GEO Watch Exclusive | Letter from a Scientist to the President of Mexico
Moderator’s
Note: Our colleague Miguel Robles of
the Biosafety Alliance provided access to a unique set of documents recently
released and formerly submitted to the President of Mexico by various
scientists. The letters all warn of the environmental and public health dangers
posed by transgenic or GMO maize. I am posting the first of these documents: Our
exclusive translation of a letter released over the weekend by our colleagues at
Acción Colectiva in Mexico. The
8-page (plus references) letter was prepared by Dr. David Schubert, considered
one of the foremost immunologists at the Salk Institute. It is addressed to Lic.
Enrique Peña Nieto , President of Mexico, and the heads of the Mexican
Environmental Protection and Agriculture ministries. The letter was submitted last October 2013 as part of the evidence presented at trial before the federal judge that ruled to suspend GMO corn plantings in Mexico.
Schubert’s letter mentions six major problems posed
by the cultivation and consumption of transgenic corn in Mexico but focuses
special attention on the human public health implications. There are quite a
few novel ideas here for many of my readers and followers, to consider and not the least of
which is Schubert’s justified concern for the lack of epidemiological data, which should lead responsible regulators to adopt the precautionary principle.
However, Schubert raises some interesting questions,
especially about the normalization of the US diet as a stand-in for the Mexican
diet and the implications this has for the careless use of fancy food safety
algorithms to argue that GMO corn is safe, because it is presumably safe in the
US. Schubert makes the insightful and profound observation that:
(1) Corn is not a staple crop in the American diet
the way it is in the Mexican diet; (2) This means that Americans only
indirectly eat GMO corn in forms where the risks posed by Bt proteins are
largely eliminated (e.g., vegetable oils, high fructose corn syrup, etc.); and
(3) The many ways Mexican ethnic cultures prepare corn could result in health
consequences due to unanticipated immunological and allergenic responses to
such a high level of direct consumption of Bt proteins.
Schubert concludes with a foreboding prognosis: “…perhapsthe greatest concern about the introduction of any GM product on the market
should be that, even when it causes harm to human health, it would be
impossible to detect due to the lack of epidemiological studies and technical
limitations.” Moreover, he continues by noting that “if the introduction of Bt
corn is approved…there will…[an unparalleled] number of people who will consume
Bt toxin at levels many thousands of times higher than ever before in the short
history of GM technology.” Monsanto and Mexico’s neoliberal rulers want to run
the largest biological experiment in human history without the informed consent
of the Mexican people. This could end in fields of transgenic stalks set ablaze by the peasant and indigenous communities since the Gene Giants seem
determined to move ahead with full-scale unauthorized biological
experimentation on the Mexican people and the planet’s fullest complement of native
maize biodiversity. These are just a few of the more sobering insights offered by Dr.
Schubert in his letter to Mexican President Peña Nieto.
Please note use of brackets [ ] to
denote moderator edits and inserts; emphases added.
Salk
Institute scientist reveals why he opposes GMOs
IN DRAMATIC
LETTER TO MEXICO’S PRESIDENT
Lic. Enrique Peña Nieto
Presidente de la República
Mexicana
Palacio Nacional Edif. 10
P.B.
Lic. Enrique Martínez y
Martínez
Secretario de Agricultura,
Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación Avenida Municipio Libre 377
Col. Santa Cruz Atoyac, Del.
Benito Juárez, C.P. 03310 México, D.F.
Ing. Juan José Guerra Abud
Secretario de Medio Ambiente
y Recursos Naturales
Blvd. Adolfo Ruiz Cortines
4209
Col. Jardines en la Montaña,
Del. Tlalpan, C.P. 14210 México, D.F.
My name is David Schubert. I have a doctorate in
immunology and serve as a Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological
Studies in San Diego, California, considered one of the top medical research
institutions in the world. As a member of this institution I actively work on
the development of drugs to treat Alzheimer’s and stroke. Therefore, I possess
first-hand knowledge of molecular genetics, toxicology and safety testing
involving new chemical and biological entities. I am also knowledgeable about
the technology of genetically modified organisms (GMOs ) and have published
articles in leading scientific journals on GM plants and their effect on human
health.
