This article is a brief review of some of the health implications that may be visited on the British population following Brexit, with specific reference to the food and agricultural sectors, and more significantly imports from the USA following any trade agreement.
Leaving the European Union can expose the UK population to the importation of products no longer regulated by EU regulations and open the door to those of differing standards. There are a number concerns that the introduction of genetically modified products, hormones, and other chemical additives–currently not experienced in the UK that previously have been resisted by European regulations—will now impact UK citizens.
Concern about some types of food products has already provoked articles in the mainstream press. The Guardian, writing on Jan 2018, listed what was considered the top concerns by food campaigners:
Chlorinated chicken, hormone-fed beef and bacon produced with additives strong enough to cripple pigs have been listed by British campaigners as three of the top 10 food safety risks posed by a free-trade deal with the US. [i]
Following is a brief review of these items.
An article in the Independent reported on two studies regarding US poultry. The first was a 2013 study by the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control which analysed outbreaks of foodborne illnesses between 1998 and 2008 and found that “more deaths were attributable to poultry than any other commodity”. The second study in 2014, was an investigation by the respected independent US non-profit organisation, Consumer Reports, which found that 97 per cent of 300 chicken breasts it tested from across America contained harmful bacteria which included Salmonella, campylobacter and E. Coli, leading most researchers to believe the chlorine washes were mostly useless.[ii]
Aside from this, the creation of large amounts of chlorine waste is in itself problematic, as is the idea of heating the chlorinated chicken carcass, which is bound to leave some residues—heating these residues will most likely create more harmful chlorinated by-products.
Ractopamine in Pork
Ractopamine is supposed to promote faster and lean muscle growth in the weeks prior to slaughter. According to the U.S. Centre for Food Safety, this drug has had significant health effects.
Ractopamine has also been shown to have significant health impacts on animals. Fed to an estimated 60 to 80 percent of pigs in the U.S. meat industry, ractopamine use has resulted in more reports of sickened or dead pigs than any other livestock drug on the market. Ractopamine effects may include toxicity and other exposure risks, such as behavioural changes and cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, reproductive, and endocrine problems. It is also associated with demonstrations of high-stress levels in animals, “downer” or lame animals, hyperactivity, broken limbs, and death.
They also inform us that based on available evidence, many countries have taken a cautionary approach to the use of ractopamine in their national food systems. Currently, approximately 160 countries ban or restrict ractopamine, including all the nations of the European Union, China, Taiwan, and Russia.[iii]
The Soil Association, lists several concerns about US food imports, and one of them was regarding hormone-treated beef, which raised further concerns for human health:
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows steroid hormone drugs for use in beef production, which has been banned in the EU since 1989. Cattle producers use hormones to induce faster, bigger animal growth but this comes at a cost. In 2003 an EU scientific review concluded that one of the commonly used hormones is carcinogenic. In the event of a US trade deal post-Brexit, hormone-treated beef could be sold in the UK, posing potential public health risks.[iv]
Aside from the potential risks due to hormones, in a previous work, Unhealthy Betrayal, we reviewed the way much of US beef production is now based on feedlots, not on pastureland as previously traditionally reared. This has resulted in a number of problems, such as the much higher use of antibiotics, which can lead to immunity to antibiotics developing in the pathological bacteria that can affect human health—which has led to the super-bug crisis that we have seen in many hospitals. Another problem created by the feedlot system is due to the fact that the cattle are no longer grass-fed, but fed on grain, and much of it currently genetically modified. Aside from the genetic modification, which we will discuss later, the practise of feeding cattle almost entirely on grain has a major impact on their growth. They will grow faster and increase weight faster, but it will produce an animal with much more fat, much less lean meat, and the fat type will be of the form that is much less useful, arguably more problematic for humans to assimilate and create good health. The fat will raise the levels of omega 6 fats, and reduce the levels of omega 3, a more beneficial essential fatty acid that is associated with free-range and grass-fed animals. The meat will also be much lower in the fat-soluble vitamins A and E.[v]
The Extent of US Agriculture Dominated by Genetically Modified Crops
So far EU regulations have kept most genetically modified products out of the UK, except with regard to animal feed.
