All Episodes
Previous Next
March 19, 2018 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams
26:23
FDA testing of glyphosate is a science SHAM!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to the Health Ranger Report with Mike Adams, the Health Ranger Science Lab Director of the Natural News Forensic Food Lab.
We have huge news for you today.
The FDA has announced its plans to begin testing food for glyphosate contamination or residues depending on what term you want to use to describe that.
Now glyphosate is of course A cancer-causing herbicide.
It is normally associated with genetically modified foods, GMOs.
Monsanto, of course, makes billions of dollars, about $5 billion annually in terms of sales, off of glyphosate herbicide.
But other companies, including Dow Chemical and Syngenta, also sell glyphosate.
It's sold in Home Depot and Lowe's and all kinds of retail stores and hardware stores all across the world, and it's used by consumers to kill weeds even though they have no real idea of how toxic and how dangerous glyphosate is.
It has been found to be linked to hormone disruptions that can lead to cancer in very tiny concentrations, parts per trillion.
We're talking very very minute volumes or masses of this insidious molecule.
I am arguably the world's most scientifically equipped clean food activist, given that I own a state-of-the-art laboratory, about a $1.5 million facility, where I test foods for contamination.
For two years, I've tested for heavy metals using ICP-MS instrumentation.
And we've recently opened up an organic chemistry section of that lab where we're testing foods for pesticides and herbicides using organic chemistry and what's called a liquid chromatography mass spectrometry or LC-MS configuration.
Now...
When I talk to scientists, colleagues of mine throughout the scientific community, what I find is that there is a huge amount of interest in testing for glyphosate, but no one seems to be doing it.
And there are a couple of reasons for that that I found out, and you'll find this fascinating, and this is fascinating.
This is exclusive information that really no one else has made public.
No articles have been written about this yet at all.
So you're hearing it here first with the Health Ranger.
Number one, glyphosate is very difficult to extract from foods.
So for every laboratory method of testing for pesticides and herbicides, you must first extract that pesticide chemical from the solid food sample.
And the reason is all these instruments, liquid chromatography, for example, you can only run liquids through them.
So even an ICP-MS, you can only run liquids.
So normally you have to either turn foods into liquids through aggressive digestion, but you can't do that when you're looking for molecules like glyphosate that you can use.
They would be destroyed with aggressive acids like nitric acid.
So instead you have to use extraction techniques that depend on the chemical polarity and makeup and solubility of the molecule that you're looking for.
So glyphosate is an insidious, almost a demonic molecule, if you will, that's very difficult to pull out of foods.
And so extraction methods are not well documented.
I know, I've looked, I've read the papers that are out there, I've read the methodologies, and there really aren't very many.
And none of them seem to be very good.
Secondly, even if you do extract it, in order to detect glyphosate, you have to be able to ionize the molecule in your detection instrumentation.
Now, there are other methods, like wet chemistry methods, but they don't have high sensitivity of detection, and they have poor quantitation, meaning You can't really, using those wet chemistry methods, you can't really nail down the parts per billion of glyphosate with much accuracy.
Some of them might go down to, I don't know, 20 or 25 parts per billion, but nothing under that.
Well, we want to see glyphosate at high parts per trillion concentrations, or even, let's say, single-digit parts per billion concentrations.
So to do that, you have to be able to ionize the molecule, and that itself is a very tricky business.
And I'm not going to go into the details of that here because it would bore everybody and I would sound like a total science geek.
So we'll move on to the FDA's announcement here.
So the FDA has said they're going to test for glyphosate and at first you might think, yay, the FDA is doing something good.
But if you know the truth about the FDA, as I do, someone who's covered the FDA for many, many years, and you start to look into the story, you find out this is just another calm job.
First of all, the FDA is not announcing what methodology they're going to use.
So how do we know that they're going to use a method that even works?
They might use a method that has what's called a very low recovery of the herbicide.
Recovery means how much or what percentage of that molecule you can normally extract out of food samples and accurately detect and quantify in your scientific instrumentation.
Well, the FDA might use a method that only has, let's say, a 25% recovery, which means they're only going to see 25% of the glyphosate.
And so they're going to get artificially low numbers that do not represent the actual concentrations of glyphosate that people are consuming in their foods.
And since they're not releasing their methodology, how do we know what they're using?
You know, I always find this interesting because science is supposed to be open to the public.
Science is supposed to be accessible and transparent.
And yet when you have these government agencies conducting what they call science, they do it in secret.
They have their secret science, black box science we call it, which isn't really science at all, is it?
You know, when I use methods to look for heavy metals, for example, I'm very open and public about the methodologies, AOAC methods or EPA methods or what have you.
When the FDA is testing for glyphosate, I guess it's just going to be a big secret project And that's not science.
That's just propaganda.
The other thing is the FDA has not said what it considers to be too much of glyphosate, at least not to my knowledge.
I know the EPA has raised what it considers to be limits on glyphosate in foods.
It raised some of those like 20 times.
Well, because Monsanto wrote the EPA a letter, you see, and said you should raise the limit of glyphosate.
So the EPA said, okay, since we're all whores and prostitutes of the biotech industry, let's just raise the level to very, very high levels and call it safe.
You know, this is the same thing that happens with radiation and nuclear accidents.
The government agencies just raise the level of exposure that's considered safe, and then they call it safe.
Well, there we go.
So how do we know what the FDA is going to say about levels of glyphosate?
I mean, we already know that the FDA, the EPA, and the USDA are essentially prostitutes to the biotech industry.
They're all corrupted and influenced by the very, very wealthy biotech corporations.
And so they always consistently make decisions that betray the public interest, but that favor the financial interests of these very, very powerful biotech corporations like Monsanto, for example.
So it is irrational for us to believe that the FDA is going to conduct this testing in the interest of the public.
They don't do anything else in the interest of the public.
Their decisions to legalize pharmaceuticals or ban pharmaceuticals or ban food additives, these decisions are never made in the public interest.
They're always made in the interest of industry.
And so, again, we'd be fools to think that suddenly, magically, that's going to change because they're testing for glyphosate.
So when I look at this news...
It tells me two things.
Number one, the FDA is under tremendous pressure to test foods for glyphosate because there's so much attention now on the toxicity of this molecule that the FDA can no longer avoid conducting some kind of theater to pretend like they're doing science, but hiding it from the public in order to carry out their propaganda campaign to say, oh, it's all safe.
And the second thing is, well, I just said it.
I can assure you right now that whatever the FDA finds in the food, no matter what concentration of glyphosate they see, they're going to declare it safe.
Trust me on that point.
They declare toxic drugs that kill people to be safe.
Vioxx they declared safe.
Resilin they declared safe, even though it caused liver damage and death in tens of thousands of Americans before they finally pulled it off the market.
There's no pesticide or herbicide or toxic chemical or pharmaceutical that is too toxic for the FDA to approve.
And history has shown that over and over and over again.
And the EPA is exactly the same way.
I mean, think about it.
The EPA took part in a conspiracy of silence to poison the children of Flint, Michigan, with lead.
Literally killing children with heavy metals.
They knew that it was in the water and they withheld that information from the public.
Now, do you think that this agency, the EPA, cares about children?
If you do, you're irrational.
Delusional might be a better term.
No, of course the EPA doesn't care about children.
The EPA... We'll withhold information from the public in order to protect the interests of whatever parties that it is favoring, whether those be government offices or government authorities or corporations or entire industries.
So this trio of toxic death, being the FDA, the EPA, and the USDA, they're all now pretending that they care about glyphosate in foods.
In truth, Their only goal here is to create the false impression, the theater, if you will, the theater of science, to convince people that there's nothing to see here, move along, eat all your food, don't worry about glyphosate, it's all safe, we said it's safe, and we're going to conduct a little fake science in the background, they say, in order to appease the public concern over this.
But what's interesting is that inside the EPA, the FDA, and the USDA, there are actually many very good scientists.
I know some of them.
I've met some of them over the last couple of years.
I know this because they're fans of my work.
Many of them wish they could do what I do, which is to tell the truth.
To conduct real science in the public interest and publish it and tell the truth.
They can't do that though because they would lose their jobs.
They would lose their pensions.
They would lose their ties to the scientific departments of these government agencies.
So they can't take that risk.
Their jobs depends on them remaining silent.
But that's why they like my work because they see me as someone who is In essence, a surrogate voice for the scientists inside the EPA who have been silenced by EPA bureaucrats.
