All posts tagged system

Preservatives on FRESH produce: buyer beware.

It isn’t unthinkable at all. Another gift from the FDA. See: http://www.fda.gov/Food/ScienceResearch/ResearchAreas/SafePracticesforFoodProcesses/ucm091368.htm

If you’re like me and you try to avoid processed food because it is denatured, adulterated, bastardized, and a host of other dirty words, then you’ll be pissed off to know that the FDA actually allows preservatives on fresh produce. We’re all familiar with “wax” on our apples. But it isn’t actually wax.

The document on the FDA site is long and frustrating. But here’s an excerpt:

Edible films may consist of four basic materials: lipids, resins, polysaccharides and proteins (Baldwin and others 1995). Plasticizers such as glycerol as well as cross-linking agents, antimicrobials, antioxidants, and texture agents can be added to customize the film for a specific use (Guilbert and others 1996). Plasticizers have the specific effect of increasing water vapor permeability. Therefore, their addition must be considered when calculating the desired water vapor properties of each specific film, since too much moisture can create ideal growth conditions for some foodborne pathogens. The most common plasticizer used to cast edible films is food-grade polyethylene glycol, which is used to reduce film brittleness (Koelsch 1994).

At first glace, you wouldn’t think this excerpt pertains to your food–your salads, in fact. But they do. These “waxy” or “plastic-like” compounds are numerous and variable, depending on the type of produce being preserved.

Whole foods aren’t whole anymore. They’re sprayed with a bunch of crap derived from other foods, substances, or synthetic chemistry. And while they are apparently effective in preventing earlier spoilage, they are also sometimes effective at creating neat little conditions for bad pathogens to grow. With any widespread system, there can be acute vulnerabilities.

Without going into laborious detail about each of the substances implemented in the films, I’ll conclude by drilling home the following point: fresh food is better. Fresh, as in picked recently–not as in freshness preserved. These plastic-like preservatives are another band-aid holding the industrial food system (one giant ball of used bandaids) together.

Fresh is better. The fresh, local, sustainable foods system is the one richest in variety, richest in local environmental properties, richest in community investment, richest in good “food karma.”

If you find these waxy films on your lettuce, you’re not buying fresh enough. Your purchasing power is exactly that: power–power to engender quality food from a strong, independent, quality food system.

Remember that before you buy something that goes directly into your mouth.

You are what you eat.

Training Your Metabolic Pathways: Q & A

***The following Q & A is a continuation from my previous article, Training Your Metabolic Pathways (part 1). Readers are encouraged to see the article (which explains how different energy systems work and how to train them) before reading this article.***

Okay, so what if your goal is to reduce your body fat?

Q: Why not train the first system, aerobic liposis, to ensure that all the calories being burned are coming from fat?

A: Because you have seemingly unlimited fat stores. If you don’t deplete your glycogen stores, and happen to eat a little more, all of those extra calories will go into fat storage, since the glycogen tank is full.

Q: Why train so hard, in the glycolitic systems, all the time?

A: More bang for your buck. In terms of calorie-burn per minute, the glycolitic systems win over the lipolitic system. You don’t have to be in the gym nearly as long to burn calories.

Q: So what…?

A: If you are constantly depleting your glycogen fuel tank (which can hold 1,500 to 2,000 calories in the average person), you have a “free food window,” meaning… if you happen to overeat a few hundred calories of carbs, you can be guaranteed that they will simply go into glycogen stores, rather than fat storage. This is how calorie deficits works. As long as you keep your window “open,” it is difficult to gain weight from eating too much (unless your diet is very out of balance).

Q: Okay, so as long as I keep my glycolitic fuel tank half full…

A: You’ll be all right unless you’re bombing on pints of Haagen Dazs, blocks of cheese, and other high fat foods. Your body only needs so much fat, and can only use so much as energy. Eat too much, and it tends to go into storage.

Q: So if I train my aerobic glyocolitic system a lot and keep my “window open,” isn’t that enough? Do I have to do all those nasty intervals and tough strength training sessions?

A: As I said before, more bang for your buck. The higher the intensity, the more calories per minute you burn, and hence the wider that “window” is. But, even better, if you train your body hard, you can increase the amount of glycogen that can be stored!

Q: Really? How?