Whilst it could be argued that allowing animal feed containing genetically modified products has already exposed the UK population to genetically modified ingredients, via the back door, it is beyond the scope of this article to enter into a debate on this point, on the possible health consequences, as there has been no monitoring of this effect by any regulatory authority.
There will certainly be health implications following the importation of food products from America, not just with regard to the animal products, but also due to the fact that there has been a huge growth of agricultural crops that include genetically modified plants and organisms.
Each year the US it seems to be increasing the production of genetically modified (GM) crops, up from 72.9 million hectares in 2016 to 75 million in 2017. [vi] Of the total of 75 million hectares planted the majority was of soybeans and maize (34.05 million hectares and 33.84 hectares respectively). Other modified crops include 4.58 million hectares of biotech cotton, 1.22 million hectares of biotech alfalfa, 876,000 hectares of biotech canola, 458,000 hectares of biotech sugar beet, 3,000 hectares of biotech potato, and some 1,000 hectares each of biotech apples, squash, and papaya. [vii]
This represents significant domination by GM crops making up 94 percent of US soybean acreage, 93 percent of all corn planted, and 96 percent of all cotton (in 2014). This was an increase on the previous year (when the figures were 93 percent of soy, 90 percent of corn, and 90 percent of cotton).
From their introduction in 2008, 95 percent of sugar beets in the United States are now genetically engineered to be herbicide-tolerant of which roughly 55 percent of US sugar production comes from sugar beets. [viii]
The Proportion of Exportable Food Items Containing Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)
Whilst it is known that 93% of Americans believe that GMO’s should be labelled, in most states in the USA they are not, so it is very difficult to know the extent of the infiltration of GMOs into the food supply of the USA. A conservative view is that approximately 75 percent of processed food in the USA currently contains GMOs.
This would suggest that it would be very difficult to ascertain what food imported from the USA contains genetically modified ingredients.
Health Risks Associated with GMOs
It is not my intention to get into an extensive debate about genetically modified organisms or the health issues directly related to this form of biological engineering in this article. For those who would like further information on this important topic, I would refer you to a previous book, Unhealthy Betrayal, in which I have written about some of the more serious health risks, and further in a number of articles on my website www.fundamentalhealth.org [ix]
In this article, we will, however, review some of the health risks involved in these foods in the extent that most of the GM crops are specifically engineered to accommodate higher levels of pesticide use. We can also review how the use of herbicides, such as Atrazine, which has been banned in Europe but used extensively in the USA, could have important implications for UK citizens. Whilst other countries use Atrazine (Australia uses it extensively), we are going to limit our analysis mainly to the USA following proposals for a new trade deal with the UK by the U.S. President Donald Trump.
For those of you who may not be aware of the regulatory issues surrounding the agricultural use of pesticides and herbicides not just in the USA, but globally, a brief review of some of the problems governing the supposed “safe use” of these chemicals might be useful at this stage.
One of the glaring problems created by regulators is the almost total reliance on industry supplied studies and industry supplied data on which to make the decision whether to license a particular chemical for use in agriculture or not. The data provided is not released for public scrutiny which makes it impossible for independent scientists to evaluate. On top of this, the chemical that is under review, which is invariably sold accompanied by a number of other chemicals, supplied to enhance the effect of the original chemical, are not tested at all. This makes no sense as they can have serious impacts on biological systems in their own right and combined with other chemicals can have a synergistic effect that can differ substantially from the effect of the single ingredient tested on its own. That in effect is ignoring the whole point of adding these ingredients that are classed simply as ‘inert’ ingredients. In reality, in many cases, they are hazardous petrochemical products—poisonous in their own right.
Another aspect of the regulatory process that defies logic is the extent of the reliance on industry supplied material, and the almost total disregard for independent scientific studies, in peer-reviewed journals.
In the USA, the body responsible for pesticide and herbicide approval rests with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In Unhealthy Betrayal, I discussed some of the problems confronting the EPA and its approval process. One of the most significant problems the EPA has had to face was its manipulation by the political process and the undue influence of the chemical industry. It is well known that when Ronald Reagan came to power that he appointed officials to posts in the EPA to undermine its work and hamstring the EPA from effectively regulating chemical use in the USA.
