Thursday, December 11, 2014

Steep Rise in Chronic Disease in US Parallels GMOs in Our Food

Here it is- the new Monsanto Protection Act

In the 18 years of us eating unlabeled, untested on humans, pesticide-laden GMOs-  cancer rates have  soared, obesity is off the charts, as is Alzeihmers, autism, inflammatory bowel dsease, acute kidney failure and more. 

Almost all of the industrialized world is given the right to know what they are eating as GMOs are labeled. Over 90% of Americans consistently want that same transparency- but biotech and junk food manufacturers have spent over $100 million spreading lies to keep us in the dark. Now corporate-owned Congress members are trying to pass the DARK Act- Denying Americans the Right to Know that would prohibit states from passing GMO labeling laws and that would put a meaningless, voluntary labeling system in place nationally. It would also allow food manufacturers to label poducts "natural" that contain lab-created GMOs. Stand up for your right and your family's right  to eat healthy, non-GMO food.  Say NO to the DARK Act! HR4322  http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=137

Thank you to the Institute of Science in Society for this article- 

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Deterioration_of_Public_Health.php 

Marked Deterioration of Public Health Parallels Increase in GM Crops and Glyphosate Use, US Government Data Show

The steep rise in incidence of 22 chronic diseases in the US correlates strongly with the increase in GM crops and the application of glyphosate-based herbicides Prof Peter Saunders

Ample evidence of glyphosate toxicity already exists

Despite what the manufacturers say, there is ample evidence to show that glyphosate, the active ingredient of Monsanto’s Roundup, Syngenta’s Touchdown, Dow’s Durango and many other herbicides, is highly toxic and a serious hazard to human and animal health. There is documentation of miscarriages, birth defects, carcinogenesis, endocrine disruption, DNA damage, neurotoxicity, and toxicity to liver and kidney at levels well below recommended agricultural use (See, for example, first Chapter of [1] Ban GMOS Now , ISIS special report, [2]  Glyphosate and CancerSiS 62). Several countries, among them Denmark, The Netherlands, France, El Salvador and Sri Lanka have recognised the dangers imposed total or partial bans on the use of glyphosate, though the ban in Sri Lanka was lifted under pressure from the manufacturers (Sri Lanka Partially Bans Glyphosate for Deadly Kidney Disease Epidemic  [3]) .

Other countries, especially those with large chemical and biotech industries and/or a major commitment to industrial farming, take a totally different view. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently increased the permitted tolerance levels for glyphosate residues in food. The European Food Safe Agency (EFSA) has recommended the re-approval of glyphosate for use in Europe with an increase in acceptable daily intake (ADI) from 0.3 to 0.5 mg per kg body weight. It is not surprising that EFSA reached this decision; the review was in fact carried out by a ‘Glyphosate Task Force’ (GTF) made up of a consortium of chemical companies including Monsanto, and based its conclusions largely on reports submitted by the manufacturers (Scandal of Glyphosate Re-assessment in Europe [4]).

The industry does its best to keep evidence of glyphosate toxicity out of the public’s view and the public record. The recent improper unilateral retraction of a published paper by Séralini and his group ([5],  Support Séralini Team for New GMO and Pesticide Risk Research [6], Retracting Séralini Study Violates Science and Ethics [7] ) is a case in point.  It followed the appointment by the journal of a former Monsanto employee to a newly created editorial post. Unusually, it was done in the open. We know of other cases that were not made so public, and possibly many more that we have not even heard about.
That’s not all. Confidential papers obtained from the US EPA by Moms Across America under the Freedom of Information Act contain studies carried out by industry showing that glyphosate is lethal to shrimps, fish, oysters and canaries after 96 hours, and at concentrations of <1 to hundreds of parts per million (ppm), to which humans are routinely exposed [8].


Millions of Americans are said to have been eating GM food with no ill effects


The argument that the  industry relies on most heavily is that for fifteen or more years, millions of Americans have been eating GM food, or food that have been sprayed with glyphosate, or both, and they have not been harmed; and this surely proves beyond doubt that neither GMOs nor glyphosate are hazardous to health [9]. This is obviously a totally unscientific statement; because there has been no GM labelling in the US, it is impossible to tell how much GM food anyone has eaten. Nevertheless, physicist and former scientific adviser to the US Navy Nancy Swanson realised that it is possible to examine the health status of the nation before and after the introduction of GM food and the sharp increase in glyphosate herbicides that went with it. What she and her colleagues found was devastating.

