Major Pesticides Are More Toxic to Human Cells Than Their Declared Active Principles

Major Pesticides are more toxic to human cells.

This may be a bit of dense reading, it is a Government study on pesticides.

Pesticides are used throughout the world as mixtures called formulations. They contain adjuvants, which are often kept confidential and are called inerts by the manufacturing companies, plus a declared active principle, which is usually tested alone. We tested the toxicity of 9 pesticides, comparing active principles and their formulations, on three human cell lines

The point of the study was apparently to test, instead of individual chemicals, ignoring these Adjuvants, BUT instead to test them as they are produced.

Taking into account also that the testing currently used may not be enough.

The regulatory system assumes that the AP designed to specifically target plants, insects or fungi is the most toxic compound of a formulation to nontarget species. Thus long-term regulatory tests are performed on this substance alone. In this paper, we tested to what extent the AP or adjuvants in present formulations account for the toxicity of 9 major pesticides: 3 herbicides, 3 insecticides, and 3 fungicides.

The study decided to take human cells and test them with these pesticides as they are, not by the merits of the individual chemicals on their own.


One of the chemicals tested.

First we tested Roundup and its AP, glyphosate. Upon the introduction of herbicide tolerant genetically modified organisms (GMOs), designed to tolerate Roundup and to accumulate unusual levels of its residues, Roundup quickly became the major pesticide in the world and a major food or feed contaminant

The results, Surprising to say the least.

It is commonly believed that Roundup is among the safest pesticides. This idea is spread by manufacturers, mostly in the reviews they promote [39, 40], which are often cited in toxicological evaluations of glyphosate-based herbicides. However, Roundup was found in this experiment to be 125 times more toxic than glyphosate.

When taken on a whole, the damage these product caused was no where near the reported safe levels of the individual chemicals.

And of course, what might be the Cause?

This inconsistency between scientific fact and industrial claim may be attributed to huge economic interests, which have been found to falsify health risk assessments and delay health policy decisions [41].

I hope, that everyone try to take the time to read this Government study, hosted on a Gov sight.

Remember, DDT, Asbestos, and other chemicals, and how long it took the government to do something about it.

This inconsistency between scientific fact and industrial claim may be attributed to huge economic interests, which have been found to falsify health risk assessments and delay health policy decisions

That has to be the most diplomatic use of the word 'may' i've ever seen.

Of course the motivation is gigantic profits, it wouldn't be anything else when profit is the only consideration.

Testing these poisons ought to have been done properly. Individual chemicals in the actual product may well test benign, but like most things when combined with other substances, they become a different beast entirely. Take the ingredients of explosives for one example...fairly benign on their own, but a different matter when combined.

It is illogical NOT to have tested the entire product, as it is intended to be used in the field..it's mindless (probably criminally so) to test individually, when these chemicals would not be used on crops individually.

But let's face it, there are people in this world that would slit a persons throat for the price of a coffee..it's not really a surprise to me that sub-humans running corporations and those in authority supposedly tasked with overseeing them, would care little about poisoning the entire world for hundreds of billions.

S&F!

I have a deep interest in poisons and this thread fits that bill, so I am bumping it to keep track of it for research purposes!

Scary stuff!

originally posted by: MysterX


That has to be the most diplomatic use of the word 'may' i've ever seen.

Of course the motivation is gigantic profits, it wouldn't be anything else when profit is the only consideration.

The problem is, while being Scientifically correct, the testing methods use negate important steps.

So while technically legal and meets the Government criteria, they are dangerous to Mammals, and the test and req do not take it into account.

It is completely up to the Government to correct this over-site in testing, however with what you mentioned, How likely is that to even happen?

Who makes roundup By the way? And how cozy are they with Gov?

Monsanto developed and patented the glyphosate molecule in the 1970s, and has marketed it as Roundup since 1973. It retained exclusive rights in the United States until its United States patent expired in September, 2000.

originally posted by: DietJoke
S&F!

I have a deep interest in poisons and this thread fits that bill, so I am bumping it to keep track of it for research purposes!

Scary stuff!

I hope this gets the Attention it deserves.

There are motives to hide this data from the people, as an example, lets look at some Asbestos Settlements.

A Buchanan County (Missouri) Circuit Court Judge approved a settlement in 2011 worth $10 million to Nancy Lopez, a Jackson County courthouse employee, who was exposed to the asbestos during a renovation project done by U.S. Engineering Company.

A Montana judge in 2011 approved a $43 million settlement in Libby, Montana. But because the settlement covered more than 1,300 miners and their families, individual settlements ranged from only $500 to $61,000.

The family of a New Jersey construction worker received a $2.1 million settlement after he died of mesothelioma, but a Navy veteran received settlements totally $461,000 after he developed asbestos-related lung cancer.

