The next 'must-have' for our food
promises to be 'clean food labels'.
Amidst growing consumer concern about
chemical residues in their food, organic and all-natural foods are
growing in popularity and more than half of US adults are avoiding
artificial ingredients and preservatives. Public awareness of the
agrichemicals in their food has been sharpened by the cancer scare
surrounding Roundup weedkiller and its active ingredient, glyphosate
[1].
Agriculture is one of the worst
polluting industries on the planet, and GM crops, all designed for
use within, and to expand, the chemical-based agricultural business
model, are a continuing pillar of the problem. A huge proportion of
GM crops has been transformed specifically to enable spraying with
glyphosate, and many now withstand other, more obviously harmful,
herbicides, or generate their own artificial insecticides.
GMOs are also a source of 'natural'
supplements, food additives and processing aids [2,3,4].
Are consumers right to be wary?
A recent study found that every kilo of conventionally grown apples creates health problems costing 21 cents due to the effects of pesticides and fungicides. Those 'healthy' red-fleshed GM apples [5] and pristine Arctic GM apples [6] will be just as unclean as any other.
Regulators depend on the manufacturers
to carry out their own safety studies, but biotech and chemical
companies' primary concern is regulatory compliance, not public
health. They can 'prove' the safety of their products by, for
example, carefully designed science and PR [7]; clinical trials are
never carried out. The bottom line is that the test results
submitted to regulators will certainly establish that no (healthy)
man nor (healthy) beast is likely to drop dead after exposure to a
substance, but chronic diseases, such as cancer, which can show up in
just one month or can take twenty years to emerge, are not covered.
In the absence of anything more
scientifically accurate, we're forced to fall back on population
studies.
Surveys of farm workers have revealed
increased cancer in groups most exposed to pure agrichemical
formulations.
A very large epidemiological study
carried out in France during 2009-2016 has provided some other
worrying findings.
Using the self-reported level of
consumption of organic food as an indicator of pesticide exposure,
the survey suggested, overall, organic food eaters were 25% less
likely to develop cancer. The reductions were particularly prominent
in the case of post-menopausal breast cancer (one of the most common
types), non-Hodgsons' Lymphoma (one of the most prevalent unusual
cancers in farm-workers), and all lymphomas (blood cell cancer). The
lymphoma finding is consistent with previous studies of occupational
exposure. Interestingly, the risk reduction was more evident in
obese people, a group recognised as having a high intrinsic cancer
risk. No significant links were noted with bowel or prostate cancer.
The study does not, of course, prove
any cause and effect, but the authors were clear:
"Although our findings need to be confirmed, promoting organic food consumption in the general population would be a promising preventative strategy against cancer".
Retailers, who risk facing a commercial
firing squad if they're deemed to be selling their customers cancer,
are scrambling to avoid any consumer backlash and litigation.
Homebase and B&Q DIY stores are reviewing their
glyphosate-containing garden supply lines. In the US, General Mills
has removed the "100% Natural" label from its oat products
(which have 450 parts per billion unnatural weedkiller), and
is facing legal action for deceptive business practices. Also, in
America, a three-monthly testing programme for "Glyphosate
Residue Free" certification is doing great business.
In Britain, without any GM crops to
service, use of glyphosate has nevertheless increased by an
astonishing 400% in the past twenty years, and one-third of our
crop-growing land is now treated with glyphosate. While at least
four European countries (including France and Germany) are banning or
restricting glyphosate use, our National Farmers' Union (NFU) is
lobbying hard for glyphosate to be retained, and the government seems
to be sitting on the fence. UK dependence on glyphosate is such
that, as reported by Oxford University business analysts, ditching
this one weedkiller would result in a loss of nearly £1billion
annually to our economy, a one-fifth reduction in wheat production
and a more than one-third reduction in oilseed rape, while wiping
£930 million of our GDP.
The biggest scientific problem up until
now has been the difficulty in proving how much of an agrichemical a
person has actually consumed. You can't test everything a person
eats. Blood tests only show exposure over the last two to three
days. Urine tests only show exposure over the previous two to three
weeks. However, recently developed pesticide testing on hair,
which demonstrates exposure over a period of three to four months
looks set to change all that. Hair is easy to collect, transport
and store, and enables continuous cost-effective biomonitoring over a
whole year.
Results of hair analyses across the EU
have so far indicated that on average 60% of us contain pesticide
residues, with a top incidence of 84.6% (Wales!).
OUR COMMENT
The answer?
- Start calculating the real costs of agrichemical use.
- Ban patents on life and on agrichemicals: these are holding our irrational food system and toxic agricultural system together.