Over the past fifteen or twenty years there has been a large increase in the number of Americans suffering from a whole range of chronic diseases. This is the same period over which there has been a very large increase both in GM crops and in the use of glyphosate-based herbicides [10]. The team have made use of the best available government data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for the incidence of diseases, and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) for GM crops grown and glyphosate herbicide used. 

Because there are records for each year, it is possible to compare how both GMOs and glyphosate on the one hand and the various diseases on the other have changed over time. And the results are striking. Graph after graph showed the same parallel increases over time. On example is given in Figure 1 for liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer.

Figure 1   Incidence of liver cancer, % GE corn & soy, and glyphosate applied from 1975 to 2009

Note that the increase in liver cancer incidence rises sharply above the long term trend that goes back to the 1970s. In other words, while liver cancer had been increasing for some time, the rate of increase accelerated at about the same time that GM crops appeared and glyphosate use rose more sharply. The incidence is now about double what it would be if it had continued to rise at the pre-1990 rate.
Table 1 shows the correlation coefficients between each of the conditions and the amount of glyphosate used, and % of GM maize and soya. None of the 44 correlation coefficients falls below 0.8 - the conventional minimum level for a correlation to be called ‘strong’ - and all but seven are greater than 0.9.


Table 1:  Pearson correlation coefficients between the incidence in the US of 22 chronic diseases since 1995 and (a) the amount of glyphosate applied to maize and soy  (b) the percentage of maize and soy planted that was GM (from [10])
ConditionGlyphosate use%GM
Hypertension0.9230.961
Stroke0.9250.983
Diabetes prevalence0.9710.983
Diabetes incidence0.9350.955
Obesity0.9620.962
Lipoprotein metabolism disorder0.9730.955
Alzheimer’s0.9170.937
Senile dementia0.9940.918
Parkinson’s0.8750.952
Multiple sclerosis0.8280.876
Autism0.9890.933
Inflammatory bowel disease0.9380.812
Intestinal infections0.9740.901
End stage renal disease0.9750.958
Acute kidney failure0.9780.967
Thyroid cancer0.9880.938
Liver cancer0.9600.911
Bladder cancer0.9810.945
Pancreatic cancer0.9180.841
Kidney cancer0.9730.940
Myeloid leukaemia0.8780.889

There is clearly a strong correlation between the conditions on the one hand and GMOs and glyphosate use on the other. This does not by itself prove there is a causal relationship, but it is certainly evidence in favour of one. When we add to it the evidence that glyphosate has led to birth defects in humans, that it has been found to harm laboratory rats, cattle on farms, and other animals as well, that it interferes with an important metabolic pathway in animals, that it adversely affects beneficial gut bacteria, that it acts as an endocrine disruptor, and more besides, the case against glyphosate becomes very strong indeed (see [11] A Roundup of Roundup Reveals Converging Pattern of Toxicity from Farm to Clinic, SiS 65, for the most up-to-date review).

To conclude:

There have been all too many examples in the past of substances where there was compelling evidence that they were dangerous to health or the environment or both and yet they continued to be produced and used because of pressure from the manufacturers and weak regulators and governments. These include tobacco, asbestos, lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), benzene, and many more [12, 13]. If governments continue to rely on advice from the industry and ignore the growing body of evidence, glyphosate will be yet another example of serious harm that could have been avoided.


