Pesticides and food: It’s not a black and white issue

Special 6-part series, Jan 22 - Feb 6

FIRST ARTICLE: Has pesticide use decreased over the last 40 years?

Is glyphosate, used with some GM crops, dangerously toxic to humans?

Is glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Round-up used in conjunction with many GMO crops, dangerous to humans? If your primary source for news is the Internet, you’d almost certainly come away a little frightened. A Google search with the keywords “glyphosate” and “dangers” turns up headlines like “How Glyphosate Worsens Modern Diseases,” by Joseph Mercola, the founder of a website that sells unregulated vitamins and supplements, and “Health Hazards of Roundup and Glyphosate,” by well-known anti-GMO group Earth Open Source.

These and other groups that oppose GMOs or campaign against chemicals whether they are considered dangerous or not claim that glyphosate has been wrongly marketed as a “safe” herbicide, citing studies that they say “confirm” glyphosate poses serious health hazards. According to Earth Open Source, the effects of glyphosate can be found at low doses as herbicide residues in foods, and the “safe” dose set by regulators is “not based on up-to-date objective evidence.”

One heavily used report was by Stephanie Seneff and Anthony Samsel claiming that glyphosate was supposedly causing all sorts of diseases from inflammatory bowel disease to Parkinson’s to depression. Another report by a group of French scientists led by Gilles-Eric Séralini claimed that glyphosate was toxic to human cells. Both reports have been heavily criticized and deconstructed. Seneff and Samsel have no expertise in toxicology or agriculture: Seneff is a computer scientist while Samsel is a retired science consultant. Their report had no supporting data; they basically “made up” their report. Séralini is notorious for authoring a retracted publication that inconclusively linked GMOs to cancer and his report on glyphosate was based on flawed experimental design – glyphosate is not directly exposed to human cells in the real world. Both studies appeared in pay-for-play journals and mainstream scientists have rejected them.

It is easy to find scary information like that on the web, whereas the findings of independent science and regulatory agencies are often buried deep in Google searches. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, glyphosate is “of relatively low oral and dermal acute toxicity.”

Toxicity is all about dosage; this applies to all substances. Some chemicals like aflatoxin and botulin are toxic in small doses, while others like vitamin D and caffeine have low toxicity, becoming dangerous only at higher doses.

Let’s take a closer look at glyphosate. Glyphosate is derived from an amino acid, glycine. It acts against plants by suppressing an essential biochemical mechanism commonly found in plants, but not in animals. According to the Extension Toxicology Network, a joint pesticide information project by Cornell University, Michigan State University, Oregon State University and University of California at Davis, and funded by US Department of Agriculture, glyphosate is non-volatile, minimizing exposure through inhalation, and undergoes little metabolism in the human body. If accidentally consumed, glyphosate is excreted mostly unchanged in feces and urine, so it doesn’t stay in the body and accumulate.

The EPA has also determined that glyphosate has “minimal” ecological effects. Glyphosate is only slightly toxic to birds and fish, and it binds tightly to the soil, reducing the possibilities of leaching. Microbes in the soil then break glyphosate down so it doesn’t accumulate in the soil. According to plant pathologist Steve Savage, glyphosate has also replaced mechanical tillage to destroy weeds, which is “a substantial positive for the environment because of reduced erosion and retention of soil carbon.”

So how toxic is glyphosate exactly? To examine toxicity, one must look at the LD50 value given to the chemical in question. LD50 is a standard measure of acute toxicity for chemicals, expressed in the amount of chemical (milligrams) per body weight (kg) that it took to kill fifty percent of a population of test animals. Because LD50 is a standard measure, it is used to compare toxicities of compounds; the lower the number, the more toxic it is.

