thank you everybody
think I've got my giant glass of water
here I got my phone to time myself so I
have to say thank you to everyone here
thank you to Karen and to Patrick and to
Brad and to Greg and everybody for
inviting me to be here I'm pulling this
together I'm very excited about it
as is most of the things that I've
discovered in my life I first thought I
don't have time to do that and I dunno I
didn't I didn't know that I would
actually fit in here I didn't know that
this would be such a health oriented
group and and really looking to science
and information I just always thought
CrossFit was about working out and
getting early ripped and stuff so is
this this is annoying me does that work
they hear me all right all right
so yes I'm a journalist and sort of like
the Barack Obama's story I was in
covering the banking industry when
Reuters asked me to move to Kansas and
start covering food and farming and I
thought terrible idea right you know who
wants to do that I liked where in my
blue business suits wasn't really into
the blue jeans and mud boots but I moved
to Kansas and you know started really
what has become now a 21-year journey I
say through our nation's food and
farming system and you know I've been
literally in hundreds of farm fields
around the United States with farmers
from California to Florida and the
orange groves there and up and down the
Dakotas to Texas and Kansas and Iowa you
know we're corn you know stretches as
far as the eye can see and I've spent
time with seed scientists soil
scientists weed scientist I didn't even
know there was a weed scientist right
career until I started this this journey
and I've spent a lot of time with
policymakers and regulators the USDA FDA
EPA and with Monsanto BASF Dow DuPont
Syngenta these very big and powerful
companies that sell the seeds and sell
the chemicals that are farming and food
production system
based on so what I've learned I didn't
start out with any sort of preconceived
notions I didn't worry about GMO or
non-gmo or pesticides or anything like
that but what I've learned over these 21
years is that we have created a profound
problem for ourselves we have a
pesticide dependent food production
system and health experts around the
world recognize and tell us the
pesticides you know are tied to a range
of human ailments human illness and
disease as well as environmental
problems but the companies that sell
these Monsanto and DuPont and BASF and
others have convinced our policy makers
that the rewards fighting bugs and
insects and plant diseases that those
are worth the risks but what what I'm
hearing from scientists what I've
learned with farmers and and the point
of the book and the work that I'm doing
is that that's not really the case and
that's where the decades of deceit come
in what the companies are telling us and
what they're telling our regulators and
our lawmakers is really more protective
of corporate profits than it is
protective of public health so in the
first chapter of my book and I always
like to go back to Rachel Carson because
if you're familiar with Rachel Carson
you know she was a very renowned
scientist and she was a wonderful author
and she wrote in the 1950s and 60s about
the dangers of chemical use to the
natural world and she wrote her book
Silent Spring published in 1962 and she
focused there about DDT but you know and
what what DDT could do to the
environment into human health but her
message was larger it was really about
the dangers that we face with unchecked
pesticide use and what that could bring
if we didn't recognize the dangers and
do something about it
and thankfully people did you know we
saw the formation of the Environmental
Protection Agency in the early 1970s we
saw many environmental defense
organizations start up and you know
there was this notion that we did need
to protect our health
protect our natural world but but where
we are now you know we we have lost that
sense of balance we have lost you know
that that resonant that lesson and we've
we've swung to a place where we need to
I think recall this quote and that's why
I have that up here and this is why I
have that in my book but I think it's
very important that we regain that sense
of balance what is a pesticide I have to
throw this in because usually after a
talk or during a talk or I'll get emails
later people say you are so stupid you
know weed killers you talked about weed
killers they are not pesticides well
yeah they are so I just want to point
that out for legal and regulatory
purposes this is the definition of a
pesticide so it would include
insecticides herbicides fungicides all
sorts of sides this is what I call my
not so fun facts over a billion pounds
of pesticides used in the United States
each year about 5.6 billion pounds of
pesticides used worldwide our USDA
estimates that about 50 million
Americans get drinking water from
groundwater that is potentially
contaminated by pesticides and other
agricultural chemicals atrazine in
