Patrick Moore, a Canadian scientist and environmentalist and the former president of Greenpeace Canada, recently came into contact with a journalist from a premium French cable station. The journalist identified Moore as a Monsanto lobbyist and asked him to drink a glass of Roundup Herbicide, the world’s most popular and widely used weed-killer.
According to an article published by Forbes, Moore is not a Monsanto lobbyist. However, in the same article, Forbes provides a link to Moore’s Wikipedia page, which states that he is “a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry.” And other sources would seem to concur. For example, the Asian Pacific Post quotes Greenpeace as saying that he “exploits long gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes.”
Nevertheless, it’s no secret that Moore is a big supporter of GMO foods and the biotech industry in general. It was his stance on these issues that raised friction between him and Greenpeace in the first place, since Greenpeace does not support genetically modified organisms. He has openly supported GE foods and pesticides on numerous occasions, so the issue of whether or not he is paid by the industry is, quite frankly, irrelevant.
What The Science Says About Glyphosate
Mr. Moore clearly has no idea what he is talking about. The dangers of this chemical are, at this point, incontrovertible. In 1991, for example, a paper reported that 93 patients intentionally ingested RoundUp at its 41 percent concentration. Seven of them died, 66 percent of them sustained damage to their gastrointestinal tract, and 43 percent of them reported sore throats. (source)
These aren’t the only reports of people dying after ingesting glyphosate, or feeling its ill effects. It is clearly not safe for consumption, and considering the fact that people are required to wear goggles, masks, and protective gear to handle it, this much should be obvious.
The other problem is that glyphosate has been found in the urine of a significant portion of the population. It has been linked to multiple diseases, which is why countries are banning its use entirely.
“An investigation carried out by medical specialists and scientists has revealed that kidney disease was mainly caused by glyphosate. President Mahinda Rajapaksa has ordered the immediate removal of glyphosate from the local market soon after he was told of the contents of the report.” (source)
The study also noted that even the World Health Organization (WHO) found that Chronic Kidney Disease (CKDU) is caused by exposure to pesticides.
The list of countries to ban this chemical is lengthy and it continues to grow, yet the makers of glyphosate remain obstinate in their assurances that the product is safe, even in the face of such clear resistance.
Glyphosate has also been linked to birth defects. A group of scientists put together a comprehensive review of existing data which shows how European regulators have known that Monsanto’s glyphosate causes a number of birth malformations since at least 2002. The review was lead by Dr M. Antoniou, Head of the Gene Expression and Therapy Group from the Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics at King’s College London School of Medicine, UK. Dr. Antoniou was joined by 6 other doctors who have similarly impressive credentials. The report provides a thorough review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature documenting the serious health hazards posed by glyphosate and Roundup herbicide formulations. You can read the entire document here.
Here is another study that shows glyphosate can cause abnormalities. It was published in 2010 by the American Chemical Society, and the research was conducted at the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina.
“It is commonly believed that Roundup is among the safest pesticides. . . . Despite its reputation, Roundup was by far the most toxic among the herbicides and insecticides tested. This inconsistency between scientific fact and industrial claim may be attributed to huge economic interests, which have been found to falsify health risk assessments and delay health policy decisions.” – R. Mesnage et al., Biomed Research International, Volume 2014 (2014) article ID 179691
Did you know that adjuvants in pesticides are usually declared as inerts? Or that because of this, they are not tested for longterm safety? It is “thus very surprising that they amplify up to 1000 times the toxicity of their Active Principles in 100% of the cases where they are indicated to be present by the manufacturer.” – R. Mesnage et al., Biomed Research International, Volume 2014 (2014) article ID 179691
The World Health Organization has also admitted recently that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” The announcement comes after decades of research had already been saying this very thing.
“Glyphosate currently has the highest global production volume of all herbicides. The largest use worldwide is in agriculture. The agricultural use of glyphosate has increased sharply since the development of crops that have been genetically modified to make them resistant to glyphosate. Glyphosate is also used in forestry, urban, and home applications. Glyphosate has been detected in the air during spraying, in water, and in food. The general population is exposed primarily through residence near sprayed areas, home use, and diet, and the level that has been observed is generally low.” (source)
They went on to state that the evidence is “convincing” that glyphosate can cause cancer in laboratory animals.
“Several more recent positive results in concluding that there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Glyphosate also caused DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells, although it gave negative results in tests using bacteria. One study in community residents reported increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage (micronuclei) after glyphosate formulations were sprayed nearby.”(source)
A study coming out of the University of California Davis determined that pregnant women who live in close proximity to land and farms where chemical pesticides are/were applied experience a two-thirds increased risk of having a child with autism spectrum disorder or some other developmental disorder.