Glyphosate has a LD50 of 5600 mg/kg based on oral ingestions in rats, according to EPA assessments (PDF), placing it in Toxicity Category III. The EPA ranks chemicals in four categories, I being the most toxic and IV being the least. The EPA has also found that glyphosate does not cause cancer. To compare, caffeine has a much lower LD50 of 192 mg/kg based on oral ingestions in rats.toxicity-table4

Related article:  Scoop on 'leaky gut syndrome'--And effect of pathogenic gut microbes on health

Caffeine is over ten times more toxic than glyphosate. Is this cause for concern? Should we stop drinking coffee? No, the main reason being that a typical dosage of caffeine is not high enough to cause toxicity. Let’s look at the numbers. With LD50 of 192 mg/kg, it would take 12192 mg of caffeine to kill an average 140 lb human being. A typical 8 oz cup of coffee only contains 95 mg of caffeine, much lower than the dose required for acute toxicity. The same reasoning applies to glyphosate. Following the same calculations, it would take 12.5 oz of glyphosate to kill an average 140 lb human being. That means drinking about three gallons of Roundup Original.

But what about long-term exposures to glyphosate? Given its widespread use, there is a good chance that we are eating some residues in our food. The EPA considered this too by setting maximum safe levels of residues called tolerances. The USDA tests crops each year to make sure that herbicide residues do not exceed tolerance levels. If any crops contain residue amounts higher than tolerance levels, the USDA reports the information to the FDA, who has the regulatory power to recall foods, levy fines and take other actions to prevent the foods from reaching consumers. The EPA also made sure that the tolerances were conservative:

EPA conducted a dietary risk assessment for glyphosate based on a worst-case risk scenario, that is, assuming that 100 percent of all possible commodities/acreage were treated, and assuming that tolerance-level residues remained in/on all treated commodities. The Agency concluded that the chronic dietary risk posed by glyphosate food uses is minimal.

A reference dose (RfD), or estimate of daily exposure that would not cause adverse effects throughout a lifetime, of 2 mg/kg/day has been proposed for glyphosate, based on the developmental toxicity studies described above.

Which means that a 140 lb human being can be exposed to as much as 127 mg of glyphosate per day for a lifetime without adverse effects, according to EPA standards. To put this in perspective, the daily upper limit for vitamin D supplements is 4000 IU per day, or 0.1 mg.

The EPA’s efforts to ensure that glyphosate is used at safe levels did not put the matter to rest. In an attempt to get out their message that glyphosate is dangerous, anti-GMO activist scientists have turned to pay-for-play journals to publish work that would never be accepted in mainstream science journals, like the two studies by Samsel, Seneff and Séralini. However, uncritical media coverage of these type of studies has lent credibility to them and the anti-GMO activist groups.

For example, Reuters’ Carey Gillam, known for her anti-GMO bias, publicized the Samsel and Seneff work, conveying a false sense of credibility:

Heavy use of the world’s most popular herbicide, Roundup, could be linked to a range of health problems and diseases, including Parkinson’s, infertility and cancers, according to a new study.

The mainstream science community was left wondering. Andrew Kniss, an agronomist at the University of Wyoming tweeted: “Why are they [Reuters] calling it a ‘study’? There was absolutely no data.” Discover journalist Keith Kloor responded that the study was “so obviously absurd that I was sure it  would be ignored by media,” but Gillam’s coverage gave it “a veneer of legitimacy to readers.”

When GMO critics spread fear and claims of glyphosate’s toxicity, one thing is commonly overlooked: today’s herbicides and insecticides are far safer than those used in the past. The agrochemicals displaced by glyphosate, such as MCPA, a herbicide for controlling annual and perennial weeds, have much lower LD50 values and bigger problems with bioaccumulation. Savage noted that glyphosate was “probably already the biggest single pesticide product even before biotech crops.” Farmers need to control pests,  “to not control pests to a reasonable degree is problematic for the environment,” Savage wrote. For them, glyphosate is a much safer option compared to many other agrochemicals.

Addtional Resources:

443 thoughts on “Is glyphosate, used with some GM crops, dangerously toxic to humans?”

    • You’re right. The world is full of psuedo-information thanks to groups like the ones mentioned above. And science fact isn’t as sexy or attention grabbing as most of the fictional garbage out there.

