Thirty people tested discover the omnipresence of Glyphosate in their bodies

French NGO Générations Futures finds 100% people tested in France are exposed to glyphosate

To what extent are the French exposed to glyphosate – the world’s best-selling herbicide? generations-futures, 6 April 2017.

Image © credit Claire Robert.

Paris/Brussels, 6 April 2017 – Thirty human “guinea-pigs” entrusted samples of their urine to Générations Futures for testing for traces of the famous glyphosate, one of the active molecules in the herbicide, RoundUp®.

The results? All 100% of the samples contain residues of this herbicide, which is a “probable carcinogen” according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

Context

Glyphosate is the world’s most widely used active ingredient in herbicides. In March 2015, a few months before the European authorisation of glyphosate was due to expire, experts at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen”. EU regulations prohibit the use of pesticides that are classified as carcinogens or probable carcinogens. However, EU regulations refer to EU classification for carcinogenicity not to that of IARC.

Originally, when the authorisation of glyphosate expired, the European Commission proposed allowing its sale for a further 14 years. But this proposition, which was widely criticised by NGOs and civil society, did not receive the support of the Member States. In the end, the Commission was obliged to extend the approval for only 18 months and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) was asked to publish an opinion on the safety of glyphosate the spring of this year. On 15 March 2017, a summary of this opinion was published clearing glyphosate of any carcinogenic risk for humans! The ball is now in the European Commission’s court as it will soon make a new proposal to the Member States.

The survey

It is against this backdrop that Générations Futures wanted to learn more about the extent to which the French are exposed to this widely used herbicide. We chose to carry out a urine analysis of 30 people, including men and women between the ages of eight and 60 years old, living in the city and in the countryside and with a varied diet, organic and non-organic, vegetarian and non-vegetarian. A certain number of well-known people agreed to participate. Analysis was carried out with help of an ELISA test.

Results?

Our investigation demonstrates the omnipresence of this dangerous molecule in our bodies.

  • 100% of the samples analysed contained glyphosate at a concentration above the lowest limit of quantification (LoQ = 0.075ng/ml).
  • The average concentration of glyphosate found in the samples was 1.25 ng/ml urine.
  • The sample with the lowest value was at 0.09 ng/ml and the highest value was 2.89 ng/ml, which is 32.11 times higher than the lowest value.
  • Twenty-nine of the 30 samples (96.66%) contained concentrations that were above the maximum allowable pesticide concentration in water (0.1 ng/ml).

“Unfortunately, these tests confirmed what we feared having consulted surveys undertaken elsewhere in Europe and around the world: we are all contaminated with glyphosate. It is indeed time for the European authorities to become aware of the urgency to act, and to finally forbid this molecule considered likely to be carcinogenic to humans by the International Agency for Research on Cancer!”

says Francois Veillerette, spokesperson for Générations Futures.

“Not all the cards are played yet. We can still stop the authorisation of this substance. We therefore invite citizens to take action and join the 500,000 Europeans who have already signed the European Citizens’ Initiative calling for the banning of this dangerous molecule,”

he concludes.

The Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) is also calling for a ban on glyphosate. Génon K. Jensen, Executive Director at the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) says:

“This study shows that all those tested in France have been exposed to glyphosate. This means that, in all likelihood, all Europeans are contaminated – potentially elevating everyone’s risk of cancer. “The evidence against glyphosate is piling up all the time. National governments face the decision at the end of this year whether to continue allowing glyphosate in Europe. We urge everyone to tell their governments to put preventing cancers first.”

Contacts
Générations Fuures EXPPERT Surveys
  1. EXPPERT Survey 1: Which endocrine disrupting insecticides are children exposed to everyday? Press release, Brussels, 25 March 2013.
  2. EXPPERT Survey 2: Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals and banned Pesticides in strawberries. Press release, 25 March 2013.
  3. EXPPERT Survey 3: How are children exposed to Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals?Press release, 9 July 2014.
  4. EXPPERT Survey 4: Nineteen endocrine disrupting pesticides found in samples of women’s hair. Press release, 12 March 2015. Our blog.
  5. EXPPERT Survey 5: Pesticides that are banned or suspected to be EDCs are found in green salads. Press release, 22 September 2015. Our blog.
  6. EXPPERT Survey 6: Homes close to pesticide spraying show all year exposure. Press release, 1 March 2016. Our blog.
  7. EXPPERT Survey 7: Exposure to endocrine-disrupting pesticides. What are the exposures in daily life? Press release, 11 October 2016. Our blog.
  8. EXPPERT Survey 8: Exposure to endocrine-disrupting pesticides in water. Press release, 8 January 2017. Our blog.
  9. EXPPERT Survey 9: Seven French celebrities discover their contamination from endocrine disruptors. Press release, 24 February 2017. Our blog.