A: Just as the body will make bigger muscles after a strength training session to be more prepared for the next time you place that kind of demand on them, the body will upgrade to a bigger fuel tank, in order to be more prepared for your habit of stepping on the gas all the time. Conditioned endurance athletes can store up to twice the amount of glycogen compared to normal people (there is, admittedly, a genetic component to that as well). So the more you condition your glycolitic systems, the more you keep your window open, and the bigger that window gets.

Q: Okay, so I train my aerobic glycolitic system a lot, and the idea of getting a bigger window (a bigger fuel tank) is nice, but I don’t worry that much about overeating. So still, why bother with the anaerobic glycolitic system? I can’t maintain my anaeobic intensity as long as I can maintain my aerobic intensity anyway, so at the end of 40 minutes, I will have burned more calories than I will have burned in 15-20 minutes of anaerobic work.

A: Good question. I have a two-part answer for you. First, if you want to lower your body fat percentage, you can burn off some of your fat, you can put on more muscle, or you can do both. Intervals aren’t the only anaerobic activity. Resistance training also trains the glycolitic anaerobic system. By adding more muscle, you lower your body fat percentage–but not necessarily your absolute body fat (amount of pinchable fat).

Q: So I’ll still be fat, only with bigger muscles underneath?

A: If you eat too much, yes. If you always eat enough to shut your glycogen “window” (fully replenish your stores) and something extra, your body will have no incentive to burn fat. but remember, one pound of muscle, we have all heard, requires way more calories to maintain than one pound of fat. Muscle requires protein, of course, and it stores glycogen, but during your day-to-day activity, your body will burn more fat to power itself.

Q: How much more?

A: A few tens of calories per pound.

Q: Is that it? A few tens of calories?

A: Well… yes. But think of it this way, if you put on 5lbs of legitimate muscle over a few months and then just maintain it, that can be up to 150 extra calories burned per day. That offsets fifteen pounds you could have potentially gained in a year. Believe it or not, 10 lbs of weight gain per year can be quite normal for an adult.

Q: I guess that is a nice safety net. But I want to drop my body fat now!

A: Then the most relevant thing to you is something commonly called “afterburn.”

Q: What’s that?

A: Afterburn is the amount of energy you use after your workout. When you train at a very high intensity, your metabolism races. When you’re done, it’s still going hard. Imagine a car… you cruise in your car for a half hour, then park it in the garage. It cools down eventually. What if you red-lined that car until it overheated? It would take much longer for the engine to cool down. Same idea. If you do some aerobic work at the gym, then hit the locker room, leave and head to a cafe to read, you click back into your day-to-day mode pretty easily. But if you bust it at the gym, it takes much longer to relax, and maybe later in the day your muscles start humming. Repair, repair, repair! Replace, replace, replace. These are highly metabolic activities. You want to work hard at the gym often, to the point that your afterburn is apparent even to you.

Q: Okay, so every time I feel like hell after a workout, that’s a good thing?

A: That’s when the most weight loss and body re-composition happen, other than when you are sleeping. The more you have to repair and replace all the time, the faster your body shape will change! And frankly, when you get off that treadmill or elliptical machine, you really haven’t done very much damage, even if you were pushing it.

Q: Riiight… I guess that makes sense. So I just have to accept the fact that most of my workouts are going to be painful. But who in their right mind wants to do something that hard all the time?

A: Pain and difficulty are relative feelings. The more you challenge your body, the less it hurts in the long run, and the less difficult it is to confront. Something that hurts and burns in one person feels completely manageable, if not comfortable, in another person. Over time, as you become more fit, things hurt less. That is fitness.

Q: But if things hurt less, then isn’t it harder to burn and break? Won’t it be more difficult to challenge myself?

A: On the contrary, the more conditioned you become, the more you can take on. The higher you raise your anaerobic-lactic acid threshold, the more reps you can squeeze out, the longer you can go, the more “damage” you can do. Here’s an example. You can work your anaerobic system by doing three sets of 12 dead lifts. If you’ve been lifting for a while, you’re not likely to be super-sore afterwards. Or, you can work your aerobic glycolitic system by doing over 100 dead lifts as fast as you can, at a lighter weight. The end result is a bobble between aerobic and anaerobic, more reps, and hence more time your muscles are under strain. You’re likely to be quite sore after that effort.

Q: Take-home lesson: always look for new ways to challenge myself.

