I want to be as clear as possible at the start of this chapter, because my words on genetically modified (GMO) foods have been twisted for years.
I am not fundamentally against biotechnology. I’m not even necessarily against all GMO food, although I acknowledge that certain experts stress how much uncertainty remains about their safety. As was noted by researchers at New York University, genetically modified foods (also known as GMOs, or genetically modified organisms) represent a massive experiment conducted on nature.1 I believe companies pushing such products should present clear evidence that they are not causing harm, either to people or to the ecosystems we depend upon. Companies should also clearly label their food products so consumers are informed that they contain GMOs. If that position makes me a radical, then so be it. To me, it feels like common sense.
However, what I am strongly against are the chemicals that almost always go hand in hand with genetically modified crops. This chapter will focus on one of the main chemicals used during the farming of GMOs: Roundup weed killer, a mixture of glyphosate and surfactants. (You likely even have a bottle of this in your garage, as it’s the world’s most popular weed killer.) For years, Monsanto—the giant industrial agriculture company—has sold Roundup to farmers and consumers around the world. Genetically modified (GMO) versions of certain crops (corn, soy, sugar beets, canola, and more) have been developed to withstand being sprayed directly with Roundup weed killer. These GMO crops are called “Roundup-Ready.”
What many people don’t know, however, is that Roundup is also used on non-GMO crops such as wheat, where it is used to dry the crop 7 to 10 days before harvest. This is a problematic practice because spraying crops so close to harvest increases the amount of glyphosate incorporated into the food supply. It’s not just the wheat. Roundup is used on major conventional non-GMO food crops such as tomatoes, nuts, oranges, and beans (upwards of 70 different food crops in the U.S.).2 While most food products have never been tested for this weed killer’s residue, as we’ll learn later in this chapter, the tests that have been performed suggest that the majority of processed food sold in this country is contaminated with some level of glyphosate.
In recent decades, the use of Roundup has gone up exponentially, increasing 15-fold since Roundup-Ready GMO crops were introduced.3 In fact, Roundup has become so popular that economists have started referring to it as “agricultural heroin” because many farmers are so addicted to it.
One of the problems with addictions is that, over time, you need to take higher doses to get the same effect. One drink becomes three, which becomes five. The same thing is happening with Roundup. As weeds develop resistance to the herbicide, farmers need to increase the amount of Roundup they spray on their fields.4 That’s great for Monsanto—they sell more weed killer—but, as you’ll soon learn, really bad for us.
Roundup works because it contains glyphosate, a chemical first patented to remove mineral deposits from metal pipes. As you can probably guess, glyphosate is not a chemical you want in your body. That’s because it works by disrupting a class of enzymes that are in virtually every living thing, from common weeds to human beings. These enzymes perform a wide variety of basic biological functions, one of which is removing toxins from your body. (This means that glyphosate can make us more vulnerable to other chemicals as well.)
But wait: it gets worse. Much worse. Glyphosate is also considered an “endocrine disruptor.” Endocrine disruptors mimic or block the action of natural hormones and wreak havoc with your endocrine system (having a profoundly negative effect on the body). When you ingest endocrine disruptors, you are in essence altering your body’s basic chemistry.5
One of the most damaging effects of glyphosate is that it stimulates overproduction of estrogen. This in turn can fuel the growth of estrogen-dependent breast cancer—a fact uncovered when researchers found the risk of breast cancer was even greater in those exposed to glyphosate who supplemented their diet with soybeans (also known to stimulate estrogen).6
Last but not least, there is increasing evidence that glyphosate can screw up the health of your gut microbiome, the community of bacteria and microorganisms that are key to a healthy digestive system.7 This has led some scientists to speculate that the rise of weed killer is partially responsible for the growing incidence of a wide variety of gastrointestinal disorders, including celiac disease, gluten intolerance, and irritable bowel syndrome.
