Here is OEHHA's link to the Prop 65-Glyphosate NSRL hearing last week:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=357uP2dO3Gg&feature=youtu.be

Public comments are announced at the 34:45 mark, and actually begin at the 35:35 mark.

There was some excellent testimony at this hearing for those who have the time to listen.

Good article:

"Of Mice, Monsanto, and a Mysterious Tumor"

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2017/june/of-mice-monsanto-and-a-mysterious-tumor

CBS's Wilson Walker does a good job covering the hearing yesterday. Here is a YouTube link for the 2-minute clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWZaTXRxOrs

Thanks Laura, I sent mine in, the link was helpful.

Dear Members of OEHHA,
I am writing to urge you to ban glyphosates in California.
As a parent of a child injured by chemicals, I can attest that cancers, birth defects, and neurological diseases are crippling to our society. The incidence of these injuries is staggering and the manufacturers of these dangerous compounds are driven purely by profit. Simply put, Monsanto cares about one thing, earnings per share. Our children deserve better and you are in a position to do that. Thank you for listening,

The public comment below from my friend and colleague is being shared with permission. To submit your own, choose one of the following options, and submit by 5:00pm on June 21st:

1. CA OEHHA Online Comments: https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/comments/proposed-specific-regulatory-level-chemical-causing-cancer-glyphosate

2. Email CA OEHHA: Esther Barajas-Ochoa at [email protected]
Include In Subject Line: “GLYPHOSATE NSRL”

Public Comment:
Proposed Proposition 65
"No Significant Risk Level" (NSRL)
for Glyphosate Hearing

June 7, 2017
CA EPA, OEHHA
Sacramento, CA

Good afternoon. I am a mother, a grandmother, a longtime credentialed teacher, and an advocate and activist for people with developmental disabilities – many of whom have been tragically impacted by environmental toxins (including pesticides). I am not a scientist, but I am extremely passionate about researching and understanding what is happening to the health and well-being of children as a result of increased exposure to environmental toxins.

Many thanks to OEHHA and to all who have been involved with adding glyphosate to the CA State Proposition 65 Toxics List. When an NSRL (No Significant Risk Level) for glyphosate is established, that level must be zero. Exposure to glyphosate is not in isolation; it acts synergistically and cumulatively affecting different individuals very differently, and unpredictably, based on age, weight, genetic predisposition, previous toxic exposures, existing health conditions -- many, many factors. It is preposterous to say that there is any level of glyphosate exposure without significant risk for a newborn baby, for example. What is the risk level for someone who already suffers myriad health problems from severe toxic exposures? We simply do not know the risk levels for any one person at any given time in their lives. We are learning more and more about the devastating toll that glyphosate exposure takes on health, and it is beyond appalling. The NSRL for glyphosate must be zero.

For many years, I was a classroom teacher for children of migrant farm workers in Central California. Those children and their families intimately knew about the risks of glyphosate exposure - even though they were told that their exposure to glyphosate was perfectly safe. They knew enough not to eat, nor to let me eat, the crops that came from the fields in which they worked -- fields that were heavily sprayed with RoundUp. The parents told me stories about frequent miscarriages, about skin and eye lesions, about respiratory problems and vomiting, and about cancers that resulted from working in the fields. They knew first-hand the cause of their health problems.

A recent UCLA study (summary attached) found that the advanced thyroid cancer rate in some California counties is well above the national average. The research suggested that there was an environmental component in explaining why the incidence of advanced-stage thyroid cancer is much higher in California than the national average. Dr. Avital Harari, a member of the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center said, “California has the largest amount of farmland in the country, so this type of exposure could very well contribute to our cancer rates.” The research continues in investigating the links between thyroid cancer and exposure to pesticides.

People deserve to know the risks associated with glyphosate exposure – whether they are working in agriculture, shopping at the grocery store, feeding a pet, or playing on a sports field. They deserve to know that there is no guaranteed safe amount of exposure. We all come with different accumulated toxic loads with differing synergies, different health profiles, different genetic make-ups, different ages. There is no safe allowable daily exposure to glyphosate for any of us. The NSRL for glyphosate must be zero.

Thank you.

40+ people testified today that there is NO SAFE LEVEL OF GLYPHOSATE, while 5 people (3 Monsanto-related, 1 from CA Big Ag, and 1 from CA Farm Bureau) sang the praises and safety of glyphosate. The Monsanto people argued that the "safe" level is "infinite". Yeah, let's see how willing they are to drink a jug of Round Up...a sort of inverse of "put your money where your mouth is"...a "put your mouth where your money is!"

Excellent testimony was presented to OEHHA as to why zero is the only "safe" level of glyphosate, meaning, it needs to be banned.

Below is the brief testimony I gave. Josh Coleman videotaped the entire hearing, so stay tuned for one of his fabulous YouTube links soon!

