other weed killers increase the risk of cancer and other health problems.
  8. Regulators should have more power. To address rising herbicide use and help manage weed resistance, the panel said regulators should be able to impose requirements on farmers to address unforeseen risks.
  9. GMO labels make sense. Without GMO labels, consumers can not make food choices that reflect their values, the panel found. The consumer’s right-to-know is ample reason to require a mandatory GMO label.
  10. Environmental impacts could be big. Are GMO crops affecting monarch butterflies and other species? More research is needed, including a life-cycle analysis of the monarch butterfly. Future GMO crops could also lead farmers to plow up grasslands, increasing carbon pollution.

Originally published by EWG.

Photo by Chafer Machinery

RoundUp

Roundup Risk: A Farmworker Shares Deep Concern

, 0

We receive emails and notes from readers every day. Some stop us in our tracks, like this one, and we feel that they are really important to share so that others understand that they are not alone in their work and concern over the health of our families and food system.

This one is powerful, especially given that the International Agency for Research on Cancer just published a Q&A on glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup, that the agency now calls a “probable carcinogen.”

What can we do? Educate each other, share resources and stories, keep working towards a smarter food system. The legacy is ours to create.

Dear Robyn,

I just read your post about the woman who worked for Target and your advice to her. It resonated with me because I work for a conventional farm. They spray pesticides, including Roundup. I lost my mom to cancer when I was 26, she was 56.

Before she died, she encouraged me to find my birth mother. I did. I just lost her to cancer too. I’m 42 now, my birth mother was also 56 when she died.

My birth mother was a landscaper her whole life. She sprayed Roundup almost daily. She was told it was perfectly safe and that she didn’t need any PPE. She never saw a label or SDS for any of the pesticides she worked with. She recalled getting it on her hands and clothes and breathing in the mist from the spray.

She was diagnosed with an extremely aggressive form of breast cancer. By the time they found it, it had spread to her lymph and lungs. From there it progressed to her bones and then her brain. She had no family history of cancer, and genetic testing confirmed this.

I work for a small family hop farm in Oregon. The farmers are good people. They are farming the only way they know. The mother of the current (4th generation) farming family was diagnosed with grade 4 glioblastoma two years ago. I am friends with the family and I’m also a scientist with a background in biochemistry and interest in nutrition.

When she was diagnosed they reached out to me for advice. I had already done extensive research about cancer and treatments, both conventional and alternative, for my moms. I worked with the family to learn how much they were willing to adjust their lifestyle and invest in health in the face of a lethal brain cancer diagnosis. As is consistent with my experience, the answer was not very much, with the exception of what mainstream MDs advised.

Based on my research, I determined the most effective thing that would be the easiest to do is to adopt as much of the Budwig diet as possible. She did this, and I’m happy to report that she is alive and well, and the cancer has not come back after her initial surgery. This is basically unheard of with grade 4 glioblastoma, and while her doctors are impressed, I was asked not to come back to any of her appointments with her after the first and only time I accompanied her to her appointment (they did not appreciate my questions).

I’m writing to you to ask for your help. I feel like I should stay at this farm and do what I can to effect change. I have tried and mostly have been met with resistance and negativity, but I have also had success in other areas around sustainability, so I remain hopeful.

The challenge for me is that there is so little information about how to farm any way other than conventionally. I helped the farm become salmon safe certified, but there is still so much to be done. Going organic is not an option for them in the short term, but I am wondering if there are any resources you know of for farms hoping to make the transition or even just for reducing pesticide use.

Thank you so much for the good work you do. You inspire me and give me hope for the future.

Sincerely, Staci

Photo by JeepersMedia

gmo label

GMO Labels are NOT Meaningless

, , 0

“GMO Labels are Meaningless!” proclaims a Los Angeles Times Op Ed headline published on April 14, 2016. The piece authored by Dr. Henry Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, exposes a hubris common in the biotechnology world. He claims, “Labels will appear on an illogical hodgepodge of new and old products that will in no way indicate risk, safety, quality or anything else that is meaningful.”

However, a growing coalition of farmers, scientists, environmental groups, consumers, and retailers disagree. Dr. Miller forgets that how we grow food matters, not just the science that gets us the seed.

GMO and Impact on Farming

Dr. Miller ridicules the proponents of GMO labeling but fails to address a major concern of consumers. Genetic engineering in food continues to be plagued with doubts and reservations because the most profound impact of genetic engineering in agriculture allows plants to either resist the action of the herbicide glyphosate, or the plant is engineered to produce its own pesticide.