particular is one of those I'm going to
talk about a minute and research of
course as I said ties pesticides to a
range of health problems reproductive
and neurodevelopmental harm
kidney liver disease and cancers cancer
is common I'm sometimes to ask this
question raise your hand if you know
anybody who has cancer you've had it
yourself in your life no hands raised I
don't believe that
yeah it's 38% of men and women in the
United States are expected to be
diagnosed with cancer in their lifetimes
and that to me is a really stunning
figure I've my sons you know a 16 year
old friend has cancer and devar down the
block I've lost a good friend to cancer
not too long ago as all of you know we
see ads on TV we are supposed to live
with cancer we are supposed to cut off
body parts and radiate and and accept
cancer and take a lot of drugs and drug
treatments
but there are a number of scientists out
there leading scientists and literature
that says and much like our CrossFit fan
you know let's not get cancer in the
first place right let's let's realize
what are the risk factors that we can do
something about you can't do something
about genetic disposition or other
things but you can do something about
pesticides you can see here estimated
national expenditures for cancer care
one one hundred and forty seven billion
dollars that was for 2017 there's an
economic impact to this disease
incidence as well that we should all
keep in keep in mind and this you know
I'm a mom I've got three kids cancer
rates are rising in kids you know
children under five in particular you
can see childhood leukemia brain tumors
liver tumors we we are getting sicker we
need to pay attention to that so three
commonly used there's so many here but
these are just three I want to talk
about really briefly glyphosate and I
will get back to that it's been in the
news people probably know that word now
glyphosate a few years ago most people
didn't it is the most widely used
herbicide in the world it's been tied to
cancer as well as kidney and liver
problems and reproductive problems you
have atrazine as I mentioned which is
pretty commonly found in drinking water
around the country especially in the
springtime after farmers use it in their
fields it's tied to birth defects low
fetal birth weight problems with fetal
survival and chlorpyrifos is a really
interesting one this one was developed
and marketed by Dow Chemical impairs
childhood brain development there have
been very robust studies and and there
is a real scientific consensus that this
does not of elemental harm to children
both if they are in utero and their
mother is exposed or when they are very
young damages the cognitive function of
X IQ ADHD all sorts of things it's so
damaging that it's been banned from
household use it was supposed to be
banned from agricultural use in food
production in 2017 but in 2017 we got a
new president we got a new
administration
Dow Chemical shipped in a million
dollars to the inaugural fund and sent
some lobbyists to visit him and the ban
on chlorpyrifos went away we have these
three common routes of exposures dermal
inhalation dietary it's all pretty you
know everybody would think that I
suppose
dermal you know if you're out in the
field or someone near you a sprain or
your sprain in your yard absorbs into
your skin inhalation the same way
dietary a lot of people don't think
about that necessarily but even if you
don't live near a farm field even if you
don't use any pesticides in your home
you are being exposed to pesticides
every day in your breakfast lunch and
dinner and in your water unless you're
growing your own food exclusively with
your own soit like there are so many
different things that you would have to
do to avoid pesticide residues and foods
so this is a report these come out every
year the Food and Drug Administration
puts out these giant reports as does the
FDA and annually they test foods several
thousand food samples usually for
pesticide residues because of that
because we know that they are commonly
found in food and they want to look and
see sort of what are the levels where
are they where's where our potential
dangers and this one just was published
in September last month and you can see
fruits and vegetables our healthiest
foods right what we're supposed to be
eating tend to have very high prevalence
of pesticide residues you see what is
that 84 percent in fruits 53% in
vegetables you see it in grains now the
red the blue bars is where you find
pesticide residues the red is what our
government tells us we need to worry
about the EPA says and the USDA and the
FDA but it's up to the EPA to set the
level the EPA says as long as it's
within a certain level as long as these
residues are within a certain legal
limit or a tolerance level don't worry
about them in your food it's fine
doesn't matter what they don't really
like to point out is the way they go
about setting those tolerance levels
those legal levels
are in collaboration with the pesticide