“This study validates the results of earlier research that had reported associations between having a child with autism and prenatal exposure to agricultural chemicals in California. While we still must investigate whether certain sub-groups are more vulnerable to exposures to these compounds than others, the message is very clear: Women who are pregnant should take special care to avoid contact with agricultural chemicals whenever possible.” – Janie F. Shelton, a UC Davis graduate student who now consults with the United Nations; lead author of the study (source)
A new study published in the journal PLOS Computational Biology from researchers at the University of Chicago revealed that autism and intellectual disability (ID) rates are linked with exposure to harmful environmental factors during congenital development. (source)
The list literally goes on and on, and I hope I’ve provided a starting point for you to further your research if interested.
GMOs and How They Fit Into This Picture
It is important to remember that many supporters of both genetically modified foods, and their associate herbicides and pesticides, truly believe these substances are safe. What this means is that we can’t assume everyone working for the industry has evil intentions. Many of these people, even those who hold influential positions and who support these products wholeheartedly, are doing so from a genuine belief in their value. We have to remember this if we are ever to open up a genuine dialogue with those who are putting them on the market.
“Altered Genes, Twisted Truth will stand as a landmark. It should be required reading in every university biology course.” – Joseph Cummins, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Genetics, Western University, London, Ontario
In the book, Druker goes into detail about how the public, along with a number of lobbyists and other influential individuals, is being deceived about GMOs. The book discusses and shows how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) became a key accomplice in the biotech industry gaining such supremacy, and how it has broken the law and lied in order to bring genetically engineered foods into the market without the appropriate safety testing. It’s a very interesting read.
You may be wondering what GMOs have to do with Roundup herbicide, since at first glance they have nothing in common. But Roundup is the herbicide that GMO crops are engineered to resist, and this has created a situation where farmers are flooding their fields with Roundup. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, has been found to be accumulated in the soil of various countries around the world. In fact, a new study from the U.S. Geological Survey, titled “Pesticides in Mississippi Air and Rain: A Comparison Between 1995 and 2007,” reveals that Roundup herbicide (aka glyphosate) and its toxic degradation byproduct AMPA were found in over 75% of the air and rain samples tested from Mississippi in 2007. Researchers weren’t surprised, considering 2 million kilograms of glyphosate had been applied statewide in 2007. (source)(source)
A German study that concluded in June 2013 has also discovered a significant amount of glyphosate in the urine of people and animals from all across Europe, and it is just one of many such studies to discover this. The analysis of the urine samples found that all had concentrations of glyphosate at 5 to 20 times more than the limit for drinking water. Apart from being used increasingly in food production, glyphosate-based weedkillers are often sprayed onto railway lines, urban pavements, and roadsides. (source)(source)(source)
“To this day Monsanto continues to advertise its Roundup products as environmentally friendly and claims that neither animals nor humans are affected by this toxin. Environmentalists, veterinarians, medical doctors and scientists, however, have raised increasing alarms about the danger of glyphosate in the animal and human food chain and the environment. The fact that glyphosate has been found in animals and humans is of great concern. In search for the causes of serious diseases of entire herds of animals in northern Germany, especially cattle, glyphosate has repeatedly been detected in the urine, faeces, milk and feed of the animals. Even more alarming, glyphosate was detected in the urine of the farmers.” (source)
The study examined the urine of city workers, journalists, and lawyers — people who had no direct contact with glyphosate – and yet still found it in their urine.
This becomes even more problematic when we consider all the other health problems found to be associated with this herbicide and with GMOs. A study published in 2014 in the journal Environmental Sciences Europefound severe liver and kidney damage as well as hormonal disturbances in rats fed with GM maize in conjunction with low levels of Roundup — levels that were below those permitted in most drinking water across Europe. Results also indicated high rates of large tumors and mortality in most treatment groups.
This study was a replication of the study used by the World Health Organization (WHO) to tell the world that GMOs are safe. The only difference between the two, aside from (obviously) the conclusions, is that the WHO study only examined the effects in the short term. This study (published in Environmental Sciences Europe) was a longterm study. It fed the rats for a period of two years, while the WHO study only lasted three months. Before this study was published in 2014, no study had been conducted to assess the safety of GMOs in the longterm.