Can glyphosate residues in food cause fatty liver disease, obesity, diabetes and ‘metabolic syndrome’ ?

Multiomics reveal non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in rats following chronic exposure to an ultra-low dose of Roundup herbicide

2017 Study Abstract

The impairment of liver function by low environmentally relevant doses of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) is still a debatable and unresolved matter.

Previously we have shown that rats administered for 2 years with 0.1 ppb (50 ng/L glyphosate equivalent dilution; 4 ng/kg body weight/day daily intake) of a Roundup GBH formulation showed signs of enhanced liver injury as indicated by anatomorphological, blood/urine biochemical changes and transcriptome profiling.

Roundup residues in food cause fatty liver disease, the ecologist, 9th January 2017.

Image credit chafermachinery.

Here we present a multiomic study combining metabolome and proteome liver analyses to obtain further insight into the Roundup-induced pathology. Proteins significantly disturbed (214 out of 1906 detected, q < 0.05) were involved in organonitrogen metabolism and fatty acid β-oxidation. Proteome disturbances reflected peroxisomal proliferation, steatosis and necrosis. The metabolome analysis (55 metabolites altered out of 673 detected, p < 0.05) confirmed lipotoxic conditions and oxidative stress by showing an activation of glutathione and ascorbate free radical scavenger systems. Additionally, we found metabolite alterations associated with hallmarks of hepatotoxicity such as γ-glutamyl dipeptides, acylcarnitines, and proline derivatives.

Overall, metabolome and proteome disturbances showed a substantial overlap with biomarkers of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and its progression to steatohepatosis and thus confirm liver functional dysfunction resulting from chronic ultra-low dose GBH exposure.

Inert ingredients listed in Glyphosate-based chemicals found to add up to the toxic cocktail

New evidence about the dangers of glyphosate-based herbicides

New Evidence About the Dangers of Monsanto’s Roundup, the intercept, May 17 2016.

Roundup image via London Permaculture.

Until recently, the fight over Roundup has mostly focused on its active ingredient, glyphosate. But mounting evidence shows it’s not only glyphosate that’s dangerous, but also chemicals listed as “inert ingredients” in some formulations of Roundup and other glyphosate-based weed killers. Though they have been in herbicides — and our environment — for decades, these chemicals have evaded scientific scrutiny and regulation in large part because the companies that make and use them have concealed their identity as trade secrets.

Abstract

Co-Formulants in Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Disrupt Aromatase Activity in Human Cells below Toxic Levels, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 26 February 2016.

Pesticide formulations contain declared active ingredients and co-formulants presented as inert and confidential compounds.

We tested the endocrine disruption of co-formulants in six glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH), the most used pesticides worldwide. All co-formulants and formulations were comparably cytotoxic well below the agricultural dilution of 1% (18–2000 times for co-formulants, 8–141 times for formulations), and not the declared active ingredient glyphosate (G) alone.

The endocrine-disrupting effects of all these compounds were measured on aromatase activity, a key enzyme in the balance of sex hormones, below the toxicity threshold. Aromatase activity was decreased both by the co-formulants alone (polyethoxylated tallow amine—POEA and alkyl polyglucoside—APG) and by the formulations, from concentrations 800 times lower than the agricultural dilutions; while G exerted an effect only at 1/3 of the agricultural dilution.

It was demonstrated for the first time that endocrine disruption by GBH could not only be due to the declared active ingredient but also to co-formulants. These results could explain numerous in vivo results with GBHs not seen with G alone; moreover, they challenge the relevance of the acceptable daily intake (ADI) value for GBHs exposures, currently calculated from toxicity tests of the declared active ingredient alone.