industry the companies that are selling
the pesticides are the ones telling the
EPA where those legal limits should be
and in the you know in the example of
glyphosate that that I just find so
outrageous you know for oats and wheat
and things like that the legal limit the
legal level has gone up over the years
just over and over and over and over
again and so they say it's fine it's
within legal levels they don't tell you
those legal levels keep increasing as
these pesticide companies want to push
more and more of these pesticides into
use this is just another slide I like to
show all of you this isn't even the
whole thing you know but these are some
of the pesticides that the FDA is
finding in our food in this most recent
report 221 different pesticides found in
food samples including DDT which Rachel
Carson wrote about so long ago which is
actually banned which we shouldn't be
finding in our food but it persists in
the environment that's a you know what
is so dangerous about these pesticides
is that they do persist in the soil in
the water in our own bodies this is what
I was telling you about a little bit
earlier chlorpyrifos California has
stepped up you guys are all lucky to be
in a state that seems to care most about
the public health chlorpyrifos as i just
showed you the slide of the FDA it was
the seventh most prevalent pesticide
found among all of the 221 different
pesticides chlorpyrifos as I said is
known to be neurodevelopmental damaging
to children California has stepped up
and said we're going to ban this USDA
won't do it the EPA the FDA our
lawmakers the Trump administration no
one else is going to step in but will
step in what we're seeing in Washington
now is a move for preemption to put into
place legislation that would make it
impossible for states and cities and
localities to regulate pesticide use so
this is my baby this is a poster child
Monsanto and glyphosate as I said
glyphosate is the most widely used
herbicide in the world and the the way
that it came to be the most widely used
herbicide in the world and came to be so
pervasive in our food and in our water
is the story that I write in whitewash
and I think it is a great poster child
because what this company did and the
rise of this chemical is is what you see
what you saw in the tobacco industry
which you've seen a little bit in the
pharmaceutical industry it's a lot of
manipulation of science it's a lot of
pushing regulators and policy makers to
look the other way when they have
studies that show that this might be
tied to cancer that this might be tied
to other diseases it's been a great
product for Monsanto they introduced
glyphosate based herbicides in 1974 it
was quickly embraced it was a novel
herbicide could kill weeds much more
quickly and effectively than other
herbicides that were on the market at
that time and it is much safer in an
acute basis much safer than some other
herbicides there there ones out there
that are used there's one called
paraquat for instance that farmers used
to use quite a bit and they still do use
but it's so deadly that if a farmer
would accidentally get a little bit you
know on their tongue they would they
would have a splash or that would get
some they would generally be dead within
two to three weeks
so when glyphosate came around farmers
loved it and they embraced it and cities
and parks it's now sprayed everywhere
it's sprayed areally over forests it's
used around utility rights-of-way
homeowners you know residential a lot of
people here might use it I don't know
around your sidewalks and things for
grass pops-up very very commonly used
golf courses it's so so widely used that
the US Geological Survey has found it in
rainfall samples they find it in waters
and streams they find it persisting in
the soil and they found it as well in in
air samples it's even found in our own
bodies in human urine so if you get your
urine checked you want to look for
pesticides you're probably going to find
glyphosate in it so the World Health
Organization and the International
Agency for research on cancer
this is what they do they look at widely
used substances for which there is a
concern that they might be carcinogenic
this group took up glyphosate and in
2015 they they did an evaluation they
don't do new studies what they do is
they look at published literature that
is already out there and there had been
quite a lot of literature on glyphosate
because it was so widely used and
researchers around the world from the
1980s and 90s and 2000's we're doing
studies to see you know are these is
this chemical really as safe as Monsanto
tells us Monsanto has said you know safe
enough to drink safer than table salt
we don't need many restrictions on it we
can spray it directly over these cool
genetically modified crops that we've
rolled out you can spray it directly on
wheat and oats right before you harvest
them so a lot of scientists were looking
at this the International Agency for
research on cancer did a review of all