A: One more thing. Just as you train your energy systems to exercise, by exercising, you train your at-rest energy systems. When you keep your glycogen stores perpetually half full, and your body is constantly trying to convert carbohydrates into glucose to re-fill them, the rest of your body relies more heavily on fat stores to power you through the day. The more you exercise, the more fat you burn at home, period.

See you at the gym!

Watch This Documentary: Food, Inc.

What are you really eating? Who grew it, and where? What inputs went into it? How many people were exploited to bring it to your dinner plate? What are those ingredients on the back? What is sustainable agriculture? What is the face of American industrial food production?

Do you even care? Maybe not, but if you are a regular reader of this blog, you’ll probably want to take a look.

http://www.foodincmovie.com

Food, Inc., produced by Robert Kenner, featuring interviews with Eric Schlosser (author of Fast Food Nation) and Michael Pollan (author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, The Botany of Desire, In Defence of Food), was nominated for an Academy Award for “best documentary feature.” That means it’s pretty good.

This movie will take you from the inside of your supermarket, to the genetically modified soybean fields of middle America, to the twisted multi-national corporate influences over the FDA, to food safety issues and bills, to the countless corn-derived additives in processed food, to worker safety issues and exploitation… to the realization that there’s a lot going on in food production about which we are not very aware. The current food production system likes it that way.

But don’t feel too depressed… the movie has an upswing. Sustainable agricultural methods and organic food production are booming. Organic is the fastest growing section of your supermarket. You have control. You vote with your dollars.

Capitalism is not ashamed to follow your dollar, and if you demand better food, the system will deliver it.

All About Monsanto

Maria Stevens, January 2010

Overview:

The Monsanto Company is a U.S.-based multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is the world’s leading producer of herbicide glyphosate, marketed as Roundup. It is also the world’s leading producer of genetically engineered seed; Monsanto provides 90% of the world’s GMO seed. In other words, it has a monopoly on the GMO market.[1]

History:

Monsanto was founded in 1901 by John Francis Queeny, a 30-year veteran of the pharmaceutical industry. The company’s first product was the artificial sweetener, saccharine, which is sold to Coca-cola. It also began producing caffeine and vanillin. Monsanto entered the European market, by producing canillin, salicylic acid, aspirin, and rubber.

Most Famous Products:

By the 1940s, Monsanto was a leading producer of plastics, polystrene, and synthetic fibers (basically plastic, styrofoam, and things like carpets). It is also the developer of herbicides 2,4, 5-T, DDT (an insecticide), the highly carcenogenic Agent Orange (used widely in Vietnam), aspartame (an atrificial sweetener widely used in soft drinks), and BST (bovine growth hormone). Monsanto is also reported to have involvement at the research level of the Manhattan Project, for the development of the first nuclear weapons[2].

Aspartame:

For years, Monsanto produced aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal, NatraTaste, Canderel). On May 25, 2000, Monsanto sold it to J.W. Childs Equity Partners II L.P. Aspartame is a controversial chemical sweetener added to things like soft drinks. It is approved by many Food and Drug Administrations around the world, as it comes in “acceptable and safe” levels of intake in products. In other words, as long as a level is low-enough, it is not considered poisonous.

Studies conducted by Monsanto find that aspartame is safe. In general, many studies conducted by Monsanto are tossed out by the scientific community on the basis of poor-design.[3] The majority of independent studies find aspartame to be highly toxic, even at relatively low levels.[4] No longitudinal (measured over a long time) study, however, has been conducted on human beings tracking the adverse effects of low doses (such as in soft drinks). To this day, no causal links to adverse health effects can be attributed to aspartame, due to a lack of “control” groups. In other words, even though there is a large community of people who have consumed low levels of aspartame in soft drinks over 30 years, there is no group of people who haven’t done so, and therefore no control gruop from which to draw conclusions.

Symptoms of aspartame toxicity include: Headaches/Migraines, Dizziness, Seizures, Nausea, Numbness, Muscle spasms, Weight gain, Rashes, Depression, Fatigue, Irritability, Tachycardia, Insomnia, Vision Problems, Hearing Loss, Heart palpitations, Breathing difficulties, Anxiety attacks, Slurred Speech, Loss of taste, Tinnitus, Vertigo, Memory loss, Joint Pain.