The direct harm from farming practices linked with growing GMO crops includes loss of organic matter, disturbed soil ecology, decrease in carbon sequestration, compromised water aggregates and filtration, weed resistance, and risk of disease to farm workers directly attributed to pesticides and other endocrine disruptors.

glyphosate-exposure-chartAccording to Charles Benbrook glyphosate use in the agricultural sector rose 300-fold from 1974 to 2014. Benbrook also reports increasing use of glyphosate as a harvest aid for wheat, barley, edible beans, and a few other crops, with the impact of increasing residues of glyphosate in the food supply.

A growing number of farmers, the unsung scientists working the land, have figured out that chemically intensive agriculture compromises their soil and everything to do with yield. They are buying more non-GMO seed. Others are merely responding to price premiums driven by consumer demand.

Consumer Demand Increases with Increasing Glyphosate Residues in Food

Dr. Miller conveniently ignores concerns voiced by fellow physicians and scientists regarding potential risks with increasing residues of glyphosate in food. Benbrook documents Monsanto’s success in convincing the EPA to allow for substantial increases in glyphosate tolerance levels in several crops, as well as in animal forages from those crops. Greater tolerance levels results in greater residues of glyphosate measured in the food supply, but not by the folks who should be doing the testing.

A Civil Eats article published in February 17, 2016 exposes rather arrogant policies at both the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Government Accounting Office found that while both agencies routinely conduct testing for the residues of hundreds of pesticides in food, “both agencies routinely skip testing for glyphosate claiming such testing is too expensive and not needed to protect public health.”

GMO’s, Increasing Use of Glyphosate, and Health

glyphosate-exposureA few intrepid researchers plot the increased use of glyphosate with increasing incidence of disease. Despite Monsanto’s efforts to discredit the scientists, they publish their findings and summarize their concerns with broad statements, such as “Glyphosate disrupts the endocrine system and the balance of gut bacteria, it damages DNA and is a driver of mutations that lead to cancer.”

In the meantime, bureaucrats dither while consumers push back. There is a reason organic sales continue to increase by double digit percentages every year. Business is merely responding to consumer demand.

Consumers Voting with Their Dollars

Dr. Miller seems rather appalled that large food companies have stepped up to label food products using genetically modified ingredients in accordance to Vermont legislation. He complains that Vermont legislation will require GMO labels on as much as 75% of supermarket offerings—as if that’s a problem.

In essence, Dr Miller exposes a disconcerting lack of perspective when he states, “What is important is the function of the genetic change.” Much like the CEO of Monsanto, Dr. Miller needs to step down from his biotechnology high horse and consider how growing genetically modified crop impacts the food chain, the environment, and entire ecosystems.

American consumers overwhelmingly voice support for GMO labeling. With GMO labeling they will know more about the extent to which genetically modified corn, soy, sugar beet and canola can be found in the food supply.

To Dr. Miller’s consternation, consumers will probably continue to vote with their dollars regardless of biotechnology’s claims of safety for one simple reason. The science regarding everything meaningful isn’t settled at all.

 

organic strawberry farm

Inspiration: How A Strawberry Farmer Changed His Industry

, , 1

Jim Cochran arrived at work before dawn. He walked out into the strawberry fields. As the sun rose and light hit the field, he began to smell chemicals. His eyes watered. His head spun. He started to shake.

He had just walked into a field that had been sprayed with pesticides.

An acre of conventional strawberries is covered with 300 pounds of pesticides, 1,100 percent more than the average food crop. As he recovered from the effects of the spray he knew that he had to help the industry change.

Jim Cochran helped invent the organic strawberry industry. He didn’t just get the industry to rethink all of the pesticides it was applying. After pioneering the healthier crop, he turned his attention to the health of his workers. His workers make three times the national average for strawberry work, have health care, vacation pay and an employee owned stock plan.

Impossible is just something that hasn’t been done yet. Don’t let a word stand in the way of your vision.  

#rethinkfood

autism

A Doctor Sheds Light on Pesticides and the Autism Epidemic

, 1

In the seven years since I wrote my book, The Unhealthy Truth, How Our Food is Making Us Sick and What We Can Do About It, the Centers for Disease Control has updated the autism statistics 3 times. Back in 2008, the estimated number of children with autism in America was 1 in 110. A few years ago, that statistic was updated to 1 in 68, and this year, it was revised again to 1 in 45.