References

  1. Ho MW & Sirinathsinghji E.Ban GMOsNow. Health and Environmental Hazards Especially in Light of the New Genetics. ISIS Special Report, 2013.http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Ban_GMOs_Now.php
  2. Ho MW. Glyphosate and cancer. Science in Society 62 12-14, 2014
  3. Sirinathsinghji E. Sri Lanka partially bans glyphosate for deadly kidney disease epidemic. Science in Society 62 18-21, 2014.
  4. Swanson N and Ho MW.   Scandal of glyphosate re-assessment in Europe.  Science in Society 63 8-9, 2014.
  5. Séralini G-E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D and  de Vendômois JS (2012),  Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food and Chemical Toxicityhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005  (This paper was improperly retracted by the journal but has been republished: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
  6. “Support Séralini team for new GMO risk research”. ISIS Report. 21 November 2014   http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Support_Seralini_Team_for_New_GMO_Risk_Research.php
  7. Ho MW and Saunders PT. Retracting Séralini study violates science and ethics. Science in Society 61 20-21, 2014.
  8. “Mom receives glyphoste task force studies on glyphosate submitted to the EPA”, Zen Honeycutt, 2 December 2014,http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/glyphosate_task_force_studies_on_glyphosate_submitted_to_the_epa
  9. Monsanto. What Independent Experts are Saying about GM crops. 2014. http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/what-experts-say-about-gm-crops.aspx 6/12/14
  10. Swanson NL, Leu A, Abrahamson J and Wallet B. Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of  America. Journal of Organic Systems 2014, 9, 6-37.
  11. Sirinathsinghji E. A Roundup of Roundup reveals converging pattern of toxicity from farm to clinic. Science in Society 65 (to appear) 2015.
  12. Harramoës P, Gee D, MacGarvin M, Stirling A, Keys J, Wynne B and Guedes Vaz S (2002). Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000 European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. ISBN 92-9167-323-4.
  13. European Environmental Agency. Late Lessons from Early Warnings: Science, Precaution, Innovation. 2014.http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/late-lessons-2

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

A Letter from America- Compelling Case that GM Crops Are Hazardous

This is an excellent summary of everything that is wrong with genetically modified crops. It is powerully written and fully referenced and should be read and signed by every American! It is going to the UK and the rest of the EU to document the hazards we have faced here from GM crops and to make sure regulations are not weakened in the EU, which in turn would make our movement to label GMOs much harder. The fight for safe and healthy non-GM food and a clean environment has gone international! Please endorse this letter by going to

Almost 58 million Americans, organizations and businesses have already done so!

Thank you to Beyond GM for this stunning initiative.


http://www.theletterfromamerica.org


Living with GMOs



A Letter from America

An open letter to the citizens, politicians, and regulators of the UK and the rest of the EU about the hazards of genetically modified crops

We are writing as concerned American citizens to share with you our experience of genetically modified (GM) crops and the resulting damage to our agricultural system and adulteration of our food supply.
In our country, GM crops account for about half of harvested cropland. Around 94% of the soy, 93% of corn (maize) and 96% of cotton grown is GM.1
The UK and the rest of the EU have yet to adopt GM crops in the way that we have, but you are currently under tremendous pressure from governments, biotech lobbyists, and large corporations to adopt what we now regard as a failing agricultural technology.
Polls consistently show that 72% of Americans do not want to eat GM foods and over 90% of Americans believe GM foods should be labeled.2 In spite of this massive public mandate, efforts to get our federal3 and state4  governments to better regulate, or simply label, GMOs are being undermined by large biotech and food corporations with unlimited budgets5 and undue influence.
As you consider your options, we’d like to share with you what nearly two decades of GM crops in the United States has brought us. We believe our experience serves as a warning for what will happen in your countries should you follow us down this road.

Broken promises

GM crops were released onto the market with a promise that they would consistently increase yields and decrease pesticide use. They have done neither.6 In fact, according to a recent US government report yields from GM crops can be lower than their non-GM equivalents.7
Farmers were told that GM crops would yield bigger profits too. The reality, according to the United States Department of Agriculture, is different.8Profitability is highly variable, while the cost of growing these crops has spiraled.9 GM seeds cannot legally be saved for replanting, which means farmers must buy new seeds each year.  Biotech companies control the price of seeds, which cost farmers 3-6 times more than conventional seeds.10 This, combined with the huge chemical inputs they require, means GM crops have proved more costly to grow than conventional crops.  Because of the disproportionate emphasis on GM crops, conventional seed varieties are no longer widely available leaving farmers with less choice and control over what they plant.11
Farmers who have chosen not to grow GM crops can find their fields contaminated with GM crops as a result of cross pollination between related species of plants12 and GM and non-GM seeds being mixed together during storage.
Because of this our farmers are losing export markets.  Many countries have restrictions or outright bans on growing or importing GM crops13 and as a result, these crops have become responsible for a rise in trade disputes when shipments of grain are found to be contaminated with GM organisms (GMOs). 14
The burgeoning organic market here in the US is also being affected. Many organic farmers have lost contracts for organic seed due to high levels of contamination. This problem is increasing and is expected to get much bigger in the coming years.