The more serious concern is the long-term nervous system damage, immune system damage, and irreversible genetic damage known to be caused by aspartame’s metabolite (a metabolite is a by product of metabolization), formaldehyde. Formaldehyde can cause severe health problems at exceptionally low levels of exposure.

DDT Insecticide:

DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) is one of the most well known synthetic pesticides.

DDT is toxic to a wide range of animals in addition to insects. It is highly toxic to aquatic life, including crayfish, sea shrimp and many species of fish. It is less toxic to mammals but cats are very susceptible.[5] DDT may be moderately toxic to some amphibian species, especially in the larval stages. Most famously, it is a reproductive toxicant for certain birds species, and it is a major reason for the decline of the bald eagle, brown pelican, peregrine falcon, and osprey.[6]

In humans, it is an endocrine disruptor (the endocrine system is the gland system of the body). Human epidemiological (the study of epidemics) studies suggest that DDT exposure is a risk factor for premature birth and low birth weight, birth defects, and may harm a mother’s ability to breastfeed[7]. It has been shown to have xenoestrogenic activity, meaning it is chemically similar enough to estrogens to trigger hormonal responses in humans and animals. A 2007 study documented decreases in semen quality among South African men from communities where DDT is used to combat endemic malaria.[8]

Today, DDT is banned in many countries as an agricultural pesticide, but is still used widely to combat malaria.

Glyphosate (Roundup):

Glyphosate is a chemical that kills weeds. Roundup is the brand name of a systemic, broad-spectrum herbicide produced by the U.S. company Monsanto, and contains the active ingredient glyphosate. Glyphosate is the most used herbicide in the USA, and Roundup is the number one selling herbicide worldwide since at least 1980. As of 2009, sales of Roundup herbicides represent about 10% of Monsanto’s revenue. Now there is competition from Chinese producers of other glyphosate-based herbicides. The overall Roundup line of products (which includes GM seeds) represents about half of Monsanto’s yearly revenue.[9]

Human beings exposed to toxic levels of glyphosate (this occurs widely, especially in developing countries, which lack stricter regulations for herbicide implementation) can suffer from: gastrointestinal corrosive effects with the mouth and throat; renal impairment; respiratory distress; impaired consciousness; pulmonary oedema; infiltration on chest x-ray; shock; arrhythmias; dermal irritation; skin burns. Inhalation is a minor route of exposure, but spray mist may cause oral or nasal discomfort, an unpleasant taste in the mouth, tingling and throat irritation. Eye exposure may lead to mild conjunctivitis. Glyphosate has also been found to be an endocrine disruptor (the endocrine hormonal system is an information signal system much like the nervous system). In another study, a group of scientists led by Gilles-Eric Seralini from the University of Caen in France found that human placental cells are very sensitive to Roundup at concentrations lower than the agricultural use. This, they suggest, could explain the high levels of premature births and miscarriages observed among women farmers in the US using glyphosate.

When glyphosate concentrates in the environment, it has dramatic effects on surrounding ecosystems. University of Pittsburg’s biologist Rick Relyea has found that Roundup is “extremely lethal” to amphibians. Glyphosate is one of the most toxic herbicides, and is the third most commonly reported cause of pesticide related illness among agricultural workers.[10] Products containing glyphosate also contain other compounds, which can be toxic. Glyphosate is technically extremely difficult to measure in environmental samples, which means that data is often lacking on residue levels in food and the environment, and existent data may not be reliable.

In India, it is becoming a popular practice to commit suicide by drinking a litre of Roundup after an agricultural failure, often caused by GMO crops associated with Roundup.[11]

Genetically Modified Foods:

A genetically modified organism (GMO) or genetically engineered organism (GEO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. These techniques, generally known as recombinant DNA technology, use DNA molecules from different sources, which are combined into one molecule to create a new set of genes. This DNA is then transferred into an organism, giving it modified or novel genes. Transgenic organisms, a subset of GMOs, are organisms which have inserted DNA that originated in a different species.

The use of GMOs has sparked significant controversy in many areas. Some groups or individuals see the generation and use of GMOs as intolerable meddling with biological states or processes that have naturally evolved over long periods of time, while others are concerned about the limitations of modern science to fully comprehend all of the potential negative ramifications of genetic manipulation.