Genetics don’t change this quickly. When the movie Rain Man came out in 1988, we were so unfamiliar with what autism looked like that the movie presented a novelty, a condition so totally unfamiliar to our country. Less than 30 years later, so much has changed. And while headlines run about the escalating rates of diabetes and obesity, other conditions like food allergies and autism are skyrocketing, leaving many of us to ask “Why?”

There are many theories as to why autism is increasing. Most are controversial, speaking to the enormous need to conduct more research.

Dr. David Perlmutter, an MD that I had the honor of meeting recently, shares the following insight. It’s food for thought.

Dr. Perlmutter speaks to the role that pesticides can play in the health of our children, he is not alone. The President’s Cancer Panel has urged that we take the same action: reduce our children’s exposure to synthetic pesticides wherever possible. With both autism and pediatric cancers on the rise, it is sound advice. In the absence of any conclusion, we should be exercising precaution wherever we can.

Brain scientists are at a loss when it comes to trying to explain to the general public why we are seeing a profound, and ever-increasing, incidence of autism spectrum disorder.Obviously, although there may be some genetic predisposition for autism spectrum disorder, it is not primarily a genetic disease. If it were, we wouldn’t see such a sudden and dramatic increase in the number of children being diagnosed.

So we have to turn our attention to things extrinsic to our genetics. That means, we’ve got to pay attention to factors in our environment that can be having a detrimental effect upon brain development and function.

In a recent report, Neurodevelopmental Disorders and Prenatal Residential Proximity to Agricultural Pesticides: The CHARGE Study, highly respected researchers from the Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, in collaboration with other institutions, described their extensive research, known as the CHARGE study (Childhood Autism Risks from Genetics and Environment).

In this extensive research project, the scientists attempted to determine if there was any relationship between childhood developmental disorders, autism spectrum disorder, and exposure to environmental toxins, specifically commercial pesticide application, in the state of California. They look at the odds of a child being diagnosed with either of these disorders in comparison to “typical development” and compared the incidence of these events with the proximity to commercial pesticide application where mother lived during pregnancy.

The study looked at the most commonly used commercial pesticide groups, including organophosphates, organochlorines, pyrethroids, and carbamates.

In their report, the researchers revealed that living within 1km (just under 1 mile) of an agricultural pesticide application was associated with an incredible 60%(!) increased risk for a child being diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. In fact, if an expecting mother was exposed during her third trimester, the risk was was actually doubled. Another commonly used pesticide, chlorpyrifos, was actually associated with a tripling of the risk for autism spectrum disorder if mothers were exposed during the second trimester.

Here’s what the authors concluded:

Children of mothers who live near agricultural areas, or who are otherwise exposed to organophosphate, pyrethroid, or carbamate pesticides during gestation may be at increased risk for neurodevelopmental disorders. Further research on gene–environment interactions may reveal vulnerable subpopulations.

According to a new government survey of parents, the prevalence of autism spectrum disorder in children ages 3-17 is now pegged at one in 45. Even the more conservative estimate, from the Centers for Disease Control, puts the prevalence at 1 in 68. These are well-respected institutions that are sounding the alarm that a virtual epidemic is occurring in America, and aside from releasing these statistics, it really seems like no one is listening.

There is no treatment whatsoever that has merit when it comes to autism spectrum disorder. That said, we’ve really got to do everything we can to pay attention to information that points to possible environmental causes, especially because this information offers us up the opportunity to make changes.

One of the most important ways that we can vote is with our wallets, by choosing to buy foods that are organic. Ultimately, this simple choice may move the needle in favor of decreased pesticide usage. This seems even more urgent now that we see published science connecting the dots between pesticide exposure and our children’s health.

Photo by Lance Neilson

glyohosate

A Q&A on Glyphosate

0

Today, Citigroup downgraded Monsanto. It comes on the heels of Goldman Sachs also downgrading the agrochemical giant. Commodity prices are down, and Monsanto, which in the past has been able to demand a premium for their agrotech seeds, finds that the market no longer supports it. On top of that, demand for their signature products, GM corn and glyphosate are falling.