    • I read it, and it is still rife with the stench of money. None of the arguments ring true. Have you ever had glyphosate on your skin? I have. It is not pleasant. I immediately because nauseated and the exposed skin began to tingle, similar to pins and needles. This was from a few drops. I wonder what soaking your skin, or putting it down your throat would do? Personal experience by far exceeds the legitimacy of the pseudo-science behind this article. Try it. Put some Round-up on your skin. Guaranteed you won’t like it. Also, why do spray technicians wear gloves, masks, long pants, long sleeves, goggles, anything they can to protect themselves from what they are spraying? Maybe the men and women who actually apply this chemical should be the ones who decide its future. Me, who has been forced to spray glyphosate and 2-4, D and a myriad of other chemicals, is strongly against their use anywhere, anytime, for the sake of my fellow human beings and myself.

      • Most farmers regularly spray round up in nothing more than jeans and a t shirt. I’ve even had about 2 gallons accidentally spilled on me once, with absolutely no ill effect. Of coure I’m not a raging chemophobe with psychosomatic reactions either. I’ll take exposure to round up over that “organic”crap anyday.

        Also, about the only place in agriculture where you’ll see those full body suits is on ORGANIC farms. But yeah, keep trying to convince people those are “safer.”

        • Yep. We take reasonable precautions with all farm chemicals around here but we certainly don’t suit up for Roundup. We’ve had a couple instances of skin contact; rinsed it off and no effects whatever. Maybe if you got it in your eye it would burn a little from the soapy surfactant it’s mixed with. Hell, yuppie weekend warriors buy the stuff from Walmart and Home Depot and go home to do battle with weeds. They’re out there in their sandals and jam shorts wafting the stuff around using little plastic spritz bottles. No reports of death, maiming or growing extra fingers or a tail. You got a much, much better chance of getting sick from organic fertilizers than you have from glyphosate.

    • Not all pesticides are safe. Some of them can kill a human being in a few minutes like monocrotophos. So dont blanket them. Glyphosate has been blown out of proportion by anti-GMO people so has some very very safe biopesticides like BT toxin which is actually a protein that is 100% safe for humans. But it is always the vocal minority that gets their voice heard..unfortunately.

  1. But LD50 is the lethal dose, not an effective dose. Three cups of coffee don’t kill me but they do make me jittery. Can’t we assume a similar effect from glyphosate?

    • Sure, if anyone is crazy enough to drink three cups of glyphosate, I’m sure they’d get dizzy. Thankfully, glyphosate is applied at the rate of about one gallon per acre max, so it’s toxic effects on food residue are virtually non existent.

      • People tested by the Public Health Service had higher than allowable amounts of glyphosate in their blood.
        The alarming thing is there’s a media blackout on this and other facts about glyphosate.

          • I am walking proof that glyphosate is dangerous. I’ve been extremely ill for over two years, and after having numerous tests done, it has been discovered that I have very high levels of this herbicide in my system, from drinking tap water contaminated with glyphosate. It has caused permanent damage and scarring to my liver and pancreas, leaving me nearly bedridden, and I am not the only one. To anyone who tries to say it is not dangerous, I can only shake my head in disbelief at your ignorance.

          • @Alayne—This is fascinating. Please would you tell us exactly what test was used. Also, can you share with us the actual levels of glyphosate found, both in your system and drinking water? Finally, how rapidly did your levels decrease once you stopped consuming the substance? This is important information that needs to be shared with the EPA.

          • First Officer, There obviously can’t be a link. There is a black out. Drew is one of the very few insiders that can find this guarded information.
            @Drew, If there is a black out. How did you find out?

    • Basically, pure glyphosate has an LD50 of 5000 mg/kg. So a 100 kg person would have to ingest 500 grams of pure glyphosate for acute toxicity. The average commercial formulation of glyphosate contains about 360 grams/L of glyphosate. In order to get to acute toxic levels a person would have to drink about 1.4 L of glyphosate formulation.

