Bird's Eye

Bird's Eye

Friday, December 18, 2009

Herbicides an insidious enemy of good health
POSTED: June 7, 2009

Please help me stop ignorance about herbicides and their effects. The state says you need to die or be in the hospital 25 hours before enforcement, one year in bed doesn't count. You need 10 feral animals to die. I only had five chickens. This problem is invisible. To this day, I have had no recourse but to appeal to the intelligence of the community for a law to control the use of chemical weed killers - possibly limiting use to only those with licenses or permits for any kind of spraying. There are a lot of people out there who think they have arthritis or other health problems who would be surprised that it was caused by checking their mailboxes where herbicides have been sprayed. Look on the Internet for herbicides and death for some good information. Kim Usher Wailuku

New! Test strips to use for pesticides.


If you have this illness see your doctor it can be treated with blood thinners or even aspirin works. I am on warfarin.

Red palms, feet and hands turning purple, hard to swallow, swollen joints, pain in organs, can't walk, weakness or anything really strange like miscarriages, strokes or heart attack or just about anything related to your body shutting down.

Hang in there I did-- had a diagnosis, am being treated and survived. If you can catch it quickly there will be less damage to your body.

Everyday we come closer to proving Round-up by Monsanto is causing this condition

and this "Weed killer kills human cells. Study intensifies debate over 'inert' ingredients."

This is the best I have found explain Antiphospholipid Syndrome

Here is a study just out; shows manipulation of data by Monsanto in the study by these scientists. Also says most toxicity is from Roundup.

Health is Wealth and GMOs are made for the wealth of the greedy not our Health!

More good stuff

Pesticide spraying near schools dangerous
Dear Editor: I am upset that the herbicide glyphosate has been sprayed near schools. I was part of the group Citizens Against Pesticide, which got the school to stop using this toxic chemical years ago.
Glyphosate is acutely toxic to people, and it would be toxic for children in small amounts. It has been linked to non-hodgkins lymphoma in studies by Swedish oncologists.
It remains toxic for a long time. Residuals of glyphosate have been found in vegetables planted a year after application.
Weeds are not toxic, and the money for the chemicals could be spent on education -- maybe even about so-called "weeds."
Genie Ogden Madison


on April 21, 2009 at 9:50 pm | ReplyK. Jean Cottam, PhD
What is it about pesticides that they are virtually worshiped? Why do industry’s friends constantly praise these toxic poisons, some of which–herbicides–were created for use on the battlefield as defoliants and caused irreparable health harm both to soldiers on both sides as well as several generations of Vietnamese? Why is it assumed that independent professionals are misguided activists, while the self-interested pesticide promoters are the bearers of real truth and wisdom? So science and common sense were supposedly pushed aside by the Ontario ban’s scare tactics and emotion?

What kind of “science” are we talking about? The kind of science that exonerates every pesticide–the kind of science that amounts to nothing more than a primitive, self-interested religion! As to Dean M. Stanbridge of Milton, obviously with strong ties to the chemical industry, it is not surprising that he took a strong exception to the Ontario ban. It speaks volumes–not in his favour–that he was honored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Bush. I happen to be honorary Canadian observer on the Pesticide Working Group based in Washington, D.C. and do know that under Bush it were politicians who called the shots at the EPA, rather than scientists. The EPA was altogether too friendly with the industry at that time, similarly to the predicament of Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency today. How dare the attackers of independent science call it hearsay and rhetoric. It is up to members of this industry to smarten up, adjust and prosper! To say that public health in Ontario will deteriorate because of the ban is to perversely call white “black”. The vast majority of the so-called “traditional” pesticides didn’t exist prior to WWII when lawns were maintained in an appropriate condition using non-toxic methods of lawn maintenance on the basis of healthy soil, currently neglected. The doomsday scenario presented by spokesmen for the industry has no basis in fact and previous experience.

Interestingly enough, Jason Flint, the author of the recent letter from Health Canada’s PMRA to Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment, is former General Manager, the Industrial Biotechnogy Association of Canada (IBAC), which illustrates the “cosy” relationship between Health Canada and the industry, with senior employees “commuting” between federal government and industry.