Public Comment to OEHHA on 6-7-17

There Is No ‘Safe’ Level of Glyphosate - Please Protect Californians and Our Natural Resources from Glyphosate

Submitted by:
Laura Hayes

Members of OEHHA, you have before you a critically-important decision to make. Do you permit the use of glyphosate, which is now pervasive in the soil in which our food is grown, the water which we drink, the meats and foods which we eat, and the air that we breathe…do you permit this toxic chemical’s use at the random rate of 1100 mcg per day per person…with no accurate way to monitor or enforce such a rate…and with no accounting for a person’s age, weight, health status, types of exposures, or present load of toxins? Or…do you permit the use of glyphosate at a lower, but still random rate, which also cannot be accurately monitored or enforced…and again, without personal factors taken into account? Or, do you act on the growing body of evidence that shows that there is no safe level of glyphosate, and declare that its use will no longer be permitted in the state of CA?

At this point in time, we know that glyphosate is both tumorigenic and carcinogenic, meaning that it causes both tumors and cancer. We know that it causes cancer cells to proliferate, whether it was the original cause of those cells or not. We know that glyphosate is a neurotoxin, meaning that it damages the brain. We know that is an endocrine system disruptor, meaning that it adversely affects hormones causing developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immunological problems.

We know that glyphosate can substitute for glycine during protein synthesis. I have attached a list from Dr. Stephanie Seneff of MIT which explains the many negative health consequences that result when glyphosate substitutes for glycine during protein synthesis. She considers one of the most serious consequences to be the disruption of digestive enzymes, which can result in autoimmune disease.

To break things down to a very practical level, here are a few questions to consider:

1. If I asked you which apple you wanted to eat, or feed to your child or grandchild, would you choose the one sprayed with poison, i.e. with glyphosate, or the one not
sprayed with poison, the clean and untainted one?

2. If I asked you which glass of water you wanted to drink, or give to your child or grandchild, would you choose the one in which glyphosate run-off was present, or the one without a known carcinogen and known neurotoxin included?

3. If I asked you which plate of food you wanted to eat, or give to your daughter or granddaughter who was breastfeeding her newborn, would you choose the plate of food on which the meat, potatoes, vegetables, and roll were all heavily laced with the skull-and-crossbones-labeled glyphosate, whose Monsanto testers wear Hazmat suits when field testing it, or would you choose the plate of food cleanly raised which was grown with no known health hazards?

4. Final question, how will you answer your spouse, children, and grandchildren who receive a cancer diagnosis, who struggle with infertility, who suffer from thyroid problems, who are brain damaged in some way, or who succumb to any of the myriad health and development issues now plaguing our population in never-seen-before numbers, when they ask you if you ever permitted anything known to be carcinogenic, neurotoxic, or hormone and endocrine disrupting during your tenure at OEHHA?

Each of you knows what the right thing to do is. The question is, will you choose to do it?

Another bit of alarming info that I came across in the book Seeds Of Destruction by F.William Engdhal,is that the genetically modified crops are resistant to glyphosphate. When the crops are sprayed all that dies are any unwelcome weeds.The crop goes on growing then harvested and you can have glyphosphate and chips,glyphophate cookies,glyphophate cereal..

Alarming Levels of Glyphosate Found in Popular American Foods

"According to the report, the herbicide residues were found in cookies, crackers, popular cold cereals and chips commonly consumed by children and adults."

https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-glyphosate-cheerios-2093130379.html

Pharma for Prison

MMR RIP

This morning, as I was prepping my public comment for this hearing tomorrow, I emailed Dr. Stephanie Seneff of MIT to ask her a question:

I am including in my comments your discovery that glyphosate takes the place of glycine in protein synthesis. Can you please tell me what you consider to be the 2 or 3 most serious effects/consequences of that substitution?

It is with her permission that I reprint her reply to me here:

There are innumerable negative consequences to glyphosate's potential ability to substitute for glycine during protein synthesis. Perhaps one of the most serious is the disruption of digestive enzymes, as numerous digestive enzymes like trypsin and prolyl aminopeptidase depend on multiple critical glycine residues to function properly. An inability to digest proteins leads directly to autoimmune disease through molecular mimicry, particularly because glyphosate also sets up a leaky gut barrier.

The disruption of the shikimate pathway that is the alleged "mechanism of toxicity" of glyphosate is due to glyphosate substituting for a highly conserved glycine residue at the active site of EPSP synthase.

Another likely consequence is a disturbance of the collagen matrix in bones, joints, skin, etc. This leads to joint pain and rheumatoid arthritis. Nearly one fourth of the amino acid residues in collagen are glycine residues.

Another serious problem is the disruption of cytochrome C oxidase, because of an essential glycine residue in the oxyanion hole. This can be predicted to cause the spewing out of superoxide molecules causing oxidative stress, as well as impairment in the synthesis of ATP, the energy currency of the cell.

Myosin, a crucial molecule for muscle contraction, has a highly conserved glycine residue at residue position 699. If it is swapped out for alanine (one extra methyl group) the protein drops to only 1% of its capacity to contract.

There's a protein that is involved in DNA repair that also has a highly conserved glycine residue. Its disruption will lead to a much higher rate of DNA mutations and subsequently cancer.

