by Madison Ruppert
GMOs, Roundup and The Monsanto Monstrosity
July 10, 2011
Informed consent is one of the most
basic aspects of patient-physician relations, as well as
subject-researcher relations in the case of research studies.
This involves making the patient aware
of and verifying that they understand the risks, benefits, facts,
and the future implications of the procedure or test they are going
to be subjected to.
In the case of genetically modified organisms we have not been made
aware of the risks. In fact, the GMO industry has deliberately
hidden the real dangers behind the seeds and herbicides they peddle.
The Food and Drug Administration of the United States of
America has defined informed consent in the following bureaucratic
Except as provided in 50.23 and
50.24, no investigator may involve a human being as a subject in
research covered by these regulations unless the investigator
has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the
subject or the subject’s legally authorized representative.
An investigator shall seek such
consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective
subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider
whether or not to participate and that minimize the possibility
of coercion or undue influence.
The information that is given to the
subject or the representative shall be in language
understandable to the subject or the representative.
No informed consent, whether oral or
written, may include any exculpatory language through which the
subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to
waive any of the subject’s legal rights, or releases or appears
to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution, or
its agents from liability for negligence.
Under all of these definitions,
including the exceptions which you can peruse at the above linked
official website, what Monsanto is doing with GM crops and their
Roundup products are ethically wrong and illegal.
Some might say,
“So what? It doesn’t matter since
genetically modified products are perfectly safe! Why would I
care, if it helps farmers, and it is safe, then what is wrong
with doing it without informed consent?”
Well, so many people disagree that after
much argumentation, the United States was forced to drop their
opposition to the labeling of products that have genetically
Unfortunately, this step forward was a
very small one, as this is completely voluntary. Since many
consumers do not want to eat these products, it is almost guaranteed
that we won’t see them on the ingredient list on our food labels any
This would be quite hilarious if it wasn’t so dangerous: the new
“guidance” approved by the Codex Alimentarius Commission simply,
“allows countries to label
genetically modified foods without [breaching] international
free trade laws.”
That is, of course, unless the people of
America start realizing the real dangers that these products pose
and demand that all companies be legally required to identify if any
ingredients were genetically modified anywhere along the line of
This means that if corn was grown from a Monsanto GM seed, the
producer would be forced to identify that the corn is indeed
genetically modified on the label.
Are there real health risks, or is this just a bunch of hype
attempting to defame the good name of the multinational giant known
In this article we will review the scientific findings and compare
them to what we are told by the media and government about the total
safety of these products.
In a report published in June 2011 in Earth Open Source, written by
several professors and researchers from across the world entitled,
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?
significant evidence is presented showing that the best-selling
herbicide Roundup is indeed linked with birth defects.
Roundup, a product of Monsanto, is comprised mostly of the
isopropylamine salt of glyphosate, which is the most used herbicidal
chemical in America. Monsanto’s Roundup has been outselling every
other herbicide worldwide since four years after its introduction to
the market in 1976. For those who are not familiar with the history
of Monsanto and their Roundup product, I highly recommend the
documentary entitled The World According to Monsanto.
Roundup is far from the only dangerous GM product, as you will see
as this article continues.
So what exactly are the dangers of Roundup? Should you be worried
about your food source using it or using “Roundup” ready genetically
To put it simply: yes, in fact you should be very concerned and this
article will lay it out so anyone can understand exactly why we need
to get active and fight back against the monster that is Monsanto
and the gargantuan genetically modified organism market.
First I must describe what a “Roundup ready” genetically modified
The GM plant has been specially
engineered to be able to handle the incredibly toxic herbicide
Roundup. It does not resist the herbicide but instead it has been
modified so it can uptake the poison and still live. The Roundup
then makes its way into your system, and anyone will tell you that
eating a ton of glyphosate is not a good idea.
Roundup is not backed by any impartial, independent, rigorous
scientific research. The studies used to back up the claims of
governments around the world and especially in the EU are
unpublished industry studies.
The real research shows a very different picture.