Pesticides and superweeds

The most widely grown types of GM crops are known as “Roundup Ready” crops. These crops, mostly corn and soy, have been genetically engineered so that when they are sprayed with the herbicide Roundup® – the active ingredient of which is glyphosate – the weeds die but the crop continues to grow.
This has created a vicious circle. Weeds have become resistant to the herbicide, causing farmers to spray even more. Heavier use of herbicides creates ever more “superweeds” and even higher herbicide use.   A recent review found that between 1996 and 2011, farmers who planted Roundup Ready crops used 24% more herbicide than non-GMO farmers planting the same crops.15
If we remain on this trajectory with Roundup Ready crops we can expect to see herbicide rates increase by 25% each year for the foreseeable future.
This pesticide treadmill means that in the last decade in the US at least 14 new glyphosate-resistant weed species have emerged,16 and over half of US farms are plagued with herbicide-resistant weeds.17
Biotech companies, which sell both the GM seeds and the herbicides,18 have proposed to address this problem with the creation of new crop varieties that will be able to withstand even stronger and more toxic herbicides such as 2,4-D and dicamba. However it is estimated that if these new varieties are approved, this could drive herbicide use up by as much as 50%.19

Environmental harm

Studies have shown that the increased herbicide use on Roundup Ready crops is highly destructive to the natural environment.  For example, Roundup kills milkweeds, which are the key food source for the iconic Monarch butterfly20 and poses a threat to other important insects such as bees.21  It is also damaging to soil, killing beneficial organisms that keep it healthy and productive22 and making essential micronutrients unavailable to the plant.23
Without healthy soil, we cannot grow healthy plants.
Other types of GM plants, which have been engineered to produce their own insecticide (e.g. “Bt” cotton plants), have also been shown to harm beneficial insects including green lacewings24, the Daphnia magna waterflea25 and other aquatic insects,26 and ladybugs (ladybirds).27
Resistance to the insecticides in these plants is also growing,28 creating new varieties of resistant “superbugs” and requiring more applications of insecticides at different points in the growth cycle, for instance on the seed before it is planted.29 In spite of this, new Bt varieties of corn and soy have been approved here and will soon be planted.

A threat to human health

GM ingredients are everywhere in our food chain. It is estimated that 70% of processed foods consumed in the US have been produced using GM ingredients. If products from animals fed GM feed are included, the percentage is significantly higher.
Research shows that Roundup Ready crops contain many times more glyphosate, and its toxic breakdown product AMPA, than normal crops.30
Traces of glyphosate have been found in the breastmilk and urine of American mothers, as well as in their drinking water.31 The levels in breastmilk were worryingly high – around 1,600 times higher than what is allowable in European drinking water. Passed on to babies through breastmilk, or the water used to make formula, this could represent an unacceptable risk to infant health since glyphosate is a suspected hormone disrupter.32 Recent studies suggest that this herbicide is also toxic to sperm.33
Likewise, traces of the Bt toxin have been found in the blood of mothers and their babies.34
GM foods were not subjected to human trials before being released into the food chain and the health impacts of having these substances circulating and accumulating in our bodies are not being studied by any government agency, nor by the companies that produce them.
Studies of animals fed GM foods and/or glyphosate, however, show worrying trends including damage to vital organs like the liver and kidneys, damage to gut tissues and gut flora, immune system disruption, reproductive abnormalities, and even tumors.35
These scientific studies point to potentially serious human health problems that could not have been anticipated when our country first embraced GMOs, and yet they continue to be ignored by those who should be protecting us. Instead our regulators rely on outdated studies and other information funded and supplied by biotech companies that, not surprisingly, dismiss all health concerns.