But don’t take my word for it. Dave Schubert, Ph.D., head of the Salk Institute’s Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory, puts it this way: “There is indeed an enormous amount of published data showing that Roundup is very nasty stuff, particularly at the levels currently being used (ten times more than before genetically modified, herbicide-resistant crops) and the extent of human exposure in food—a greatly allowed increase by the EPA to reflect increased use.”8
To prove his point, Schubert cites studies documenting increases in cancer in farming areas of Argentina since the introduction of GMO crops and spikes in cancer in lab animals after exposure to GMO corn sprayed with the weed killer.
MONSANTO’S GUILT BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
Even Monsanto’s own scientists and consultants have questioned the safety of glyphosate, but you won’t find that in a company press release. In the late 1990s, Dr. James Parry, a Monsanto consultant, concluded that glyphosate is capable of producing genotoxicity (which is an adverse effect on cells that may lead to cancer).9 But instead of listening to his concerns, Monsanto executives suppressed his findings and decided to seek out other consultants who were better at working with industry and helping them influence regulators. In one e-mail, a Monsanto executive admits that “we simply aren’t going to do the studies Parry suggests” that would further examine the hazards of glyphosate.10 (Sure seems to me they were scared of learning the truth.) In 2003, Monsanto toxicologist Donna Farmer warned company executives that they “cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen… we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.”11 Fifteen years later, they still haven’t. And, neither has the EPA.12
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION VERSUS MONSANTO
Meanwhile, the independent evidence linking Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, to serious health problems has only grown. In fact, the evidence is so persuasive that in March 2015 the World Health Organization’s team of international cancer experts deemed glyphosate a “probable human carcinogen.”13 As could be expected, this expert panel, known as the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), has been forced to defend ruthless attacks from the agrochemical industry since this finding. The industry has discredited their credibility in the media and even lobbied our government to take away their funding.14 As we have seen throughout this book, the industry plays dirty when the truth comes out.
In January of 2018, IARC responded to this affront to their work: “Since the evaluation of glyphosate by the IARC Monographs Program in March 2015, the Agency has been subject to unprecedented, coordinated efforts to undermine the evaluation, the program and the organization. These efforts have deliberately and repeatedly misrepresented the Agency’s work. The attacks have largely originated from the agro-chemical industry and associated media outlets.”15
IARC went on to defend their position with respect to how they came to their conclusions on glyphosate and properly handled the data. They also provided substantial reasoning for why they only used publicly available research in their evaluation and confirmed that their members are free from conflict of interest.
This group of elite independent experts is standing firm in their convictions, yet many IARC members have felt stunned and intimidated by the industry’s disruptive actions toward them. As one member of the panel, Francesco Forastiere, an Italian researcher specializing in epidemiology, put it, “We were not expecting this strong reaction and what happened. We were doing our job. We understood there were other issues … economic consequences. But none of us had a political agenda. We simply acted as scientists, evaluating the body of evidence, according to the IARC criteria.”16
Yes, Dr. Forastiere hit the nail on the head. Those “economic consequences” mean a possible end to the industry’s top billion-dollar weed killer. The stakes are high.
CORRUPTION AT ITS FINEST
Monsanto (and the agrochemical industry in general) responds to troubling evidence about Roundup in various ways. By shutting down additional research. By attacking those (like me) who dare to write about the evidence against Roundup. By funding front groups and paying for online trolls. By spending millions of dollars lobbying the government.
And, unfortunately, to some extent it’s working.
In 2013, the EPA increased the industry standard of what is considered a “safe” level of glyphosate on our food17 in order to make ever-growing amounts seem acceptable. Instead of properly regulating this probable carcinogen, they effectively raised the “safe” level in our food so that no one can blame the industry for poisoning us with unlawful amounts of chemicals. This is corruption at its finest.
Why did the EPA act this way? Some recently released internal e-mails between the EPA and Monsanto offer some tantalizing clues. (The e-mails were released as part of an ongoing class-action lawsuit alleging that exposure to Roundup can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which found that Monsanto was liable for $298 million because they knowingly concealed the risks.18) What the e-mails reveal is a close working relationship between high-level EPA officials and Monsanto. Jess Rowland, the official who was in charge of evaluating the cancer risk of glyphosate for the EPA, was allegedly helping Monsanto prevent another federal agency from investigating whether glyphosate causes cancer. Rowland even told a Monsanto employee, “If I can kill this I should get a medal.”19 Monsanto apparently agreed, as the company employees proposed hiring Rowland after he retired from the EPA.