In 1982, Monsanto became the first company to genetically engineer plant cells, and began conducting field tests five years later. Instances of cross-contamination were reported as early as 1990, when Monsanto GMO seeds started blowing into conventional fields from neighbouring farms. Through the early 2000s, Monsanto filed numerous lawsuits against Canadian and American farmers found to be cultivating Monsanto’s seed. Supreme courts favoured with Monsanto, claiming that cultivating a patented seed without license deprived developers full enjoyment of their patent rights.

Between 1985 and the present, through a series of spin-offs and mergers, Monsanto has changed the face of its company in order to focus primarily on GMO development.

Current GMO seeds being marketed by Monsanto (or companies acquired by Monsanto)[12]:

1 Corn (9 strains)

2 Cotton (3 strains)

3 Oilseeds: soybeans (3 strains), canola (1 strain)

4 Wheat (still in research and marketing stages)

Vegetables: aubergine, tomato, rootstock, cucumber, pepper, gourd, melon, pumpkin, squash, watermelon, carrot, leek, onion, beans, okra, peas, broccoli, cabbage, Chinese cabbage, cauliflower, radish, fennel, lettuce, spinach

All of these foods, especially in regions where GMOs and GMO cultivation are permitted, are suspect.

Influence in Government Policy:

Former Monsanto employees currently hold United States government positions in the Food and Drug Administration, Supreme Court, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Decisions and pressures from these individuals have largely contributed to the loosening of regulations and decision-making practices, directly benefiting the company.

Public officials formerly employed by Monsanto:

1 Justice Clarence Thomas worked as an attorney for Monsanto in the 1970s. Thomas wrote the majority opinion in the 2001 Supreme Court decision J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.|J. E. M. AG SUPPLY, INC. V. PIONEER HI-BREDINTERNATIONAL, INC. which found that “newly developed plant breeds are patentable under the general utility patent laws of the United States.” This case benefited all companies which profit from genetically modified crops, of which Monsanto is the largest.

2 Michael R. Taylor was an assistant to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner before he left to work for a law firm on gaining FDA approval of Monsanto’s artificial growth hormone (BST) in the 1980s. Taylor then became deputy commissioner of the FDA from 1991 to 1994. Taylor was later re-appointed to the FDA in August 2009 by President Barack Obama.

3 Dr. Michael A. Friedman was a deputy commissioner of the FDA before he was hired as a senior vice president of Monsanto.

4 Linda J. Fisher was an assistant administrator at the United States Environmental Protection agency (EPA) before she was a vice president at Monsanto from 1995 – 2000. In 2001, Fisher became the deputy administrator of the EPA.

5 Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield was chairman and chief executive officer of G. D. Searle & Co., which Monsanto purchased in 1985. Rumsfeld personally made at least $12 million from the transaction

Monsanto has a long track record of involvement in unethical environmental practices, and is cited by the Environmental Protection Agency to be a “potentially responsible party” for 56 contaminated sites (Superfund sites—abandoned hazardous waste sites). Monsanto has been sued numerous times, and usually settles out of court to pay damages.

Terminator Technology:

Monsanto currently owns technology called Terminator seeds. These are seeds that result in hybrid plants that cannot flower and cross-contaminate. While this may seem like a good technology in terms of preventing GMO strains from contaminating conventional fields, it can also be used as a very powerful tool to dominate seed markets, forcing farmers to rely on seed companies year after year for conventional seed provision. This is already the case with GMO seeds, particularly Roundup-ready Soybeans, which are partnered with Roundup, a product that kills everything but Roundup-ready Soybeans. This means that if farmers want to efficiently continue using the world’s most popular and effective herbicide, they must switch to Monsanto’s GMO soybeans. They are then reliant year after year on Monsanto as a seed provider, since saving seed is strictly prohibited. June 1, 2007 Monsanto completed a takeover of Delta & Pine Land, bought for $1.5 billion, which holds three terminator patents with the USDA. While Monsanto has not publicly declared its intention to commercialise Terminator seeds, the company states that as technology improves, it will re-evaluate this consideration. Environmentalist’s fear that commercialisation of this technology will lead to cross-contamination conventional fields and stop reproduction of conventional seed strains.