A boilermaker in New York received a $3.7 million settlement after developing lung cancer from asbestos exposure, while a building maintenance worker received a $2 million settlement after developing mesothelioma.

These companies Liability if proven, could be astronomical, so imagine what resources are thrown behind making sure this remains hidden.

With the current form of Lobbying, Any company could bribe a politician to pass some bills protecting them.

It is in everyones best interest to take their own health and safety to heart, and not trust a corrupt regulatory system to protect you from companies that care only about profit.

Avoid these products like your life depended on it , because it just might.

Neem Oil is a viable alternative to many pest and fungus, look into natural methods before buying poison.

a reply to: mrmeeseeks

Politicians being the kind of people they generally are..it's quite unlikely bedfellow corporations will be brought in line, the only way to fight the kind of corruption that goes hand-in-glove with these kinds of people is people power.

If people, once informed fully, boycott all products from a particular corporation, that corporation will ultimately cease to exist.

The trick is fully informing the people before irreparable damage is done and then convincing enough of us to a deliberate boycott...not easy, and that is why we have the situation with these poisons and GMOs today.

originally posted by: MysterX

If people, once informed fully, boycott all products from a particular corporation, that corporation will ultimately cease to exist.

I wonder if that works for Political parties as well...



On topic, people should be concerned what they put in areas their Animals and Kids play.

It certainly seems like there is a constant concentrated effort to keep the American Public ignorant to such things.

It astounds me that people will spray these toxins liberally with out any concern for potential side effect, more so when natural alternatives exist.

Lady Bugs, Neem Oil are just two examples, as well as other plants.

Create an eco-system, not crush one to your will...

a reply to: mrmeeseeks

I agree 100%!

My philosophical outlook on life is that we should be growing our own food on our own land ...

Habitable land/Number of people= 2.3 Acres a person

... Just like the Amish do ...

Guess Who Leads The Future Of Food? Surprise!

... Using vertical farming to increase the amount of produce produced ...

The Great Awakening

... and due to the nature of that the number of pests is lessened.

However, permaculture and choosing plants that work symbiotically to fight pests etc. and simply letting the chickens roam through the garden as natural pest killers also work on a less intensive production scale!

As for asbestos settlements I am deeply reminded of Bernie Banton

Bernard Douglas (Bernie) Banton AM (13 October 1946 – 27 November 2007) was an Australian social justice campaigner. He was the widely-recognised face of the legal and political campaign to achieve compensation for the many sufferers of asbestos-related conditions, which they contracted after working for the company James Hardie.

Banton suffered from asbestosis, pleural mesothelioma and Asbestos-Related Pleural Disease (ARPD), which required him to carry an oxygen tank wherever he went. The 2009 book Killer Company opens with the true account of Bernie Banton.

Banton brought an action against Amaca Pty Ltd before the Dust Diseases Tribunal of New South Wales.

May he rip!

As for Monsanto ... they are running a salted earth policy with all this roundup running off of farms into the natural rivers lakes and eventually the oceans.

@ Monsanto ... Whats the point if the poison pollutes us all

TPTB of Big Pharma and Big Medicine can also answer that!

Its like we are freaking married to them ... in sickness and in health!

originally posted by: mrmeeseeks

originally posted by: MysterX

If people, once informed fully, boycott all products from a particular corporation, that corporation will ultimately cease to exist.

. . .

Create an eco-system, not crush one to your will...

I like your statement here Mr Meeseeks, good words to live by.

a reply to: mrmeeseeks

hey, those guys producing pesticides are pretty much those guys producing medicines for when you are sick, so what did you expect ? that they'd push on producing healthy foods so you never need to buy their medicines ?

isn't it schizophrenic to believe that the chemical lobby (big pharma+anything derived from oil+pesitices+monsanto) has your health (your best interest) as top priority while constrained to profit only business model ?

Far to often we try to mold nature, we really should try to adapt to it, not it to us.

Its just common sense.

originally posted by: anHairInTheSoup
a reply to: mrmeeseeks

hey, those guys producing pesticides are pretty much those guys producing medicines for when you are sick, so what did you expect ? that they'd push on producing healthy foods so you never need to buy their medicines ?

isn't it schizophrenic to believe that the chemical lobby (big pharma+anything derived from oil+pesitices+monsanto) has your health (your best interest) as top priority while constrained to profit only business model ?

Which is a disturbing aspect too it all, the readily apparent collusion between big business and government, to the determent of public welfare.

The only way that happens, is by bribery.

And everyone is okay with it, their Representatives helping companies hurt them, for profit.

Not really, my house was badly infested by mites so we had to call a pest control firm to treat them out. We had heard that brooklyn pest control or positive pest is a good choice. Moreover, I had done few research and came to know that before using any pest control product they are to be verified by government. They strictly bans the products that are not safe for human beings.