Much has been written about the IARC’s (International Agency for Research on Cancer) declaration of glyphosate—the main ingredient in Monsanto’s RoundUp herbicides—as a probable human carcinogen. Understandably. Glyphosate is now the world’s most widely used herbicide. The importance of this declaration can not be minimized—to us as the food buying public, and to Monsanto, steadfastly insisting that the product is safe in an attempt to protect its revenue stream.

But the issue isn’t going way. A California widow represented by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is now suing the agrochemical giant for the death of her husband. A Vietnam vet and farmer of 30 years, he died of cancer. He is not alone. The President’s Cancer Panel now reports that 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 American women are expected to get cancer in their lifetimes, 41% of us. Cancer is the leading cause of death by disease in American children.

Earlier this month IARC itself published a Q&A on the subject. We are republishing it here in full:

In March 2015, IARC classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A).

This was based on “limited” evidence of cancer in humans (from real-world exposures that actually occurred) and “sufficient” evidence of cancer in experimental animals (from studies of “pure” glyphosate).

IARC also concluded that there was “strong” evidence for genotoxicity, both for “pure” glyphosate and for glyphosate formulations.

The IARC Monographs evaluation is based on the systematic assembly and review of all publicly available and pertinent studies, by independent experts, free from vested interests. It follows strict scientific criteria, and the classification system is recognized and used as a reference all around the world. This is because IARC evaluations are based on independent scientific review and rigorous criteria and procedures.

To reach these conclusions, IARC reviewed about 1000 studies. Some of the studies looked at people exposed through their jobs, such as farmers. Others were experimental studies on cancer and cancer- related effects in experimental systems.

Could the carcinogenic effects of glyphosate be related to the other chemicals in the formulations?

No. The IARC Monographs evaluation is based on the systematic assembly and review of all publicly available evidence relevant to the carcinogenicity of glyphosate. Most people’s exposure to glyphosate concerns commercial formulations that include glyphosate and other ingredients. The Monograph included these studies of real-world exposures to humans. It also included experimental studies of “pure” glyphosate and of glyphosate-based formulations.

For the experimental studies of “pure” glyphosate, the Monograph concluded that the evidence for causing cancer in experimental animals was “sufficient’’ and the evidence for causing genotoxicity was “strong”. The real-world exposures experienced by human populations are to a variety of formulations of glyphosate with other chemicals, because this is how glyphosate is mainly sold and used. Similar results were reported in studies of different formulations used in different geographical regions at different times.

Taking all of this evidence together, the IARC Working Group classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A). Following the criteria in the Preamble to the IARC Monographs, the classification of glyphosate is based on “limited” evidence of cancer in humans (from exposures that actually occurred) and “sufficient” evidence of cancer in experimental animals (from studies of “pure” glyphosate). This classification is further supported by “strong” evidence for genotoxicity, both for “pure” glyphosate and for glyphosate formulations.

Could the co-formulants be the cause of the genotoxic effects reported in the IARC Monograph?

With regard to genotoxicity, the IARC Working Group evaluated studies of “pure” glyphosate as well as studies of glyphosate-based formulations. The Working Group reached the same hazard conclusion for glyphosate and for its formulations: they concluded that the evidence for genotoxicity was “strong” for glyphosate and “strong” for glyphosate formulations.

Several of the epidemiological studies considered by the IARC Expert Working Group showed increased cancer rates in occupational settings after exposure to glyphosate herbicides. Can this be attributed to glyphosate as a single ingredient or could it be due to other chemicals in the formulations?

Real-world exposures that people experience are to glyphosate in formulated products. Studies of humans exposed to different formulations in different regions at different times reported similar increases in the same type of cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Data on “pure” glyphosate from animal and other experimental studies, including on human cells, support the conclusion from the studies of exposed people. For the studies of “pure” glyphosate, the Monograph concluded that the evidence for cancer in experimental animals was “sufficient” and the evidence for genotoxicity was “strong.”

One of the key studies evaluated in the Monograph was the United States Agricultural Health Study (AHS). This study did not find an association between non-Hodgkin lymphoma and glyphosate. Can this study alone outweigh the positive associations found in other epidemiological studies?

The Agricultural Health Study (AHS) has been described as the “most powerful” study, but this is not correct. The AHS collected data on cancer and pesticide use in more than 50 000 farmers and pesticide applicators in two states in the USA. The weakness of the study is that people were followed up for a short period of time, which means fewer cases of cancer would have had time to appear. This factor can limit the ability of a study to detect an association if one truly exists. Therefore, although the AHS is a large, well-conducted study, its results on glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma risk do not outweigh those of other studies.

