Here is a llink to a lawsuit in France in which Monsanto was required to pay for health harm. http://www.huffingtonpost.c...

France has notably good science education and good health care. They beat the U.S. on health indicators, year after year.,

France is well known for rejecting the EFSA safety findings and harboring the fraudster serralini. If their education is so good. Why would they do that? I am aware that some French science academies have sided with truth on the serralini issue. So, there is hope. Also beating the U.S. if true, is not relevant. Neither is this lawsuit. First the article does not give a causal machination. therefore may be overturned. Second the herbicide involved is described as Lasso, a pre-emergent. Not Round up. Which is a post emergent and is the topic here.

A list of lawsuits against Monsanto. http://occupytheworldfoodpr...

An old list of lawsuits posed by a misled woman does not constitute evidence of current danger of round up use. Especially when you got it from a wacko occupy group. Try ones filed and won for activities since the company was relaunched and are specific to round up.

How many hours do you take in namecalling 101 at astroturf school?

Saying you are misled is not name calling. It is likely generous.

The agents in this list have been classified in Group 2A (probable carcinogens)[1] by the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). The term "agent" encompasses both substances and exposure circumstances that pose a risk. This designation is applied when there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans as well as sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In some cases, an agent may be classified in this group when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans along with sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence that the carcinogenesis is mediated by a mechanism that also operates in humans. Exceptionally, an agent may be classified in this group solely on the basis of limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.

Monsanto is the most corrupt company that exists in the world- it needs to be bombed into oblivion. What, Agent Orange that caused 100,000 birth defects wasn't enough for you? Polluting ground water with PCB's for over 40 years until they lost a lawsuit wasn't enough for you? There is a reason Monsanto ads were pulled off of ABC and this is it.
Rise!

Monsanto did not spray AO. The military did. Further, the U.S. gov't used the Defense Act of 1950 to compel production and sale of the product. The gov't was informed of the dioxin contamination and used it anyway. And the folks at Monsanto that complied are about 90 or over, long since retired. They are responsible for the collusion. Not today's employees. And none of this has anything to do with the safety of using glyphosate. Time to get a life Alex.

Because it works well and is safe to use. Also farmers use much of the glyphosate, not Monsanto or any of the other manufacturers. Finally Homeowners use a lot of glyphosate. Get used to it.

And Btw you already have the only 2 labels you need. Organic and nongmo project.

Got a better life than someone delusional like you, I investigate and uncover these companies dirty little secrets, while naive people like you live in obscurity.

You can not uncover what is already known. Therefore you are likely useless.

Speaking of yourself eh? It is already known sure, but not by enough people. But reading about how Monsanto stocks are dropping like a rock, looks like people are finally beginning to understand. This company needs to disappear faster than ISIS.

Stocks go up and down because of speculators. Nothing will likely come of this. Your clear concern for the children of the employees is touching.

I firmly subscribe to Darwinism and control of human overpopulation for the good of the whole; if a few corrupt execs jump off buildings, it's a good day. The recession we had a few years ago was necessary and a larger one is needed now.

And no, Monsanto is losing a large amount of money over a significant period of time, the Wired story I posted earlier shows they clearly understand what's going on and that's why they are expanding into the organic sector. Not that the organic sector isn't full of corruption too, but it's interesting to see what happens when a rat is backed into a corner.

So, you are such a kind fellow that you think we need another recession? So, that folks can not pay their bills? Because they lost there jobs? Ridiculous contention. Thou art a heartless jerk.

I care much more about people in third world countries who are being exploited by people like you. And, in addition to that, the fact that, to clean out corruption, you need to destroy the foundation and start fresh. Forests work the same way.

Just how is a small farmer and landscaper such as my self "exploiting people in third world countries?" People like me rarely even get to visit 3rd world places. Also clearly you do not care much or you would learn a bit about new technologies of opposing them.

What new technologies are you even blabbering about? I told you I dont oppose oppose GM at all, just large companies (in every field) who exploit people. Thankfully, we are now about to have completely pesticide-free GM technologies that Monsanto will have no role in and cannot patent.

Oh the US Gov't is definitely culpable, just like it is with using Guatemalans as test subjects for their syphilis experiments (like they did at Tuskeegee), how do you feel about the Monsanto PCB contamination issue?

I feel that the folks that did that are likely even worse folks than thou. they are roughly on a par with mikle adams.

Science is wonderful, it's "scientists" who are the problem. Humanity at it's worst.

Funny, the problem scientist seem to be publishing yet another soon to be discredited bit of bunk. Just heard today. On the brighter side more and more real scientist are getting training on how to teach honest folks the truth. Hopefully you will become very lonely soon.

