Mass produced citric acid and ascorbic acid or vitamin C, have had hidden GMO ingredients since the early 1900s, as the black mold Aspergillus niger has been used to ferment starches to derive citric acid.
What they don’t tell you is that citric acid is known to cause physical symptoms in people that are rather unpleasant. Those who experience allergic reactions and who have food intolerance’s to citric acid have symptoms such as stomach pain, diarrhea, vomiting, cramping and hives.
Food manufacturers leave out that citric acid is derived from genetically modified black mold grown on GMO corn syrup. The USDA and the FDA still allow it to be used despite it being a known hidden GMO. Companies continuously capitalize on an ignorance based market.
Citric acid and ascorbic acid are both known accomplices to the creation of benzene, a human carcinogen, inside food and drink products alongside sodium benzoate. Studies proved that the creation of benzene could happen right inside the drink containers, while in transport, on store shelves or waiting for consumption in consumers’ homes. However, the FDA still allows them to continue using this dangerous mixture of ingredients, despite clear data on the matter.
Citric acid is found in virtually all manufactured foods because it’s a flavor enhancer and preservative. It is even found in organic foods, which is why it is so important to read the ingredients in the products you buy and be knowledgeable about how the ingredients are created.
Many people are under the impression that the citric acid in today’s food come from fruit. Citric acid does in fact occur naturally in citrus fruits like lemons, oranges, grapefruits in significant quantities, it is even present in most living things. But the industry would find it simply too costly to derive their preservative ingredient that way.
Are you still consuming these dangerous ingredients? And if you are is knowing how it’s made and what effects it could have on you enough to bring about a change and deter you from indulging? I personally am shocked with this insight and will be a lot more picky when I am at the store shopping!
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – On the fourth day of a jury trial over whether Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer caused a Bay Area man’s deadly lymphoma, a cancer-risk expert and a lawyer for the agrichemical company sparred over the evaluation of scientific research on the herbicide’s potential carcinogenicity, with neither side emerging a clear winner.
The expert, Christopher Portier, testified for more than five hours in San Francisco County Superior Court about the ways he believed the research should have been evaluated by U.S. and European regulators to make conclusions about glyphosate’s carcinogenicity, and slammed them over their methods of analysis.
The methods have prompted regulators to conclude that glyphosate is not a likely human carcinogen. But Portier says it is, and that it can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the cancer from which plaintiff DeWayne Johnson is dying.
The retired groundskeeper sued Monsanto in 2016 after he developed cancerous lesions over most of his body. He alleges that Roundup caused his lymphoma after he was twice drenched in the herbicide while spraying it in schoolyards for his job. He also claims Monsanto has known for decades that Roundup is carcinogenic but didn’t disclose it for fear of disrupting its $6.6 billion global business.
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is the most widely used agrichemical in history. Monsanto introduced it in 1974, and its use exploded after Monsanto began selling “Roundup-ready” seeds – engineered to resist glyphosate – in 1996. More than 2.6 billion pounds of glyphosate was spread on U.S. farmlands and yards between 1992 and 2012, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
Monsanto earns $1.9 billion a year from Roundup and $10.2 billion from “seeds and genomics,” most of that category being Roundup-ready seeds.
In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a “probable” human carcinogen, touching off a heated debate over evaluation methods.
On Friday, Portier testified that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) missed 15 tumors in a group of rodent studies done on glyphosate because it used the wrong method of analysis.
The agency called the tumors irrelevant and declined to change its finding of non-carcinogenicity for glyphosate.
Portier accused EFSA of failing to follow its own guidelines for evaluating herbicides, which he said state that if two positive animal tests are observed, the chemical in question must be classified as a possible carcinogen.
“There is much more than two positive findings in these data,” he said.
Portier also assailed the twin decisions by EFSA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that glyphosate isn’t carcinogenic despite finding an association between glyphosate and cancer that he said could have been causal.
“That is an astonishing finding,” he said of the decisions. “It’s completely illogical.”
Monsanto lawyer Kirby Griffis challenged Portier’s tumor assessment on cross-examination.
“It’s almost certain that the number of mouse and rat tumors you told the jury about are false-positives,” he said, referring to the 15 additional tumors.