- Stop "the massive subsidising of industrial conventional farming and all the pollution (of the environment and our bodies) that come with it" (Scharmer).
- Redirect resources to develop and support regenerative farming systems.
How's that for starters?
Background
[1] GLYPHOSATE IS A PROBABLE CARCINOGEN - May 2015
[2] SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY COMING SOON. IS IT NATURAL? -
October 2014
[3] DELICIOUSLY PINK FISH - January
2019
[4] GM ENZYMES - November 2016
[5] GM WITH THE "WOW FACTOR"
- January 2019
[6] CONVENIENT GM 'ARCTIC' APPLES - July
2017
[7] THE TESTING BARRIER - November 2017
Note.
The French epidemiological study involved nearly 70,000 adult volunteers, 78% of whom were women, mean age at baseline 44.2 years old. Cancer incidence within four years of the baseline was recorded. Populations at the top and bottom quartile of organic food consumption level formed the main comparison. This minimises the inevitable bias of self-reporting and creates a clear distinction between the two dietary groups compared. Confounding factors, which are part-and-parcel of all epidemiological studies were dealt with as comprehensively as possible in line with all such surveys.
Note.
Glyphosate wasn't part of the EU hair survey as the test had not, at the time, been validated for herbicides. However, now that the tests for weedkillers are ready, a very small pilot study of ten hair samples from around the world has shown seven contained glyphosate, six contained glyphosate break-down product 'AMPA', and three contained glufosinate (another GM-related favourite). These results were "surprising to everyone involved" as they are painting a much grimmer picture than did the previous urine tests.
The French epidemiological study involved nearly 70,000 adult volunteers, 78% of whom were women, mean age at baseline 44.2 years old. Cancer incidence within four years of the baseline was recorded. Populations at the top and bottom quartile of organic food consumption level formed the main comparison. This minimises the inevitable bias of self-reporting and creates a clear distinction between the two dietary groups compared. Confounding factors, which are part-and-parcel of all epidemiological studies were dealt with as comprehensively as possible in line with all such surveys.
Note.
Glyphosate wasn't part of the EU hair survey as the test had not, at the time, been validated for herbicides. However, now that the tests for weedkillers are ready, a very small pilot study of ten hair samples from around the world has shown seven contained glyphosate, six contained glyphosate break-down product 'AMPA', and three contained glufosinate (another GM-related favourite). These results were "surprising to everyone involved" as they are painting a much grimmer picture than did the previous urine tests.
SOURCES:
- Kate Harrison, Meet The Next Must-Have Food Label, www.forbes.com, 26.10.18
- Lydia Mulvany, How Much Herbicide Can You Tolerate in Your Food, and for How Long?, Bloomberg, 26.10.18
- Glyphosate Residue Free certification, http://detoxproject.org
- Charles Benbrook: New study showing organic diets cut cancer risk is a big deal. Let's treat it that way, Environmental Health News, 29.10.18
- Mia de Graaf, Pesticide-free organic food lowers your blood cancer risk by 86% - and slashes breast and skin cancer risk by more than a third, study finds, Daily Mail, 22.10.18
- Robert F. Kennedy and Kevin Baum, Monsanto witness admits calculations were wildly wrong, Organic Consumers Association, 9.08.18
- John Naish, Could Britain's most popular garden spray be killing more than your weeds?, Daily Mail, 7.08.18
- Joel Adams, DIY chains "reviewing product ranges" as US court says groundskeeper's cancer was caused by weedkiller, The Telegraph, 11.08.18
- General Mills Remover '100% Natural' Label from Nature Valley Granola Bars, Sustainable Pulse, 27.08.18
- Julia Baudry, et al., October 2018, Association of Frequency of Organic Food Consumption With Cancer Risk, JAMA Internal Medicine 178:12
- Elena C. Hemmler, et al., December 2018, Organic Foods for Cancer Prevention - Worth the Investment?, JAMA Internal Medicine 178:12
- Otto Sharmer, An Apple Shows Just How Broken Our Food System Is, Huffington Post, 27.05.18
- Pesticides found in Hair samples, Report by Institut de Recherche & d'Expertise Scientifique, November 2018
- European Parliament Group Finds Pesticides in Hair Samples Across Europe, Sustainable Pulse, 8.11.18
- Glyphosate Found in Human Hair as Unique Testing Project Releases First Results, Sustainable Pulse, 17.10.18
- General Mills Faces Class Action Lawsuit over Cheerios Glyphosate Cover Up, Sustainable Pulse, 22.08.18
Photo Creative Commons
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.