I doubt that, actually the problem is the funding connection between these so-called scientists and the corporate agenda- I have much fun exposing them all and their funding with FOIA and some other less publicized methods. These scientists need to be punished as war criminals- just the American ones- because the American ones were the ones using mental patients as torture subjects in association with the American Psychiatric Association at Massachusetts General Hospital (published in the NY Times) and the ones who were intentionally injecting Guatemalans with Syphilis in association with Bristol Squibb Myers and Johns Hopkins Hospital and are now being sued for $1 Billion. You ever wonder why these so-called American "scientists" are fighting back now? ecause they know their money train is about to come to an end as new studies are coming out from Columbia and Harvard that link their war criminal activity to higher rates of obesity, ADHD, autism, Parkinson's and cancer. They have no where to hide now and we're taking them on head on- by a variety of methods- let's just say people like Snowden and Assange were and continue to be a great aid in uncovering America's dirty little secrets and personal info on these people. It's fun backing them into a corner.

Yes, the funding connections between the fraudsters such as serralini are suspicious. However on both sides the bottom line is not the funding. It is the accuracy. "war criminals" balderdash. Further your medical claims have nothing to do with this article and simply constitute confirmation of your personality disorders.

Just because the American govt tested on 774 brown people and intentionally infected them you dont care. You'd care if they were white though, wouldn't you. Just like you would care if Agent Orange was used on white people, not brown Vietnamese, another war America had no business interfering in, much less raping women and molesting children in, Not only do you have a bunch of idiot Christian zealots that overpopulate your country, you also dont care that your government was experimenting on your own minorities and those in third world countries and associates itself with corrupt multinational corporations that past presidents like Herr Bush tried to blackmail European countries into accepting. It's hilarious how much America tries to cover up under the guise of "national security" and you simpletons fall for it hook, line and sinker.

But you came against the wrong guy. Not only have I been a part of dozens of protests, I've been arrested and had my camera broken, but it was too late, as I had already uploaded the images via wifi and successfully sued the police department and settled for 1K (dont care about the money, I donated it.) I had fun publishing the cops badge numbers and contact info though. Let's just say that American authoritarianism, like their military, is way out of control, but it's fun to expose them and watch them backtrack and apologize.

http://www.globalresearch.c...

http://in.reuters.com/artic...

http://www.iarc.fr/en/media...

Aaron Blair, a scientist emeritus at the National Cancer Institute and lead author of the study, told Reuters,“There was sufficient evidence in animals, limited evidence in humans and strong supporting evidence showing DNA mutations and damaged chromosomes.” The WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published their study of glyphosate on March 20, finding that the popular herbicide may contribute to non-hodgkins lymphoma.

IARC report was published in The Lancet Oncology detailing evaluations of organophosphate pesticides and herbicides. The report concluded that there was “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.” The evidence for this conclusion was pulled from studies of exposure to the chemical in the US, Canada and Sweden published since 2001.

The researchers found “convincing evidence that glyphosate can also cause cancer in laboratory animals.” The report points out that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) had originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 1985. The IARC Working Group evaluated the original EPA findings and more recent reports before concluding “there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” Despite the WHO’s findings, the EPA approved Monsanto’s use of glyphosate as recently as 2013.

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-46...

In 2014 Anti-Media reported on a study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health which claims to have found a link between glyphosate and the fatal Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown origin (CKDu), which largely affects rice farmers in Sri Lanka and other nations. In response Sri Lanka has banned glyphosate and Brazil is considering doing the same.

Sri Lanka’s Minister of Special Projects S.M. Chandrasena stated that President Mahinda Rajapaksa issued a directive to ban glyphosate sales in the country. “An investigation carried out by medical specialists and scientists have 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.”

The researchers believe glyphosate could be helping carry toxic heavy metals present in certain agri-chemicals to the kidneys. Chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology (CKDu) was first seen in the north central areas of Sri Lanka in the 1990s and has taken an estimated 20,000 lives. Before being pushed by Monsanto for use as herbicide, glyphosate was a de-scaling agent to clean mineral deposits in hot water systems.

Although the paper did not offer new scientific evidence, the researchers proposed a theory for how CKDu is spread. The researchers believe that glyphosate is contributing to a rise of heavy metals in drinking water. Dr. Channa Jayasumana, lead author of the study said, “glyphosate acts as a carrier or a vector of these heavy metals to the kidney.” Glyphosate itself is not the toxic agent, however when combined with metals in the ground water the herbicide becomes extremely toxic to the kidneys.

In recent years there has been a spike in CKDu patients in farming areas of El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica.

The Minister stated that a new national program would be launched encouraging Sri Lankan farmers to use organic fertilizer. The Ministry of Agriculture is hoping to plant 100,000 acres of land throughout the country using organic methods.

http://www.scientificameric...

What evidence is there for a link between glyphosate and cancer?

The IARC review notes that there is limited evidence for a link to cancer in humans. Although several studies have shown that people who work with the herbicide seem to be at increased risk of a cancer type called non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the report notes that a separate huge US study, the Agricultural Health Study, found no link to non-Hodgkin lymphomas. That study followed thousands of farmers and looked at whether they had increased risk of cancer.