The Ontario ban has nothing to do with political correctness, but everything to do with the Ontario government being compelled to step into the regulatory void at the federal level, in order to protects Ontario citizens against unwarranted cancer risk, endocrine disruption, neurological disorders, neurodevelopment problems and damage to immune and reproductive systems linked to the unnecessary exposures to pesticides.

What is this supposedly science-based regulation that is being promoted? This is nothing but making the interests of the industry paramount regardless of their impact on public health in Ontario, especially the health of young children whose life expectancy due to their unnecessary toxic exposures is estimated to be shorter than that of the older generations.

A comparison between exposures to the danger of leaking car fluids and the inhalation of pesticide residues by the general public, especially young children, is entirely inappropriate.

International observer takes issue with Monsanto

Canadian observer on U.S. Pesticide Working Group says chemical glyphosate is plenty to be worried about

Posted By K. Jean Cottam, PhD

Posted 1 month ago

Re: Safety of 'Roundup' brand herbicides, by Donna R. Farmer, PhD, Monsanto Company in St. Louis, Missouri, published in Mid-North Monitor on October 28, 2009.

I am honorary Canadian observer on the U.S. Pesticide Working Group. The glyphosate-based, widely applied herbicide Roundup has become controversial, with independent individuals and organizations urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to discontinue its registration, as new evidence suggests that this herbicide poses unreasonable risk to human and environmental health.

For example, Dr. Warren Porter, professor of Zoology and Environmental Toxicology at University of Wisconsin at Madison, maintains that when humans are exposed to very low doses of this chemical these doses "interfere with the natural biological functions of the body, so you get effects down at the low doses that you never see at high doses."

He explains that the subtle, low-level effects fall within the parts per billion and even parts per trillion ranges. (Herbicide application at Madison schools stirs controversy, published on, July 13, 2009.)

Porter refers to a number of studies dating back to 1983 that he has been collecting, according to which the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, has many harmful effects. He cites the earliest paper which argues that "glyphosate can decrease the liver's defensive enzymes, which are crucial for fighting off the effects of toxins."

According to a 2005 study, "Glyphosate changes the concentration of a key enzyme called aromatase in placental cells and could have the effect of masculinizing a female fetus," as has been demonstrated in reference to monkeys.

He explains that "the masculinization of the female fetus is important to curb, because as many as 10 percent of women in the U.S. now have the syndrome...which can interfere with ovulation." He writes that the chemical's residues can linger as long as 335 days following the application in some soils.

An article in Environmental Health News by C. Gasniera et al, entitled Popular herbicide more deadly to liver cells than its active chemical alone, 2009.06.06, claims that very low doses of Roundup can disrupt human liver's cell function, thus attributing the toxicity especially to the so-called "inactive" ingredients.

French scientists report that a number of Roundup "inert" formulations tested at very dilute concentrations demonstrated the ability to alter hormone actions and cause human liver cells to die within 24 hours of exposure. The ingredients responsible for the increased potency of Roundup formulations were not identified, as they remain a trade secret.

Here is a fact sheet

one more tidbit

US: Roundup Twice as Toxic as Glyphosate

An editorial in the latest issue of the peer reviewed scientific Journal Environmental HealthPerspectives has commented on the important issue of testing the whole product due to a studythat shows that both glyphosate and Roundup severely damage placental cells. The journaleditorial stated "Roundup was nearly twice as toxic as the single chemical alone. Further, theviability of cells exposed to glyphosate was considerably reduced when even minute dilutions ofRoundup were added." "The study showed that the effect of Roundup on cell viability increasedwith time and was obtained with concentrations of the formulation 10 times lower than thoserecommended for agricultural use. Roundup also disrupted aromatase activity at concentrations100 times lower than those used in agriculture." The editorial stated "Virtually all previoustesting of Roundup for long-term health damage has been done on glyphosate rather than onthe full herbicide formulation, of which glyphosate makes up only around 40%." This studyhighlights the urgent need for product testing rather than only testing a single ingredient.

Questions abound.

