Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

The weed killer Roundup has been linked to diabetes, autism, obesity, heart disease, and cancer

Posted by   + Show Post

 Roundup linked to diabetes, autism, obesity, heart disease, cancer and more

We have been led to believe that Roundup is minimally toxic to humans, but is that really true?
Thu, Apr 25 2013 at 4:03 PM
4  

Photo: Tobyotter/Flickr

One of the things that drives me crazy about living in the city is watching how city workers carelessly spray weeds in public parks, along the sidewalk, and anywhere else they deem weeds unacceptable. As a mother of young children, I don't appreciate the use of weed killers such as Roundup in public areas.

Granted, I have an aversion to chemicals in general, but a recent, peer-reviewed scientific paper that links Roundup to gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer's disease makes me feel that I'm right to voice my concerns
You can read the abstract and download the PDF of the study, which was published in the journal Entropy. Here are a few takeaways.
  • Glyphosate is the active ingredients in Roundup, the worlds' most popular herbicide.
  • While the industry claims that it is minimally toxic to humans, this study argues otherwise.
  • Residues of glyphosates are found in much of the Western diet.
  • Glyphosates inhibit cytochrome enzymes, which play crucial roles in the body, including the detoxification of xenobiotics. This is an overlooked toxicity issue of Roundup.
  • Because glyphosates have this effect on cytochrome enzymes, it enhances the damaging effects of other foodborne chemical residues and environmental toxins.
  • The harmful effects of glyphosates manifest slowly, and over time they damage cellular systems throughout the body.
  • The interference with cytochrome enzymes has a profound effect on our gut biosynthesis, and our serum sulfate transport, which has severe consequences such as gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer, and Alzheimer's disease.
In simple terms, the study is saying that traces of Roundup can be found in foods and that Roundup may make our bodies more susceptible to other environmental toxins.
This is sobering news.
If you have to, I recommend that you choose weeds over toxins in your yard. It breaks my heart to see weed killer sprayed in yards where young children will play. I am going to be looking into some natural weed killer solutions, and I'll let you know what I find.
by on Apr. 26, 2013 at 11:58 AM
Replies (11-20):
survivorinohio
by René on Apr. 26, 2013 at 1:08 PM

Is that all?  I would have thought it was pretty poisonous.

LucyMom08
by Gold Member on Apr. 26, 2013 at 1:11 PM
2 moms liked this
You say toxic is in the dose...we are basically watering our ENTIRE food supply with this stuff...look around at what ailments are becoming more prevalent. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that something is going on...

Quoting LindaClement:

Actually... it's not.

In fact, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of the term 'toxic.'

Toxin is in the dose. Period.

Water is toxic in high dosages. It is not 'still toxic' in reasonable doses.

The most toxic spider venom on the planet is from Daddy Long-legs. Which is hilariously irrelevant because they make so little of it they can't kill a gerbil with a bite.

Quoting GLWerth:

"Minimally Toxic" is still toxic. Just sayin'.


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Sisteract
by Whoopie on Apr. 26, 2013 at 1:14 PM
4 moms liked this

Does no one find it curious that the exact conditions that have risen sharply in our population over the last 15 years can be linked to this toxic susbstance that is now being inserted into seeds? No one finds that link credible, even accounting for the lowering of acceptable parameters for things like BP and blood glucose levels?

Do people really think that chemicals inserted into the food source would not adversely affect human health? Metabolism? Destructive cell growth?  Fertility?

Sisteract
by Whoopie on Apr. 26, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Exactly. 66% of the US populace is overweight- something is definitely wrong.

Quoting LucyMom08:

You say toxic is in the dose...we are basically watering our ENTIRE food supply with this stuff...look around at what ailments are becoming more prevalent. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that something is going on...

Quoting LindaClement:

Actually... it's not.

In fact, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of the term 'toxic.'

Toxin is in the dose. Period.

Water is toxic in high dosages. It is not 'still toxic' in reasonable doses.

The most toxic spider venom on the planet is from Daddy Long-legs. Which is hilariously irrelevant because they make so little of it they can't kill a gerbil with a bite.

Quoting GLWerth:

"Minimally Toxic" is still toxic. Just sayin'.



LucyMom08
by Gold Member on Apr. 26, 2013 at 1:22 PM
I'd like to see a study comparing the EU to us...they have much more stringent standards in relation to food additives, etc...

Quoting Sisteract:

Does no one find it curious that the exact conditions that have risen sharply in our population over the last 15 years can be linked to this toxic susbstance that is now being inserted into seeds? No one finds that link credible, even accounting for the lowering of acceptable parameters for things like BP and blood glucose levels?

Do people really think that chemicals inserted into the food source would not adversely affect human health? Metabolism? Destructive cell growth?  Fertility?

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
LindaClement
by Thatwoman on Apr. 26, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Interestingly, toxicology research doesn't ever involve humans, so it's a ridiculous reference point.

Strangely, someone named Alan Van Dyke is routinely quoted as having studied pholcid venom, with absolutely no hint of it in any scholarly journal or publication of any kind. In fact, his name only comes up as a reference in marketing, not any scholarly field of research I can find anywhere.

But it appears to be true that of the 2000 varieties of spiders ever researched, pholcidae appears to be none of them, at least not in English.

Doesn't change the main point: toxin is in the dose, not the compound.

