"The introduction of such an intense mineral chelator as glyphosate into the food chain through accumulation in feed, forage, and food, and root exudation into ground water, could pose significant
health concerns for animals and humans and needs further evaluation."
Dr Stephanie Seneff PhD (MIT) has been studying autism for more than two decades. She, like everybody else believed that there must be some link to an environmental factor.
A chance meeting with Prof Huber about a year ago joined the dots back to glyphosate.
in July 2013, Dr Seneff wrote in an email to me: " yes you are basically right.....the disruption of gut bacteria by glyphosate interferes with the supply of
critical(essential) amino acids to the body. Of course it also interferes with the synthesis of these amino acids in plants exposed to glyphosate. This is particularly problematic for GMO plants, which get exposed to lots of glyphosate and readily soak it
up into their tissues. This means:- 1) foods derived from these plants will be deficient and (2) foods derived from these plants are likely to be highly contaminated with glyphosate. In the US very little is being done of glyphosate levels in
Glyphosate also chelates several essential minerals and this leads to deficiencies that will have significant impact, especially on sulphur metabolism. The other really serious problem is the disruption of cytochrome P450 enzymes, which have
many uses, particularly in the liver and the reproductive system. CYP enzymes are essential for detoxifying many environmental chemicals(like paracetamol) which can become more toxic in the presence of glyphosate.
Glyphosate has never been tested for
longer than 90 days, which is the biotech standard. Prof Seralini from France, replicated the industry trials and continued for 2 years. He produced both cancer and organ disease. He was attacked by the industry and had his paper withdrawn. The
claims being that his findings were inconclusive. They also found fault with his methodology. There was an enormous outcry amongst the scientific community.
Dr Seneff wrote to me about this: "Seralini's
experiments were exactly the same as the experiments that the industry had done (in terms of number of animals in each group): the
difference was that the industry did the study for only three months; whereas the toxicity takes a bit more than
3 months before it starts to show up."
Dr Angelika Hilbeck,_ senior scientist, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Institute of Integrative Biology IBZ, Zurich, Switzerland; Chair, European
Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), said:
“This retraction lacks any scientific basis. If the lack of ‘definitive conclusions’ were a valid reason for retraction, our libraries
would be almost empty, as I have yet to see a study that yielded results of ‘definitive’ conclusiveness.
“In fact, the surprising revelation of FCT’s highly irregular post-publication evaluation process is
that Séralini’s study would appear to be flawless. In response to massive, orchestrated pressure from industry-aligned circles, a secret group of unknown people was set up with the sole aim of finding weaknesses in the study to allow it to be
shot down and retracted (we have no verifiable evidence that thesepeople were experts in the relevant fields of science or in anything, for that matter). Yet after trying hard for one full year, all they could come up with was a lack of ‘definitive conclusions’.
“To me, this is a confirmation of the quality of the study and the integrity of the researchers, as very few studies would pass such an extraordinary evaluation process.”
If there is nothing to hide,
the simple solution is for the industry to replicate Seralini's study for the full 2 years. The fact that neither they nor any government will do so, speaks volumes.