For those who are under the illusion that the EPA is an effective regulatory authority keeping America safe, or for those of you simply wishing to be better informed about how chemicals are regulated in the USA, I would recommend the work of E.G. Vallianatos, who worked for the EPA for twenty-five years. In his book, Poison Spring—The Secret History of Pollution and the EPA. Vallianatos documents how during the Reagan years and following subsequent Presidents, the EPA libraries were gutted, their laboratories removed, their incomes slashed and their scientists undermined, causing a massive exodus of staff, leaving behind a shell of what it once was. [x]
Whilst we can extrapolate that the gutting of the EPA has permitted America to be open to criticism for the extent of pollution of its waterways, water supplies, and food—which has had an undoubted effect on the health of its population—other regulators, and their respective populations have not fared a whole lot better, although the European Union (EU), has been better than many at protecting its citizens.
In the next section, we review some of the chemical exposure that may be faced by UK citizens following any US trade deal.
Glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the World
Glyphosate has been the most widely used herbicide in the world for some time. It is increasingly being used in GM crop systems, particularly in the USA, mostly as the herbicide known as Roundup, used on the “Roundup-Ready” crops engineered specifically for its use, both produced by Monsanto.
Glyphosate residue is regularly found in food samples tested in the USA. The non-profit organisation of scientists, the Environmental Working Group, published a study they commissioned which found glyphosate in every sample of popular oat-based cereal and other oat-based foods marketed to children that they tested. Popular oat cereals, oatmeal, granola and snack bars came with a hefty dose of the weed-killing poison in Roundup, according to independent laboratory tests commissioned by EWG. Here is what they found:
Glyphosate, a herbicide linked to cancer by California state scientists and the World Health Organization, was found in all but two of 45 samples of products made with conventionally grown oats. Almost three-fourths of those samples had glyphosate levels higher than what EWG scientists consider protective of children’s health with an adequate margin of safety.
The report worryingly informs us of a more recent development in the use of glyphosate as a desiccant, which involves spraying the crop just before harvest:
Increasingly, glyphosate is also sprayed just before harvest on wheat, barley, oats and beans that are not genetically engineered. Glyphosate kills the crop, drying it out so that it can be harvested sooner than if the plant were allowed to die naturally.[xi]
This development would have the result of increasing the levels of residue on whatever crop it was sprayed on. The EWG informs us that each year more than 250 million pounds of glyphosate are sprayed on American crops primarily on “Roundup-ready” corn (maize) and soybeans genetically engineered to withstand the herbicide.
Vallianatos, from the EPA, informs us of studies published in 2010 that showed glyphosate caused birth defects in frogs and chicken embryos at amounts smaller than usually farmers and gardeners leave on food. He also informs us of earlier studies which revealed further worrying effects that included ‘cancer, endocrine disruption, damage to DNA, and deleterious malformations of the reproductive, neurological, and developmental systems of animals and humans.’[xii]
André Leu, writing in his well-researched volume, Poisoning Our Children—The Parents Guide to the Myths of Safe Pesticides, discusses many of the health effects associated with glyphosate use. He reports on a study on the health of children of people who sprayed glyphosate, which found increased levels of all childhood cancers, including lymphomas such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. He mentions that prior to the 1940s, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma was one of the world’s rarest cancers. Now it is one of the most common, being the third fastest-growing cancer in the United States.[xiii] In Argentina, 300 million litres of Glyphosate is being sprayed annually, approximating the incredible amount of five litres per person—the highest in the world. According to Vandana Shiva, the renowned Biologist, author and activist, the experience in Cordoba, at the epicentre of a health crisis—children are paying a high price for this experiment in agronomy. Cancer rates and birth defects have exploded, six to seven percent of the children being born suffer from malformations. [xiv]
According to Grain, in an article published in 2009, ‘it is estimated that Argentina will be planting soya on a record 18 million hectares, about half of the country’s farming land. Almost all of the soy planted today is Monsanto’s Roundup Ready (RR), a type of soya that has been genetically modified to be resistant to the Roundup herbicide – largely composed of glyphosate – which is also manufactured by Monsanto’. [xv]
I reported previously on the epidemic of illness in South America where many of the genetically modified crops are grown, and crop spraying has reached new heights.[xvi]
It is, however, beyond the scope of this article to undertake an extensive review of any one product, I feel it is important, nevertheless, to review in some degree the chemical challenge faced by US food imports. To undertake this task necessitates offering you information on just a few of the more important products involved.