      However, a study by Roberts found that ingesting just 200 mL of glyphosate formulation (containing about 72 grams of glyphosate) – was in their own words “fatal” (resulting in death). They also found that 19 grams of glyphosate resulted in “moderate to severe effects

      So this means that the LD50 of glyphosate is actually lower than that reported.
      The question is whether really low doses will have an effect? We don’t know but in a letter by Bellé et al. (2012). http://dx.doi.o…rg/10.1080/1093…rg/10.1080/1093…
      They found effects of glyphosate herbicide at a level of “8 mM affecting 100% of the individual cells at short time exposure below the usage concentration (20 mM) of the herbicide.”

      • @David—Toxicology studies in experimental animals are used as a MODEL to give an indication of possible toxicity in humans. It makes no sense to try to extrapolate EXACTLY from one species to another. These kinds of studies are one of the few tools that we have at our disposal, since experimenting on humans is obviously unethical.

        Feeding rats high doses of toxins is an accepted, useful model for likely effects in humans. (And yes, we know that models aren’t guaranteed to be predictive—they just provide supportive evidence).

        While treating cultured animal cells with chemicals is a useful tool for trying to address basic research questions, as far as I can tell, this is not a valid predictor of toxicity in a whole animal (or human). (For example, which kind of cells should be used, and under what conditions?) Plant leaves are exposed to high levels of herbicides, but this is irrelevant to what cells in the human body are exposed to; so picking a concentration of 8 mM is a curious choice. In any case, as you point out, Belle’s claim is a letter, not a peer-reviewed article.

      • LD50 means one half of the subjects will die as a result of the dose. So, you’ll have outliers of deaths at comparatively low doses and survivors at comparatively high doses.

        The study also reports a half life of glyphosate levels of about 3 hours in the blood. Given the typical concentrations of glyphosate found in foods, could you even eat fast enough, let alone great enough, to even approach the equivalent of a 19 gram straight dose?

        • FIRST OFFICER works for MONSANTO…. He is another one of the BIO-TECH
          paid “SOCIAL MEDIA REPRESENTATIVES” who are paid to go to as many
          articles as possible everyday and make negative remarks against the
          communitites which don’t want to be poisoned by Monsanto Poisons….
          Check out “First Officers” page…. GMO PAID COMMENTERFIRST OFFICER works for MONSANTO…. He is another one of the BIO-TECH
          paid “SOCIAL MEDIA REPRESENTATIVES” who are paid to go to as many
          articles as possible everyday and make negative remarks against the
          communitites which don’t want to be poisoned by Monsanto Poisons….
          Check out “First Officers” page…. GMO PAID COMMENTER

        • I did, and both studies are in vitro using high doses, I am sure if folks start drinking Glyphosate with their morning tea, there will be problems. But no one does that, so we are good to go.

          • I’m guessing you didn’t, and you ignored the levels of glyphosate in breast milk. Thanks for finally coming around to admitting that consumption of roundup is a bad idea.

          • Whoa ….Whoa ..Slow down son. You call hyper a troll. Then accuse him of insults??? Either you have a very bad memory or don’t read your own posts.

          • Perhaps if you anti-science kooks spent more time in university rather than trolling the internet you wouldn’t look so foolish. Do you really think I’m going to waste a bunch of time providing facts for someone who goes through old posts looking for someone to troll?

          • Wrong again maggot. I get an e-mail notification if someone responds to an article I have commented on. probably same as you did. So you already knew I was not trolling. Therefore accusing me of that is not only fact free it is lying. Just what I would expect from a punk.

          • Sorry troll, my comment was 8 months ago, the one you responded to was over a month ago. It’s pretty obvious you are lying but that’s what you anti-science clowns have, nothing but lies. You don’t get an e-mail notification to replies to my comments. When you tell lies at least try to tell believable ones. Thanks for advertising yourself as a waste of time.

          • Maggot. Dipshit much?

            Do you make sure your read ALL your email, ALL the time?

            I thought so.

            I got notice to ONE comment (that I am aware of) in the past several months. Came here. Posted response to *that* comment and several more.

            So, I’m a “troll?” ????

            Ok, fine … “loser!”

            Just saying. You have issues.

          • “anti-science?”

            You mean like the usual suspects? Those that think “science is ‘God'” … until it isn’t?

            HINT: they say men can use women’s bathrooms and women can use men’s.