And the same is true inside the FDA and the USDA. In all of these three agencies, there are good scientists who know very well the toxicity of glyphosate and other herbicides and pesticides.
And who are compassionate about humans and who really do care about people and who want to clean up the environment, make our food safer, make our farmlands cleaner and have our water safer and cleaner and so on.
But these scientists are not the ones in charge.
They are, in fact, silenced by the bureaucrats that run these agencies and they are told what to do.
They are ordered into silence.
So we are living under what can only be called a scientific totalitarian regime whose main mission is to silence real science and hide the truth from the public about glyphosate and its links to cancer.
So just as the cancer industry itself has long hidden any discussion of the causes of cancer, chemical toxicity, vitamin D deficiency, and so on, these food-related regulators, the FDA, EPA, and USDA, are going to conspire together to put up a massive front of fake science in order to hide the truth from the public about glyphosate and cancer.
Now, if that all sounds bad, there is a silver lining to this.
The silver lining is that citizen science is on the rise.
And I'm one of the leaders spearheading this citizen's revolt using the tools and the methodologies of proven science to do so.
For example, I recently announced epawatch.org in a nationwide effort to test the city, the water, In over 100 cities across the USA for lead contamination.
So we have people all across America now sending us samples of water that we're going to use.
We're going to test them in the lab and we're going to publish a map of the USA showing the lead contamination in the water supply in various cities across America.
And of course we'll have more than one sample from each city.
So we are crowdsourcing this.
We'll have multiple data points for each city that will help build an accurate map of the water quality in those cities.
It's going to be quite fascinating.
But the important point in this is that in doing this, we're bypassing the EPA because the EPA has already demonstrated it will not tell the people the truth.
In Flint, Michigan or anywhere else.
The EPA will conspire to withhold important information, life-saving information from the public.
So it's up to citizens now to do this instead of the EPA. So as part of this rising up of citizen science...
I'm part of a number of citizen scientists and various groups and non-profits who are really spearheading this movement with the support of people like you.
And I've been hearing that there are several labs across America that are going to start conducting glyphosate testing.
Glyphosate testing in the environment, glyphosate testing in foods, and in water as well.
And of course, I'm interested in glyphosate testing as well, but my research queue is actually pretty long right now.
I've got a lot of other things to work on at the moment, so...
I'm not sure that I would be able to get to glyphosate for quite a while.
It's also a very difficult molecule, as I mentioned.
But, hey, perhaps if there are some other methodologies that are published and that are readily available for me to do that that would make it easier, then I could do that as well.
So, yeah, long term, I'd love to be able to test for glyphosate as well.
But right now my focus is lead in water, and I've got a couple other things after that that I'm not going to mention here publicly.
For a number of reasons, but they are after that project.
More things in the public interest.
You're going to love it.
You're going to love what we're looking at and how we're publishing it and sharing this information directly with the people of America.
Back to glyphosate, there is one thing that's very interesting about this that you need to know.
When I was asking questions of my scientific colleagues in the analytical circles, you could say, and I was asking people about glyphosate, I was told that glyphosate methodologies That could be effective are very similar to those that are used to detect VX nerve gas.
And I looked up a paper on that and I found it.
And I found the write-up and the author.
And that paper was written for the Department of Homeland Security.
It turns out that VX nerve gas, which is the deadliest chemical agent ever created by mankind, shares molecular similarity or chemical similarity with glyphosate.
Now, listen to that again.
VX nerve gas and glyphosate share many chemical properties.
I found that fascinating just to hear that.
And one of those properties is that they both are highly polar molecules.
In other words, on opposite ends of the molecule, they have very opposite strong charges.
You know, one end is very strongly positive, the other end is very strongly negative.
And so the polarity Of the molecule is a very important property when considering retention time in liquid chromatography, separation of the chemical analysis in kind of an instrument that requires ionization and so on.
It also has a phosphorus group.
VX nerve gas does as well as glyphosate, a molecular cluster, if you will, that is clustered around a phosphorus element.
And that, even though phosphorus, of course, exists in many, many other things, these clusters are more similar across VX nerve gas and glyphosate than you might suspect.
And so, in fact, the name glyphosate sort of gives away that there is a phosphorus or a phosphate group.
It's sort of almost part of the name of the chemical.
Glyphosate sounds kind of like phosphate, and that's not a coincidence that it was named because of that.
So if you go look up the...