In 2002, a scientific research paper was published in Chemical
Research in Toxicology, a publication of the American Chemical
Society, entitled Pesticide Roundup Provokes Cell Division
Dysfunction at the Level of CDK1/Cyclin B Activation. This bombshell
paper reveals the real inherent dangers of the world’s most popular
The model they used to test the effects of the glyphosate based
Roundup was an embryonic sea urchin in the first cell divisions
after successful fertilization. This is suitable for an analog study
(meaning that it can be applied to human cell division) because
these first divisions represent the universal cell cycle regulation.
They found that a solution containing just 8 mM (millimolar, or
8/1000 moles) of glyphosate,
“induces a delay in the kinetic of
the first cell cleavage of the sea urchin embryos.”
This means that the initial cell
division, which starts with cleavage of the single cell zygote is
delayed, something which could prove destructive in human beings.
Anyone who has taken a biology course can tell you that the human
reproductive cycle is a beautiful, finely tuned, and remarkably
elegant system. When this system is upset, say by toxins in the
mother’s blood, the results are not pretty.
They further reveal,
“The delay in the cell cycle could
be induced using increasing glyphosate concentrations (1-10 mM)
in the presence of a subthreshold concentration of Roundup 0.2%,
while glyphosate alone was ineffective, thus indicating synergy
between glyphosate and Roundup formulation products.”
While the effects of the toxin were “not
lethal,” it still induced “a delay into M-phase of the cell cycle.”
CDK1 and cyclin B universally regulate
the cell’s M-phase, and Roundup delayed the activation of these
compounds in vivo.
“Roundup inhibited also the global
protein synthetic rate” and “affects cell cycle regulation by
delaying activation of the CDK1/cyclin B complex” which leads to
the ominous conclusion: “our results question the safety of
glyphosate and Roundup on human health.”
Why is this not headline news? Why are
the people of the world not up in arms about these toxins being
present in our foods, possibly affecting the embryonic development
of our children?
Shockingly, this is not the only scientific study published in the
prestigious journal Chemical Research in Toxicology.
In 2009, two French researchers at the
University of Caen in France out of the Laboratory for Estrogens and
Reproduction in the Institute of Biology published Glyphosate
Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical,
Embryonic, and Placental Cells.
For those unfamiliar with the terms, Apoptosis is the natural
process of programmed cell death that allows human fetuses to
develop fingers, toes and other features. This is distinct from
necrosis because the cells break up into fragments that are easily
consumed by phagocytic cells (cells that consume other cells) which
quickly remove the dead cell fragments before they can cause damage
to surrounding cells.
Necrosis, on the other hand, is the premature death of living cells
and living tissues, which is not naturally occurring and necessary
process like apoptosis. Unlike the vital process of apoptosis,
necrosis can prove fatal. Necrotic tissues are not consumed by the
phagocytic cells, which means that the tissues usually have to be
“debrided” which is the surgical removal of the necrotic tissue.
If you want to witness the effects of necrosis and have a strong
stomach, you might want to search for images of necrosis online;
although I must emphasize that you should have a strong stomach
before viewing these images.
This study was especially conservative, evaluating the toxicity of
four different glyphosate-based herbicides in Monsanto’s Roundup
products in solutions diluted 100,000 times. This is clearly far
below the level at which it is used in agricultural applications,
which therefore corresponds to the low levels detected in food for
human consumptions as well as animal feeds.
To make the study even more scientifically rigorous, they tested it
on three distinct human cell types, embryonic, placental, and
umbilical as well as testing both glyphosate alone and the Roundup
Unlike glyphosate alone, all of the heavily diluted Roundup
formations caused total cell death within twenty four hours through
necrosis. It was also found that Roundup induces apoptosis, causing
DNA fragmentation, shrinkage of the nucleus, and fragmentation of
As I briefly outlined above, apoptosis is a necessary part of the
human development process, however, when it is artificially induced,
While Roundup induced complete cell death, glyphosate alone induced
only apoptosis. They found conclusive evidence that the Roundup
adjuvants (an agent that modifies the behavior and activity of
another agent, while having few effects on its own) change the
permeability of the three human cells studied.