But other evidence, including from animal studies, led the IARC to its ‘probably carcinogenic’ classification. Glyphosate has been linked to tumours in mice and rats — and there is also what the IARC classifies as ‘mechanistic evidence’, such as DNA damage to human cells from exposure to glyphosate.

Kathryn Guyton, a senior toxicologist in the monographs programme at the IARC and one of the authors of the study, says, “In the case of glyphosate, because the evidence in experimental animals was sufficient and the evidence in humans was limited, that would put the agent into group 2A.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015...

It is a bit difficult to judge how the W.H.O. agency reviewers arrived at their conclusion. Eventually, it will publish a detailed monograph. For now, there is only a brief paper published March 20 in The Lancet Oncology, a medical journal.

In that paper, the reviewers cited studies from the United States, Canada and Sweden suggesting that people exposed to glyphosate had a higher incidence of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, even after correcting for exposure to other chemicals.

But a large and long study of pesticide applicators on American farms did not find any problems. Dr. Miller of Monsanto accused the agency of “disregarding” this study, though it is clearly mentioned in the Lancet article. Dr. Guyton said because of that study the reviewers concluded that there was only “limited” evidence from human studies that glyphosate could cause cancer.

The Lancet article cited several animal studies. As few as two are needed to establish carcinogenicity, Dr. Guyton said.

There are several ways to measure a possible effect. Are there more cancers in animals exposed to the chemical than in a control group? Do higher doses mean more cancers? Are the rates higher than expected based on historical data? In many studies, not all three measures are positive.

Take the mouse study at issue in the E.P.A. review 30 years ago and also cited by the W.H.O. agency. There were three cases of a rare type of kidney cancer in 50 male mice fed the highest dose. That type of tumor is rare, so it strengthens the case, Dr. Blair said. “They literally don’t occur, but they occurred when rodents were dosed with this stuff,” he said.

While the W.H.O. agency’s reviewers focused on the rise in cancer with dose, the E.P.A. reviewers in 1991 said the findings were not meaningful, in part because there was no statistically significant difference over all between the exposed mice and the control group.

Another finding cited by the W.H.O. agency was of an increased rate of hemangiosarcoma, a cancer of the blood vessels, in male mice, as discussed in a document issued by the W.H.O. and the Food and Agriculture Organization in 2004. The authors of that document dismissed the significance of the finding, and said that over all, the study had “produced no signs of carcinogenic potential at any dose.”

The 2004 document then discussed four rat studies that it said also showed no evidence of carcinogenicity. One of those studies was also cited by the W.H.O. agency reviewers as evidence of carcinogenicity. Dr. Guyton said the agency reviewers “don’t report the authors’ conclusion. They report their own conclusions on that data.”

Another sign of whether something can cause cancer is whether it causes mutations or chromosomal damage. Bacterial tests do not show that glyphosate causes mutations. But the reviewers said there was evidence of chromosomal damage in studies involving animal and human cells.

The agency assessment began about a year ago with a literature search and culminated this month, when the working group met in Lyon, France. Reviewers had no ties with the pesticide industry, Dr. Guyton said.

http://weedcontrolfreaks.co...

very useful graph on that page

The second point about the figure above is that there appear to be many points on the right side for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. This is important, because that is the type of cancer specifically called out in the Lancet Oncology article that the IARC used to officially announce their new classification. The table on the first page of the Lancet paper states that “Evidence in humans” is “Limited”, with the cancer site listed as “non-Hodgkin lymphoma.” The Lancet Oncology paper lists only 16 references, and as far as I could tell, only 3 of those references actually contained information on glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (henceforth referred to as NHL). And those 3 references do seem to suggest a link between glyphosate exposure and NHL.

NHL_iarccites

All three of the studies in this figure are “case control” studies. This type of study takes a large number of ‘cases’ of the disease of interest, finds a similar group of people without the disease, and then tries to find differences in risk factors between the groups. Any factors that are more prevalent in the ‘case’ group (the group with the disease) are viewed as possible risk factors for the disease. Case control studies can be very useful, as Vox points out here. In the three case control studies referenced in the IARC Lancet paper, all of the point estimates are to the right of 1. But the confidence interval from McDuffie et al. (2001) paper includes 1, indicating that the evidence for a link in that study wasn’t very strong. Similarly, DeRoos et al. (2003) used 2 different models, and the confidence interval for one of those models contained 1. As I looked through a variety of case control studies, multiple models were common. The authors would sometimes evaluate 2 or even 3 different models comparing glyphosate-exposed and non-exposed people. More on this later. I was able to find several more studies (in addition to the 3 that IARC referenced) that investigated links between glyphosate and NHL. All of those studies are summarized in the figure below:

NHL_casecontrol

Although many of the confidence intervals contain 1, all of the point estimates are greater than 1. So although there is a lot of variability in the data, the association of glyphosate exposure and NHL does seem to be reasonably consistent across studies. Perhaps this is what the IARC panel saw when they arrived at their conclusion. Similar to DeRoos (2003), both Hardell studies employed more than 1 model. In the studies I read, the difference between models was usually an attempt to adjust for confounding variables. The most common confounding variable in the NHL studies was exposure to other pesticides. A very large percentage of people who are exposed to glyphosate for long periods are also exposed to many other types of pesticides. This is a very important limitation of case control studies. Most people who use glyphosate a lot (like farmers, commercial pesticide applicators, and weed scientists) tend to be exposed to many compounds that are much more rare among the general public. We certainly tend to use a variety of pesticides, but probably also inhale more dust and fertilizers. We are out in the sun a lot. We probably also get exposed to more hydraulic fluid and wake up earlier than the general population. These things are extremely difficult to control for in a case control study.

http://weedcontrolfreaks.co...

http://www.thelancet.com/jo...

An ingredient in Monsanto MON -1.59%’s Roundup weed-killer – glyphosate – is “probably carcinogenic,” according to a new decision by the World Health Organization yesterday. The decision was laid out in a new analysis in The Lancet Oncology, and published on the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) website. The analysis is based on the existing research on the chemical exposure in people and lab animals. Though it’s sure to raise consumer concerns, some – like Monsanto – say it’s unwarranted since no new data are included in the research, and previous studies have all deemed glyphosate relatively safe in the doses humans take it in. Consumers’ ears are certainly pricked at this new decision – but how convincing is it?

The report determines that there is “limited evidence” that the chemical can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and lung cancer in humans. It says there is, however, “convincing evidence” that it can cause cancer in laboratory animals. Among people who work with the herbicide, who generally have traces of the compound in their blood and urine, there appears to be a slightly increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, according to the report: “Case-control studies of occupational exposure in the USA, Canada, and Sweden reported increased risks for non-Hodgkin lymphoma that persisted after adjustment for other pesticides.”

It may be that this new determination mainly regards farm workers, rather than the general public. It could also be that glyphosate itself isn’t the risk, but rather the compounds that glyphosate is combined with to arrive at the final formation. The German research that led to the EU’s decision on glyphosate’s safety concluded that, “the available data do not show carcinogenic or mutagenic properties of glyphosate nor that glyphosate is toxic to fertility, reproduction or embryonal/fetal development in laboratory animals…..[the research team] believes that there is convincing evidence that the measured toxicity of some glyphosate containing herbicides is the result of the co-formulants in the plant protection products (e.g., tallowamines used as surfactants).”

Because of the now conflicting opinions, Monsanto is demanding another look at the data. “We have issued an urgent request,” said Miller, “for appropriate personnel of the WHO to sit down with the global glyphosate taskforces and other regulatory agencies to account for the scientific studies used in their analysis and, equally as important, to account for those scientific studies that were disregarded.”

Some people, however, aren’t surprised by the WHO’s new decision, and feel it a small step in the right direction. Author and food industry analyst, Robyn O’Brien says that given the science that’s already there, the new development isn’t totally unexpected. “In October 2014,” says O’Brien, “Monsanto officials said during their earnings’ report, ‘the Roundup business is expected to soften in 2015’ due to increasing headwinds. This week’s World Health Organization announcement adds to those headwinds.”

O’Brien hopes the new analysis will at least spark more scientific inquiry into what these types of compounds to do both humans and the ecosystems into which it’s spread. “Scientists around the world continue to ask why,” she says. “Why do case-control studies of occupational exposure to glyphosate in the USA, Canada and Sweden now show increased risks for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma? What is this doing to farmers? Why is it being applied in record amounts?”

Monsanto has been blamed for a number of disturbing ecological and sociological trends: from a dwindling Monarch butterfly population in North America to the suicides of farmers in India. They are currently being sued by San Diego for polluting the San Diego Bay with PCBs.

As far as how the rest of the industry will respond, this remains to be seen. “Looking forward, will the food industry begin to opt out of using it?” asks O’Brien. “Will the market step in and address this with a safer solution, making the 20th century agricultural productivity tool obsolete in the 21st century?”

If nothing else, at least the new decision will raise awareness on the part of the customer – and hopefully the concerns and fears it may also spark will turn into energies in the right direction: A demand for greater food safety and more scientific studies on the effects of these chemicals have on us and the environment in the long-run.

“One thing is clear,” says O’Brien. “We need more science on this genetically engineered landscape we now eat from. I hope some brilliant engineering students are looking at all of this right now and figuring our how to use 21st century technology to design a smart pesticide that doesn’t cause harm…A disruptive innovator would be great.”

Alex try gathering facts before commenting. I am married to a woman with a very dark and permanent sun tan. So, your rant is off to a very stupid start Also I am a steadfast critic of U.S. foreign policy all the way back to "the shores of Tripoli" I won't bother reading any further into your loony rant. As you are likely to get even more ludicrous as you get all wound up. Please give my sympathy to those who must deal with you in person.