Atrazine, Banned in Europe
Atrazine, is the second-most widely used herbicide after glyphosate, with 80 million pounds of it applied each year on crops in the USA, with the greatest use on corn, sorghum, and sugarcane.[xvii] Atrazine continues to be one of the most widely used herbicides in Australian agriculture.
Atrazine is well known as a hormone disruptor that has been linked to birth defects and cancer in humans, and contamination of ground, surface, and drinking-water supplies. Already banned in Europe, atrazine was found to cause reproductive harm to mammals and birds in real-world scenarios, with EPA “levels of concern” surpassed nearly 200-fold, according to the new EPA assessment.[xviii]
According to André Leu, atrazine was found in most watercourses and a significant percentage of rain samples in Europe. He mentions Swiss research that demonstrated that some of the rain falling on Europe contained such high levels of pesticides, that it would be illegal to supply it as drinking water. The rain was laced with atrazine, Alachlor, 2,4-D, and other common agricultural chemical sprays. The European Union consequently banned it to prevent further widespread pollution as did Switzerland. Ironically, the maker of atrazine is a Swiss company, Syngenta.[xix]
Vallianatos reports on some of the hazardous effects associated with atrazine, such as compromising the immune system of animals and increasing their susceptibility to disease. He also reports of the work of Tyrone Hayes, professor of Biology at the University of California whose research convinced him atrazine should be banned. He found it to be a potent endocrine disruptor that also sterilized wildlife. He found that at concentrations of as little as 0.1 parts per billion atrazine could turn tadpoles into hermaphrodites. He also maintained “Atrazine induces breast and prostate cancer, retards mammary development, and induces abortion in laboratory animals.” He further warns “Studies in human populations and cell tissue studies suggest that atrazine poses similar threats to humans.” He also found that atrazine exposure is associated with decreased sperm counts and reduced fertility in humans. [xx]
The Infamous Herbicide 2,4-D
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) first came to many people’s attention following the Vietnam war when its use with another agent, 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T) (two widely used herbicides in the USA), used mixed as a fifty-fifty compound (named as Agent Orange) was used as a defoliant over millions of acres of Vietnam. Whilst it was originally developed during World War Two as a biological defoliant agent, Vietnam was where its first major use as a defoliant was.
Following exposure to these chemicals, illnesses developed in the southern Vietnamese civilian population and American Vietnam Veterans. It is estimated that in Vietnam alone, more than 400,000 people died or were maimed, and half a million children were born with birth defects. Accurate figures, however, are hard to come across, as little in the way of records have been released by either the Vietnamese or American authorities. Agent Orange was originally developed during World War Two as a biological warfare defoliant agent. [xxi]
What we do know for a certainty, is that the production of these herbicides produce a lethal compound called dioxin, a contaminant of the production process. Whilst there are a number of dioxins (a group of more than two hundred chemicals) the one that concerns us here is 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (or 2378-TCDD), which according to many authorities is one of the most acutely toxic molecules known to man. There is no known safe level of exposure, it is so toxic, where toxins are measured in parts per million, some are measured in parts per billion, TCDD is measured in parts per trillion as it is considered so dangerous. It is virtually indestructible, which means our bodies cannot break it down, and it is very persistent in the environment, with a half-life of seven years.
In Unhealthy Betrayal, we discussed dioxin creation, in the production of Phenoxy Herbicides, its link with PCBs and the manufacture of plastics, as in Polyvinylchloride (PVC), paper pulp mills as a bleaching agent and its creation by heating.[xxii] Whilst this chemical needs a much greater understanding, we will discuss simply its relationship with herbicide use in the USA. 2,4-D is used in over 1500 herbicide products. In October 2014, the EPA registered the “Enlist Duo” herbicide containing 2,4-D and glyphosate as a combination.
Information on the health risks is coming to light more in recent years due to the EPA being censured about dioxin and 2,4-D in previous years. Vallianatos reveals the ‘EPA suppressed information that might have threatened the marketability of 2,4-D, and the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs did their best not to compensate the thousands of veterans of the Vietnam War who claimed that dioxin exposure had caused their cancer or other crippling afflictions’.