Unbelievable! You have to go to these news articles that came out today. Just shows how wrong somethings are.

from © 2007 by Linda Moulton Howe
[ Editor's Note: An herbicide is a pesticide used to kill unwanted plants or weeds. Selective herbicides kill specific targets while leaving the desired crop relatively unharmed, such as Roundup herbicide manufactured by Monsanto, which is used on genetically modified crops such as corn and soy. The idea is that the sprayed herbicide will kill the weeds, but not the genetically modified crop. However, a new problem is the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds to which farmers must apply more and more toxins.]

Now, you have the increased use of herbicides as a result of herbicide-tolerant crops. About 80% of the crops genetically engineered are designed not to die when sprayed with herbicide. This results in a much higher amount of herbicide use. In the first 9 years, it was about 138 million pound increase in the use of herbicides in the U. S. By 2004, it was estimated there was about 86% more herbicides sprayed on RoundUp-ready soy acres than on non-GM soy acres. What this means is that it changes the whole soil composition, increases the residues in the food, increases fungus in the soil and changes the whole ecosystem in ways that might be very dangerous. In fact, it might get into the ground water and we might be drinking the herbicide.
5 days ago | Delete

Bayer Admits GMO Contamination is Out of Control
Greenpeace International, Dec 8, 2009
Straight to the Source

EXTRACT: Bayer has admitted it has been unable to control the spread of its genetically-engineered organisms despite 'the best practices [to stop contamination]'(1). It shows that all outdoors field trials or commercial growing of GE crops must be stopped before our crops are irreversibly contaminated.
$2 million US dollar verdict against Bayer confirms company's liability for an uncontrollable technology

Greenpeace welcomes the United States federal jury ruling on 4 December 2009 that Bayer CropScience LP must pay $2 million US dollars to two Missouri farmers after their rice crop was contaminated with an experimental variety of rice that the company was testing in 2006.

This verdict confirms that the responsibility for the consequences of GE (genetic engineering) contamination rests with the company that releases GE crops.

Bayer has admitted it has been unable to control the spread of its genetically-engineered organisms despite 'the best practices [to stop contamination]'(1). It shows that all outdoors field trials or commercial growing of GE crops must be stopped before our crops are irreversibly contaminated.

A report prepared for Greenpeace International concluded that the total costs incurred throughout the world as a result of the contamination are estimated to range from $741 million to $1.285 billion US dollars.(2) The verdict indicates that Bayer is liable for what could turn out to be a large proportion of these costs, as it awards damages in the first two of more than 1,000 currently pending lawsuits. The decision must be used to support all claims for losses incurred by other US farmers whose crops have suffered from GE contamination.

(1) Bayers Defense lawyer, Mark Ferguson as reported in Harris, A. 2009.
Bayer Blamed at Trial for Crops 'Contaminated' by Modified Rice. Bloomberg News 4th November 2009, available at:

(2) E.N. Blue (2007) Risky Business. Economic and regulatory impacts from the unintended release of genetically engineered rice varieties into the rice merchandising system of the US. Report prepared for Greenpeace International, available online at

Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 1983 Oct;7(5):451-4.
Effects of acute pesticide poisoning on blood clotting in the rat.
Lox CD.

Male Sprague-Dawley rats were treated with 1 ml of diazinon or malathion, 1750 ppm given orally by gavage. Clotting determinations included the prothrombin time, partial thromboplastin time, fibrinogen, and coagulation factors II, V, VII, and X, plus the hematocrit and platelet count. The results suggest that insecticides influence the clotting times of rats ingesting these insecticides even after as short a time span as 2 hr.

PMID: 6641583 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Antiphospholipid syndrome is a life threatening blood clotting disorder. It can have devastating effects if no diagnosis and treatment.