Recently, I've written letters, like this one, that
have contributed to the debate on the introduction of GM eggplant in India and
Bangladesh. In both cases, the process of introduction [of the transgenic
varieties] has been suspended. Since eggplant is native to these countries,
just as corn is a native crop of Mexico, the situations and problems related to
the use of GM technology in both regions are nearly identical.
Therefore, I am convinced of the need for Mexico to
follow the advice of scientific panels of scientists and government review in
India, Bangladesh, the European Union, Japan, South Korea and the vast majority
of the free countries of the world, and reject the introduction of transgenic
maize. This conclusion is based on several reasons discussed below.
Points 1 through 5 are exceptionally important but
have been treated by other people. I will focus, then, on the impact of GM
maize on human health, which falls within my area of expertise. To my
knowledge, the following statements are documented in scientific and government
publications:
1) No necessity.
The [diverse] corn crop [in Mexico] is not severely threatened by pest
infestations.
2) High environmental
risk. Corn is native to Mexico and transgenes will unquestionably pollute
and degrade its natural populations. In addition, Mexico is the center of
biodiversity and a global treasure of plant varieties capable of fighting
disease and climate change. These capabilities would be diminished if GM seeds
are introduced into their territory.
3) Higher
costs. The annual purchase of
seeds, as opposed to seed saving, will increase production costs at all levels
of the food chain. Small farmers and peasants, who are the most important nodes
of the agricultural production system in Mexico, will be most affected by the
high costs and potential crop failures because some varieties of GM maize are not
the most appropriate in all planting sites. The transgenes entering the local
populations eventually contaminate all local varieties.
4) Social and
political dependency. Once the foreign companies control the seed market for
any plant [in Mexico] they will continue introducing GM seeds of other species
and therefore wield enormous power through political processes over the
peasants who constitute a large segment of the Mexican population. This has
already happened in the U.S. where the seed companies are the main financial
support of both political parties (Republicans and Democrats) and have
designated persons in positions of high power to dictate national and
international agricultural policies.
5) Irreversible.
When GM maize is introduced into Mexico, even on a small scale, it will irreversibly
contaminate native varieties. This is unequivocal and the only way to prevent
it is to not allow GMO plantings.
6) Bt proteins pose
human health risks. Transgenic corn expressing the Bt crystal proteins is also
resistant to herbicides so the chemicals required for cultivation are compound
the threat to the health of those who consume it. I delve into these issues
that are of great importance for a country like Mexico where maize is consumed
in large quantities and often un a manner involving little or no processing. However,
I would first like to dispel some myths that are used by the proponents of GM
maize to argue that this is harmless.
It is claimed that, as there is no human illness associated
with the consumption of Bt corn in the United States, it should be a safe food
to eat. This conclusion is invalid for several reasons. In the first place,
only a small fraction of Bt corn produced [in the U.S.] is consumed directly: the
vast majority is used as livestock feed and to produce [vegetable] oil, high
fructose syrup, and ethanol; none of these products contain the Bt proteins.
The corn consumed that has Bt proteins is more than anything else likely to be
eaten as an ingredient in a highly processed food, e.g., chips and other snacks
that are not [supposed to be] important components of a [healthy] diet.
In contrast, the Bt proteins of GM maize cultivated
in Mexico would be consumed directly and in larger quantities because corn is
the staple food and is therefore an important element of the Mexican diet.
Additionally, according to the richness of traditional food, GM maize will be
prepared following an infinite number of recipes leading to potential chemical
changes of Bt proteins and causing unknown toxicity and immunogenicity effects.
In this regard, even if there have been some studies of GM maize food safety, these
have not controlled for the health effects [we surmise may be associated] with different methods of food preparation
[like we would expect to be the case in Mexico’s more diverse recipes involving
corn].
Second, it is logically false to assert that since
there is no evidence of disease related to the consumption of GM products, that
these are therefore safe for human health. [This is not a scientific statement
and] Making such an assertion requires a well-designed experiment with proper
controls [and has not been done.] Moreover, this problem is more serious
because the foods derived from GM crops will not be labeled as such [so
controlled studies are nearly impossible].