A number of studies have emerged in recent years which question the safety of these products — products that we really know little about — and it is concerning that many people remain unaware of this. A new study, published recently in the Journal of Organic Systemslast September, examined US government databases, searching for GE (Genetically Engineered) crop data, glyphosate application data, and disease epidemiological data while performing a “correlation analysis” on a total of 22 different diseases, found significant cause for concern. While you may be thinking that correlation does not mean causation, which is true, in this instance, if you apply the Bradford Hill Criteria, a link can still be clearly drawn between this chemical and various diseases.
“As part of the process, they portrayed the various concerns as merely the ignorant opinions of misinformed individuals – and derided them as not only unscientific, but anti-science. They then set to work to convince the public and government officials, through the dissemination of false information, that there was an overwhelming expert consensus, based on solid evidence, that GMOs were safe.” – Jane Goodall, taken from the Forward of Steven Druker’s book, mentioned earlier in this article
This is precisely why so many countries have completely banned GMO crops from their countries, as well as Roundup herbicide. In fact, 19 more countries in Europe recently joined the list, citing health and environmental concerns. You can read more about that in an article we published a few months ago, linked below.
Johnson and Johnson have recently lost lawsuits for negligence in knowingly allowing carcinogenic substances in their talc-based hygiene products.
Are we starting to turn the page on an era where human health and safety are not the prime considerations in the manufacturing of consumer products?
We are starting to awaken to the fact that it seems to be the rule, and not the exception, that large Western corporations put profits above human health considerations. The only time they seem to give any regard to human health concerns is when their forecasts of potential lawsuits down the road would likely exceed the cost measures needed to ensure the safety of their product.
Johnson & Johnson is just one of a long line of corporate perpetrators who believed that covering up and lying about known health concerns would make better business sense than taking the time and resources to actually address those health concerns within their products.
Contaminated Baby Powder: The Height Of Indignity
One would think, regardless of an understanding that the bottom line is a priority for most private companies, that the health and safety of a nursing mother and her newborn child would be sacrosanct for any industry. The reality is that this is simply not the case, even though J&J could have mitigated this problem from the start.
Companies that mine talc are required to take extra steps to ensure the absence of asbestos in their talc. Instead, J&J allegedly went to great lengths to fake it.
Not only did the company know about the asbestos contamination, evidence suggests, but J&J also failed to warn its customers about the link between Baby Powder and cancer or replace its talc with a safer alternative. As a result, J&J guaranteed its customers’ exposure to asbestos.
And regardless of their size or numbers, asbestos fibers are lethal at any capacity. As the World Health Organization (WHO) has stressed repeatedly, there is no safe level of exposure. (source)
Baby Powder’s contamination with asbestos (a mineral that naturally occurs near talc) has long been the subject of lawsuits. But only in recent years has evidence begun to unravel J&J’s defense – that the company had no idea – and threatened its success in lawsuits to come.
In March, a California jury awarded $29 million to Terry Leavitt, a woman who said that asbestos in Johnson & Johnson’s talcum-powder-based products caused her terminal mesothelioma. Environmental scientist James Webber testified in her high-profile California trial and made these observations:
During several hours on the stand, Webber explained how he ran tests that showed “clear” evidence of asbestos contamination in the mines from which J&J sourced talc.
“The testing I have seen [shows] that it was present at least as early as 1971 and up through the late 1990s,” said Webber, who ran an asbestos laboratory in New York state.
Despite denying it publicly, J&J had observed this contamination in internal memos. Its notes dismissed the amount of asbestos in its talc as “but a trace,” Webber alleged. But that was just an optimistic interpretation of superficial testing, he said: the tests used methods too weak to detect microscopic asbestos fibers. Webber insisted the actual tests results revealed there could be millions of asbestos fibers per gram of talc.
And J&J’s inaccurate reports were allegedly only the tip of the iceberg. In some instances, Webber said, photos attached to J&J’s reports revealed that “they had been seeing it and not reporting it.” (source)
And It’s Getting Worse
The $29 million verdict, in California Superior Court in Oakland, was the latest defeat for the healthcare conglomerate facing more than 13,000 talc-related lawsuits nationwide. And things may be getting even worse for J&J, according to ZeroHedge:
Johnson & Johnson shares are down over 5% after Bloomberg reports that, according to people with knowledge of the matter, the U.S. Justice Department is pursuing a criminal investigation into whether Johnson & Johnson lied to the public about the possible cancer risks of its talcum powder…
Now, a grand jury in Washington is examining documents related to what company officials knew about any carcinogens in their products, the people said.