LOL so you think having a wife with a sun tan exempts you from looking down on people with a different racial or cultural background? You must be pretty low on the IQ scale- have you been sniffing your own pesticides, Eric? :)) I dont think it's ludicrous at all to point out the prior history of a company whose products you SHOULD NOT be buying. I didn't tell you to get out of GM technology altogether, just like I wouldn't stop using computers even though I dislike Microsoft, but I'd tell you you shouldn't be using their products. Same goes for Apple and Google. Like I said, I (and most I know in the biotech field) love new technology, just not having the field taken over by one or a few companies- like the agribusiness field has been by the likes of Monsanto and Bayer.

No, my logic exempts me. Though like most folks not perfectly. I mentioned my wife simply to show the few left who might be wasting time reading this just how ludicrous your accusations of racism are. BTW I am not responsible for racist acts committed by others. Only for my own behavior am I responsible. Especially considering as much of the U.S. gov't's racist behavior took place before I was born. And the prior history nis no longer relevant as the loonies who committed the pollution are dead or retired. Companies are not life forms. The folks who work for the newly formed company with the same name are not responsible. Especially as many of them were not born in the bad old days. The problem is that you are just hating without thinking.

You are responsible for defaming Seralini though. The Monsanto "editor" hired to defame Seralini has since been dismissed from the periodical where the study was originally published, and the study has now been published in a cleaner European journal that is free of U.S. conflict of interest concerns.

You have a point about the current people not being responsible for the acts of those who came before them, but neither should they be given carte blanche to do whatever they want. The history of corporations in America is they will do whatever it takes to make the most money they can, even if it comes at the expense of the environment. The oil and gas industry is proof positive of this.

I do not have a point. I am correct. And have not advocated carte blanche for anybody. Further because tom and fred did something wrong does not mean Allen Suzy and Bernie will.as well So, no proof positive. Even if you are correct about the first 2.

You are not correct. There should be no statute of limitations on the harm, and reparations are in order. Using capital gained in wrong action is not acceptable. The U.S. government protecting crony corporations from paying out for harm for their products is a nasty and wrong development.

Learn some law. I did not mention a statute of limitations. This development happened a long time ago and is called liability. I have llong contended that there is to much protection there. In case you misunderstood. I was saying that the folks who were not old enough, or perhaps not even born yet are not responsible.

I worked in law for many years. Your legal experience is?
Corporations sell themselves sometimes in attempts to avoid liability. They are not always successful.

My law experience consists of reading. Funny how I am correct and you, with your alleged experience are not. Notice that I did not refer to the limitations?

I addressed this in the other post, I am just arguing for more scrutiny and to open up the market to other companies. The same as was done with AT&T

What medical claims? The ones about Guatemala? It was the headline on CNN a few months ago. It's you who has no heart. Just because the American govt tested on 774 brown people and intentionally infected them you dont care. You'd care if they were white though, wouldn't you. You're the one with the disorder obviously.

You have no evidence nor personal knowledge of my caring or lack there of. therefore your accusation is groundless and foolish.

My evidence is your lack of directly addressing the issue- it's as simple as that.

I have directly addressed the issue. I had nothing to do with any of the gov't's nonsense. Also I work with lots of "brown" folks and we get along well,. When I can keep up. Besides that the failings of the U.S. gov't have nothing to do with this article

No, and I agree with you that people in those companies should not be responsible for what others did in the past, but in the very least they need to be kept under close scrutiny and the market should be opened up to more competition

I believe the people in the companies now are smart enough to understand the harm and they are living off the fat of the harm. They are responsible for correcting corporate behaviors.

The market is open to competition. There are hundreds of seed companies. Start one your self.

I know this Eric. But with one or two companies trying to buy up the entire market, it's hard to have competition. I feel this way about the telecoms and computer industry also. There need to be laws put into place to not allow these companies to buy up so many others. And there needs to be a more even distribution of shares.

Anyway, I do grow my own vegetables- pesticide free. I dont trust organic companies either- they also use pesticides. I also consume meat that has not been treated with antibiotics and hormones, because of emerging research and regulations that indicate that superbug infections are on the rise in meat that has been treated with them.

"I also consume meat that has not been treated with antibiotics"

Hmmm, why do you support animal cruelty, should not an ill animal be treated with the best medicine that we have? Or is your philosophy, so what if it suffers I am not going to eat it anyway?

"hormones"

Al animals are full of hormones they are a 100% natural product of being alive.

" that has been treated with them."

What evidence.?

Research by the European Union claims pesticides used on

fruits, vegetables and cereals harms fetuses and young

children. Since pesticides attack the brains of insects, experts

insist they're also "very likely" to damage human brains.