Nevertheless, the EPA did acknowledge that TCDD’s acute toxicity kills animals at “lower levels than any other man-made chemical.” Vallianatos adds ‘In addition, TCDD initiates and promotes cancer at a potency 17 million times greater than that of benzene, 5 million times greater than carbon tetrachloride, and a hundred thousand times greater than PCBs. TCDD also bioaccumulates in animals at dramatic rates: twenty thousand times greater than benzene, six thousand times greater than carbon tetrachloride, and four times greater than PCBs.’ He also warns us that ‘TCDD in one part per trillion—which is a thousand times smaller than 1 part per billion—is still toxic enough to mutate living entities such as chicken embryos.’ Just to help your understanding this is equivalent to a dilution rate of just one drop in three Olympic-sized swimming pools toxicity. [xxiii]
Giving you information on the health effects of 2,4-D is made more challenging due to its effect as an endocrine disruptor, which, according to the 2002 study by Cavieres, showed that the greatest decrease in the number of embryos and live births in his mice study was at the lowest dose tested. What is concerning here is that this was one-seventh of the U.S. EPA level set for drinking water. [xxiv]
One of the problems with the regulatory approach to reviewing chemicals such as 2,4-D, is that the regulatory authorities dismiss evidence that shows the real effects of its products as used and supplied for use to farmers and the general public. They refuse to see that the combined effect of the dioxin contaminant or the other ingredients of the chemical sprays that we know have a synergistic effect that increases the effectiveness as a herbicide and a defoliant—but also by its very nature has to increase its toxic effect on the environment and humans exposed.
Another glaring omission by regulators is to recognise that for pregnant women, the unborn foetus, and small children their exposure to such potential toxins causes infinitely more health consequences, consequences that can lead to the next generation being damage and even the next.[xxv]
Bt Toxin and GMOs.
In Unhealthy Betrayal, I reported on the introduction of genetically-engineered corn in Germany, and the experiences of Gottfried Glöckner, a farmer who discovered that the Syngenta Bt-176 corn that he fed his cattle resulted in their deaths, destroyed his milk production, and poisoned his farmland. Syngenta’s corn had been engineered to produce a toxin of bacillus Thuringiensis which was claimed to be deadly to an insect—the European Corn-Borer. We reported how for the first three years Glöckner had experienced little problem, but when he increased his production and started to feed his cattle exclusively on the corn, they started getting violent diarrhoea, gluey-white faeces and had blood in their milk. Some of the cattle stopped producing milk, calves started dying and then the cows. He eventually lost most of his herd of seventy cattle.
I devote an entire chapter to the topic of genetically modified food (GM food), and to the research of a number of scientists who were finding problems with this form of agricultural development. We revealed how during the Bush administration, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) declared that GM crops are covered under the terminology as “generally recognised as safe” (GRAS), as long as their producers say they are (which of course they do enthusiastically). Here is what we said:
Given this unsound ‘reassurance’, the FDA does not require safety evaluations or labelling. In fact, a company can even introduce a genetically modified food product without having to inform the FDA. However, according to internal memos at the FDA, the overwhelming consensus amongst its agency scientists, is that GM crops have unpredictable and hard-to-detect side-effects. They urged their superiors to ask for long-term safety studies.[xxvi]
The industry argues that their crops are ‘substantially equivalent’ and therefore it is unnecessary to regulate or label them. The reality is somewhat different as our above example illustrates. This involved the GMO Corn crop by Syngenta, Bt-176 corn. Bt toxins are a family of toxins produced in nature by a soil bacterium—bacillus thuringiensis, which in its natural form has been in use as an organic pesticide, for more than fifty years. Vandana Shiva, the biologist and author, takes the industry to task over their insistence that GMO crops are “substantially equivalent”, by comparing the obvious differences. She explains:
The natural Bt product in the soil bacterium is a pro-toxin which is in an inactive state. It is therefore safe for non-target insects. It is transformed into a toxin in the gut of the caterpillar family of insects. In the genetically engineered Bt plant, the expression of this toxin does not need this pathway. Bt plants contain and artificial, truncated Bt gene and less processing is required to generate the toxin. It is, therefore, less selective and may harm non-target insects that do not have the enzymes to process the pro-toxin.