This amplifies the toxicity already induced via glyphosate, proving
that the adjuvants in Roundup are not inert.
They conclude the abstract of the paper with the following ominous
“Moreover, the proprietary mixtures
available on the market could cause cell damage and even death
around residual levels to be expected, especially in food and
feed derived from [Roundup] formulation-treated crops.”
Now that you know the horrors of Roundup
and the inherent dangers of this systemic herbicide, would you like
to eat it? I doubt it. If you don’t like the idea of consuming this
necrosis-inducing toxin, you must know what contains the poison and
what does not.
Unfortunately, without proper labeling practices, you cannot be sure
unless you buy all of your food from farmers you know and trust
and/or have a home garden that can sustain you.
Until these practices are put in place, I highly recommend that you
seek out as much locally grown organic food as humanly possible.
Inform your friends and family about the real dangers of Roundup and
the hard science this is based upon.
When more people around the world start demanding that their food be
properly labeled with warnings just like cigarettes or alcohol, some
real change can occur.
If we continue to sit back and hope our
governments will actually represent us instead of their corporate
interests, we will continue to be subjected to the largest human
experiment in history, in which you never have to give informed
Why Europeans (and Everyone Else) Should Be
July 14, 2011
In part one of what will become a
long-running series I briefly outlined two recent papers published
in the renowned peer-reviewed journal, Chemical Research in
Toxicology, which revealed the horrifying effects of Monsanto’s
best-selling glyphosate-based Roundup herbicide.
These two independent and highly rigorous studies found that Roundup
caused critical cell damage including necrosis, a horrendous process
in which cells break down and release their contents into the
surrounding area, creating widespread, unmitigated cell death.
The Monsanto formulation was found to be
much more devastating to human cells than the glyphosate herbicide
The studies that comprised the bulk of part one of this series were
published in an American journal, yet the people of the United
States seem, on the whole, ignorant of the dangers of Roundup and
the specifically modified Roundup Ready genetically modified seeds
made to be able to absorb the toxin and live.
Unfortunately, the problem is not an isolated one, and Americans are
not the only people who should be attempting to tell as many of
their fellow citizens about these dangers as possible. While
Americans need to become vocal on this issue and make it clear to
our representatives that we will not stand for anything less than
mandatory genetically modified organism labeling requirements,
Europeans are now on the front lines of this battle as well.
In the summary report published in June of this year, Roundup and
birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?, there is
thorough evidence of the European Union attempting to deceive and
betray their constituents as our so-called representatives have here
The EU Commission responsible for representing the health of the
people of Europe had dismissed credible and thorough scientific
research showing considerable dangers associated with glyphosate and
They recently dismissed a study
published last year in which it was observed that frog and chicken
embryos developed birth defects when exposed to solutions of Roundup
and glyphosate much more diluted than the solutions utilized for
home gardening and agricultural applications.
This dismissal was based solely upon a report manufactured by the
German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL)
which cited “unpublished industry studies” to legitimize their
We also learn that,
“The Commission has previously
ignored or dismissed many other findings from the independent
scientific literature showing that Roundup and glyphosate cause
endocrine disruption, damage to DNA, reproductive and
developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, and cancer, as well as
birth defects. Many of these effects are found at very low
doses, comparable to levels of pesticide residues found in food
and the environment.”
Unsurprisingly, the undemocratic
European Union has delayed a thorough review of the toxic systemic
herbicide Roundup and its main ingredient, glyphosate.
All of this was done behind closed doors
without any input from the people of Europe who will suffer the
consequences of these deadly toxins.
The EU Commission has willfully put the lives of millions of
Europeans and their future children at risk knowing full well the
inherent dangers in these GMOs. Apparently the lure of power and
money has made those responsible for such actions forget that they
themselves will be subjected to these so-called foods.
