> Intersting headline this morning Everyone is up
> in arms about Ben and Jerrys, when you get to
> the real facts the roundup found in the ice
> cream is LESS than 1 PPB, (one was 1.4 PPB)
According to the NYTimes, the highest reading was 1.74 ppb (Chocolate Fudge
Brownie)
The wide variation among different flavors of ice cream is interesting, in
that one cannot blame the fruit when a chocolate ice cream has the highest
levels of contamination/adulteration. A reasonable conclusion from the data
published would link the contamination to milk/cream/butterfat content, so
the cows are consuming the glyphosate in water or feed, and apparently
bio-accumulating it in milk.
Regardless there is no tolerance approved by the EPA or FDA for glyphosate
in ice cream or any other dairy products.
http://law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/180.364
When no level is "tolerated" this is "Zero Tolerance" and the food is
"adulterated" under the law, and (technically) unfit for human consumption.
It may not be sold as human food. These are simply the laws as they stand.
> can we really detect at that level with any confidence,
Yes, of course such levels can be both detected and quantified with ease.
These guys will sell you a kit with a Limit of detection (LoD) of 0.007 ppb
for glyphosate in water, so the state of the art is likely much more
sensitive.
http://hrilabs.org/glyphosate-testing/water/
As a general rule of thumb, a detection that is twice the LoD is a
conservative way to avoid error, and even the smallest of these detections
was seven times the LoD of the commercial test kit.
> second what are the odds is just normal?
What are the odds? Well, we don't honestly know, as the FDA had to be
shamed by the GAO into even STARTING to screen for glyphosate in food.
What's normal? In this study, published in the very prestigious journal
"Nature":
http://nature.com/articles/srep39328
rats consumed in a day an amount of glyphosate said to be equivalent to the
amount of contaminant found in a single child's portion of Ben & Jerry's
Chocolate Fudge Brownie ice cream (at the contamination rates listed in the
NYT), and showed early signs of fatty liver disease within three months,
which worsened over time.
> And third how naive are people,
> both writers and that are
> "deeply concerned" about this??
The papers and data, raise concern on a very wide range of foods, as we
simply do not know how much of this chemical is in a normal diet, and even
"Ultra-Low Levels" seem to have tangible and serious negative effects within
months. As there are "tolerances" for this chemical even in EU drinking
water, one need not consume any specific food to be affected. The
tolerances that do exist are very likely to be sharply reduced as a result.
> So many other things are real
> problems, some things astound me.
This is a "real problem", which is why the EPA is reevaluation this
chemical, and why the FDA is starting to screen foods for residues.
In a prior post, the World Health Organization was dismissed as "making
claims":
> that Roundup is a "probable" cancer
> agent - Probable is a key word here.
Here's how the WHO classifies things:
Group 1 Carcinogenic to humans (120 items)
Group 2A Probably carcinogenic to humans (81)
Group 2B Possibly carcinogenic to humans (299)
Group 3 Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans (502)
Group 4 Probably not carcinogenic to humans (1)
"Probably" is the step below "Carcinogenic" ("known carcinogen").
This is not some group of wacko health-food-store owners, this is the World
Health Organization.
In this context "probably" means that some studies show minimal effect, but
most show significant effect. These are FINDINGS, based upon Science, not
"claims". Disagreeing will not render the data any less accurate, or the
conclusions any less conservative.
> Jim makes a claim its residual effects
> are problematic. Nonsense.
"Jim" makes no "claim" at all!
These Findings (again, as opposed to "claims") are not "Nonsense", as they
made in peer-reviewed studies, like the below:
https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-016-0117-0
http://tinyurl.com/y86fozwo
Translated into plain English here:
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/glyphosate-persistence-raises-questions/
9510.article
http://tinyurl.com/yatx65gt
Persistence in seawater - 47 - 315 days...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X14000228
http://tinyurl.com/y7n9pskf
Half-life in pond water is 10 days to 12 weeks, sez Cornell:
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-glyphosate/glyphosa
te-ext.html
http://tinyurl.com/yvu7sp
Impact on soil, and things that live in soil:
https://www.soilassociation.org/media/7202/glyphosate-and-soil-health-full-r
eport.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/y7e2kjxy
> roundups degradability in the environment is and has been a key to its
> commercial success.
Marketing is not science. The persistence is one of the issues that has
gotten Monsanto into hot water for false advertising in several states.
Here's the NY suit, brought by the Attorney General:
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/fraud.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/5tlltae
> Jim commented about how bad
> and horrid and terrible a small
> amount of a plant growth inhibitor
> is for us in our honey.
This is not correct. What I actually said that, as there was no EPA
"tolerance", it rendered the honey (technically) unfit for human consumption
under the regulations that exist today. I did not say anything about any
potential health effects, or made any value judgement such as "terrible".
> Benzaldehyde... buytric acid
I was not aware that these were components of RoundUp, but the "inactive
ingredients / carrier components" are rarely documented.
I know that butyric anhydride is "Bee-Go", and that it degrades to buytric
acid after use.
Looking them up, both are used in flavorings, that's pretty funny given how
bad "Bee-Go" smells.
But if they are used in flavorings (in food), then I guess they are listed
by the FDA as "GRAS" (Generally Recognized As Safe), or are listed by the
EPA as exempted from a tolerance in at least some foods, as otherwise they
would not be allowed for food use at all.
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