Therefore, perhaps the greatest concern about the
introduction of any GM product on the market should be that, even when it causes
harm to human health, it would be impossible to detect due to the lack of epidemiological
studies and technical limitations. For example, to detect a disease epidemic
requires an incidence of at least twice the normal rate. If the GM maize was
harmful and caused a disease like Parkinson’s, which has an incidence rate of
almost 20 new cases per year per 100,000 people, then in Mexico some 25,000
annual new cases would be diagnosed and tabulated to identify a significant
increase and yet there is no way to associate the disease directly with some GM
crop consumption.
Furthermore, the symptoms of many diseases related to
environmental factors take decades to
appear [and are therefore cumulative effects]. Clearly, once the GM maize is
released commercially there will be no way to monitor adverse health effects
caused by the product itself. Biotech companies are aware that for this reason
they will never be held accountable for the damage to human health that their
products might cause.
Most varieties of GM maize are modified to be insect-resistant
(Bt varieties) or herbicide-resistant (e.g., glyphosate). Bt protein and
glyphosate have been documented to cause damage to human health which will be
discussed separately [for each transgenic technology] in the following
paragraphs.
Bt Corn and Human Health
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the
United States recommended extensive testing on the safety of Bt crops [1],
but due to lack of federal laws that require rigorous safety tests for GM foods
in the U.S. this has never been undertaken [2]. The United States
does not require any proof that GM food is safe for human consumption before
marketing.
There are at least four mechanisms by which introduction
of the Bt gene in the maize genome may cause damage. These include: (1) random
insertion of transgenes in plant DNA and resulting unintended consequences [3];
(2) alterations in plant metabolism because of the inserted protein which
results in new toxic products; (3) direct toxicity of the Bt proteins; and (4)
the immune response obtained by the [presence of the] Bt protein. Documented scientific
evidence for all four of these mechanisms exists.
An example of the first is the discovery of
unintended alterations, such as the synthesis of nine known carcinogens in GM tobacco
plants [4]. For the second mechanism, studies have documented
abnormal levels of production of a molecule called Bt lignin [5]. This
feature was discovered thanks to the dramatic changes that began to be observed
in the hardness of the stem of this [GMO] plant. Many varieties of Bt corn
possess this characteristic so it is likely that the increase in the production
of lignin is related to the expression of the Bt protein itself and not due to [random]
mutations caused by the same genetic modification process [2]. There
are probably more unforeseen changes in GM crops, and many of them have already
been registered [6]. The direct toxic and immunological dangers of
Bt proteins are discussed next.
Allergies are complex responses of the immune system
to foreign substances, and its symptoms can vary unpredictably from one
individual to another. Bt toxins, for their part, have been used for some time
as aerosol insecticide sprays for many crops, but [the toxin] can be washed off
the plant and contain[s] a less toxic form of the protein than that produced by
the GM plant – in which the toxin is in all consumable parts of the plant [and
not just the surface]. The aerosol spore consists of Bt toxin that must be
activated in the digestive tract of insects. In contrast, the Bt toxin produced
in maize is an activated form of the protein that does not require any
modification to become toxic. Therefore, it is much more powerful than the
variety used in aerosols.
On the other hand, there is strong evidence that the
Bt proteins have provoked strong immune reactions in some farm workers [7],
probably because these are composed of amino acid sequences that are homologous
to certain well-known allergens [ 8, 9 ]. Moreover, the concentration and quantity of active Bt toxins
people would be consuming by eating Bt corn is much higher than the levels of
exposure agricultural workers are subjected to.
In support of the results found among humans, when
[other] animals are exposed to Bt toxins, these also act as a potent
‘immunogen’, triggering immune system responses in the blood and intestine [10,
11, 12 ]. More recently, there was a long-term feeding study in the U.S.
with pigs, which have a resemblance to the human digestive system. The pigs
were fed a mixed diet that included GM maize Bt proteins. After five months,
drastic stomach inflammation levels in were found in the GM-fed pigs were found
and females had heavier uteri than those given the no GM diet [13].
Additional studies with animals have shown that Bt toxins
cause direct tissue damage. For example, Fares and El- Sayed proved that mice
fed Bt potato had abnormal intestinal cells structure [14 ]. Other
studies reported histopathological changes in both liver and kidney in rats
consuming Bt corn [15], and changes in the levels of urea and urine
proteins of rats fed Bt rice [16].