the literature they brought in top
cancer scientists from around the world
including one from our own EPA and one
from the National Cancer Institute and
others and they determined that the
weight of evidence showed that this was
a probable human carcinogen and this is
how they break it down they look at the
epidemiology in the toxicology and
mechanistic data and you can see here
they saw you know sufficient evidence
that was in the toxicology they saw just
limited evidence in the EPI and again it
is very difficult as these scientists
will tell you to establish causation
through epidemiology right because there
are so many different factors but they
found limited evidence than they said
they found a particular association to
non-hodgkin lymphoma their mechanistic
data they found very strong evidence
they said they saw DNA damage in
populations and and exposures compared
to non exposures so what happened then
is an explosion of litigation right
because so many people are using this
and so many people have non-hodgkin
lymphoma so you saw this explosion of
litigation we're now up to eighteen
thousand four hundred plaintiffs
approximately they all allege that their
non-hodgkin lymphoma is due to their
exposures to Monsanto's formulations
roundup and Ranger Pro and other
life is a baster besides but importantly
all of their allegations in all of these
lawsuits also say that Monsanto knew
about the risks and failed to warn them
so they're saying not only does it cause
cancer but Monsanto hid the risks and
the jury so far we've had three trials
and all that you know and they've been
weeks and weeks long
but all three juries and all three
trials have found unanimously that yes
the weight of evidence shows us that it
causes non-hodgkin lymphoma and yes
Monsanto has been lying about it and
hiding that for many many years the
juries came back the first one with the
289 million dollar verdict eighty
million dollars in the second and a two
billion dollar verdict in the third
trial the judges in those trials have
reduced them all they thought that the
verdicts were excessive because the
punitive damages were so high so they've
reduced those and they're that the first
one is up before the California
appellate court right now and there
should be a decision within the next few
months on that but the juries did find
to issue these punitive damages they had
to find that Monsanto had acted with
malice in failing to warn of the risks
so what's come about through all of
these trials it's really cool if you're
a journalist is discovery documents
Monsanto's had to turn over several
million pages of its own internal emails
and reports and correspondence and this
is really how the lawyers have built
that case and I already had when I wrote
my book before there was ever a trial
but I had already had a lot of this
information through Freedom of
Information Act requests from the EPA
FDA and USDA so I didn't I wasn't able
to see into Monsanto's internal
correspondents only their correspondence
with these regulatory agencies but you
could see there is just such a weight of
evidence thousands and thousands of
pages that show an effort to manipulate
science manipulate regulators manipulate
consumers so I'm just gonna show you a
few of these some people like to see
these but so Monsanto after the
International Agency for research on
cancer said this is a probable human
carcinogen Monsanto
publicly said oh my gosh this is crazy
those crazy scientists are relying on
you know junk evidence and their
politically motivated and there's no
evidence whatsoever but what you see
internally is that before this even went
to
IARC Monsanto was very worried and they
talked internally they say what we have
long been concerned about has happened
glyphosate is on four IARC review we
have vulnerability in the area of
Epidemiology exposure Geno toxin so then
they go on and they predict that they're
going to get a rating of a possible or a
probable human carcinogen by this
international Cancer Agency this is all
before the the scientists even met and
then they decide what they're gonna do
about it and this again this is before
they even got a rating so they decided
that they were going to orchestrate
outcry they were going to try to
discredit these cancer scientists and
invalidate what they were sure would be
a probable or a possible human
carcinogen and one way they decided they
wanted to do it was they wanted to have
some new papers written that would
proclaim the safety of their herbicide
and would counter the IARC finding that
they were sure was going to come so they
talked about this internally and you can
see this is a scientist a senior
scientist at Monsanto and he's writing
about what can we do well we think we
should maybe we could get a series of
papers and they could be published and
you know we're gonna do this and that an
option would be to add grime and kir
Kirkland to have their names on the
publication but we would be keeping the
cost down by us doing the writing they