Want to drink some cancerous Roundup? Try some California wine…

Glyphosate found in 100% of California wines tested, even in some labeled as organic

In a recent project, an individual and Moms Across America supporter sent ten wines, including organic and biodynamic, to be tested for glyphosate based herbicides…

On March 16th, 2016 Moms Across America received results from an anonymous supporter which commissioned Microbe Inotech Lab of St.Louis, Missouri that showed all ten of the wines tested positive for the chemical glyphosate, the declared “active” ingredient in Roundup weed killer and 700 other glyphosate ­based herbicides. The highest level of glyphosate detected was up to 28.4 times higher than the other wines at 18.74 ppb from a 2013 Cabernet Sauvignon from a conventional, chemically farmed vineyard. The lowest level was from a bio dynamic and organic vineyard, 2013 Syrah, which has never been sprayed according to the owner, with a level of .659 ppb. An organic wine from 2012 mixed red wine grapes, had 0.913 ppb of glyphosate.

More information
  • Widespread Contamination of Glyphosate Weedkiller in California Wine, MomsAcrossAmerica report, March 24th, 2016.
  • How Do Glyphosate Based Herbicides Contaminate Crops?, MomsAcrossAmerica, APRIL 01, 2016.
  • Watch our pesticides video playlist on YouTube.

Glyphosate studies: expert opinion proves a systematic misinterpretation

Environmentalists press charges against Monsanto and EU regulatory authorities

The Munich Environmental Institute (Umweltinstitut München) and Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Germany join PAN Europe and 5 EU environmental organisations in their legal proceedings against those responsible for the assessment of glyphosate in Europe (Monsanto, German government institute –BfR – and European Food Safety Authority-EFSA).

The EU environmental organizations, in an initiative taken by Global 2000 Austria file new evidence to the state attorney in Berlin today showing that the responsible institutions misinterpreted research studies during the assessment procedure in order to conceal the carcinogenic risks associated with glyphosate and facilitate its re-approval.

Environmentalists press charges against Monsanto and EU regulatory authorities, pan-europe, April 21, 2016.

Epidemiologist Prof. Dr. Eberhard Greiser of the University of Bremen emphasizes BfR rejected almost all epidemiological studies on the carcinogenicity of glyphosate for unfounded reasons, disqualifying them as “not reliable”. According to Greiser,

“BfR applied the incorrect methods for analysing and rejecting these studies and EFSA approved them. These provide evidence that would hinder the re-approval of glyphosate.”

An earlier analysis undertaken by toxicologist Peter Clausing (PAN Germany) had already shown that studies submitted by the industry on carcinogenicity using laboratory mice had been falsely evaluated, and significant evidence of carcinogenicity in the animals had been concealed.

“Two of these mice studies on carcinogenicity were also evaluated by IARC experts who in contrast to BfR, accepted the significant incidence of tumours as relevant”

says Angeliki Lysimachou of Pesticides Action Network Europe.

In its final assessment the BfR accepted that the IARC/WHO findings were correct, and admitted to having simply adopted the statistical evaluations presented by the industry but still, both BfR and EFSA kept their conclusion that glyphosate is “non-carcinogenic”. In response, in an open letter to the EU commission 94 respected scientists criticised the BfR and EFSA’s assessment as “scientifically unacceptable”, “fundamentally flawed” and “misleading.

“The large number of weaknesses in the licensing procedure of glyphosate give the impression that the authorities and manufacturers have been working hand in hand to keep glyphosate on the EU market by all means,”

says Sophia Guttenberger, biologist and adviser on consumer protection at the Environmental Institute in Munich.

“If there has been deliberate manipulation of the new licensing procedure for glyphosate with the intention of approving a carcinogenic substance, then this would be defrauding 508 million EU citizens,”

states Viennese lawyer Dr. Josef Unterweger.

A critique on the rejection of Epidemiology studies by EU athorities, PAN Europe, 5 April 2016.

For this reason Dr. Unterweger is pressing charges on behalf of Munich Environmental Institute and the six environmental organisations: Global 2000, Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Europe, PAN Germany, PAN UK, Générations Futures (France), WeMove Europe, and Nature & Progrès Belgique. A report will also be submitted to OLAF, the European anti-fraud office.