A denial of science

This spin of corporate science stands in stark contrast to the findings of independent scientists. In fact, in 2013, nearly 300 independent scientists from around the world issued a public warning that there was no scientific consensus about the safety of eating genetically modified food, and that the risks, as demonstrated in independent research, gave “serious cause for concern.”36
It’s not easy for independent scientists like these to speak out. Those who do have faced obstacles in publishing their results, been systematically vilified by pro-GMO scientists, been denied research funding, and in some cases have had their jobs and careers threatened.37

Control of the food supply

Through our experience we have come to understand that the genetic engineering of food has never really been about public good, or feeding the hungry, or supporting our farmers. Nor is it about consumer choice. Instead it is about private, corporate control of the food system.
This control extends into areas of life that deeply affect our day-to-day well-being, including food security, science, and democracy. It undermines the development of genuinely sustainable, environmentally friendly agriculture and prevents the creation of a transparent, healthy food supply for all.
Today in the US, from seed to plate, the production, distribution, marketing, safety testing, and consumption of food is controlled by a handful of companies, many of which have commercial interests in genetic engineering technology. They create the problems, and then sell us the so-called solutions. This is a closed cycle of profit generation that is unequalled in any other type of commerce.
We all need to eat, which is why every citizen should strive to understand these issues.

Time to speak out

Americans are reaping the detrimental impacts of this risky and unproven agricultural technology.  EU countries should take note: there are no benefits from GM crops great enough to offset these impacts. Officials who continue to ignore this fact are guilty of a gross dereliction of duty.
We, the undersigned, are sharing our experience and what we have learned with you so that you don’t make our mistakes.
We strongly urge you to resist the approval of genetically modified crops, to refuse to plant those crops that have been approved, to reject the import and/or sale of GM-containing animal feeds and foods intended for human consumption, and to speak out against the corporate influence over politics, regulation and science.
If the UK and the rest of Europe becomes the new market for genetically modified crops and food our own efforts to label and regulate GMOs will be all the more difficult, if not impossible. If our efforts fail, your attempts to keep GMOs out of Europe will also fail.
If we work together, however, we can revitalize our global food system, ensuring healthy soil, healthy fields, healthy food and healthy people.