Griffis, who is with Hollingsworth LLP, explained that animal carcinogenicity studies involve dosing large numbers of animals. The large number of resulting tests creates a number of false-positives by chance alone, he said.
Portier said that was true, but that he had based his conclusions on the strongest trends in the data.
Griffis then questioned IARC’s glyphosate review, on which Portier acted as an adviser. A mouse review used by IARC found an increase in benign and malignant kidney tumors, Griffis said. But the review, as well as a second mouse review IARC used, also found statistically significant negative trends for hemangiosarcomas, a rare cancer of the lining of the blood vessels.
“Each of these studies would provide evidence against a consistent tumor finding, right?” Griffis said. “That sort of evidence would tend to demonstrate inconsistency between the two.”
Portier disagreed. A negative response in hemangiosarcomas is “not that surprising because they’re rare,” he said.
Earlier in the day, Portier testified that the totality of scientific evidence shows that glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations like Roundup can cause cancer in humans.
Formulations are slightly more carcinogenic than pure glyphosate, he added.
“Glyphosate is a carcinogen causing NHL [non-Hodgkin lymphoma] in humans,” he said. “Roundup has glyphosate in it, so by that argument you would say immediately that Roundup is also a human carcinogen.”
In arriving at his conclusion, Portier in part reviewed three human studies conducted in Central America of people who lived near areas sprayed with glyphosate.
A statistically significant increase in DNA damage was found in their cells five days after spraying that hadn’t been present before spraying, Portier said.
Most of that damage disappeared within four months, and no glyphosate was sprayed in the interim. That led him to conclude that the glyphosate damaged the participants’ DNA because “blood cells don’t stay around forever.”
However, chronic DNA damage from repeated sprayings can lead to cancer, he warned.
Griffis pushed back on cross-examination, revealing that EFSA had called the Central America results “equivocal” and “insufficient” to conclude that glyphosate was behind the damage.
“Is that astonishingly incorrect and so amazingly wrong,” Griffis asked, echoing the language Portier had earlier used to describe the agency’s glyphosate findings.
“I disagree with what they did to the data,” Portier replied, “which should have put it [glyphosate] into a different category.”
Firefighters in Sacramento, CA have reported neurological damage including memory problems and confusion after new generation 5G cell towers were installed outside their fire station.
News of the adverse health effects suffered by the firefighters comes days after a major university study into 5G wireless technology declared the upcoming roll out of the wireless technology to be a “massive health experiment” that has not been properly tested by authorities.
A recent CBS news story from Sacramento about the installation of 5G small cell towers references complaints reported by the San Francisco firefighters:
Firefighters in San Francisco have reported memory problems and confusion after the 5G equipment was installed outside of fire stations. The firefighters claim the symptoms stopped when they relocated to stations without equipment nearby.
Firefighters are willing to run and leap and climb and jump into burning buildings and forests but they aren’t willing to suffer neurological damage after being subjected to prolonged periods of radiation exposure from 5G cell towers and antennas.
If firefighters aren’t willing to put up with the damaging effects of the 5G roll out, should we be more concerned about the health effects associated with the new wireless technology?
In 2011, The World Health Organization classified all sources of cell phone and wireless WiFi radiation as a possible carcinogen in the same category as chloroform, engine exhaust, and led. Many experts believe it should be reclassified as a Carcinogen.
This isn’t just about cancer. Exposure can lead to symptoms and illnesses referred to as “Microwave Sickness” or “Electrosensitivity.” This is actually more common than we have been led to believe.
It’s not just The Telecom Industry aka “Big Wireless” that doesn’t seem to care about any of this. Many of our elected officials as well as current and former government employees don’t seem to care either.
5G was recently installed in New York City and Dr. Naomi Wolf and many of her fans have been posting about this on social media. It doesn’t sound like a good time is being had by all.
Those who want 5G can still have it without cell towers being installed all over their communities. Samsung will very soon be selling indoor 5G routers to anyone who doesn’t mind profuse sweating and other unpleasant side effects from exposure.
Concerns about other sources of WiFi exposure have been reported for kids and everyone else and by a variety of media outlets and experts. In fact, cell phone manufacturers are warning their shareholders that they may eventually be held liable for the harm they have caused.
If firefighters don’t want cell towers near their stations, why should anyone else want more of them near our homes and everywhere else?