Quoting kameka:

Ok, how about this:

"Daddy-longlegs spiders (Pholcidae) - Here, the myth is incorrect at least in making claims that have no basis in known facts. There is no reference to any pholcid spider biting a human and causing any detrimental reaction. If these spiders were indeed deadly poisonous but couldn't bite humans, then the only way we would know that they are poisonous is by milking them and injecting the venom into humans. For a variety of reasons including Amnesty International and a humanitarian code of ethics, this research has never been done. Furthermore, there are no toxicological studies testing the lethality of pholcid venom on any mammalian system (this is usually done with mice). Therefore, no information is available on the likely toxic effects of their venom in humans, so the part of the myth about their being especially poisonous is just that: a myth. There is no scientific basis for the supposition that they are deadly poisonous and there is no reason to assume that it is true."

From http://spiders.ucr.edu/daddylonglegs.html


Quoting LindaClement:

Being able to 'harm a human being' has no bearing on the toxicity of the venom. 

Quoting kameka:

Nope



http://insects.about.com/od/noninsectarthropods/f/daddylongvenom.htm




Quoting LindaClement:

Actually... it's not.

In fact, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of the term 'toxic.'

Toxin is in the dose. Period.

Water is toxic in high dosages. It is not 'still toxic' in reasonable doses.

The most toxic spider venom on the planet is from Daddy Long-legs. Which is hilariously irrelevant because they make so little of it they can't kill a gerbil with a bite.

Quoting GLWerth:

"Minimally Toxic" is still toxic. Just sayin'.




ReadWriteLuv
by Silver Member on Apr. 26, 2013 at 1:28 PM
1 mom liked this

Mobile Photo

LucyMom08
by Gold Member on Apr. 26, 2013 at 1:32 PM
I love that project...our grocery store has a decent selection of NON-GMO products...

Quoting ReadWriteLuv:

Mobile Photo

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
LindaClement
by Thatwoman on Apr. 26, 2013 at 1:33 PM
1 mom liked this

Actually, it would appear that it does.

In 1900, the two leading cause of death in men in the Western world were infections and starvation.

We've also been 'watering our entire food supply' with dioxins (the reference I made to paper)... gasoline fumes, wood smoke and ash, tire particles, CFCs, and a huge range of other pollutants for a really long time.

With the exception of lung cancer in women, rates are dropping, which is extremely remarkable because the longer you live the more likely you are to have cancer of some kind, and life expectancy is the highest it has ever been in the history of the world.

Diabetes and obesity are both related to inactivity and hfcs intake. 

Heart attack rates in North America (not Europe, or even Central Europe where pesticides are used like they're in China) have been steadily increasing since the introduction of hydrogenated fats --and the rates rise in direct conjunction with the rise in consumption.

Alzheimers is also not on the rise, only the prevalence of its diagnosis --which is only possible before death because of the non-invasive brain imaging technology that is finally cheap enough for routine use.

When you take a single factor out of the bazillion factors, and 'link' it to diseases that are diffused throughout the population, how exactly do you expect to single out the people who have never been exposed? That is: where is the control group? 

Also known as: prove it, don't 'suggest it' along with a collection of other 'abstract' results.

Can you see what's wrong with the bullet list?

Quoting LucyMom08:

You say toxic is in the dose...we are basically watering our ENTIRE food supply with this stuff...look around at what ailments are becoming more prevalent. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that something is going on...

Quoting LindaClement:

Actually... it's not.

In fact, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of the term 'toxic.'

Toxin is in the dose. Period.

Water is toxic in high dosages. It is not 'still toxic' in reasonable doses.

The most toxic spider venom on the planet is from Daddy Long-legs. Which is hilariously irrelevant because they make so little of it they can't kill a gerbil with a bite.

Quoting GLWerth:

"Minimally Toxic" is still toxic. Just sayin'.



LucyMom08
by Gold Member on Apr. 26, 2013 at 1:34 PM
The entire point to this is that our daily dose of this stuff is massive...and toxic...

Quoting LindaClement:

Interestingly, toxicology research doesn't ever involve humans, so it's a ridiculous reference point.

Strangely, someone named Alan Van Dyke is routinely quoted as having studied pholcid venom, with absolutely no hint of it in any scholarly journal or publication of any kind. In fact, his name only comes up as a reference in marketing, not any scholarly field of research I can find anywhere.

But it appears to be true that of the 2000 varieties of spiders ever researched, pholcidae appears to be none of them, at least not in English.

Doesn't change the main point: toxin is in the dose, not the compound.

Quoting kameka:

Ok, how about this:



"Daddy-longlegs spiders (Pholcidae) - Here, the myth is incorrect at least in making claims that have no basis in known facts. There is no reference to any pholcid spider biting a human and causing any detrimental reaction. If these spiders were indeed deadly poisonous but couldn't bite humans, then the only way we would know that they are poisonous is by milking them and injecting the venom into humans. For a variety of reasons including Amnesty International and a humanitarian code of ethics, this research has never been done. Furthermore, there are no toxicological studies testing the lethality of pholcid venom on any mammalian system (this is usually done with mice). Therefore, no information is available on the likely toxic effects of their venom in humans, so the part of the myth about their being especially poisonous is just that: a myth. There is no scientific basis for the supposition that they are deadly poisonous and there is no reason to assume that it is true."



From http://spiders.ucr.edu/daddylonglegs.html




Quoting LindaClement:

Being able to 'harm a human being' has no bearing on the toxicity of the venom. 

Quoting kameka:

Nope





http://insects.about.com/od/noninsectarthropods/f/daddylongvenom.htm






Quoting LindaClement:

Actually... it's not.

In fact, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of the term 'toxic.'

Toxin is in the dose. Period.

Water is toxic in high dosages. It is not 'still toxic' in reasonable doses.

The most toxic spider venom on the planet is from Daddy Long-legs. Which is hilariously irrelevant because they make so little of it they can't kill a gerbil with a bite.

Quoting GLWerth:

"Minimally Toxic" is still toxic. Just sayin'.




Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN