Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 31, 2018 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams

19:21

How the media LIES to you about GLYPHOSATE herbicide

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I want to bring your attention to a major glyphosate-related science scandal being pushed by the dishonest, corporate, controlled, scientifically illiterate media.
	If you care about the cleanliness of your foods, and if you care about glyphosate contamination and exposure, as you should since it has been confirmed to cause cancer, then you need to listen to this podcast.
	This is Mike Adams here, the Health Ranger, editor of NaturalNews.com.
	I'm also the founder and lab science director Of CWC Labs, where we are testing glyphosate on a triple-quad mass spec instrument.
	And so we're very, very familiar with the molecule.
	I can tell you, for example, in M minus H negative mode, the mass is 168.0, essentially.
	And so we look at the molecule, and we look at also derivatives of it, AMPA, and in acetyl glyphosate, which is a compound molecule that is larger than just glyphosate alone.
	And anyway, we know the science on glyphosate, but look, the media is constantly lying to you about glyphosate by reporting that foods, quote, test positive.
	For glyphosate.
	They say, oh, these breakfast cereals tested positive for glyphosate.
	This is essentially a lie, and I'm going to explain why, and you may find this surprising.
	Now, the EWG, Environmental Working Group, did a lot of tests on cereals and other products.
	I mean, they didn't do the test themselves.
	They sent it out to outside labs, labs like my lab, that can run glyphosate.
	And then they published the results.
	And now the Environmental Working Group did publish what's called the quantitation levels of how much glyphosate was found in the various foods.
	And often those quantitation levels are expressed in the form of, for example, micrograms per milliliter or micrograms per gram or milligrams per kilogram, different units.
	Some of them are mass over volume and others are mass over mass, for example.
	So the units can be very confusing to people who are not lab scientists.
	And this is one reason why a lot of the media misreports glyphosate findings because they don't understand the units.
	And again, units can be quite confusing if you're not used to dealing with, you know, what's a microgram per milliliter?
	What does that mean?
	You know, parts per million, parts per billion.
	If you're not used to dealing with these units, it can be a bit of a challenge.
	But here's what you really need to know.
	Everything in the world that is a food, everything in the grocery store will, quote, test positive for glyphosate.
	Everything.
	Without exception.
	Why is that?
	Because there's glyphosate...
	Well, first of all...
	The definition of testing positive simply means that one or more molecules of glyphosate was found.
	That's it.
	Just one molecule, that's all it takes.
	Then it's, oh, it tests positive.
	Well, is one molecule of glyphosate going to harm you?
	No.
	No, not at all.
	Not even a million molecules.
	I mean, molecules, especially glyphosate, is a very tiny molecule, 169, 169 daltons is its molecular mass.
	It's a very small molecule.
	And you get a lot of molecules in a mole, that's a chemistry term, A lot of molecules are floating around everywhere because glyphosate is sprayed everywhere.
	You know, millions of tons of glyphosate are deployed on farms just in America every year.
	Millions of tons.
	And globally, I don't know how big the number is, but it's huge.
	The point is, there is literally glyphosate floating around in the air.
	And this is a very sad thing.
	This is the poisoning of our planet, make no mistake.
	But because there's so much glyphosate in the air, if you walk into a grocery store and you just walk around and walk out and you don't even touch anything, you will have glyphosate on your clothing.
	You'll have glyphosate in your hair.
	You will have inhaled glyphosate.
	Make no mistake, if you are just around conventionally grown food, you are going to have glyphosate in and around and on your body.
	If you just touch those foods, you're going to have glyphosate.
	And so in a grocery store, because there's so much intermixing of all of these chemicals, for example, you know, Apples and grapes and strawberries, they smell like laundry detergent because there's laundry detergent chemicals in the grocery store and those chemicals inundate the entire store.
	And I've done podcasts about this where I purchase organic breakfast cereals and I can taste laundry detergent in the cereal.
	And I can smell it on the cereal box.
	And it's a very common thing.
	This is why I don't shop at regular grocery stores anymore, because everything's toxic.
	I only shop at natural, holistic, organic stores, or I actually try to acquire food from Other sources that I'm not going to go into just to avoid all of the contamination because there's glyphosate in everything in the grocery store or on everything.
	It's part of the ecosystem of conventional agriculture, which is highly, highly toxic, and it contaminates and pollutes everything.
	So you can't buy anything.
	Well, let me say it this way.
	Everything you buy at the grocery store, if you send it to a lab, if they have a sensitive enough instrument, they will Detect glyphosate, meaning that that food, quote, tests positive.
	You could take organic strawberries and send them to a lab, and they're going to test positive for glyphosate, if the lab has a sensitive enough instrument.
	Now, instruments have what's called a limit of detection or LOD. The LOD is a description of how low the concentration can go and still be detected by the instrument in the lab.
	Now, the LOD for glyphosate, for most, let's say, triple-quad mass spec instruments, Is something below one part per billion or maybe around one part per billion?
	Depending on the instrument, if the instrument's really dirty, has a lot of background noise, then you might only be able to go down to, let's say, 25 parts per billion.
	That might be your limit of detection.
	If your instrument is very, very clean, you have low background noise, and you have high vacuum, You have a very clean collision cell inside the mass spec system.
	Then you might be able to get one part per billion or below one part per billion.
	But this is called the limit of detection.
	There's another factor called limit of quantitation or LOQ. LOQ is really a more important number and it's always higher than LOD. LOQ might be five parts per billion or higher depending on the instrument and that's the What that describes is the lowest level that you can quantitate.
	In other words, how low can you go and still get a chromatography peak where you can calculate the area of the peak and get a number of the concentration of that analyte or chemical compound that's in the original food sample?
	That number is the number that matters and again For some labs, that number might be as low as 5 parts per billion for glyphosate.
	For other labs, it might be 25, 50, even 100 parts per billion, which means that those instruments cannot accurately quantitate glyphosate concentrations below that LOQ limit.
	That's why LOQ matters.
	And one of the things that all of us do as scientists is when we go through a process called validation, and validating a specific chemical method or an analysis method on a specific instrument, It involves running various experiments to determine the limit of detection and the limit of quantitation.
	And so every good lab will have that number already nailed down.
	They'll know, oh, we can detect glyphosate down to maybe one part per billion, but we can only quantitate it down to five parts per billion.
	Let's say.
	That would be fairly typical.
	But here's the thing.
	Next year, there might be a new instrument that's more sensitive.
	Because all these instrument manufacturers are always working on new technology.
	They've got new triple quads.
	They've got better vacuum turbine pumps.
	And the stronger vacuum you can pull, the more accurate you can get.
	These instruments are getting better all the time.
	And, you know, we work with multiple instrument manufacturers and we see their technology and it's just, it's incredible.
	I was, we actually had a mass spec triple quad in our lab recently that was loaned to us by one of the major manufacturers just to get our input and feedback on it.
	And where these things used to be the size of like a dorm room refrigerator or two of those stacked side by side, This new triple quad was the size of like a microwave oven, so they're getting much smaller, even though they're still triple quad instruments.
	And so sensitivities are getting better and better, which means that you could say, you could send a food sample to a lab right now, and that lab might say, well, no glyphosate detected.
	It's glyphosate free.
	But then next year, the same exact sample might be, oh, yeah, we found glyphosate.
	Why is that?
	Because the instrument's better.
	The instrument can detect lower and lower concentrations.
	Maybe 100 parts per trillion at some point of glyphosate, you know, because of all these improvements that I've mentioned here.
	So as the instruments keep getting better, more and more of everything will test, quote, positive for glyphosate to the point of it being totally meaningless.
	Because again, if you get an instrument, let's say the perfect theoretical mass spec instrument that has zero background noise, that has a perfect vacuum, that has absolute perfection, where you could detect one molecule of glyphosate, then you could find that one molecule at least in everything, including your hair.
	Including your socks.
	I mean, it's in your urine, it's in your blood, it's in your body, it's in your tissues, it's in everything.
	And frankly, you could go to any country in the world.
	You could go to Papua New Guinea and you could find glyphosate in everybody's hair.
	Why?
	Because glyphosate's in the air everywhere.
	It's circulating around the globe in the air.
	No joke.
	There are molecules of glyphosate everywhere.
	It's falling out of the sky.
	That's not hyperbole.
	That's a scientific fact.
	Because, again, it's sprayed everywhere, so it becomes aerosolized, and then it gets spread by winds and so on, and it's everywhere, and it's used all around the world.
	So, I know that's a long, geeky explanation, but what I'm trying to explain is that this idea of something, quote, testing positive for glyphosate is total nonsense.
	It's an unscientific concept.
	And any media, any journalist, so-called journalist, they're all fake these days anyway, they don't know anything about science, and they write these articles, oh, these breakfast cereals tested positive for glyphosate.
	Unfortunately, that doesn't tell you anything because everything tests positive for glyphosate if you have a sensitive enough instrument.
	The question that you need to know and what I'm focused on is what is the concentration of glyphosate in these products?
	Now, if they start reporting, oh, well, hey, in this breakfast cereal, it's It's, let's say, 100 parts per billion.
	We'll just use PPB. You could say, you know, micrograms per mil or nanograms per mil, or you could say micrograms per kilogram, whatever.
	I mean, people will report different units depending on the lab, but we'll just simplify it and call it PPB for this discussion, even though it's not exactly the same, but we'll call it PPB. Let's say, okay, is that breakfast cereal?
	That's 100 parts per billion.
	So that's 0.1 parts per million.
	All right, well, let's say you have a big, big bowl of breakfast cereal.
	You might eat, let's say, 100 grams of that breakfast cereal.
	So let's say if it's 100 parts per billion of glyphosate and you just ate 100 grams, so how much glyphosate did you actually take in?
	Well, you multiply the...
	We'll try to get the answer here in micrograms.
	So you multiply the...
	The parts per million concentration of glyphosate in the cereal, which is 0.1, times the number of grams, which is 100.
	That's the number of grams you consume.
	So 0.1 times 100 is 10.
	And that's the total micrograms that you consume.
	So you just ate 10 micrograms of glyphosate.
	Well, then your next question should be, is that bad?
	Is that safe?
	Is that okay?
	What's the story here?
	And that's the right question.
	You're smart to ask that question.
	This is the question that any informed...
	Food consumers should be asking, is that okay?
	What happens if you eat 10 micrograms of glyphosate?
	Well, according to California's proposed new standard, California is trying to say that they call it, I think it's an NSRL, No Safety Risk Limit, I think is what they call it, NSRL. And California has the most restrictive, you know, anti-heavy metals and anti-pesticide regulations in the country.
	And California is proposing that That the daily intake limit of glyphosate, which would pose no safety risk to an adult human being, would be 1,100 micrograms.
	So, you know, okay, 1,100 micrograms, or you could say 1.1 milligrams if you want, but 1,100 micrograms.
	So you just ate this big honking bowl of cereal that's got some glyphosate in it, and you got how many micrograms?
	You ate 10.
	So, California says you can eat 1,100 in a day, you just ate 10.
	So, is the 10 that you ate in that cereal, is that a major, major health risk to you?
	The answer is, actually, no.
	Because California is doing the research and getting very, very restrictive, and they've come to the conclusion that 1,100 per day is probably a reasonable cutoff point If you eat more than that, then yeah, you might get cancer.
	If you eat less than that, it's probably no big deal.
	Essentially, that's what they're saying.
	So you just ate 10 micrograms.
	Okay.
	Not a big deal.
	You're not going to get cancer from eating 10 micrograms of glyphosate.
	But the question becomes, well, what about all the other things you're eating?
	Now you're eating wheat and all the grains have crazy levels of glyphosate these days.
	So the oats, the barley, All the wheat products.
	So you might eat a slice of bread.