Bovine Growth Hormone:

Monsanto, producer of BST (synthetic bovine growth hormone), also know as rBGH or Posilac, sold the BST business in 2008 to Eli Lilly for $300 million plus considerations. BST sparked controversy because while the hormone (known as IGF-1 in its natural form) occurs naturally in mothers’ milk to be fed to their infants, it produces adverse effects in non-infants. It behaves as a cancer accelerator in adults and non-infants; it is associated with breast cancer, prostate cancer, lung cancer, and colon cancer. Tests in dairy cows showed enlargement of reproductive organs and infection in mammary glands. Tests in rats showed aberrations in the digestive processes, and spiked responses in the immune system. A Monsanto-sponsored survey of milk, however, showed no significant different in rBST levels in milk produced with this hormone, and milk produced without.[13]

A pro-BST advocacy group, AFACT, made up of large dairy conglomerates closely affiliated with Monsanto, has engaged in large-scale lobbying efforts to prevent non-BST milk as being labelled as such, worrying that consumer fear will hurt BST-produced dairy profits. Milk labelled as hormone-free is enormously popular with consumers. Monsanto pushes the FDA to require that, at the very least, hormone-free milk contain further verbiage stating that BST milk has not been recognized by the FDA to have any difference. In short, BST-milk producers don’t like that non-BST milk sells better.

Other Patents:

As of February 2005, Monsanto has patent claims to breeding techniques for pigs. Greenpeace argues this is far too broad a claim, and that Monsanto is trying to claim rights on ordinary breeding techniques. Monsanto claims the system enables tracking of pigs bred under its system, and furthermore that the system uses a specialized inseminating machine that requires less sperm. In simpler terms, because some things are so blatantly obvious and common sense that no one would even think to patent them, they have been taken for granted; Monsanto is the first company to attempt to own common practices.

Legal History:

The fact that one company can be responsible so many products with so many negative externalities is shocking.

Among countless lawsuits, Monsanto has been sued (or fined) over:

1 The safety of saccharine[14]

2 The adverse effects of Agent Orange, by Vietnam veterans[15]

3 In class-action lawsuits (a lawsuit by numerous parties all affected by the same phenomenon) because of neighbourhood exposure to Superfund sites[16]

4 In anti-trust lawsuits for monopolizing the herbicide and seed markets.[17]

5 For false advertising, for claiming that Roundup was biodegradable[18]

6 For knowledge of GMO contamination in imported seed supplies.[19]

7 For bribing (which Monsanto called a “consulting fee”) government officials in developing countries, to avoid regulations[20]

Monsanto also serves as plaintiff in cases against:

1 Small farmers for patent infringement, either from saving seed, or from field-contamination[21]

2 Oakhurt Dairy, for claiming that its milk was BST-free. Monsanto held that his claim unfairly hurt the sales of BST-dairy[22]

3 Percy Schmeiser, for intentionally planting Roundup-resistant canola without license, and profiting from the patented seed. Case went to the Supreme Court, and Schmeiser won a partial victory by arguing that because he did not use Roundup on the crop, he did not profit from the Roundup-ready gene in the seed.[23]

Sources:

[1] South African GMO Crop Failure Highlights Dangers of Food Supply Domination, http://www.naturalnews.com/025992_Monsanto_food_GMO.html[2] Monsanto’s Greatest Hits, http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/05.11.00/cover/gen-food2-0019.html

[3] Monsanto’s History of Lies and Toxicity, http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11593-monsantos-history-of-lies-and-toxicity

[4] Aspartame – The Silent Killer, http://www.healingdaily.com/detoxification-diet/aspartame.htm

[5] O’Shaughnessy PT (November 2008). “Parachuting cats and crushed eggs the controversy over the use of DDT to control malaria”. Am J Public Health 98 (11): 1940–8.

[6] DDT, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#cite_note-catdrop-34

[7] Rogan WJ, Ragan NB (2003). “Evidence of effects of environmental chemicals on the endocrine system in children”. Pediatrics 112 (1 Pt 2): 247–52

[8]Aneck-Hahn, Natalie H. “ Impaired Semen Quality Associated With Environmental DDT Exposure in Young Men Living in a Malaria Area in the Limpopo Province, South Africa,” Journal of Andrology, Vol. 28, No. 3, May/June 2007.

[9] Roundup. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup#cite_note-EPAusage-1

[10] Glyphosate Factsheet, http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Roundup-Glyphosate-Factsheet-Cox.htm

[11]Seeds of Suicide, http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/07/seeds_of_suicid.html

[12] www.monsanto.com