It seems as though corporations have long been willing to take the calculated risk of short-cuts and denials instead of ensuring that their products are safe for public use. My suspicion is that a part of our collective awakening process will be issuing in a new business paradigm in which human health and safety become paramount.
Multiple brands of prescription infant formula were found to contain high levels of aluminum.
Should we be questioning the quality of products that come from pharmaceutical production? Do we veer away from natural methods of raising children more than we should? At what cost?
You may not think aluminum is a big deal, but it is. For anybody who has looked into aluminum toxicology, it’s quite clear and apparent that it has no place inside of any living biological organism. Putting it simply, it wreaks havoc on our biology. High amounts of aluminum have been found in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease, with experts in the field believing that aluminum brain accumulation may be one of the main causes of Alzheimer’s disease.
It’s also been discovered within the brains of MS patients, and some of the highest aluminum content ever recorded in brain tissue has also been discovered in people with autism. Aluminum is associated with several diseases. But an adult body can do a great job of flushing out aluminum.
Despite the fact that aluminum has no place within earth’s biota, it’s still present in many of our medications, our food, and even in the water that we drink due to contamination since the industrial revolution. Aluminum inside the body is a new phenomenon and still understudied. Again, there is a threshold, and aluminum that is injected via vaccines doesn’t exit the body–there is strong evidence that it remains inside the body and ends up in distant organs and eventually inside of the brain. If you want to access more studies on that topic, you can read this article I published that provides them and goes into more detail. You can also watch this interview with Christopher Exley, where he also points to that fact.
A new study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health has shown that multiple popular infant prescriptions are contaminated with aluminum. You may be asking how much aluminum, but the authors make it a point to stress that there are no safe amounts of aluminum levels that can be inside of a human body, let alone a newborn baby. That being said, the amounts found are listed within the abstract of the study:
Historical and recent data demonstrate that off-the-shelf infant formulas are heavily contaminated with aluminium. The origin of this contamination remains to be elucidated though may be imported via ingredients, packaging and processing. Specialised infant formulas exist to address health issues, such as low birth weight, allergy or intolerance and medical conditions, such as renal insufficiency. The aluminium content of these prescription infant formulas is measured here for the first time. We obtained 24 prescription infant formulas through a paediatric clinic and measured their total aluminium content by transversely heated graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry following microwave assisted acid/peroxide digestion. The aluminium content of ready-to-drink formulas ranged from 49.9 (33.7) to 1956.3 (111.0) μg/L. The most heavily contaminated products were those designed as nutritional supplements for infants struggling to gain weight. The aluminium content of powdered formulas ranged from 0.27 (0.04) to 3.27 (0.19) μg/g. The most heavily contaminated products tended to be those addressing allergies and intolerance. Prescription infant formulas are contaminated with aluminium.
Another very important point made right off the bat by the authors:
Human exposure to aluminium is a serious health concern. Aluminium exposure in infants is understandably a burgeoning issue. While infant exposure to aluminium continues to be documented, its consequences, immediate and in the future, have received only scant attention and research is required to understand the biological availability of aluminium through formula feeding. For example, how much aluminium is absorbed across the neonate gut and its subsequent fate, including excretion.
There is already too much aluminium in infant formulas and herein we have measured its content in a large number of prescription formulas, products which are fed to vulnerable infants in their first months of life. Many of these products are heavily contaminated with aluminium.
As for the specific infant formulas, you can refer to the study. The researchers obtained 24 prescription infant formulas via the Paediatric Clinic of Russells Hall Hospital in Dudley, United Kingdom. The ready-to-drink and powdered products were new, ready-to-be used and unopened samples. These formulas are for babies with some sort of growth restriction, like for preterm infants or infants who have poor weight gain. There were also powdered formulas for allergies and intolerances and powdered formulas with additional amino acids.
The authors contacted each manufacturer and expressed that they denied knowing that there was any aluminum in their products, which means it’s still a mystery as to their source. The authors hypothesize on a number of ways that aluminum could be entering into the formulas.
In their conclusion, the authors emphasize that:
Where possible, breast milk feeding should be prioritised, as the aluminium content of breast milk is invariably an order of magnitude lower than in formula feeds. Where infant formulas are the only source of nutrition for many infants in their first weeks and months of life, aluminium ingested in formula feeds will be the major contributor to their body burden of aluminium. The last thing that vulnerable infants fed specialised formulas for their specific nutritional/medicinal need is additional aluminium in their diet.