would just edit and sign their names so
to speak and that in the scientific
world is called ghost writing and you
can see basic use the word ghost right
we can go straight and importantly they
note here recall that is how we handled
William crows in Monroe mm well nerdy
people like me who followed the science
on this stuff yeah I said oh my god
William crows in Monroe was like a
fundamental foundational paper that the
EPA and regulators around the world have
held up and said look it's safe that's
why we can allow these increasing levels
on our food and that's why nobody has to
worry about it
it's why we don't need a big warning
label on it
you know telling people it can cause
cancer or other things
William crows him in row well you know
and they're they're saying they go
straight adheres William crows in Monroe
these were the findings Roundup
herbicide does not pose a health risk no
effects on fertility or reproductive
glyphosate is non carcinogenic that's
the paper that we just learned from this
internal email that Monsanto considers
that they ghostwrote so we get back then
to this pay these series of papers that
they're planning right so this was
eventually published this was published
in September 2016 and critical reviews
in toxicology and they called it a
review of glyphosate carcinogenic
potential by four independent panels and
to stress the independence there's a
declaration of interest that says
neither any monsanto company employee
nor any attorney reviewed any of these
manuscripts prior to submission to the
journal but internally what we see are a
whole long list of you know things that
they did to this journal and you see
again bill haydn's and others you know I
wrote a draft chapter back in November
I'm gonna go back I'm gonna refresh you
have pages and pages of them editing and
changing we have contracts where they're
paying these authors these independent
authors secretly under the table you
know it was it was a direct deceit but
these got a lot of attention they're
still out there they're still called you
know independent expert panel reviews
and they have been treated as as
authentic independent review of
glyphosate that counters this
internation International Agency for
research on cancer the publisher when
this all did sort of come out the
publisher did try to retract the papers
did say that they were going to retract
them they didn't say it publicly they
said it in emails again that we have but
the editor refused to do it and it's
been quite a controversy but but for
someone who doesn't know the backstory
this is what they would see in the
published peer reviewed literature more
examples of ghost writing this is a
guide David salt Mara sees another
scientist at Monsanto he's talking about
you know having ghost written ghost
wrote a cancer review paper grime at all
this is another paper that's in the
published literature the sky I love this
one this is just so crazy right when
Santa scientists jump the city yeah this
was about GMOs wasn't about glyphosate
but he's written a paper and he wants to
get it out there and it's talking about
how safe GMO crops are for livestock
feed actually the best-case scenario
would be for it to look like it's an on
Mon paper to look like it came from
somebody else and he's concerned the
faculty members the academics they're
gonna try to rope in may not want to
just take something they did not produce
and slap their names on it he's a little
worried he's not gonna be able to find
somebody so the judges in these cases so
far these are just a couple quotes they
have been rather outraged at what
they've seen in the evidence themselves
and this is the federal judge fair
amount of evidence he says that the only
thing Monsanto cared about was
undermining the people who were raising
concerns about whether roundup cause
cancer Monsanto didn't seem concerned at
all about getting at the truth of
whether glyphosate caused cancer you see
a similar quote from the Superior Court
judge but this is really you know what
the bulk of my my work and my writing
talks about is not so much the science
I'm not a scientist and I think that
scientists can debate this all day long
but the deception is not in dispute and
that is what's running our federal
policy and that is what's running
consumer expectations and knowledge and
I think you know that's what is so
dangerous to us this is just another
example I guess of what you might call
ghost riding this is a company Potomac
in it's a media house and they were
writing this again was to defend the
safety of glyphosate Monsanto wanted
op-eds in newspapers around the country
that would talk about how crazy this
international cancer group was and how
safe these chemicals really were but of
course we didn't want it to look like it
came from Monsanto so this group was
hired to put together these op-eds and
then find somebody to be the author you
see that in quotes and you see they say
we know these items in the media need to