            Get it?

            Chromosomes matter, but they don’t.

            Hope you are not one of those “Science Hypocrites.”

          • @Maggotpunk—Any published data for G in breast milk? (Please tell me you’re not referring to MomsAcrossAmerica).

          • @Maggotpunk—Please show the data. (Request #2).

            GLP is about literacy, which means that we discuss evidence and reasoning. Save the barbs and distractions for a different website.

          • Peter, perhaps you heard of the internet. Don’t expect me to change your diapers because you choose to be ignorant on a subject. And GLP is a propaganda arm of the GMO industry, if you are really this naive you’ve proven yourself to be a waste of time, nobody forced you to reply to my post so quit your pathetic whining. You internet trolls are just so pathetic.

    • For people without access to this paper, can you summarize the main conclusions, and give your opinion on how using this cell culture system applies to potential human toxicity? THX.

        • @Mp—It’s a sign of desperation when someone cites the greenmedinfo site to support an argument. (Perhaps you missed one of Sayer Ji’s typical articles, “Pineapple Enzyme Kills Cancer Without Killing You”. What’s next, “Tooth Fairy abducted by aliens”?)

          No, the article by Thongprakaisang et al. you mentioned, about the effect of glyphosate on cultured cancer cells, presents some interesting observations that are worth discussing. What they failed to discuss was the substantial activity of natural phytoestrogens present in soy. The issue is, if this cellular assay is truly an indication of potential human risk, then the obvious action would be an immediate precautionary ban on all consumption of all soy-based products. I haven’t followed this field closely, but it seems that Asian populations relying on soy-based foods could be most at risk.

      • This is a non-profit. If you have a chip on your shoulder regarding science truth that is your problem.

        You invite all flavors of ridicule by the profoundly arrogant assumption that you know more than the world community of scientists who find no issues with GMOs. How absurd.

          • Is it a full moon?

            GLP has been invaded by a bunch of fucktards today. But the moderator has been effective in nuking their bullshit.

            Reginabee, Claude William Incest, “Me”, etc.

            Makes you wonder if Ted Miner is branching out…

          • I just dared Turd Miner to come here an pull his act.
            So far I am seeing no evidence of any of his multiple IDs here.

            The BBC action is making them antsy I think.

          • Ted and his inbred kin don’t know whether to shit or go blind.

            The Brits have tanked what little was left of the anti-GMO movement this week.

            Maybe Gary Ruskin of, “USRTK” will finally release the smoking gun info he got from the public scientists.

            They ain’t got much left.

        • OK, genius.

          No one ever used glyphosate pre-emergence. A pre-emerg herbicide has residual activity by definition. Glyphosate doesn’t have residual activity.

          Yeah, before HT crops, glyphosate was used pre-plant. Still is.

          Try learning something about real pre-emerg herbicides like dinitroanilines. The good old Group 3 herbicides that you’d have to till in. Why were they nicknamed, “yellows”?

          This is why you need a tuition refund. You know nothing about farming.

          • This is how you announced your dull presence: “That is because the GLP defends GMOs and pesticides at all costs through
            cherry picking articles and presenting logical fallacies as valid

            How about you man up (or girl up, in your case) and prove your claim, genius?

  2. “Glyphosate is only slightly toxic to birds and fish…”

    This is not a scientific statement! Can a woman be slightly pregnant?

    And if glyphosate is “slightly toxic to birds and fish…” what is it to humans?

      • You brush with soap? While this strikes me as strange, we all have our own customs and quirks. My quirk is that I watched by father die of an auto-immune disease and know the horrors. How many more people have to suffer the effects of environmental toxicity before the assholes of the world relent and give up their quest to make everyone sick with their half-assed products that are in the market after half-baked studies? Sorry, I’m becoming angry and should not post anything more. Environmental toxicity is killing me, and it is killing you, too. Let Peace on Earth Reign.

        • “You brush with soap?”

          Toothpaste contains soap, so yes I brush my teeth with soaps.

          Sorry to hear about your father, but Glyphosate and Roundup are very low in environmental toxicity, less than many everyday products, like household cleaners, even some foods, vinegar and salt.