The research cited above demonstrates that the family
of Bt proteins may act as allergen or toxicant in animals and some humans. This
is of great importance to the health of the Mexican population because, if the
introduction of Bt corn is approved since there will be such a huge
[unparalleled] number of people who will consume Bt toxin at levels many thousands
of times higher than ever before in the short history of GM technology.
As genetics and the health status of an individual
determines the response to foreign proteins such as the Bt toxin, and Mexicans
represent a very heterogeneous population with different genetic composition,
age, and health, the consequences of using Bt maize will be unpredictable. The
sickest people will undoubtedly be the most vulnerable to the toxic and
immunological reactions. Since the ability of Bt toxin to cause allergic
responses in some individuals is ambiguous, it is virtually certain that within
the Mexican population, a large number of people consuming GM maize will develop
such severe allergies and even immune responses resulting in anaphylaxis and
possible death.
The number, however, cannot be predicted and, as there is no system to track
this type of adverse reactions within a population, if Bt maize is grown
commercially, their genetic presence in a food that is calorie source basic for
a major section of Mexico will be irreversible. The introduction of this
transgenic crop, therefore, must be prevented.
Herbicides
In addition to high levels of Bt toxins, most GM maize
varieties have also been modified to be resistant to herbicides. While a large number
of herbicides are in use the most studied is glyphosate since it is the active
ingredient in so many different products. If corn or soybeans GMOs are
introduced in Mexico, there will be a huge increase in the use of this herbicide
in Mexico; after the introduction of GM crops in the United States, glyphosate
use increased tenfold between 1996 and 2009 (from 27 million to 250 million
pounds)[17]. A similar increase was observed in Argentina [18].
The relevance of this is that contrary to the
assertions of its producers, glyphosate and its active formulation are harmful
to human health. Like many environmental toxins, many years passed before we
could identify the problems it causes, but these are now being documented in
various scientific publications in the public domain. Some important risks are
discussed immediately below along with other facts that are rarely included in
the debate.
-->
1) Glyphosate spray contains more than the herbicide and
instead includes a mixture of compounds that help glyphosate to penetrate all
the tissues of the plant including those we eat. Additional compounds called
surfactants are not disclosed (and remain as trade secrets) and therefore do
not undergo safety tests nor are they monitored on plants or in human drinking
water. This is the case despite the fact that the surfactants are much more
abundant in the formulation of the herbicide than the glyphosate itself. These,
then, are not assessed chemicals whose human and animal consumption will
increase dramatically once the GM maize is introduced in Mexico [19].
In the U.S., the EPA frequently performed tests to detect glyphosate in
drinking water and groundwater, but it has then several times increased the
allowable limits of these residues in food at the request of chemical
producers.
2) The herbicide spray applied and all its components
remain inside the plant and are consumed. They are not washed away!
3) Within 10 to 15 years, the weeds will be more
resistant to glyphosate, so that even more toxic herbicides will be required
for the production of GM corn. The next in line is the herbicide 2,4-D, a known
carcinogen [20, 21].
4) Evidence of glyphosate found in the urine of
several people in certain areas [22].
5) Part of the increased levels of glyphosate in
drinking water, food and animal feed is due to the fact that it is now used as
a drying agent, which is applied directly on the plants before harvest [23].
6) Some of the toxic effects of glyphosate that have been
published are listed below, and all of them can or have been extrapolated as a
serious risk to human health:
a. When ingested in food or water, glyphosate kills
bacteria that form part of the beneficial intestinal microbiota, resulting in
the growth of pathogenic microbes [24].
b . In support of the first point, for nine months
when pigs were fed transgenic food treated with glyphosate increased intestinal
inflammation compared to control animals was observed [13].
c . A large increase in tumor formation was
documented in rats fed for two years with herbicide resistant GM maize [25].
d . More and more cases of human illness related to
glyphosate exposure
are being reported in countries like Argentina [18].
e . Even
in small interventricular concentrations, glyphosate causes defects in
embryonic development of amphibians and chickens; defects similar to those
observed in studies of Argentine human populations [18, 26, 27].
f . Glyphosate has negative effects on testosterone
production in rats [28, 29], and promotes the growth of cancer even in
human cells in concentration at levels that are below detectable in the blood
and urine of some individuals [30].
