Sara Lee, 2012, 20% discussed on One Life Radio


The mix and Stephanie San F PhD We are broadcasting live from Dallas, Texas and I heart media as well as Southern California on ABC News Talk on K M E T. Stephanie, son of she's an amazing woman. She is a senior research scientist at MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. She has a bachelor's bachelor's degree in biology with a minor and food and nutrition and a master's degree engineer's degree and PhD in electrical engineering. And computer science, all from MIT. She has authored over three dozen peer reviewed journal papers on topics relating human disease to nutritional deficiencies and toxic exposures, focusing specifically on the herbicide glyphosate and the mineral sulfur. Dr. Sun Up is the author of the book Taxus Toxic. Legacy How the weedkiller glyphosate is destroying our health and the environment. The book that we are discussing today you can find Dr Senneff at Stephanie Sun if and that's on Twitter and on Facebook at Stephanie dot senate 0.0.5 Such an honor and a pleasure to have you back. How are you doing today? Dr San? If I'm doing great. Thank you for having me always a pleasure. Always a pleasure. I'm so I'm so thrilled to continue our conversation about this. So glyphosate was first patented in 1961 by the staffer Chemical Company as a key leading agent to strip mineral deposits off of pipes. Were there any policies in place at that time? Dr San F to test for potentially harmful ingredients. Well, No, I don't think at that time they were even thinking about it, Um, being toxic cause they weren't thinking of exposure to humans, so they there was no clue. Mhm. Well. So so and so in an N 1968 it was patented by Monsanto is an agricultural herbicide. And so how did they know that this key leading agent would work as a pesticide? That's quite surprising, and it was really just by accident that someone happened. I think it was like spilled on some plants, and they died type of thing. It was one of these kind of like penicillin, where there was an accidental discovery. Then they thought. Oh, great. This maybe we can use this as an herbicide. Uh huh. Well, and were there any findings on the dangers of glyphosate, you know, and to to human health by that time? Or at that time. Not yet, but that's when of course, they started trying to find out whether it was okay for humans, and they did conduct some studies. And of course, they went through a process with the FDA. Her approval. And it's EPA for setting, you know, limits of exposure and those sorts of things. So those those processes went on over a period of years. It was then licensed to be used on, uh Are in agriculture in 19. 74 1974 was when it first started appear to appear in the public domain, and people could get it and use it on their yards as well, but it was being used in agriculture. And It was considered to be, uh, to have succeeded in flying colors that basically that's toxicity. Studies show that it was a wonderful chemical that was completely harmless to humans and devastating to all plants are basically kills all plants except for those That have been engineered to resist it. And that's what happened in the late 19 nineties. Was that came up with this GMO technology, and it was really after that time. That it started to become a serious problem, because before that, they weren't able to use it that much because it would kill the plant would kill profits. Hmm. Where's the process? Look like for FDA approval when it comes to a chemical like this, and has it changed over the years? Yeah, I mean, the process basically involves having the company that's producing the product be responsible for the toxicity tests, and that's kind of like having the Fox watch the henhouse because they don't they don't want it to become to be toxic. And they can design their experiments so as to live to hide the evidence. And this is exactly what they've done. In my opinion. Uh, you know, the studies are not done properly and particularly in the GMOs, for example, when they evaluate the GMOs for their toxicity. Remarkably, they didn't use glyphs on the plants that had the GMO gene that protected them from black. So obviously you're going to use black with it when you use it in the real world, but in evaluating whether the GMOs were safe They didn't put any guy for a seat on the plants, which is shocking. You know, that's just example. And then God state itself. They mix it up with formulations. And that surfactants and things that make it much, much more toxic to the planet. So it can kill Louise faster, And when they evaluated it, they evaluated it all by itself. They didn't put any of those things in there when they did the evaluation studies. The other issue was they didn't wait long enough. And this is an important thing for glad for that, because gradually slow kill, and they decided they made a rule. Oh, if you don't see any evidence of toxicity by three months. And that's great. You're good to go, you know and like states of slow kill doesn't start to show up until four months and that was found out in 2012 much later after had already been on the market for a long time. Sara Lee needed a really important study his team where they exposed rats to levels of glyphosate that were identical basically to the experiments that had been done previously to get the approval. And previously they've done it for three months. So they did it for the entire lifespan of the right of the Ratched. Low dose gripe. Is it three months? Everything's good. Four months you start to see trouble by the end of the experiment that the females have massive Memory tumors. There was kidney disease, liver disease, reproductive issues. Early death. Lots of things showed up, but it took time. What country uses the most. The United States uses by far I think the most purpose in weeks we consume 20% of the world's life is eight with 4% of the world's population. Wow. Wow! Wow. Wow. So Monsanto patented glyphosate again? I didn't I did not know this. So I read your book in 2000 to be used as an oral antibiotic. That seems absolutely just just crazy like it's like it's can't be true. Yeah, it was. That's true is bad, two dozen antimicrobial agent and they were arguing that it could be useful to control pathogens. A problem with that is that it actually kills the beneficial bacteria a lot better than it kills the pathogen. And that's been shown in studies. So there's lots of studies coming out now that are showing damage.

Coming up next