Skip to main content

What We Already Knew

A major study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, found a significant reduction in cancer risk in those individuals who eat lots of organic food. If you want to be one of those individuals, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) suggests you refrain from eating oat-based cereals made by General Mills or Quaker. Here's why:

The EWG hired Anresco Laboratories to test samples of 28 different breakfast products made by Quaker and General Mills. In all but 2 of the products tested, the amount of Monsanto's weed killer Roundup was found at levels that endanger the lives of children, i.e., higher than 160 parts per billion (ppb)*. As you no doubt recall, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) deems the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, "probably carcinogenic to humans." This decision was reached after the review, in 2015, of U.S., Canadian, and Swedish epidemiological studies of glyphosate. Real-world exposures and genotoxicity were the basis for these studies. Genotoxicity is the damaging effect a chemical can have on DNA. The damage triggers mutations in DNA that can lead to cancer.

In contrast, the EPA has found the amounts of glyphosate in these oat-based breakfast products to be acceptable. Their research is based upon studies paid for by Monsanto that ignore independent research connecting Roundup with genotoxicity. Since the literature review of 2015, an additional 26 of 27 published studies report that glyphosate can be genotoxic. The FDA did not release its own glyphosate tests for more than a year, which were not conducted on oats or wheat. This oversight is unfortunate, because both constitute the main crops to which glyphosate is applied as a pre-harvest drying agent. Both the makers of the breakfast products in question defend the use of contaminated oats, stating the glyphosate found on them falls at or below federal standards.

It should be noted that the EPA's standards for pesticides are heavily influenced by lobbying done by the food industry. The government's standards do not change as often as they should, and are frequently outdated, rather than being based upon the best and most recent research. If your family has a proclivity for cancer, as mine does, you will want to take the advice of the authors of that major study cited at the beginning of this article to heart. Eat all the organic foods you can grow or lay your hands on!

*a standard established by the EWG

With thanks to the Environmental Working Group.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Time to be Scared

November 26, 2018 You've heard by now that the US Global Change Research Program released its Fourth National Climate Assessment last Friday. Scientists are, at last, confident enough to say that climate change is the new reality. How very much I wish they had published this bold assertion many years ago, rather than always being hesitant (" . . . we're 73% sure this could happen . . ."). While I know the politics involved cannot be allowed to sway them, and that scientists are unaccustomed to speaking for the masses, their inability to convince the scientifically uneducated of the value in climate change hypotheses has hurt us all. In any event, they have now spoken up loudly and clearly. According to NOAA, one of the 13 government agencies responsible for the Assessment, we can expect the following, should mitigating actions not be taken immediately: - Human health and safety, quality of life, and economic growth will all suffer.        The 2014 Assessment c...

A Rock and a Hard Place

October 8, 2012 - Such a pickle: we have the coal, but no longer want to burn it.  China wants the coal, but shouldn't burn it because of the resulting air pollution.  Coal mining companies in the U.S. are ready and waiting to ship their coal to China.  Citizens of the U.S. living on its west coast are adamant they want nothing to do with exporting coal.  That includes Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber.  Kitzhaber's April 25 letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar expresses his profound skepticism about shipping coal by way of Oregon's ports.  He has requested that a programatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) first be conducted for all five of the export projects currently being considered, as well as a comprehensive policy review.  Here is part of a press release announcing his letter: "I have concerns about proceeding in this direction [exporting coal to China via Oregon ports] in the absence of a full national discussion about the ramif...