Typically, safety reviews are conducted every ten years, the last
being in 1992. Instead of conducting a review of the peer-reviewed
independent scientific literature next year, the Europeans have
decided to delay it at least another three years.
Due to the serious health risks involved in these products, the
Earth Open Source report recommends that the EU Commission utilize
what power they have to remove Roundup and glyphosate products from
the market until real investigation takes place.
I seriously doubt that the endless coffers of Monsanto will be
outweighed by a little bit of common sense or human decency on the
part of the fascists responsible for the closed-door dealings that
are all-too-common in the European Union.
The aforementioned study published in 2010 that found Roundup caused
chicken and frog embryos to grow abnormally was conducted by the
lead researcher for the Argentinean government research group
CONICET, Andres Carrasco.
Professor Carrasco was inspired to carry out this research by the
reports of unusually high rate of birth defects, similar to those
found in the chicken and frog embryos, in the regions of his native
Argentina that cultivate genetically modified Roundup Ready
The idea behind a Roundup Ready GM seed is that, unlike all other
vegetation, the Roundup Ready (RR) plant can tolerate the herbicide
without withering away.
It is important to note that this does
not meant that the crop actually resists the toxin, instead it is
able to absorb and live, passing the atypically high levels of
glyphosate to your dinner table.
The major soy producing countries of South America have embraced GM
RR soy with open arms as the report reveals on page 7,
“In Brazil, nearly 90,000 tons of
glyphosate-based pesticides in 71 different commercial
formulations were sold in 2009. In Argentina, over half the
cultivated land is given over to GM soy, which is sprayed with
200 million liters of glyphosate herbicide each year. Spraying
is often carried out from the air, causing major problems of
Drift is when the airborne particles of
the Roundup herbicide travel unknown distances to water sources,
farms in which they do not use GM RR seeds, and to homes. In all of
these cases the consequences can be dire.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization said in a 2005
report of the Joint meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide
Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Core Assessment
Group on Pesticide Residues that while the maximum residue limit for
glyphosate in food for human consumption and animal feed products in
the European Union is 20 mg/kg while soybeans have been measured to
have glyphosate residue levels at 17 mg/kg.
Knowing the UN and their countless sub-organization, one would not
be wrong to speculate that it is likely the case that much less than
20 mg/kg is dangerous to human health.
In Carrasco’s study, he injected 2.03 mg/kg of glyphosate into the
frog and chicken embryos, resulting in malformations.
While injecting glyphosate does not
perfectly represent orally ingesting it through food, it is
concerning that levels 10 times less than the maximum residue limit
cause these defects.
In a 2010 interview, Carrasco stated,
“Bear in mind that Argentina is a
unique case, with huge amounts of soybean acres – 19 million
hectares – on more than half the cultivated area of the country,
This is something rarely seen. So I say that, from the
eco-toxicological point of view, what is happening in Argentina
is a massive experiment.”
However, it is not only the people of
Argentina that are being subjected to a massive experiment,
inhabitants of every continent have been forced, without their
consent or knowledge, into a dangerous human trial.
The fact is that the governments of Europe and the United States
have not bothered to carry out thorough independent investigations
of the levels at which average human beings and animals ingest this
With Europe importing from 35-40 million tons of soybeans and their
derivatives every year from the United States, Argentina and Brazil,
according to GMO Compass, there is a considerable amount of product
being consumed, the safety of which has not been verified
The EU does not cultivate the GM soy themselves as it is officially
forbidden; instead they just import it and pretend that it is
somehow different than growing the modified beans themselves. Indeed
many of these soybeans are GM RR crops, and only three of the ten
applications as foodstuffs and feeds have been approved.
the United States nine
applications have been approved
Canada has seven
Japan has six
Mexico and Australia have five
Taiwan has four
Brazil has three
South Africa has two
the Philippines and China have
Korea has two
Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay,
Colombia, Russia and Switzerland only have one application
What about the United States makes these
genetically modified crops safer than the many other nations that
have far less instances in which the untested GMOs can be used?