Other e-mails show that Monsanto proposed ghostwriting a key report used by the EPA to evaluate glyphosate and just having the scientists sign their names to it. The crooked relationship between the EPA and Monsanto led some EPA officials to speak up. EPA toxicologist Marion, for instance, concluded, “It is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer,” while criticizing Rowland for playing “political conniving games with the science.” She pleaded with him, “For once do the right thing and don’t make decisions based on how it affects your bonus.”20
The EPA continues to pander to Monsanto. In late 2017 they declared their position that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” contradicting the World Health Organization IARC’s findings.21
It’s time for the EPA to put the public health above the corrupt desires of corporations.
WHY THE LIE?
Why does Big Food insist on suppressing the truth about its weed killer?
The obvious answer is money: Monsanto makes billions of dollars every year selling its herbicides to farmers, along with GMO seeds that are used in conjunction with these chemicals. They’re terrified that if people learned the truth about glyphosate, we’d insist on foods grown without it.
But there’s another reason: glyphosate has already contaminated our food supply. It’s in countless food products. Big Food is worried that if we realized we were ingesting weed killer with our breakfast cereal, crackers, cookies, and chips, we’d be justifiably upset. It’s much easier to not test for these toxins. Ignorance is bliss, at least when it comes to processed food.
Fortunately, we can take matters into our own hands. Not long ago, the grassroots advocacy group Food Democracy Now! issued a shocking report that showed just how prevalent Roundup is in our food.22 They commissioned Anresco Laboratories, an FDA-registered food safety laboratory that’s been around since 1943, to test popular U.S. food products for glyphosate residues. It was the first-ever independent analysis of glyphosate contamination in major American food brands. The results clearly showed that millions of people are being exposed to glyphosate on a daily basis. That’s because the weed killer was found in iconic processed foods like Cheerios, Ritz Crackers, and Oreos.
Even if you don’t personally eat the specific brands that were tested (and I don’t), how many Americans are consuming these foods every day? How many of your friends and family have their cabinets filled with these famous brands? Would they still buy these foods if they knew tests found weed killer in them?
In case you’re skeptical of relying on this one report, the Canadian government recently tested 3,188 food products. They found glyphosate residues in nearly 30 percent of them, including 36.6 percent of grain products and 31 percent of baby foods.23 And the one time the United States government tested soybean samples, they found that 271 out of 300 had measurable levels of glyphosate residue.24 Likewise, Carey Gillam, research director for U.S. Right to Know (a nonprofit consumer education group), reported that internal documents show the FDA has found glyphosate residues in infant oat cereal and honey samples—two foods that seem so innocuous.25 The levels found in the honey exceeded regulatory limits in the European Union.
And this is just the start: There are still thousands of other brands and foods that have not been tested for glyphosate residues. The tragic truth is that glyphosate is so rampant in our food supply that Americans are effectively being forced to eat this poison. And yes, I said poison.
Glyphosate is really good at killing weeds.
It might also be killing us.
ACTION STEPS: GO ORGANIC ABOVE ALL
The best way to avoid glyphosate is by choosing Certified Organic foods because it is prohibited on organic crops. Although contamination is a real threat, from what we’ve seen in testing so far, the levels on organic foods are generally minimal compared to what’s been found on conventional (nonorganic) foods. It’s been shown that people who eat organic foods have less glyphosate and other synthetic pesticides in their systems.
STAY AWARE AND INFORMED!
This chapter is my perspective on GMOs and the chemicals that are used along with them, based on my years of research and investigation. I don’t want to tell you how to think; I just want you to be aware of the lies and misinformation that exist on this subject. Ultimately, it’s up to you to make your own food decisions. While more independent research is certainly needed, I’ve decided that when it comes to the health of my family and me, the risk of GMOs and glyphosate just isn’t worth it.