She further comments that non-target species are being impacted while the target species evolve resistance. She also raises the important point:
The false claim of substantial equivalence by the biotechnology industry has blocked the scientific research that would assess the difference. Science has been supplanted by propaganda.[xxvii]
Reports of animals becoming sick and dying after being fed on Bt cotton plants after the cotton was harvested come to us from India, where traditionally the crops were fed to their animals following harvesting of the cotton.
The fact-finding report noted that while the 4 villages yielded an approximate total mortality of 1820 sheep, with a history of having grazed on Bt cotton, there was urgent need for the government authorities to carry out a detailed investigation of the matter both at the field level, as also carryout further bio-safety studies where they simulated the field condition of animals grazing on harvested Bt cotton fields, so as to assess its impact on animals [xxviii]
The ‘substantially equivalent’ argument simply does not hold water and the health concerns over genetically modified food simply increase as researchers focus their attention on this subject.
Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini undertook the first long-term analysis of the effect of consuming GM food, and his findings should alarm us all. His study was on GM Maize.
This study constitutes a follow-up investigation of a 90-day feeding study conducted by Monsanto to obtain the commercial release of this GMO.
Biochemical analyses confirmed very significant chronic kidney deficiencies, for all treatments and both sexes; 76% of the altered parameters were kidney-related. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times higher. Marked and severe nephropathies were also generally 1.3 to 2.3 times greater. In females, all treatment groups showed a two-to threefold increase in mortality, and deaths were earlier. This difference was also evident in three male groups fed with GM maize. All results were hormone- and sex-dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors more frequently and before controls; the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by consumption of GM maize and Roundup treatments. Males presented up to four times more large palpable tumors starting 600 days earlier than in the control group, in which only one tumor was noted. These results may be explained by not only the non-linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup but also by the overexpression of the EPSPS transgene or other mutational effects in the GM maize and their metabolic consequences.
Séralini concluded that his findings suggested ‘that long-term (2 years) feeding trials need to be conducted to thoroughly evaluate the safety of GM foods and pesticides in their full commercial formulations’. [xxix]
This paper is a short review of some of the issues facing food imports from the USA that should raise serious concerns in the UK, particularly now we understand that the effects of the chemical onslaught we are facing, have generational effects particularly when exposed during more vulnerable times such as during pregnancy, as young children and as gestating infants.
In my view, however, the most significant, yet unquantifiable risk, will undoubtedly be the importation of genetically modified food, as to do this would mean changing the legal restrictions on GMOs, which could open the floodgates, to not just currently available products from America, but, from other countries—and more ominous than that—the establishment of genetically modified crops and food in the UK itself.
What is not currently known is the response of the UK Government to this possibility. At the time of writing, the Conservatives are seeking to elect a new Prime Minister that will purportedly forge a new path enabling the UK to exit from the European Union. How well-informed on the health implications of GMOs will be those who would be responsible for forging new trade deals with the U.S., is not clear. What can be counted on is that the industry behind GMO agriculture with its vast financial resources, its well-rehearsed propaganda machine, and massive lobbying capacity will be brought into play to drive any trade deal in their favour with little consideration for any health consequences if the current experience is anything to go on.
The cynics among us might assume that the government will continue to respond to those who fund their campaigns, whilst simply offering their spin to the media, as seems to be a universal phenomenon. One can only live in hope that one day that politicians will actually take the issue of health seriously. The state of UK health is reaching crisis dimensions, threatening the entire fabric and viability of the National Health Service. The extreme pressure on the National Health Service dealing with the costs of dealing with such problems as the massive chemical assault on its citizenry should concern us all. Personally, I hope people will get better informed about such issues, and realise that simply doing nothing about it is not really a sensible option.
Even if you ignore the misery and suffering that the assault of cancer and chronic disease, and the loss of those we love, imposes on society, including the immense emotional burden—the economic costs of this disaster has to be fantastic.
Andrew A D Burgoyne 13th June 2019.
[i]Lisa O’Carroll, “Bacon with banned additive among risks of US-UK trade deal”, The Guardian, Tues 16 Jan, 2018.
[ii] Ben Chapman, “Is chlorinated chicken bad for our health and the environment?” The Independent,
Sunday 3 March 2019.