Dramatic deficits in brain function are seen in rural children with long-term exposure to pesticides compared with children not similarly exposed. Contamination has been documented in many studies from populations around the world, with breastmilk containing concentrations of lindane, heptachlor, benzene hexachloride, aldrin and endrin all above limits established by the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization.

According to pediatrician Philip Landrigan of Mount Sinai Medical Center, we should have "very important concerns about the toxic effects of pesticides on children's nervous systems." Bernard Weiss of the Department of Environmental Medicine at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry stated, "It doesn't seem a surprise that you would see an effect, knowing what we know about pesticides and the elevated vulnerability of the developing brain."

According to Dr. Maryse Bouchard, "Pesticides act on a set of brain chemicals closely related to those involved in ADHD."

Children face higher risks from pesticides than adults and need greater protection against these chemicals, particularly in developing countries, according to a joint report published by FAO, the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Children who were exposed to organophosphate pesticides while still in their mother's womb were more likely to develop attention disorders years later, according to researchers at the University of California, Berkeley's School of Public Health.

Findings published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) examine the influence of prenatal organophosphate exposure on the later development of attention problems. The researchers found that prenatal levels of organophosphate metabolites were significantly linked to attention problems at age five, with the effects apparently stronger among boys. The organophosphate family of chemicals damages the nervous system (which includes the brain), so scientists are particularly concerned about children's exposure because their bodies are still developing. Chlorpyrifos is one of the many insecticides in this chemical family.

Different researchers at Harvard University have also associated greater exposure to organophosphate pesticides in school-aged children with higher rates of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms.

"These studies provide a growing body of evidence that organophosphate pesticide exposure can impact human neurodevelopment, particularly among children," said the study's principal investigator, Brenda Eskenazi, UC Berkeley professor of epidemiology and of maternal and child health. "We were especially interested in prenatal exposure because that is the period when a baby's nervous system is developing the most."

President Obama's Cancer Panel recommends consumers choose food grown without chemical fertilizers or pesticides, antibiotics and growth hormones to decrease exposure to environmental chemicals that can increase the risk of cancer.

The journal Pediatrics published a study that concludes that children exposed to organophosphate pesticides at levels common among America's children are more likely to develop attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a disorder becoming more and more common in today's children. Researchers at Emory University [1] have found that switching children to an organic diet provides a "dramatic and immediate protective effect" against exposures to two organophosphate pesticides that are commonly used in U.S. agricultural production – malathion and chlorpyrifos. The results were published in the September 2005 issue of the scientific journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

"Immediately after substituting organic food items for the children's normal diets, the concentration of the organophosphorus pesticides found in their bodies decreased substantially to non-detectable levels until the conventional diets were re-introduced," says Dr. Lu, an assistant professor in the department of environmental and occupational health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University.

Twenty-three elementary-school-age children participated in a 15-day study that was divided into three parts. First the children ate their usual diet of conventionally-grown food for three days. Then they were switched to organically-grown substitutes for five days. For the final seven days, they were switched back to conventional food. The organic substitutes were mainly fruits, vegetables, juices and grain products (such as wheat) because these foods are often contaminated with organophosphates. Urine samples were collected twice a day for each child. Researchers tested the urine for signs of pesticides.

In the case of two organophosphate insecticides – malathion and chlorpyrifos – the results were startling. Signs of these two chemicals were found in the urine in the first part of the study. Almost immediately after the children switched to an organic diet, these chemicals could not be detected. The chemicals showed up again when the children switched back to their normal diet.

A new UC Berkeley study finds a linkbetween prenatal exposure to pesticides and attention problems at age 5.

Pesticides are widely used for many purposes, including home, garden, commercial, and agricultural pest control. Thus, the potential for some degree of exposure to these chemicals is great. In general, pesticides can enter the body through the lungs, the mouth, and the skin. Of course, each class of pesticide will differ somewhat in the specific way it is absorbed. Recent studies have shown that young children may be at particularly increased risk of pesticide exposure for several reasons:

Their tendency to explore their environment with their mouths

Their closeness to the ground

Their increased time playing outdoors.

Kids may be exposed to pesticides in the following ways:

In Food:

The diet is clearly an important potential route of pesticides exposure in children and adults.

The small amounts of pesticides present on our food are called pesticide residues. Both adults and children consume these residues regularly to some degree.

Children's diets are relatively higher in fruits and vegetables than adults. Thus, they may be at increased risk of exposure from their diet.

According to the National Research Council, differences in diet between children and adults are responsible for most of the differences in the possible health effects of pesticides.

Children and infants tend to eat fewer types of foods and eat more processed foods than adults (infant formula, baby food, etc.). There is very little current evidence about the amount of pesticide residues in processed foods. However, the limited available evidence shows that processed foods in general may actually have fewer residues than unprocessed foods.

In the Home:

It is estimated that over 90% of U.S. homes use some form of pesticide.

In fact, most toxic pesticide exposure in humans occurs from misuse or accidents in the setting of the home or garden.