Seven Reasons why Glyphosate should be Banned

WHAT IS GLYPHOSATE, AND WHY SHOULD YOU BE WORRIED ABOUT IT?

fiel-after-glyphosate-use
Field after glyphosate application…

Seven Reasons To Ban Glyphosate, It’s Time To Stand Up To Monsanto!, eat-better.greens-efa.eu, 26.02.2016.

Glyphosate is a chemical used in herbicides such as Monsanto’s Roundup and recently became the most used agricultural chemical of all time. Despite this, there’s a good chance you won’t have heard of it, and the chemical giants would probably be happy if it stayed that way.

Why? Well, in addition to being so extensively used, glyphosate has also proven to be highly controversial, with serious concerns being raised about its safety. The licence for its use in the EU expires at the end of June, giving the European Commission a perfect opportunity to ban it.

Unfortunately, the Commission appears to have made up its mind already, and has brought forward a proposal to extend the license until 2031. This will be the subject to the approval of a meeting of EU government officials on 7-8 March. With the Commission apparently keen to push this through in a hurry, it is vital that the arguments in opposition to its renewal are aired as soon as possible.

Here are our seven reasons why glyphosate should be banned in the EU.

  1. IT COULD BE SERIOUSLY DAMAGING YOUR HEALTH
    There is an ongoing and heated scientific debate as to whether or not glyphosate is carcinogenic. While the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer has concluded that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic in humans“, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) found the opposite. Glyphosate-based herbicides are used not only in agriculture, but also in public and private gardens, potentially putting both farmers as well as consumers at risk.
    Studies also show that herbicides containing the chemical act like endocrine disrupters – substances which play havoc with our hormones, and which can impact on fertility.
    The EU should ban glyphosate until it is proven to be safe.
  2. IT’S A THREAT TO ANIMALS AND PLANTS, TOO
    It’s not just human health that may suffer as a result of glyphosate. EFSA found a high long-term risk to animals, including farm animals such as cows and sheep. The German Environment Agency has also found significant adverse effects on biodiversity due to pesticides in general and glyphosate in particular. Glyphosate does not only kill target weeds, but also useful herbage in and close to fields treated with glyphosate.
    Given the risks glyphosate presents to animals and biodiversity, the EU should reject its license.
  3. GMOS AND GLYPHOSATE ARE TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN
    In many ways glyphosate and GMOs can be seen as two sides of the same coin. Of the 61 GMOs authorised in EU for import, more than half of them are glyphosate tolerant plants, designed to be used with that specific herbicide. They are both tools for the same kind of agriculture – one that is intensive, harmful to the environment and health, and bad for the local rural economy. Many cases of cancer and physical deformities have been reported in people and animals in South America, where extensive areas of land have been planted with glyphosate-tolerant GM soya in order to export animal feed to Europe.
    By rejecting glyphosate, we can stand up for the health of people in the EU and beyond, the environment, show support for local economies and stop the expansion of GMOs.
  4. THE EXPANSION OF HARM
    Glyphosate is harmful all by itself. But herbicides such as Roundup contain a cocktail of chemicals that can be more toxic than glyphosate alone, with even more risks for farmers as well as the general public.
    In addition, glyphosate-resistant “super weeds” have already spread in the USA and Canada due to overuse of Roundup applied on glyphosate-resistant GM crops. To stop the proliferation of these super weeds, even more resistant genetically engineered plant variety have been approved for commercial use that are resistant to multiple herbicides, including possibly more toxic and environmentally disruptive than glyphosate.
    Approving the use of glyphosate comes with a range of additional risks which can also be avoided by a ban.
  5. GAPS IN THE EVIDENCE
    EFSA indicated as a ‘critical concern’ that eight out of 24 applicants, including Monsanto, presented specifications for glyphosate that were not supported by the toxicological assessment. In other words, the test data these applicants provided were for substances other than those they actually want to sell. In addition, EFSA’s report listed 22 data gaps in the evidence.
    Given the known and probable risks to human and animal health due to glyphosate, we should ensure we have all the necessary evidence before approving it for such wide use.
  6. LACK OF TRANSPARENCY
    Not only are there gaps in the evidence, key studies are being hidden from public scrutiny. Key conclusions of EFSA’s report with regard to the carcinogenicity of glyphosate are based on those unpublished studies, which were produced by the industry themselves. It is unacceptable that these unpublished studies are being allowed to outweigh the publically available information.
    Further, more than 80% of the national experts involved in the EU’s assessment of glyphosate refused to have their names disclosed to the public, thereby avoiding any assessment of possible conflicts of interests.
    The Commission should not be allowing glyphosate to remain in use on the basis of secret, industry funded reports assessed by people who won’t publicly declare their interests.
  7. THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES!
    Organic farmers have demonstrated the same thing time and time again – glyphosate is not necessary for productive farming. The farming of the future is working with nature not against it. It relies on high biodiversity and a high variety of crops and structures, crucially avoiding the vast monocultures that attract pests in the first place, or the continuous cropping on fields that allows the pests to build up in soil and vegetation.
    The use of Glyphosate is linked to a highly intensive agriculture that is simply not sustainable. There are safer, non-chemical alternatives to glyphosate which are equally effective ways of tackling weeds (see statement by German Environment Agency).
    For this reason, and for all the others set out above, glyphosate’s license must be rejected.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