References


1 Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the US 1996-2014 – Recent Trends in GE Adoption, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), July 2014,http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx#.U9aA4fldUz0
2Consumer Support for Standardization and Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food 2014 Nationally‐Representative Phone Survey,  Consumer Reports® National Research Center Survey Research Report, https://consumersunion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2014_GMO_survey_report.pdf ; see also Brinkerhoff N, Americans overwhelmingly want GMO labelling...until big companies pour money into election campaigns, AllGov News, January 7, 2014 http://www.allgov.com/news/where-is-the-money-going/americans-overwhelmingly-want-gmo-labelinguntil-big-companies-pour-money-in-election-campaigns-140107?news=852102
3 GE Food Labelling: States Take Action, Fact Sheet, Center for Food Safety, June 2014,http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/ge-state-labeling-fact-sheet-620141_28179.pdf
4 ibid
5 Jargon J and Berry I, Dough Rolls Out to Fight 'Engineered' Label on Food, Wall Street journal, October 25, 2012,http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203400604578073182907123760
6 Benbrook C, Evidence of the magnitude and consequences of the Roundup Ready soybean yield drag from university-based varietal trials in 1998: Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 1, Sandpoint, Idaho, 1999, http://www.mindfully.org/GE/RRS-Yield-Drag.htm; see also Elmore RW,  et al. Glyphosate-resistant soyabean cultivar yields compared with sister lines, Agron J, 2001;93:408-12; see also Ma BL and Subedi KD, Development, yield, grain moisture and nitrogen uptake of Bt corn hybrids and their conventional near-isolines. Field Crops Res. 2005; 93: 199-211; see also Bennett H. GM canola trials come a cropper, WA Business News. http://www.wabusinessnews.com.au/en-story/1/69680/GM-canola-trials-come-a-cropper January 16, 2009; see also Gurian-Sherman D, Failure to yield: Evaluating the performance of genetically engineered crops. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists; 2009. Available at:http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/failure-to-yield.pdf
7 Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States, USDA, Economic Research Services, February 2014 http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err162.aspx#.U7vzi7Hrzbx
8 Fernandez-Cornejo J, Wechsler S, Livingston M, Mitchell L. Genetically engineered crops in the United States. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture; 2014. Available at:http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err162.aspx#.U0P_qMfc26x
9 Fernandez-Cornejo J, McBride WD. The adoption of bioengineered crops. Agricultural Economic Report No. 810. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture; 2002, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer810/aer810.pdf; see also Gómez-Barbero M and Rodríguez-Cerezo E. Economic impact of dominant GM crops worldwide: A review. European Commission Joint Research Centre: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies; 2006,  http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/eur22547en.pdf; see also Benbrook CM. Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the United States: The first thirteen years. Washington, DC: The Organic Center; 2009. Available at: http://www.organic-center.org/reportfiles/13Years20091126_FullReport.pdf; see also Howard P, Visualizing consolidation in the global seed industry: 1996–2008. Sustainability. 2009; 1: 1266-87; see also Neuman W. Rapid rise in seed prices draws US scrutiny, New York Times, March 11, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/business/12seed.html?_r=1.
10 Benbrook CM. The magnitude and impacts of the biotech and organic seed price premium. Washington, DC: The Organic Center; 2009. Available at: http://www.organic-center.org/reportfiles/Seeds_Final_11-30-09.pdf.
11 Roseboro K, The GMO Seed Monopoly: Reducing Farmer's Seed Options, Organic Connections, 16 April 2013 http://organicconnectmag.com/wp/the-gmo-seed-monopoly-reducing-farmers-seed-options/#.UW6i4LVllfY
12 D’Hertefeldt T, et al. Long-term persistence of GM oilseed rape in the seedbank. Biol Lett. 2008;4:314–17; see also Gilbert N. GM crop escapes into the American wild. Nature. 2010. Available at: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100806/full/news.2010.393.html; see also Black R. GM plants “established in the wild”, BBC News, August 6, 2010,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10859264.
13 The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity.http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/default.shtml; see also GMO-Free Europe, http://www.gmo-free-regions.org.
14 Technical consultation on low levels of genetically modified (GM) crops in international food and feed trade, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy March 21-22, 2014,http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/agns/topics/LLP/AGD803_4_Final_En.pdf.
15 Benbrook CM, Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the US - the first sixteen years, Environmental Sciences Europe,  2012; 24: 24  doi:10.1186/2190-4715-24-24.
16 USDA 2014, op cit.
17 The Rise of Superweeds – and What to Do About It, Union of Concerned Scientists, Policy Brief, December 2013,  http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/rise-of-superweeds.pdf.
18 Superweeds – How biotech crops bolster the pesticide industry, Food & Water Watch, July 2013http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/Superweeds.pdf#_ga=1.262673807.2090293938.1404747885.
19 Benbrook CM, 2012, ibid.
20 Brower LP, Decline of monarch butterflies overwintering in Mexico: is the migratory phenomenon at risk?, Insect Conservation and Diversity, Volume 5, Issue 2, pages 95–100, March 2012, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-4598.2011.00142.x/full.