The IARC Working Group also conducted an objective statistical analysis of the results of all of the available studies on glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, which included the AHS and all of the case– control studies. The data from all of the studies combined show a statistically significant association between non-Hodgkin lymphoma and exposure to glyphosate.

In the studies IARC evaluated, were there cancers only seen in animals exposed to the toxic doses of glyphosate?

No. The IARC Working Group identified statistically significant trends of higher numbers of cancers with higher doses of “pure” glyphosate in studies of mice, suggesting increasing response with dose. Cancers were seen in the absence of toxicity.

An important consideration in the IARC Working Group’s evaluation was that glyphosate caused unusual types of tumours, which are very rarely seen in untreated animals. Rare tumours can provide important evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship, but may only be seen at high doses. The IARC Working Group’s evaluation of these tumours was in line with accepted principles and gave highly significant results.

Regulatory agencies have reviewed the key studies examined by IARC—and more—and concluded that glyphosate poses no unreasonable risks to humans. What did IARC do differently?

Many regulatory agencies rely primarily on industry data from toxicological studies that are not available in the public domain. In contrast, IARC systematically assembles and evaluates all relevant evidence available in the public domain for independent scientific review.

For the IARC Monograph on glyphosate, the total volume of publications and other information sources considered by the Working Group was about 1000 citations. All citations were then screened for relevance, following the principles in the Preamble to the IARC Monographs.

After this screening process, the Monograph sections on cancer epidemiology and cancer bioassays in laboratory animals cited every included study. The sections on exposure and mechanisms of carcinogenesis consider representative studies and therefore do not necessarily cite every identified study. Once published, the IARC Monograph on glyphosate cited 269 references.

In the interests of transparency, IARC evaluations rely only on data that are in the public domain and available for independent scientific review. The IARC Working Group’s evaluation of glyphosate included any industry studies that met these criteria. However, they did not include data from summary tables in online supplements to published articles, which did not provide enough detail for independent assessment. This was the case with some of the industry studies of cancer in experimental animals.

With the material reviewed by the Working Group, there was enough evidence to conclude that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans.

What does IARC’s classification mean in terms of the probability of developing a cancer?

The IARC Working Group’s classification of glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A) is based on “limited” evidence of cancer in humans (from real-world exposures that actually occurred) and “sufficient” evidence of cancer in experimental animals (from studies of “pure” glyphosate). This classification is further supported by “strong” evidence for genotoxicity, both for “pure” glyphosate and for glyphosate formulations.

The IARC Monographs evaluation is a hazard classification. It indicates the strength of evidence that glyphosate can cause cancer. The probability of developing a cancer will depend on factors such as the type and extent of exposure and the strength of the effect of the agent.

 

Photo by JeepersMedia

antibiotics off the menu

Getting Extra Antibiotics Off the Menu

, , 0

antibiotics off the menuThis World Consumer Rights Day (March 15, 2016) we are calling on McDonald’s, KFC and Subway to make global time bound commitments to stop serving meat from animals routinely given antibiotics used in human medicine.

Antibiotic resistance is one of the biggest threats to global health facing us today. Around half of the antibiotics produced globally are used in agriculture, with much of this being used to make animals grow faster and to prevent rather than treat disease. Along with addressing overconsumption of antibiotics in human medicine and promoting the development of new drugs, changes in farming practices are urgently needed.

Multinational restaurant chains with global supply networks are in a strong position to drive changes faster than legislation alone. McDonald’s and Subway have already made commitments in North America; unfortunately, this isn’t enough. The scale and reach of the problem demand worldwide action, which is why a global, timebound commitment is needed. Join us in calling on McDonalds, Subway and KFC to act globally to get #AntibioticsOfftheMenu.

 

censored laboratory

USDA Called Out by 50 Groups for Censoring Science

, 0

Today, a coalition of over 50 consumer, agriculture and environmental groups sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture expressing growing concerns over the alleged suppression, harassment, and censorship of agency scientists, particularly with regard to research showing harms to pollinators from certain pesticides—a controversial topic in the agriculture community.

It is understandable how deep this concern goes, as food security is a national security issue, especially in light of the escalating rates of diseases in the United States.