Go to ChemSpider and look up the molecule of VX nerve gas and you're going to find that it also has a similar cluster of elements in a molecular, you know, organic molecule.
So this tells us lots of things.
The simplest way to think about this is to say, well, glyphosate is essentially nerve gas for plants.
And as VX nerve gas kills humans, glyphosate kills plants.
Now, of course, it's not exactly the same mechanism.
They're very different mechanisms, so I'm not trying to claim that they are the same biochemical pathways.
They're not.
But in terms of a simplified way to think about the toxicity of these molecules, it is a useful analogy.
And thus, to shortcut it, say, yeah, glyphosate is kind of like VX nerve gas for plants, which is why it kills so rapidly, by the way.
So as we are moving into the future here where we have cancer rates that are just epidemic across our population, and we have people being killed by what they're eating or drinking, and we have government agencies and we have people being killed by what they're eating or drinking, and we have government agencies that are actively engaged
while suppressing the science that would uncover the truth, we must all be vigilant as citizen consumers and citizen scientists because the real outcome of all this falls onto our shoulders.
We are the only ones who can really produce the legitimate, honest science on this.
We're the only ones who will raise the alarm.
We are the only ones who will publish the truth.
Remember that government and corporations and even academia and the mainstream media, four major institutions, are all aligned with In favor of toxic pesticides, herbicides, chemicals, and GMOs.
Anything that will kill you, they will promote it.
They will propagandize it.
They will shove it down your throats.
Almost every major institution in our society is actively promoting things that will kill you because that's what the corporations make money off of.
So the only voices of truth and reason and scientific reason and rationality in this space are the independent scientists, the citizen scientists, the whistleblower journalists, independent journalists, alternative media journalists, the bloggers like you, the naturopaths who are aware of all of this.
In other words, those who are not tied into the mainstream institutions of mass death and mass profit.
So keep that in mind.
It's very clear.
If you want the truth about glyphosate, listen to independent scientists who do not have ties to the FDA or the biotech industry or corrupted academic institutions like the University of Florida.
If you want the truth, go to independent scientists like me, a citizen scientist with my own independent laboratory.
People trust my results for all the right reasons because they know that I am passionate about protecting life.
They know that I'm passionate about using the avenue of science to discover the truth and to publish the truth in a way that is able to be replicated by other labs.
So that's the other thing.
What I'm producing when I'm testing foods for contaminants and maybe one day for glyphosate, the results that I'm publishing are not opinions.
They're not bias.
They are scientific facts that can be replicated by any university that wished to conduct real science instead of fake corporate science.
The FDA has all the instruments that I have.
In fact, in many cases, they are the exact same instruments.
Yet the FDA chooses not to use them in the public interest.
Same thing at the EPA. The EPA owns a thousand times more scientific instruments than my lab.
Yet the EPA does not use them for the public interest.
The EPA uses science to withhold information from the public.
And so we are going to change that with your help.
We're going to change all of that.
And maybe one day we can achieve the important goal of having glyphosate outright banned, like DDT was banned.
So that's our goal here, is to ban this cancer-causing chemical from our food supply, ban it from our soils, from our waters, from our bodies, get it out of our system.
Get it out of our environment.
Save our ecosystems.
Save our farms.
Save our children.
And if there's any way to accomplish this, we're going to find it with your help.
All right, so last thing, how you can help us.
We never ask for donations, or rarely.
However, if you do purchase food from our online store, we use those profits to expand our laboratory.
So go to store.naturalnews.com.
Everything that we sell there, which includes many superfoods, nutritional supplements, Amazing chocolate bars that are organic.
Almost everything there is organic.
You can get all of those.
They are all laboratory verified and tested in our laboratory.
So we are the only online store in the world, to my knowledge, that tests everything we sell for heavy metals and now for pesticides and other chemicals as well.
So we are...
Probably the most trusted source for all of these superfoods.
You buy from us, you know that you're getting safe, tested food and supplements that we stand behind that are going to be nutritious and safe for you.
So every purchase, of course, supports our laboratory and allows us to continue this effort to use science in the public interest.
So I thank you for your support.
That website, again, is store.naturalnews.com.
My name's Mike Adams, the Health Ranger.
You can catch my podcast at healthrangerreport.com, and also my website is naturalnews.com.
▲
Export Selection