21 Garcia, MA and Altieri M, Transgenic Crops: Implications for Biodiversity and Sustainable Agriculture. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 2005; 25(4) 335-53, DOI: 10.1177/0270467605277293; see also Haughton, A J et al Invertebrate responses to the management of genetically modified herbicidetolerant and conventional spring crops. II.Within-field epigeal and aerial arthropods. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 2003; 358: 1863-77; see also Roy, DB et al Invertebrates and vegetation of field margins adjacent to crops subject to contrasting herbicide regimes in the Farm Scale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 2003; 358: 1879-98.
22 Glyphosate herbicide affects belowground interactions between earthworms and symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi in a model ecosystem. Nature Scientific Reports, July 9, 2014,  4: 5634, DOI: doi:10.1038/srep05634; Citizens Concerned About GM, Suffocating the soil: An “unanticipated effect” of GM crops, 15 March 2013,http://www.gmeducation.org/environment/p207351-suffocating-the-soil:-anunanticipated-effectof-gm-crops.html.
23 Tapesser B et al, Agronomic and environmental aspects of the cultivation of genetically modified herbicide-resistant plants A joint paper of BfN (Germany), FOEN (Switzerland) and EAA (Austria), Bonn, Germany 2014,http://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/service/skript362.pdf.
24 Tapesser B et al, 2014, op cit.
25 Tapesser B et al, 2014, op cit.
26 Rossi-Marshall EJ et al, Toxins in transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems, PNAS, 2007, 104(41): 16204–08,http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16204.abstract.
27 Tapesser B et al, 2014 op cit; see also Schmidt JEU, Braun CU, Whitehouse LP, Hilbeck A: Effects of activated Bt transgene products (Cry1Ab, Cry3Bb) on immature stages of the ladybird Adalia bipunctata in laboratory ecotoxicity testing, Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 2009, 56: 221-28, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00244-008-9191-9.
28 Gassmann AJ et al, Field-evolved resistance by western corn rootworm to multiple Bacillus thuringiensis toxins in transgenic maize, Proc Natl Acad Sci, 2014 ; 111(14): 5141-46,http://www.pnas.org/content/111/14/5141; see also Letter from 22 Members  and  Participants  of  North  Central  Coordinating  Committee NCCC46  and  Other  Corn Entomologists  to US EPA, March 5, 2012, http://www.biosicherheit.de/pdf/aktuell/12-03_comment_porter_epa.pdf ; see also  Huang F et al, Resistance of sugarcane borer to Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab toxin, Entomol Exp Appl, 2007; 124: 117-23,http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2007.00560.x/abstract;jsessionid=77E6295826AFA053813D7CFD5A1C15DB.f01t01?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false ; see also Tabashnik BE, et al, Insect resistance to Bt crops: Evidence versus theory, Nat Biotechnol, 2008; 26: 199–202,http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/teach/agbiotox/Readings%202008/TabashnikBtResistInsects-NatBiotech-2008.pdf.
29 Leslie TW, Biddinger DJ, Mullin CA, Fleischer SJ. Carabidae population dynamics and temporal partitioning: Response to coupled neonicotinoid-transgenic technologies in maize, Env Entomol, 2009; 38: 935-43; see also Gurian-Sherman D. Genetically engineered crops in the real world – Bt corn, insecticide use, and honey bees. The Cornucopia Institute, January 13, 2012. http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/01/genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-real-world-bt-corn-insecticide-use-and-honey-bees.
30 Bohn T et al, Compositional differences in soybeans on the market: Glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready GM soybeans, Food Chemistry, 2014 ; 153: 207-15.
31 Glyphosate testing report: Findings in American mothers’ breast milk, urine and water. Mom’s Across America, April 7, 2014, http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/yesmaam/pages/774/attachments/original/1396803706/Glyphosate__Final__in_the_breast_milk_of_American_women_Draft6_.pdf?1396803706.
32 Gasnier C, et al, Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines, Toxicology, 2009; 262: 184-91. doi:10.1016/j.tox.2009.06.006; see also Hokanson R, et al, Alteration of estrogen-regulated gene expression in human cells induced by the agricultural and horticultural herbicide glyphosate, Hum Exp Toxicol, 2007; 26: 747-52. doi:10.1177/0960327107083453; see also Thongprakaisang S, et al, Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors, Food Chem Toxicol, 2013; 59: 129–36.  doi:10.1016/j.fct.2013.05.057.
33 Cassault-Meyer E et al, An acute exposure to glyphosate-based herbicide alters aromatase levels in testis and sperm nuclear quality, Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, 2014; 38(1):  131-40.
34 Aris A and Leblanc S, Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada, Reproductive Toxicology, 2011; 31(4): 528–33.
35 Fagan F et al, Chapter 3 - Health Hazards of GM Foods  and Chapter 4 - Health Hazards of Roundup and glyphosate, in GMO Myths & Truths: An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops and foods, Earth Open Source, 2nd Ed, 2014.
36 Statement: No scientific consensus on GMO safety,  European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility, October 21, 2013,http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety.

37 Smith, J, GMO Researchers Attacked, Evidence Denied, and a Population at Risk, Global Research, September 19, 2012 http://www.globalresearch.ca/gmo-researchers-attacked-evidence-denied-and-a-population-at-risk/5305324; see also Waltz E, GM crops: Battlefield, Nature, 2009; 461, 27-32  doi:10.1038/461027a; see also Woodward L, Muzzled by Monsanto, Citizens Concerned About GM, May 4, 2014,  http://www.gmeducation.org/blog/p217611-muzzled-by-monsanto.html.