be from those outside the industry the
industry is smart they know if it looks
like
comes from then like we're all going to
have a bit of skepticism or we're all
going to factor that into our our
perspective but if you think it comes
from someone outside someone who is
independent you might give it more
credibility and that is sort of what
they hang all of this on what these
documents show us what we've seen I
talked about the ghost written papers we
also see where they provide alternative
assessments so when scientists did the
EPA or otherwise do say my gosh this
looks like it causes cancer what the
companies can do is they come in and
they provide an alternative way for them
to interpret the science an alternative
assessment and we've seen that happen
with Monsanto and glyphosate and and
others Dow and chlorpyrifos for instance
you see networks of European and US
scientists who are on the dole that's
probably not the right weren't used but
money is flowing in and collaboration
and positive propaganda messaging is
flowing out of universities around the
country which is really disturbing to a
degree these academics are most often
not disclosing their funding again you
know it's fine if you want to do it but
disclose it so people understand that
potentially there's a conflict of
interest but their scientists at
university of nebraska university of
florida university of california-davis
all around the country that we know that
have been collaborating behind the
scenes in exchange for money for their
programs and not disclosing it public
relations teams as i talked about they
have public relations teams that are not
only ghostwriting
there's not a ghost trying for
scientific studies but articles that
appear in forbes magazine or in USA
Today and other places articles that
look like they're coming from someone
who is independent but in fact these
articles we see have been ghost written
by a PR firm for Monsanto or another
chemical company and then finally they
put together front groups so if all of
the ghost writing doesn't work and all
of the academic assistance and
collaboration doesn't work they have
these front groups that work to try to
discredit people like me and people like
the
scientists at the International Agency
for research on cancer people like Linda
Birnbaum one of the leading government
toxicologist
in the country who's been trying to warn
about the dangers of chemicals so these
front groups again they often have very
you know authentic sounding names
academics review since about science
genetic literacy project American
Council and science and health that one
sounds really authoritative doesn't it
but what you see this again these are
all emails that we'd love to get
academics review was set up by
University of Illinois professor who
Monsanto had been very chummy with and
funding his program and you can see that
you know this is this is founded to
ensure that sound science is widely and
easily available to inform us all but
what we see from the email is that when
they were setting this up this is
Monsanto this is Eric Sachs and they're
saying okay it's gonna be really
important to keep Monsanto in the
background right nobody needs to know
and oh by the way I'm just sending some
more money to your University and they
don't disclose that American Council and
science and health this is a really
aggressive one they have been really
vocal and really out there and people
for American Council on science and
health regularly have articles and
columns in Forbes magazine in USA Today
and number Washington Post a number of
other outlets and they proclaimed to be
you know again an authentic science
based organization weighing in on
topical issues that pertain to public
health but what we find is that they are
funded by the people that they are
defending and so here's an email they
had been asking Monsanto for more money
you know you gave us a lot we need a lot
more and this is Monsanto saying you
will not get a better value for your
dollar than a CSH and this is what they
do with this so this is another email on
the left they writing back to Monsanto
saying each and every day we work hard
to prove our worth to companies such as
Monsanto and one of the things they do
is they attack people like me
so yeah there I've lost count 20
different articles I think on their
website about what a terrible person I
am and a terrible journalist but they're
not super original because they use they
do the same thing with New York Times
Danni Hakeem Eric Lipton Eric Lipton is
a science birther he won a Pulitzer but
he's a science birther the idea is to
smear journalists to to establish some
doubt to establish you know a lack of
credibility so that when people like
Danny and Eric or myself are telling you
this information or writing articles
that it will be considered invalid or
discredited this is another example it's
not only you know journalists as I said
scientist these are based on emails this
came from lee fong at the intercept and