Many receptors depend on critical glycine residues to work correctly. This includes the LDL receptor - leading to high serum LDL (the "bad" cholesterol) and the GABA receptor whose impairment is linked to autism, among many others.

There's a terminal glycine residue in the small bioactive peptides gastrin, oxytocin and vasopressin. These important signaling molecules would be impaired if this glycine is substituted by glyphosate.

Multiple proteins depend upon a terminal glycine residue in order to hook onto the cytoskeleton or onto the plasma membrane. They can't work properly in their jobs if they can't attach.

Hormone sensitive lipase contains essential glycine residues. Its impairment would lead to obesity.

There are many other examples.

Stephanie

Here is the flyer for the event from The California Guild, with info on how to submit public comments, whether you live in CA or elsewhere:

Protecting Our Citizens

Guild Assembles Notable Coalition
To Lower Glyphosate Levels

The California Guild and Moms Across America have assembled an impressive alliance of environmental and social justice activists to testify this Wednesday, June 7th, before the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHAA) in a cooperative effort to lower the safe level for glyphosate found in drinking water and the foods we eat.

The alliance includes representatives from the California Guild, Moms Across America, Global Environmental Options, Public Awareness for Preventative Healthcare, the Detox Project, Food Democracy Now, Organic Sacramento, Activists Against Monsanto, and attorneys and physicians from Los Angeles and the Bay Area.

The hearing will be held from 1:30pm to 5:00pm at the headquarters of the California Environmental Protection Agency, Byron Sher Auditorium, 1001 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. Please attend and testify! Bring friends and family.

Glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the world, is under scrutiny again. The hearing is on the subject of Prop 65 NSLR Glyphosate Levels. OEHAA has recommended a level of 1100 micrograms per day, however, scientists, doctors and environmental groups have disputed that level and stated that there is no safe level of glyphosate. The public hearing will be held from 1:30 to 5:00pm followed by a press conference outside at 5:30pm.

OEHHA announced earlier this year of their decision to place glyphosate, the declared active ingredient in Roundup, produced by Monsanto, on the CA Prop 65 list as a carcinogen. Although glyphosate herbicides have been found to be endocrine disruptors, neurotoxic, and cause liver disease, the hearing will be focused only on the level of glyphosate considered safe for exposure per day in consideration of carcinogenic effects.

Following testimony, the Guild will be holding a press conference at 5:30pm at the California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to report on the many risks and dangers of the herbicide glyphosate.

Studies globally show 1100 micrograms daily to be far too high an exposure level. Glyphosate, an herbicide, endocrine disruptor, antibiotic, and one of the most commonly used herbicides in the world, is most closely associated with GMO (genetically modified organism) crops, engineered to resist glyphosate.

What is California Proposition 65?
Proposition 65 requires the State to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. This list, which must be updated at least once a year, has grown to include approximately 800 chemicals since it was first published in 1987. Proposition 65 requires businesses to notify Californians about significant amounts of chemicals in the products they purchase, in their homes or workplaces, or that are released into the environment.

CALL TO ACTION

PUBLIC HEARING

Wednesday, June 7
California Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters Building, Byron Sher Auditorium
1001 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA 95814

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD EXTENDED to JUNE 21, 2017

CA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), State Agency which administers Proposition 65* (Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986), announced a PUBLIC HEARING, PRESS CONFERENCE and NEW PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD to DECIDE adoption of No Significant Risk Level (NSRL). Proposed is 1100 micrograms allowable daily exposure to glyphosate (ingredient in RoundUp), on the State’s Prop 65 toxics list.

LIVE HEARING WEBCAST: https://video.calepa.ca.gov/

Comments, not limited to Californians, must be received by 5:00 p.m., Wed. June 21, 2017. Please consider including the following message: I/We request that the Prop 65 NSRL (No Significant Risk Level) for glyphosate must be a validly arrived at NSRL, per CA regulations, substantially lower than the proposed 1100 micrograms per day, in order for this Safe Harbor to actually be safe to Californians. Until a comprehensive independent study is done, showing real life exposure levels, regulatory authorities should use a NSRL of well below, the concentration where it stimulated breast cancer cells in vitro at levels as low as 1 ppt (Thongprakaisang et al., 2013), in keeping with The Precautionary Principle.

Choose a link for commenting: CA State Website or Email to Comment (please do not comment to both):

1) CA OEHHA Online Comments: https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/comments/proposed-specific-regulatory-level-chemical-causing-cancer-glyphosate

2) Email CA OEHHA: Esther Barajas-Ochoa at [email protected]
Include In Subject Line:“GLYPHOSATE NSRL”

3) PUBLIC HEARING: Wed., June 7, 2017 - 1:30pm to 5:00pm
LIVE WEBCAST: https://video.calepa.ca.gov/

Please attend the hearing and bring friends/family if you possibly can, to pack the house!

Proposed Specific intent to adopt a No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) of 1100 micrograms Regulatory Level Chemical Causing Cancer: Glyphosate
https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/events/notice-public-hearing-proposed-specific-regulatory-level-chemical-causing

California Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters Building
Byron Sher Auditorium
1001 “I” Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 322-2068