[iii] Public Interest Groups Challenge FDA on Use of Controversial Animal Growth Drug Center For Food Safety, December 20, 2012. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/740/public-interest-groups-challenge-fda-on-use-of-controversial-animal-growth-drug
[iv] Soil Association’s Top Ten Risks for a US-UK Trade Deal
[v] A. Burgoyne, Unhealthy Betrayal—How the Manipulation of Science and Politics by Corporate Interests Destroys Health and Threatens the Future of Humanity, Fundamental Press, 2015.
[vi]ISAAA publications, Pocket K No. 16: Biotech Crop Highlights in 2017. https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/16/
[vii] ISAAA Briefs 53, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops in 2017.
[viii] Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States, Economic Research Report 162.USDA, 2014. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/45179/43668_err162.pdf?v=0
[ix] A. Burgoyne, Unhealthy Betrayal—How the Manipulation of Science and Politics by Corporate Interests Destroys Health and Threatens the Future of Humanity, Fundamental Press, 2015.See also https://fundamentalhealth.org/category/genetically-modified-food/ See also Steven M Drucker, Altered Genes Twisted Truth—How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public, Clear River Press, 2015.
[x] E.G. Vallianatos & McKay Jenkins, Poison Spring—The Secret History of Pollution and the EPA, Bloomsbury Press, 2014.
[xi] Alexis Temkin, Ph.D., Toxicologist, Environmental Working Group, “Breakfast With a Dose of Roundup? Weed Killer in $289 Million Cancer Verdict Found in Oat Cereal and Granola Bars.” Weds Aug 15, 3018. https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/glyphosateincereal/#.W75ePBNKhgc
[xii] E.G. Vallianatos & McKay Jenkins, 2014.
[xiii] André Leu, Poisoning Our Children—The Parents Guide to the Myths of Safe Pesticides, Acres USA, 2018.
[xiv] Vandan Shiva, Foreword in [xiv] André Leu, Poisoning Our Children—The Parents Guide to the Myths of Safe Pesticides, Acres USA, 2018.
[xv] Grain, “Twelve years of GM soya in Argentina – a disaster for people and the environment” 22nd Jan 2009. https://www.grain.org/article/entries/706-twelve-years-of-gm-soya-in-argentina-a-disaster-for-people-and-the-environment
[xvi] A. Burgoyne, Unhealthy Betrayal—How the Manipulation of Science and Politics by Corporate Interests Destroys Health and Threatens the Future of Humanity, Fundamental Press, 2015.
[xvii] Atrazine – Background and Updates, United States Environmental Protection Agency.
[xviii] New EPA Report Will Lead to Virtual US Ban on Atrazine Herbicide, Sustainable Pulse
Jun 3 2016. https://sustainablepulse.com/2016/06/03/new-epa-risk-assessment-will-lead-to-virtual-us-ban-on-atrazine-herbicide/#.XP_Qt497mUk
[xix] André Leu,2018.
[xx] E.G. Vallianatos & McKay Jenkins, 2014.
[xxi] Fred A Wilcox, Waiting for an Army to Die—The Tragedy of Agent Orange, Seven Stories Press, 2001
[xxii] A. Burgoyne, 2015, p141-146.
[xxiii] E.G. Vallianatos & McKay Jenkins, 2014. P 62.
[xxiv] As reported in André Leu, 2018, p 67.
[xxv] Manikkam M 1, Tracey R, Guerrero-Bosagna C, Skinner MK. Dioxin (TCDD) induces epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of adult onset disease and sperm epimutations. PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e46249. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046249. Epub 2012 Sep 26. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23049995
[xxvi] A. Burgoyne, 2015, p 408.
[xxvii] Vandan Shiva, Foreword in André Leu, Poisoning Our Children—The Parents Guide to the Myths of Safe Pesticides, Acres USA, 2018.
[xxviii]Dr Sagari R Ramdas. “Bt cotton and livestock: health impacts, Bio-safety concerns and the Legitimacy of Public Scientific Research Institutions.” Thursday, 28 January 2010, p3.
[xxix] Gilles-Eric Séralini et al. “Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize”. Environmental Sciences Europe, Bridging Science and Regulation at the Regional and European Level201426:14 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-014-0014-5