There is a lot of information out there on how a person can detox from aluminum and other heavy metals. There are multiple studies, and based on what I’ve looked into, water with high amounts of Silica are effective in draining aluminum out of your body and brain. Herbs like cilantro and substances like chlorella and spirulina are also great for removing some metals. The information is out there, so be sure to do your research.
It’s concerning to think about what these corporations are doing. Again, aluminum should hold no place in our society, it should’ve remained well below our surface as part of the Earth’s crust for a reason. It wasn’t until humans began digging it out and using it for a number of things, irresponsibly I might add, that we started to see the health implications which still go largely ignored by the medical community.
In fact, heavy metal accumulation and detoxification of aluminum haven’t been addressed at all, which is odd given the fact that heavy metal accumulation is linked to a variety of diseases.
Khoo Teck Puat Hospital in Singapore is a case study in what can happen when nature-inspired design is applied to the medical setting to promote healing.
There are many studies that show the healing benefits of nature and the effects it has on our health & well-being. What if all hospitals integrated a more conscious approach to healing?
Lush garden views and natural landscapes aren’t usually the first thing you envision when you think of hospitals, but Khoo Teck Puat Hospital in Singapore is changing all of that.
When it comes to reenvisioning healthcare and the mental state of those who are admitted, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital is really advancing how we care for those who have fallen ill. Whether it is due to lack of prior proper care, one’s diet & lifestyle, or a stagnancy to one’s energy creating blockages — and in turn illness — it is important that we look at this field and industry (medical/healthcare) as one of the most crucial for shifting humanity.
The Green Treatment
As MindBodyGreen reports, “In 2005, CPG Corporate, a Singapore-based design firm, was tasked with creating a hospital that actually lowered visitors’ blood pressure. ‘How do we challenge the idea of a hospital to deinstitutionalize it and make it look, smell, and feel, unlike a hospital?’ Jerry Ong Chin-Po, an architect who worked on the project, told mbg of the initial challenge. ‘We felt the best way to do it was to integrate nature into the space.'”
The hospital, which opened its doors in 2010 and now serves 800,000 residents in northern Singapore, has masked the smell of medicine and chemicals with over 700 species of fragrant native plants. In the lobby, sounds of machines are drowned out by bird species in the central courtyard. And instead of walking through sterile white hallways, patients, caretakers, and the occasional butterfly navigate the space on outdoor bridges wrapped in greenery.
In Singapore, medical buildings have multiple tiers of patient rooms (it’s part of how the country maintains its famously cheap health care). Some are private and have air conditioning; others have up to five beds and rely on natural ventilation. In order to ensure that all patients feel comfortable—regardless of how much they’re paying to be there—Chin-Po’s team again leaned on nature. They installed new windows that could be opened wider to allow for more airflow and made sure that every patient could see greenery from their bed, even if it was just a planter box on the other side of their window.
At mealtimes, patients are given organic food grown in a massive rooftop garden, and everyone fills their plates with fruits and veggies on the weekly, hospital-wide Meatless Mondays. ‘We always bring this idea of creating a total healing environment,’ Chin-Po says. ‘Not just for the patients but for the caregivers and staff as well. It’s all part of the whole system.’
This is the healing power of nature and community.
Image by Khoo Teck Puat Hospital
And so the next question is, with all of the greenery, community and natural light, are patients healing more rapidly at this futuristic hospital? Well, it is reported that while there is still not sufficient evidence to back this claim, Chin-Po says that anecdotally, patients seem to appreciate the hospital’s unique design and are actually willing to pay more to go there than other hospitals in the area.
And, though it’s not extensive, there is a body of research showing that greenery and natural light do aid in recovery. One 2008 study found that patients who had plants in their rooms had lower blood pressure and reported less pain, anxiety, and fatigue than patients who didn’t. Another one back from 1984 concluded that hospital rooms that had windows overlooking nature helped patients recover from surgery quicker than ones that faced brick walls. Outside of a clinical setting, spending time around nature has been shown to reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and stress.
As more of those around us seem to fall ill, it is important to look at alternative ways of healing. Whether it is holistic, alternative, or simply nature itself, it is steps like this hospital is taking that are really going to create the shift we need as a collective. We are lovers of the outdoors by nature, and though our current society and system seem to have us forgetting to step outside and ground, it is key to our longevity on this planet.
From the Sun itself being our best source of vitamin D to the very oxygen we breathe being gifted to us through trees, we owe a lot to nature.
Remember, sick or not, it is in our best interest to take time out in nature to nurture both our Soul & our bodies. This hospital is just the beginning of a great remembrance back to real self care.