According to the President’s Cancer Panel, 41% of Americans are now expected to get cancer in their lifetimes. The Centers for Disease Control reports that cancer is now the leading cause of death by disease in American children, with pediatric cancer rates escalating.

followmoneyIf we’ve learned anything from the tobacco industry and what came to be known as “tobacco science,” industry can financially engineer the science as much as they genetically engineer the food.

As this ‘he said/she said’ scientific debate continues, it is even more important to follow the money.

It is also critical to the health of our families, our country and our economy that American consumers have complete transparency into how their food is made, if it’s been genetically engineered and how much of these pesticides and weed killers now called “probable carcinogens” are being applied to their foods.

USDA urged to reform scientific integrity policy after allegations of scientific censorship

WASHINGTON, D.C. — As scrutiny of censorship of federal scientists has grown—including a feature in Sunday’s The Washington Post Magazine—a coalition of more than 50 sustainable agriculture, environmental, beekeeper, and public interest organizations is once again pressing the agency for overdue reforms. The coalition sent a follow-up letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture today expressing growing concerns over the alleged suppression, harassment, and censorship of agency scientists, particularly with regard to research showing harms to pollinators from certain pesticides — a controversial topic in the agriculture community. As a result, the groups are urging the USDA to publicly investigate these allegations, and make immediate binding reforms to the agency’s scientific integrity policy.

In October 2015, Dr. Jonathan Lundgren, a senior scientist at the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, filed a whistleblower complaint charging the agency with suppression of research findings that challenged the safety and efficacy of a widely used class of pesticides, neonicotinoids. In the letter sent today, the groups and their millions of members are calling on USDA to 1) conduct a thorough investigation into the matter, 2) make the investigation publicly available once it is complete, 3) take any necessary steps to ensure that the USDA maintains scientific integrity moving forward, and 4) request that an independent, third party conduct an investigation into this issue

The story in The Washington Post Magazine also highlights issues of the lack of scientific integrity at the agency, pointing to retaliation against other scientists, most whom have remained anonymous fearing reprisal. One former USDA scientist now speaking out, Jeffrey Pettis, says he was told by a member of Congress that he “hadn’t followed the script” at a congressional hearing meant to focus on mites without bringing up issues of pesticides.

In contrast, an internal scientific integrity review panel at the USDA recently rejected the complaint of scientific suppression by Lundgren, claiming that agency had not violated its scientific integrity policies. In February 2016, USDA Inspector General Phyllis Fong said the USDA will open a broad investigation into the issue of scientific censorship, but did not specify whether the investigation would be made publicly available.

Earlier last year, the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility filed a citizen petition requesting that the USDA adopt new policies that would further protect the ability of government scientists to evaluate and communicate freely about the safety of agricultural chemicals without political interference or fear of retaliation. PEER reported that more than ten USDA scientists have faced consequences or investigations when their work called into question the health and safety of agricultural chemicals. The global neonicotinoid insecticide industry sells more than $2.6 billion annually.

“The USDA has a responsibility to protect the health and safety of the American public and to ensure the long-term viability and sustainability of the environment and our natural resources. It is imperative that we are able to trust that our government and its employees serve the public interest rather than private corporations,” said the groups.

Lundgren and Pettis are not alone in their experiences of research suppression. “The challenges are significant for scientists just trying to do their jobs,” said Evaeggelos Vallianatos, PhD, a former scientist for the EPA and the author of the book Poison Spring: The Secret History of Pollution and the EPA. He also documented the challenges federal agency scientists face standing up for their research and speaking out, in the face of political pressure. “Senior managers have expectations and scientists know the consequences of not being a good ‘team player’, despite the undermining of scientific integrity.”

Groups submitting today’s letter continue to urge federal agencies to strengthen scientific integritiy policies — and follow the science to protect bees and other pollinators. The White House Task Force on Pollinator Health was established as part of a Presidential Memorandum, issued by President Obama in June 2014; it called for a federal strategy to protect pollinators and mandated the EPA and the USDA, as co-chairs of the Task Force, to assess the effect of pesticides, including neonicotinoids, on bees and other pollinators and take action where necessary. Recent allegations of the USDA’s censorship and suppression of scientific research on pesticides calls into question the agency’s ability to co-chair this task force and develop a meaningful federal strategy that will truly protect bees, birds, monarchs, and other critical pollinators.

Republished from Friends of the Earth.

 

Load More