While the Commission seems keen to steam ahead with another 15 years of glyphosate, we still have an opportunity to block their proposal.

  • Please contact your Minister in charge and ask her/him to block this move.
  • If you would like to read about about glyphosate in more detail, or to see references, please see this comprehensive briefing, available on eat-better.greens-efa.eu website

Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globall

New analysis: no pesticide comes remotely close to the intensive and widespread use of glyphosate

glyphosate-pounds-applied
Genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant crops now account for about 56% of global glyphosate use.

Abstract

Environmental Sciences Europe, DOI 10.1186/s12302-016-0070-0, 02 February 2016.

Background
Accurate pesticide use data are essential when studying the environmental and public health impacts of pesticide use. Since the mid-1990s, significant changes have occurred in when and how glyphosate herbicides are applied, and there has been a dramatic increase in the total volume applied.

Methods
Data on glyphosate applications were collected from multiple sources and integrated into a dataset spanning agricultural, non-agricultural, and total glyphosate use from 1974–2014 in the United States, and from 1994–2014 globally.

Results
Since 1974 in the U.S., over 1.6 billion kilograms of glyphosate active ingredient have been applied, or 19% of estimated global use of glyphosate (8.6 billion kilograms). Globally, glyphosate use has risen almost 15-fold since so-called “Roundup Ready”, genetically engineered glyphosate-tolerant crops were introduced in 1996. Two-thirds of the total volume of glyphosate applied in the U.S. from 1974 to 2014 has been sprayed in just the last 10 years. The corresponding share globally is 72%. In 2014, farmers sprayed enough glyphosate to apply ~1.0 kg/ha (0.8 pound/acre) on every hectare of U.S.-cultivated cropland and nearly 0.53 kg/ha (0.47 pounds/acre) on all cropland worldwide.

Conclusions
Genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant crops now account for about 56% of global glyphosate use. In the U.S., no pesticide has come remotely close to such intensive and widespread use. This is likely the case globally, but published global pesticide use data are sparse. Glyphosate will likely remain the most widely applied pesticide worldwide for years to come, and interest will grow in quantifying ecological and human health impacts. Accurate, accessible time-series data on glyphosate use will accelerate research progress.

Stop unecessary pesticide use in Bristol parks and streets

Living in the “Green Capital”, Bristolians really need to sort this out and move with the times

SPRAYING-MONSANTO-GLYPHOSATE banner image
STOP SPRAYING MONSANTO GLYPHOSATES ON BRISTOL’S STREETS AND PARKS!
SIGN THE PETITION!

TO: BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL & GEORGE FERGUSON, MAYOR OF BRISTOL

Please ban the spraying of Monsanto’s Roundup and other glyphosate herbicides on the streets and parks of Bristol.

Why is this important?

Bristol Council currently uses four glyphosate herbicides including Monsanto’s Roundup on our streets and parks. This is despite the fact that the World Health Organisation (WHO) has identified glyphosate as likely to cause cancer in humans. The WHO finding sits alongside a wealth of existing evidence that raises alarming questions marks over the long term safety of exposure to glyphosate both on its own and in combination with other chemicals found in formulas such as Roundup.