Infants may be exposed to pesticides in household dust by skin contact, breathing, and eating of the dust.

One study has found that pesticide residues may remain on toys, pillows, and other surfaces for up to two weeks after the house has been sprayed for bugs.

In Drinking Water:

Since children consume more water than any other substance, the water supply is clearly an important possible route of exposure to environmental chemicals.

Several scientific studies have examined the relative amounts of various pesticides in the drinking water supply in different parts of the country. Except in a few areas where dramatic pesticide contamination has occurred, most studies have concluded that the levels of pesticide in the drinking water supply in the U.S. is extremely low.

Outside the Home:

This category would include school, playground, daycare, and commercial settings.

These settings are probably not as important as the home in terms of pesticide exposure to children. However, exposure is possible in these settings especially if there has been recent pesticide application.

In Agricultural Settings:

Agricultural settings may be a risk factor for pesticide exposure in children, especially when one or both parents are agricultural workers.

Children may be exposed while playing in fields sprayed with agricultural pesticides.

Also, pesticide residues may be tracked into the home by parents who are agricultural workers.

One study looked at specific activities that might increase the chances of exposure to children of agricultural workers. These include, a delay in changing clothing after spraying pesticides, mixing pesticide-contaminated clothing with the family wash, applying pesticides within 50 yards of the well.

It is important to remember that some of the pesticides used in agriculture may still remain on the fruits and vegetables in the supermarket

http://www.scientificameric...

> New Study: Autism Linked to Environment: Scientific

> American

> www.scientificamerican.com

> Research links soaring incidence of the mysterious

> neurological disorder to fetal and infant exposure to

> pesticides, viruses, household chemicals

Studies continue to suggest that in utero exposure to

> pollution can raise the risk of autism

> Children with autism are two to three times more likely than

> other children to have been exposed to car exhaust, smog,

> and other air pollutants during their earliest days,

> according to a new study.

>

> That new research adds to a mounting body of evidence that

> shows a link between early-life exposure to pollution and

> autism spectrum disorders.

> It's also increasingly clear that genetics can't tell the

> whole story of autism. A Stanford University study of twins

> published last year found that genetics accounts for just 38

> percent of the risk.

>

> "That analysis suggested that the assumption that this is

> mostly a genetic condition was perhaps made in error," said

> Diana Schendel, a scientist with the CDC's National Center

> on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities. "Maybe the

> environment plays a larger role in autism than we once

> believed."

> Drugs used decades ago to treat morning sickness, bipolar

> disorder and ulcers, as well as the insecticide

> chlorpyrifos, have already been tied to autism. With about

> 80,000 chemicals available for industry use, most of which

> remain untested for toxicities, researchers have plenty more

> potential culprits to investigate. A study spearheaded by

> the advocacy organization Environmental Working Group found

> an average of 200 industrial chemicals in the umbilical cord

> blood of 10 babies born in U.S. hospitals in 2004.

>

> Such figures have raised alarms given the host of health

> problems on the rise among kids, including diabetes,

> obesity, asthma and cancer. Growing children are extremely

> sensitive to chemicals, even at very low doses. And of all

> the developing organs, the brain may be the most vulnerable.

> The time window for a chemical to wreak havoc extends from

> the early embryo all the way through adolescence, when the

> brain finally matures.

>

> "The brain goes through rapid changes, all complex and all

> easily disrupted," said Dr. Philip Landrigan, chairman of

> the department of preventative medicine at the Mount Sinai

> School of Medicine in New York City. "Take a Swiss watch and

> multiply that by 1,000."

>

> In April, Landrigan co-authored a report that highlighted 10

> widely used chemicals and mixtures of chemicals that are

> suspected of harming the developing brain, including lead,

> methylmercury, organochlorine pesticides, endocrine

> disruptors such as bisphenol-A and phthalates, automobile

> exhaust, and flame retardants.

>

> Recent research by Irva Hertz-Picciotto, an autism expert at

> the University of California, Davis, supports the list. She

> has found hints of links between autism and proximity to

> freeways, pesticides and a parent's occupational exposures,

> as well as nutrition.

>

> The latter study was the first to illustrate how genes and

> the environment might interact to trigger the disease.

> "Children who inherited unlucky genes that made them less

> efficient at utilizing and metabolizing the folic acid of

> prenatal vitamins had a five- to seven-fold higher risk of

> autism," Hertz-Picciotto said.

>

> Next up for her team: agricultural chemicals and possibly

> bisphenol-A.

>

> Other research published over the past few months has added

> evidence that flame retardants and polychlorinated biphenyls

> (PCBs), as well as some factors more broadly considered

> environmental such as a mother's diabetes or fevers during

> pregnancy, might be implicated in autism and other learning

> disorders. Several more ongoing studies are looking into

> social factors, medications taken during pregnancy, and

> infections

> California's sevenfold increase in autism cannot be

> explained by changes in doctors' diagnoses and most likely

> is due to environmental exposures, University of California

> scientists reported Thursday.