this was how monsanto basically used
Republicans in Congress to try to strip
funding from the International Agency
for research on cancer and again it was
made to look like it didn't come from
Monsanto that it just originated from
these worried lawmakers but we see is
that it was all scripted by Monsanto
that's a good story if you wanted to
read it so what has happened through all
of this sort of push and pull and ghost
riding and deception and academic
collaboration what has happened for
Monsanto is the use of glyphosate has
skyrocketed genetically engineered crops
were introduced in 1992 this
revolutionized agriculture we were
spraying weed killer for the first time
right directly over crops that we were
going to harvest and use for food to
feed people and animals and you know a
whole lot of scientists said that's a
really bad idea but Monsanto said no
it's fine it's great it's not going to
hurt anybody you don't worry about it
and so what we've seen is skyrocketing
use about 40 million pounds a year in
the 90s we're up to about 300 million
pounds a year now this is just in the US
globally was about a hundred and twenty
five million pounds in the 90s and about
two billion pounds now and that's why
this chemical as I said is so pervasive
that you're going to find it
food and water and air in your own
bodies I talked about genetically
engineered crops it's not only used with
genetically engineered crops it's used
in orange groves and vineyards and it's
used in the production of almonds and
watermelons and as I said wheat and a
whole array of foods to suppress weeds
and to help the farmers you know fight
off the weeds which compete for
nutrients and water and things and so it
does help farmers produce more food
generally if they can do that we have
found environmental scientists have
found that as as the farmers rely on
this the soil health deteriorates the
nutritional value of the crops are
deteriorating weed resistance is
developing so it's not again necessarily
a good thing for the rest of us but it's
been a really good thing for the
companies selling these herbicides so
back to the food FDA this is a story
that I did again based on Freedom of
Information request the FDA doesn't tell
anybody this and they don't publicly
report this but internally one of their
scientists a couple of years ago was
doing some sampling and he brought in
honey samples from around the United
States and was looking at this for
residues of glyphosate and he found what
he considered to be alarming levels of
this weed killer in honey including an
organic honey and so he reported this to
his boss and his boss basically said
don't worry about it
we're not gonna get upset about it we
don't need to report it it's fine the
scientist said well but I think it would
be considered illegal it would be cos
love would be illegal in Europe we don't
have a tolerance here in the United
States and the and the administrator
said again don't worry about it
so this chemist then went on to test
oatmeal products and he brought in baby
food and other things and oatmeal
products and found again you know
significant levels of this weed killer
in these oatmeal products and was
alarmed about it went to his bosses and
again they said don't worry about it we
don't need to publicly report it it's
not part of any official sampling and oh
by the way you're going to be reassigned
so that you know
or going to be testing for pesticide
residues in foods and that is the case
today he is not allowed to be doing that
another scientist this one was out of
Arkansas was was doing some testing
again this is again not anything that
the FDA will tell you you have to sue
them to get internal documents which I
had to do but they're finding this you
know he he writes to his supervisors and
he says I've brought all this stuff from
home wheat crackers granola cornmeal
from home there's a fair amount of
glyphosate in all of them and he says
the only thing he couldn't find it in
was broccoli um so but again none of
this has been reported publicly in that
nice little thick report that I that I
told you about so what we're finding
this is San Diego Medical School
researchers they have been tracking
people and levels of glyphosate in their
urine for many many years 20-some years
and what they have found is that the
prevalence and the levels of glyphosate
in the subjects urine has been rising
significantly over the years which why
would we be surprised at that right
these are some studies that have been
done this is the Rose mania Institute
they're just finding you know and
there's still a lot of debate this is
not established there's not a consensus
on this people are still trying to
understand what is this chemical doing
to our bodies but they are finding
capable of modifying the gut microbiota
which is something that's very
concerning to scientists because that's
so important to so many you know bodily
bodily functions and disease and the
immune system and all of that and these