The answer is: there is no difference;
it is just that we have the wonderful group known as the FDA that is
quick to approve anything as long as there is money behind it.
Soon the EU will begin cultivating its own Roundup Ready “food,”
Monsanto’s genetically modified Roundup Ready corn product called
NK603. The EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) already gave the
thumbs up to the GM RR corn, enabling the heavy herbicidal spraying
that has been tied to increased birth defects in Argentina.
However, in September of last year, the startling research of
Professor Carrasco was sent to the European Union’s Commissioner for
health and Consumer Policy, John Dalli.
During the next month, the MEP of the
Greek Green Party, Michail Tremopoulos questioned what Dalli
was going to do about Monsanto’s NK603 application.
In response, Dalli said that he had heard from the German Government
that Carrasco’s study was not applicable or important for the
Resulting in the conclusion that it was
not necessary to move to restrict or ban the use of the systemic
This inference does not align with the peer-reviewed scientific
literature or even EU law. According to the new pesticide regulation
1107/2009, enacted in June of this year, the EU cannot rely on
studies that are kept secret from the affected public under the
pretenses of “commercial confidentiality.” The law makes it clear
that real, open, peer-reviewed scientific literature must be
assessed, especially the open literature published in the decade
before the assessment.
The report reveals,
“The entire decision-making process
on the delay was done behind closed doors with a limited group
of national representatives (mainly from the agricultural
ministries of member states) and set into law without notifying
stakeholders. This process is called “comitology” and is much
criticized for being non-transparent, confusing (even to legal
experts) and undemocratic.”
The sad thing is that we need not be
only concerned about Roundup being present in our food supply; we
must also be concerned about the fact that any Tom Dick and Harry
can get the highly toxic glyphosate-based herbicide at their local
grocery or convenience store.
Those who do not go out of their way to get the real information on
Roundup happily kill their weeds with the product since it is both
easy and cheap.
Without the government making it clear that there are extreme
dangers associated with this product, people will continue to spray
their yards and gardens where their children and pets play. This is
one case in which the government could actually do some good by
stepping in and taking a firm stance, instead of just serving their
The consequences of these widespread domestic and municipal uses
have, as of yet, been completely ignored.
For those who are interested, please read (and download) the full
review PDF here: Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept
in the dark?
In part three of the series we will continue to break down this
report and what it means for the people of the world. If you would
like to review the report on your own before continuing with the
series, please feel free.
However, it is not necessary as I plan
to break this down in detail for those who do not have the time to
read the entire document or do not have the background required to
appreciate the gravity of the document.
Laws? We don’t need no stinking laws!
August 01, 2011
In part two of this series I began to
delve into the mire the European Union is now being brought in to
but I only began to scratch the surface.
The EU Commission responsible for assessing the dangers of
pesticides has delayed the review of glyphosate, the main ingredient
of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, until 2015. This was done without a
single person of the EU having input on the issue.
In an attempt to justify this delay, the body responsible for
conducting the review, the Federal Office for Consumer Protection
and Food Safety of Germany (BVL), claimed that they were too busy.
For those who did not download the Earth Open Source report we began
to delve into in part two, please do so:
Roundup and Birth Defects - Is The Public
Being Kept in The Dark?
Note: quotes are
cited by section heading not page number.
Glyphosate is not the only pesticide affected by these delays, in
fact according to the European Commission’s Directive 2010/77/EU of
the 10th of November, 2010, there are a total of 39
potentially toxic pesticides pending review. However, this is not
just a time delay; this will have the dark consequence of glyphosate
and the other pesticides being reviewed under the old EU directive.
The outdated pesticide Directive 91/414
were designed decades ago and ignore crucial factors in scientific
“endocrine disruption, effects on
development, effects of added ingredients (adjuvants), effects
of combinations of chemicals, and effects on bees.”
The old EU Directive does not stipulate
that the independent, peer-reviewed scientific literature must be
included in the review.
The new Regulation 1107/2009, which was supposed to come into force
in June 2011, does not allow the highly questionable unpublished
industry studies or studies which are kept from public review.