The publications cited above represent only a
fraction of the extensive evidence that on the whole demonstrate real and projected
harmful effects of glyphosate on human health. Glyphosate levels will quickly
increase in food and the environment if GM maize is introduced to Mexico.
Nothing will have served its purpose if, within 10 to 15 years, glyphosate is
no longer an effective herbicide as different weeds develop resistance, as has
occurred in different regions of the planet. Is it worth it, then, to take this
type of risk in a country like Mexico?
My conclusion is therefore that GM maize is of no
benefit to your country, but rather a great danger to the health of Mexicans.
It would be a profound mistake if GM maize was approved
to enter the food supply in Mexico.
Respectfully,
Professor Dr. David Schubert
Salk Institute for Biological Studies
La Jolla , California 92037
References
1. Lewis, P., et
al. (2000) Bt plant-pesticides risk and benefit assessment systems. FIFRA
Scientific Advisory Panel. SAP Report No. 2000-07, http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/2000/october/octoberfinal.pdf.
2. Freese, W. and
Schubert, D. (2004) Safety testing of genetically engineered food.
Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews 21:299-325. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.com/files/freese_safetytestingandregulationofgeneticallyebgineeredfoods_nov212004_62269.pdf.
3. Schubert, D.
(2002) A different perspective on GM food. Nature biotechnology 20, 969. http://sembremvalles.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/schubert02_5percent.pdf.
4. Mungur, R.,
Glass, A.D., Goodenow , D. B. and Lightfoot , D.A. (2005) Metabolite
fingerprinting in transgenic Nicotiana tabacum altered by the Escherichia coli
glutamate dehydrogenase gene. J Biomed Biotechnol 2005 , 198-214. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16046826.
5. Saxena, D. and
Stotzky , G. (2001) Bt corn has a higher lignin content as non- Bt corn . Amer
J Botany 88, 1704-1706.
6. Zolla , L.,
Rinalducci , S., Antoniolini , P. and Righetti , PG (2008) Proteomics as a
complementary tool for Identifying unintended side effects occurring in
transgenic maize seeds as a result of genetic Modifications . Journal of
Proteome Research 7, 1850-1861. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18393457.
7. Bernstein IL ,
Bernstein , JA , Miller, M., Tierzieva , S., Bernstein, DI , Lummus , Z.,
Selgrade MK , Doerfler , DL and Seligy , V.L. (1999) Immune responses in farm
workers after exposure to Bacillus thuringiensis pesticides. Environ Health
Perspect 107, 575-582. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1566654/.
8. Metcalfe , DD,
Astwood JD, Townsend , R., Sampson , HA, Taylor , SL and Fuchs, RL (1996)
Assessment of the allergenic potential of foods derived from genetically
engineered crop plants. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 36 Suppl, S165 -186. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8959382.
9. FAO- WHO (2001)
Evaluation of allergenicity of genetically modified foods . Report of a Joint
FAO / WHO expert consultation on allergenicity of foods derived from biotechnology.
January 22-25. http://www.fao.org/es/ESN/food/pd/allergygm.pdf.
10. Vazquez-Padron
RI, Moreno-Fierros, L., Neri-Bazan, L., De La Riva, GA and Lopez-Revilla, R.
(1999) Bacillus thuringiensis Cry 1 Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and
mucosal adjuvant . Scand J Immunology 49, 578-584.
11. Vazquez-Padron
RI, Moreno-Fierros, L., Neri-Bazan, L., De La Riva, GA and López-Revilla, R.
(1999 ) Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from
Bacillus thuringiensis you induce systemic and mucosal antibody responses in
mice . Life Sciences 64, 1897-1912.
12. Vazquez-Padron
RI, Moreno-Fierros, L., Neri-Bazan, L., Martinez-Gill, AF, De La Riva, GA and
López-Revilla, R. (2000 ) Characterization of the mucosal and systemic immune
response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice.
Braz J Med Biol Res 33, 147-155.
13. Carman, JA,
Vlieger, HR, Steeg, LRV, Sneller , VE, Robinson, GW, Clicnh-Jones, CA, Haynes,
JI and Edwards, J. W. (2013 ) A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a
combined genetically modified (GM ) maize am and GM diet . J Org Systems 8,
38-54.