The use of glyphosates has already been banned or restricted in 8 countries. It is not acceptable that ourselves, our children and the animals we share this city with are being routinely exposed to these chemicals whether we like it or not.

If Bristol is to have any credentials as the current European Green Capital, it must exercise the precautionary principle and follow the example of cities such as Chicago, Paris and Rotterdam by banning this spraying in public places.

This is a matter of great importance for those of us who care about each other’s health and the health of our children, our cats, our dogs and all the flora and fauna of this city, of course including our beloved bees.

For more information see this article from The Bristol Cable.

There are viable safe alternatives to glyphosates. The Netherlands have outright banned glyphosates in public spaces and are using a hot water treatment instead. A hot water and foam method is also available in the UK and Bristol Council is already aware that this can be a more effective alternative than hot water on its own. Glyphosates are the cheapest option but we must send the message loud and clear that value is not just about price and that the health and safety issues around glyphosate render its ‘cheap and easy’ status irrelevant. Other effective methods may cost more in cash terms but represent far better value to local residents. Using a formula such as Roundup in our public spaces is simply unacceptable no matter how cheap and quick it makes the task of urban weed management.

Have your say and SIGN the petition!

2017 Update

Read Forget the vinegar, the real reek is inaction on glyphosates, thebristolcable, 31st January, 2017.

Glyphosate-based herbicides link to kidney, liver damage at ultra-low doses

More evidence of Roundup’s link to kidney, liver damage

roundup image
Long-term exposure to tiny amounts of Roundup—thousands of times lower than what is permitted in U.S. drinking water—may lead to serious problems in the liver and kidneys, according to a new study.

2015 Study Abstract

Background
Glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) are the major pesticides used worldwide. Converging evidence suggests that GBH, such as Roundup, pose a particular health risk to liver and kidneys although low environmentally relevant doses have not been examined. To address this issue, a 2-year study in rats administering 0.1 ppb Roundup (50 ng/L glyphosate equivalent) via drinking water (giving a daily intake of 4 ng/kg bw/day of glyphosate) was conducted. A marked increased incidence of anatomorphological and blood/urine biochemical changes was indicative of liver and kidney structure and functional pathology. In order to confirm these findings we have conducted a transcriptome microarray analysis of the liver and kidneys from these same animals.

Results
The expression of 4224 and 4447 transcript clusters (a group of probes corresponding to a known or putative gene) were found to be altered respectively in liver and kidney (p < 0.01, q < 0.08). Changes in gene expression varied from −3.5 to 3.7 fold in liver and from −4.3 to 5.3 in kidneys. Among the 1319 transcript clusters whose expression was altered in both tissues, ontological enrichment in 3 functional categories among 868 genes were found. First, genes involved in mRNA splicing and small nucleolar RNA were mostly upregulated, suggesting disruption of normal spliceosome activity. Electron microscopic analysis of hepatocytes confirmed nucleolar structural disruption. Second, genes controlling chromatin structure (especially histone-lysine N-methyltransferases) were mostly upregulated. Third, genes related to respiratory chain complex I and the tricarboxylic acid cycle were mostly downregulated. Pathway analysis suggests a modulation of the mTOR and phosphatidylinositol signalling pathways. Gene disturbances associated with the chronic administration of ultra-low dose Roundup reflect a liver and kidney lipotoxic condition and increased cellular growth that may be linked with regeneration in response to toxic effects causing damage to tissues. Observed alterations in gene expression were consistent with fibrosis, necrosis, phospholipidosis, mitochondrial membrane dysfunction and ischemia, which correlate with and thus confirm observations of pathology made at an anatomical, histological and biochemical level.

Conclusion
Our results suggest that chronic exposure to a GBH in an established laboratory animal toxicity model system at an ultra-low, environmental dose can result in liver and kidney damage with potential significant health implications for animal and human populations.

Sources and More Information
  • More evidence of Roundup’s link to kidney, liver damage, environmentalhealthnews, August 28, 2015.
  • Transcriptome profile analysis reflects rat liver and kidney damage following chronic ultra-low dose Roundup exposure, BioMed Central Ltd, Environmental Health, 2015, 14:70 doi:10.1186/s12940-015-0056-1.