Furthermore, unlike the old Directive, the new Regulation explicitly
states that the future pesticide reviews must include the
“scientific peer-reviewed open literature.”
Since glyphosate, and thus Roundup, will not be reviewed under the
new Regulation in 2015, all of these pesticides will potentially not
have a truly thorough review in the European Union until 2030.
This is, of course, unless the EU Commission demands that the
independent scientific literature be taken into account. Without
this, the EU will suffer continually from these deadly products just
like so much of the rest of the world already is.
In part two I briefly covered the Argentinean scientist Andres
Carrasco’s research on Roundup’s effects on the development of
chicken and frog embryos. His research found that small amounts of
Roundup caused growth abnormalities in the embryos but it was
singled out by the German review body, the BVL, as the only study to
This could not be further from the truth, although since the BVL
cites a 1998 Draft Assessment Report on glyphosate, they can attempt
to justify their statements. If you read part one of the series, you
learned of two studies published in Chemical Research in Toxicity
which both showed serious dangerous effects.
Germany’s 1998 report claims there is “no evidence of teratogenicity,”
which is the ability of a substance to cause birth defects or
malformations of any kind. Both of the studies we reviewed in part
one found that glyphosate, and especially Monsanto’s Roundup
formula, indeed caused malformations and even necrosis or
uncontrolled cellular death.
Despite Carrasco’s results and the other independent studies showing
potential dangers of glyphosate Monsanto and Dow claim,
“Glyphosate does not cause adverse
reproductive effects in adult animals or birth defects in
offspring or these adults exposed to glyphosate, even at very
To make matters worse for the already
shattered reputability of the BVL and massive corporations like
Monsanto, their claims are directly contradicted by their own 1998
Draft Assessment Report and the industry studies it is based upon.
According to the German summary of a 1993 study that examined the
effects of glyphosate on rabbit fetuses found that there were a high
number of major anomalies in all experimental groups. This includes
the lowest dose level of 20 mg/kg and represented anomalous heart
formations along with skeletal malformations.
Roundup and birth defects: is the public being kept in the dark?
lists four other studies listed in the 1998 report that directly
contradict the statements of Monsanto and the German regulatory
To sum up their review of the studies, the report reads,
“Taking all these industry studies
together, there is enough evidence to require regulators to
apply the precautionary principle and withdraw glyphosate from
Indeed, Roundup and glyphosate need to
be taken off the market in the United States and around the world as
there is a wealth of evidence indicating the dangers in these
products. Until there is a large body of independent scientific
evidence, it should not be sold.
The greater insanity is that regardless of the evidence showing the
dangers of glyphosate and Roundup in particular, it is allowed to be
present in food supposedly fit for human consumption.
As I mentioned in part two of this series, the so-called Roundup
Ready genetically modified varieties of crops engineered by Monsanto
only absorb the toxin and live, passing the buck to the consumer
instead of killing the plant itself.
The Genetically Modified food (GM RR) thus puts glyphosate-based
Roundup into the food supply, no matter what animal happens to
Knowing the overwhelming evidence provided both by industry studies
and independent, peer-reviewed scientific studies, corporations like
Monsanto have continued to market and distribute their products at
an unprecedented level. Even more disturbing is the fact that
governments have allowed this to occur.
The Earth Open Source report gives the following outline of the
deliberate cover-up of the dangers of glyphosate, and thus Roundup,
perpetrated by industry and government alike.
Industry (including Monsanto)
has known since the 1980s that glyphosate causes
malformations in experimental animals at high doses.
Industry has known since 1993 that these effects could also
occur at low and mid doses.
The German government has known
that glyphosate causes malformations since at least 1998,
the year it submitted its DAR on glyphosate to the EU
The EU Commission’s expert
scientific review panel has known since 1999 that glyphosate
The EU Commission has known
since 2002 that glyphosate causes malformations. This was
the year its DG SANCO division published its final review
report, laying out the basis for the current approval of