14. Fares, N. H.
and El- Sayed, A. K. (1998 ) Fine structural changes in the ileum of mice
delta- endotoxin faith don -treated potatoes and transgenic potatoes. Nat
Toxins 6, 219-233.
15. Kilic, A. and
Akay, M. T. (2008) A three generation Study with genetically modified Bt corn
in rats: biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food Chem Toxicol
46, 1164-1170.
16. Schroder, M.,
Poulsen, M., Wilcks , A., Kroghsbo, S., Miller , A., Frenzel, T., Danier J., Rychlik, M., Emami , K., Gatehouse,
A., Shu, Q. , Engle, KH, Altosaar, I. and Knudsen, I. (2007) A 90 -day safety
study of genetically modified rice expressing Cry1Ab protein (Bacillus
thuringiensis toxin) in Wistar rats. Food Chem Toxicol 45, 339-349.
17. http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/usage/maps/show_map.php?year=2009&map=GLYPH%20OSATE%20&%20thread.
18. Report from the 1st National Meeting of
Physicians In The Crop-Sprayed
Towns. (English translation). Faculty of Medical Sciences, National
University of Cordoba, Argentina. August 27-28, 2010. Print.
19. Mesnage, R.,
Bernay, B. and Séralini, G. E. (2012) Ethoxylated adjuvants of glyphosate-based
herbicides are active principles of human cell toxicity. Toxicology 313(2-3): 122-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23000283.
20. World Health
Organization. (1987) IARC monographs on
the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans: An updating of IARC monographs
volumes 1 to 42. Supplement 7. WHO, Lyon, France. Print.
21. Zahm SH,
Weisenburger DD, Babbitt PA, Saal RC, Vaught , JB Cantor, K. P. and Blair , A.
(1990) A case-control study of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and the herbicide
2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) in Eastern Nebraska. Epidemiology 1(5):
349-356.
22 . Brändli , D.
and Reinacher , S. (2012) Herbicides found in human urine. Ithaka Journal 1,
270-272. http://www.ithakajournal.net/druckversionen/e052012-herbicides-urine.pdf.
24. Samsel, A. and
Seneff, S. (2013) Glyphosate suppression of cytochrome P450 enzymes and amino
acid biosynthesis by the gut microbiome: pathways to modern diseases. Entropy 15(4):
1416-1463. http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416.
25. Séralini, G.E.
et . al. (2011) Genetically modified crops safety Assessments: present limits
and possible improvements. Environmental Sciences Europe. http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10.
26. Paganelli, A.,
Gnazzo, V., Acosta, H., Lopez, S.L., and Carrasco, A.E. (2010) [Online], Glyphosate-Based Herbicides
Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid
Signaling. in Chem. Res. Toxicol., 2010, 23 (10):1586–1595; http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749.
27. Antoniou, M., Habib, MEM, Howard ,
CV , Jennings, RC and Leifert , C. (2012) Teratogenic effects of
glyphosate-based herbicides: divergence of regulatory decisions from scientific
evidence . J Anal Toxicol Environ S4: 006. http://omicsonline.org/2161-0525/2161-0525-S4-006.php?aid=7453.
28. Claire, E.,
Mesnage, R., Travert, C. and Séralini, GE (2012) A glyphosate-based herbicide
you induce necrosis and apoptosis in mature rat testicular cells in vitro, and
testosterone decrease at lower levels. Toxicology in vitro 26, 269-279.
29. Yousef , MI ,
Salem , MH, Ibrahim, HZS , Seehy , MA and Bertheussen , K. (1995 ) Toxic effects
of glyphosate on carborufan and semen characteristics in rabbits. J Environ Sci
Health B 30, 513-534.
30.
Thongprakaisang, S., Thiantanawat, A., Rangkadilok, N., Suriyo, T. and
Stayavivad, J. (2013 ) Glyphosate you induce human breast cancer cells growth
via estrogen receptors. Food Chem Toxicol 59, 129-136, http://appprecautionaryprinciple.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/glyphosate-induces-human-breast-cancer-cells-growth-via-estrogen-receptors/
Comments
Post a Comment