	And that slice of bread alone might contain 50 micrograms total of glyphosate.
	And so the question becomes, well, wait a minute.
	So you eat a sandwich, two slices of bread, that's 100 micrograms now.
	You add that to the bowl of cereal you ate, you know, now you're at 110 micrograms.
	And so it starts adding up, you see.
	And oats also are sprayed with this stuff.
	Like, all the grains are sprayed with glyphosate these days.
	The question becomes, well, what's the accumulative impact?
	And especially if you're doing this every day.
	There's where the concern comes in.
	But we have to have a rational discussion about this, which is why I'm recording this podcast.
	If you're eating, let's say you're eating only 10 micrograms of glyphosate per day.
	Is that a long-term health problem?
	I don't think so.
	I very much doubt it.
	But if you're eating 5,000 micrograms of glyphosate per day, is that a health problem?
	Absolutely.
	Yes.
	Now, the EU, by the way, is proposing new standards.
	Unlike California, which they describe their standards as the total intake per day, the EU standards are described as the concentration in the food.
	In other words, parts per billion yet again.
	And I've gone through the new EU proposed standards, and most fresh foods, vegetables and fruits, Are described as having a new limit of 50 parts per billion of glyphosate.
	50 parts per billion.
	That's a very strict limit.
	That's very low.
	But then for some reason, the EU standards, when it comes to grains like wheat and oats and barley, they allow, you won't believe this, they allow, what's the best way to describe this?
	15,000 parts per billion.
	Yeah.
	So for oranges and citrus fruits and zucchini and so on, it's 50 parts per billion is the limit.
	But for wheat and other grains, it's 15,000.
	And I've seen some grains listed as 30,000 parts per billion as the EU limit.
	So for some reason, and I don't even know why, I'm doing the research, I'm trying to understand this.
	For some reason, they have very strict limits on carrots and cilantro and fruit, you know, apples, whatever.
	But then the limits for grains are crazy high, like orders of magnitude higher.
	Which means you might be able to get more glyphosate in one bite of oatmeal than you would get from eating fresh fruits for like six months.
	I mean, think about that.
	That's crazy.
	So, yeah, I know.
	The media is not reporting any of this, are they?
	You're probably thinking, wow, I'm only hearing this from the health ranger.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I'm astonished about that, too.
	It's like the media just has no clue about what's going on.
	They haven't read any of these documents.
	This is what I do.
	I read this stuff.
	I go through.
	I'm a total lab geek.
	I go through and read these documents, and I study them, and I find out, like, what the WTF, man, on glyphosate?
	What's going on here?
	So it turns out, well, let me just wrap this up and say, we're going to be testing off-the-shelf products.
	You know this has been my dream for quite some time.
	We're delayed more than a year from where I wanted to be, but it's coming, and my goal is to determine the glyphosate concentrations and report them accurately.
	I don't know about you, but I want to be able to choose foods that have very low glyphosate.
	We're not going to be able to get to zero.
	That's not practical.
	It doesn't exist in our world.
	But if you could eat a food that only gives you 10 micrograms of glyphosate versus another food that gives you 10,000, In the same meal, which one would you choose?
	You see, that's the kind of information that I'm working to give you.
	Because, again, I mean, oats and wheat and barley, it could have freaking 30,000 parts per billion glyphosate.
	Whereas some fruit you're eating might be only 30 parts per billion.
	So it's a thousand times different.
	A thousand times different concentrations.
	And it's all allowed under EU rules.
	So think about that.
	Anyway, read my website, glyphosate.news.
	I'm the editor of naturalnews.com.
	Of course, Mike Adams here.
	Listen to my podcasts at brighteon.com, the new video site, and we've got a channel there called Natural News where you will hear many of my podcasts and videos.
	Just go to brighteon.com slash channel slash naturalnews.
	Thanks for listening.
	Learn more at healthrangerreport.com.
	Thank you for watching.
	If you want to support our mission, visit us at healthrangerstore.com for the world's largest selection of lab-verified superfood and nutritional products for healthy living.

▲