>

> The scientists who authored the new study advocate a

> nationwide shift in autism research to focus on potential

> factors in the environment that babies and fetuses are

> exposed to, including pesticides, viruses and chemicals in

> household products.

>

> "It's time to start looking for the environmental culprits

> responsible for the remarkable increase in the rate of

> autism in California," said Irva Hertz-Picciotto, an

> epidemiology professor at University of California, Davis

> who led the study.

>

> Throughout the nation, the numbers of autistic children have

> increased dramatically over the past 15 years. Autistic

> children have problems communicating and interacting

> socially; the symptoms usually are evident by the time the

> child is a toddler.

>

> More than 3,000 new cases of autism were reported in

> California in 2006, compared with 205 in 1990. In 1990, 6.2

> of every 10,000 children born in the state were diagnosed

> with autism by the age of five, compared with 42.5 in 10,000

> born in 2001, according to the study, published in the

> journal Epidemiology. The numbers have continued to rise

> since then.

> A 2011 Stanford University study with 192 pairs of twins,

> with one twin autistic and one not, found that genetics

> accounts for 38 percent of the risk of autism, and

> environmental factors account for 62 percent. Supporting an

> environmental/genetic tag team are other studies showing

> autistic children and their mothers have a high rate of a

> genetic deficiency in the production of glutathione, an

> antioxidant and the body's primary means of detoxifying

> heavy metals. High levels of toxic metals in children are

> strongly correlated with the severity of autism.

>

> Low levels of glutathione, coupled with high production of

> another chemical, homocysteine, increase the chance of a

> mother having an autistic child to one in three. That autism

> is four times more common among boys than girls is likely

> related to a defect in the single male X chromosome

> contributing to antioxidant deficiency. But there is no such

> thing as a genetic disease epidemic because genes don't

> change that quickly, so the alarming rise in autism must be

> the result of increased environmental exposures that exploit

> these genetic defects.

>

> The list of autism's possible environmental triggers is long

> and comes from many studies that show higher rates of autism

> with greater exposure to flame retardants, plasticizers like

> BPA, pesticides, endocrine disruptors in personal-care

> products, heavy metals in air pollution, mercury, and

> pharmaceuticals like antidepressants.

>

> During the first three months of gestation, a human embryo

> adds 250,000 brain cells per minute, reaching 200 billion by

> the fifth month. No chemical elixir can improve this

> biologic miracle, but thousands of toxic substances can

> cross the placenta and impair the process, leaving brain

> cells stressed, inflamed, less well developed, fewer in

> number and with fewer connections with each other. Autistic

> brain architecture can be revealed by MRI scan as early as

> six months of age.

>

> Doctors have long advised women during pregnancy to avoid

> consumption of alcohol, drugs or chemicals. But as

> participants in modern society we are all now exposed to

> over 85,000 chemicals from the food we eat, the water we

> drink, the air we breathe and the consumer products we use.

>

> Pregnant women and their children have 100 times more

> chemical exposures today than 50 years ago. The average

> newborn has more than 200 different chemicals and heavy

> metals contaminating its blood when it takes its first

> breath; 158 of them are toxic to the brain. Little wonder

> that rates of autism, attention deficit and behavioral

> disorders are all on the rise.

Babies exposed to air pollution in the womb are more likely to have autism than those whose mothers spend pregnancy in clean air, according to a new study.

In the largest study of its kind, UCLA researchers compared levels of air pollutants, mostly related to vehicle traffic, during pregnancy gestation periods of 7,603 children with autism and 75,635 children without autism, born from 1995 to 2006 in Los Angeles. The study was published March 1 in Environmental Health Perspectives, a peer-reviewed journal published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

Babies at the 75th percentile of exposure to toxins had 8 percent to 10 percent higher risk of autism than babies at the bottom 25th percentile, the study said. Ozone and fine particulates had the strongest association with autism.

"These findings are of concern, since traffic-related air pollution is ubiquitous," said Dr. Beate Ritz, chair of UCLA's Department of Epidemiology and the study's senior author. She said she was reluctant to advise expectant mothers to leave LA or polluted cities, because that's not an option for many. "We can't tell them to not breathe or not go outside or not go to work," she said. She did recommend avoiding sitting in traffic, when pollutant exposure is worst.

Using government air monitoring stations, researchers estimated average exposures during pregnancy to carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, nitric oxide, ozone and particulate matter. The study adjusted for factors that include maternal age, birthplace, race and education. Using birth certificates, researchers compared control children with non-control children who had matching birth year, sex and gestational age at birth.

This is important because the highest rates of autism tend to be among children of older, more educated and white parents. Also, there is a higher likelihood of autism in a mother's first child, probably because parents of autistic children often do not continue to have more children, Ritz said.

Wow, after reading this you should be a HUGE supporter of GMOs. Welcome to the team. :)