are our pediatricians you know and our
the pediatricians again are saying
pesticides you know there is a problem
epidemiology evidence demonstrates
association between early life exposures
to pesticides and pediatric concerns and
again it's not just glyphosate this is
the poster child when i'm saying for the
much bigger problem we have to be aware
of what we're doing to our children this
is from Linda Birnbaum I mentioned her
earlier she just retired October 3rd she
was the leading toxicologist really in
the world
I ran our National Institutes of
Environmental Health Sciences and our
national toxicology program and she has
been trying to beat the drum and sound
the alarm and say we are not protecting
Public Health we're not protecting our
children our regulatory system is not
keeping up with the science that is
showing us that these things are
dangerous and we need to do something
about it she was nearly run out of
office for that she became subject to an
investigation by Republicans in Congress
who said she was trying to promote
policy by calling for more protective
measures she had all of her emails
subpoenaed she you know she really went
through a hard time but she was just now
retired this is another study this one
is out of Harvard they were looking at
consumption of high pesticide residues
and they found some associations with
pregnancy problems and live birth
problems and things like that so again
they're saying we need to understand
that these dietary exposures you know
can be dangerous for us and we need more
study you know the companies say we have
to have these pesticides to feed the
world there's actually a scientist out
there who says you know what when you
rather die of cancer than starvation you
know we we need to feed the world
well you don't the data doesn't support
that the United Nations weighed in on
this a couple of years ago and and it
said the very same thing the data
doesn't support that this is essential
to food security there are a whole lot
of other things that have to do with
food scarcity the ability to access you
know special seeds and pesticides is not
one of them
excessive use of pesticides are very
dangerous to human health to the
environment and it's misleading to claim
they are vital to ensuring food security
and I just have to point out if you
don't care about your own health and you
don't care about your kids health we're
losing the birds I mean this is this is
like the canary in the coal mine or you
know birds are are vanishing the bird
populations you probably there have been
stories recently all of this year about
this but this is showing just in North
America this decline of 29% and they're
associating this
with pesticide use and other factors
insect population plummeting insect
numbers insects you know we may not like
them you may want to squash the spider
or you know but they are so important in
so many ways to biodiversity and to the
food production system we're losing
pollinators that are essential to many
of the foods that we regularly put on
our plates and they again this tie to
widespread pesticide use is is
attributed to this decline so I think
it's fitting you know Rachel Carson
let's quote her again and let's look at
this and if she says if having endured
much we have at last asserted our right
to know and if by knowing we have
concluded that we are being asked to
take senseless and frightening risks
then we should no longer accept the
counsel of those who tell us that we
must fill our world with poisonous
chemicals we should look about and see
what other course is open to us and I
think that lesson from so many decades
ago is probably more needed you know
today a couple of shameless plugs this
is the group I work for now I left
Reuters and 2016 and went to work for
this little tiny nonprofit called us
right to know and what we do is
primarily file Freedom of Information
Act requests and sue the government if
they don't turn over the documents and
take on universities and try to try to
get the truth and the transparency that
we think that consumers need CrossFit
was has been a supporter and and been a
donor and very grateful for that this is
my other shameless plug this is my book
whitewash I call it not it's not a
feel-good story it definitely isn't
people don't read it and say oh I feel
so light and happy now but you know I
think it's useful it's a book Monsanto
doesn't want you to read they filed this
in court in the first trial and this is
a motion to exclude my book from being
used as evidence and this is the
spreadsheet they put together before my
book came out to discredit my book
projects Bruce Kerry Gilliam book plan
and it involved all sorts of subversive
activity it's like but anything
manipulating search engine
and Google's so that interesting things
about me pop up if you google my name
and getting you know trying to get
negative book reviews posted by
independent people on Amazon and things
like that so it's been an interesting
ride and that's all thank you so much