Warning label on Roundup more cautious about use
POSTED: June 30, 2009

Attention Monsanto: Your unofficial spokesman in Lahaina is advising Hawaii residents that "drinking Roundup (is) less toxic than eating salt" (Letters, June 25). I was not aware that Monsanto was advocating the drinking of Roundup - even in the standard 0.0062 concentration with water.
In fact, from reading the warning label for Roundup posted on the Monsanto Web site, I am advised to avoid contact of the chemical with eyes or skin and to avoid breathing the vapor. I am further advised to "wash hands before eating, drinking, chewing gum, using tobacco, or using the toilet." I am also told to even discard clothing that becomes heavily contaminated with the chemical and to always wear chemical-resistant gloves when handling Roundup.
I see nothing that indicates that ingesting Roundup is a good idea. Your "spokesman" does not cite any scientific studies in support of his suggestion.
I agree with the statement that chlorine bleach can also be dangerous, due primarily to its alkaline properties. But in the proper concentration (0.00026), it can and is used to purify untreated water for drinking. Water purification is not listed as an approved use for Roundup.
Monsanto lawyers may want to review the "drinking Roundup" letter. I am sure that plaintiffs' attorneys around the country will be reviewing the letter and using it in support of their claims. You may also want to consider limiting the list of people who are authorized to speak on your behalf.
For the rest of us, we will continue to rely on the dire warnings contained on the Roundup label. For many of us, that means that we will avoid using Roundup altogether.
Richard Lucas

Drinking Roundup less toxic than eating salt
POSTED: June 25, 2009

Lately, we have seen letters on how terrible it is to use herbicides, or "toxic herbicides," etc. This is just another tactic to remove all pesticides from the marketplace by scaring everyone.
If you are going to talk toxicity, then let's see some numbers with the application rates. Frequently used Roundup (glyphosate) herbicide in its pure form has is the same oral toxicity as table salt.
When the normal 40 percent concentrate product is used at the rate of two ounces per gallon of water, we end up with 0.0062 ounce of pure Roundup in the gallon of spray mix. Could you even taste this much table salt in a gallon of water, and would it cause cancer, blemishes or some other toxic effect on your body? I think not. Household bleach is more toxic and dangerous.
More environmental scare tactics. If a person does not want the county to use herbicides, then why not volunteer to do hand-weeding on the roadsides and in the parks. Or come and weed the garden spurge out of my paspalum lawn.
Don Gerbig
Don Gerbig sits as the industry Pesticide rep. for the State of Hawaii and the County of Maui Water Board Commission.

Do you trust the FDA and Monsanto? Or even trust they are here to "help us"? Look how straight from the S.510 bill it changes USC Code and Federal Law...Can you believe what they "believe"? Can you believe that there can be a law that says what a Government "believes" is the law? You would NEVER win in court. Or, could you even afford to try?

(a) In General- Section 304(h)(1)(A) (21 U.S.C. 334(h)(1)(A)) is amended by-- 
(1) striking `credible evidence or information indicating' and inserting `reason to believe'; and 
(2) striking `presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals' and inserting `is adulterated or misbranded under section 403(w)

"The thing that bugs me is that the people think the FDA is protecting them. It isn't. What the FDA IS doing and what the public THINKS it's doing are as different as night and day." - Herbert Lay, M.D., Former FDA Commissioner

Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.= RATIFY by silence

sense of confidence in S 510.

The Tester Amendment amounts to putting lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig, and it still needs to be slaughtered.

Remember,your future is at risk from special interests; who are only interested in feeding themselves by feeding us their GMOs. Pesticides, strong arm tactics, no reporting, lack of study before inception, and on and on. Take the time and become a part of the solution not part of the problem. This is the telephone number for the United States Senate 202-224-3121, what ever state you live in - the operator will direct you to your Senator's office, even if you don't know your Senator's name, tell them which state you live in . They all have message machines on the ready 24/7. Leave your name, and tell them NO WAY to Monsanto and S.510...NEVER.

As far as Codex Alimentarius treaty implementation with the S.510: What is Codex?

These people are the only common men allowed to talk in these meetings and they have followed it 10 years.
Find out what Codex Alimentarius is:

Codex is a Trade agreement, nothing to do with good nutritious food or our health. Politically appointed

Fat Cats, with industry ties::which is their main focus, are voting on and making decisions for American Citizens. How do you think they vote? LOL Exactly right. For themselves. How much chemicals and toxins do you think are going to be allowed in our food supply? Just enough so we do not drop dead, and if we do the FDA will not believe it was the toxins...It is Lupus, or some other auto-immune disease. Our bodies attacking itself, not chemicals attacking, but ourselves attacking ourself...Crazy.

Still not convinced to say no, or the urgency to call Now?

No comments:

Post a Comment