          “Let Peace on Earth Reign.”

          The planet is getting more peaceful, and one of the reasons is more food for everyone.

        • “…One of the promises of the human genome project was that it could revolutionize our understanding of the underlying causes of disease and aid in the development of preventions and cures for more diseases. Unfortunately, genetics has been found to account for only about 10% of diseases, and the remaining causes appear to be from environmental causes. So to understand the causes and eventually the prevention of disease, environmental causes need to be studied….”

    • @David—You don’t seem to have read the post: it’s ALL about relative toxicity. Toxicity is a continuum, not back-or-white. The overall risk of exposure is the consequence of four factors: inherent toxicity, route of exposure, dose and duration.

      BTW Giving yourself an “upvote” doesn’t amount to much in the scheme of things.

      • Put a little Round-up on your skin. It will immediately make you feel sick and the skin will begin to tingle. Those warning labels on the containers are not written for the sake of literature. They are written to prevent people from coming into contact with what is inside. I have had glyphosate on my skin and immediately began to feel nauseated and the exposed flesh felt hot and began to tingle. A group other than one funded by the GMO industry needs to conduct relative toxicity tests before this article has an inkling of validity. I trust personal experience over Ivory Tower crockery any day of the week. A wise individual would, too.

        • “A group other than one funded by the GMO…”

          Ok how about, the WHO, the EPA, the AMA, the FDA, the Universities of: Florida, Texas, Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, Iowa, and probably a few dozen more that I’ve forgotten who have published well over 2,000 or so PEER-REVIEWED papers demonstrating, conclusively, glyphosate’s safety.

          Or you could stick with such “knowledgeable” experts as Mercola, David Wolf, the Food Boob, and a very small group of others. Because they care about you and don’t make ANY money off of the snake oil and fear mongering that they sell…

          • I am probably way out of place for commenting, but the first two groups you mentioned, first WHO says “probable” carcinogen. Second years ago EPA said “possible” carcinogen before they backpeddled. And you and every other red blooded American surely knows “carcinogen” means cancer causing. Or is all this wrong and an illusion put out by anti-GMOers???

        • Ha, what a joke.

          You are allergic.

          Put “a little peanut butter” in my friend’s mouth.

          Ha. Guess what? She *dies!*

          That’s right; pbj sandwiches will KILL you!

    • Long-term exposure effects are different from acute toxicity, so don’t let the industry apologists fool you. There are real dangers from glyphosate, but it’s not so much the immediate acute effects or the risk of acute poisoning unless you drink straight from the bottle. However, low level exposure over time… not so safe.

      • The “industry apologists” include the EPA, European Commission, German government, Canadian give, Australian government and 3 WHO agencies. Glyphosate dissent bioaccumulate. Your views are purely ideological and grossly misinformed.

        • You’re more right than you know, Jon. At least the first sentence. The EPA is an industry apologist. The IARC is the 4th WHO agency, however, and they say that glyphosate pretty clearly causes cancer in animals. They refer to the 1991 EPA memo as evidence for that.

          • Yeah but according to the IARC literally everything gives you cancer. One study, ONE, out of the hundreds done by them have shown no link to cancer. This is why the WHO slapped them down when they issued a contrary ruling to the IARC.

            This is the main reason that the IARC is seen with scorn by most real scientists.

          • Link to a data set that supports what you say please, because it sounds absolutely outlandish. I mean this figure of one in hundreds showing no cancer. Please do that.

          • Ah, the Daft Tinkler resurrects his battered

            and beaten same old same old propaganda. But Robert Hopkins is spot on and the dataset is in the public domain (and the Tinkler knows that but merely wants to stir up a fuss and have his lying ass kicked, once again, with facts and truths. The guy is into pain, I guess.

            As of February 2016 the IARC has distinguished and discredited itself by evaluating some 1055 substances and finding only one (1) of those, caprolactam, not to be carcinogenic (their ‘class 4’). Just one substance out of 1055! For around 500 other substances IARC is reserving it’s decision, apparently waiting for damning research, however dodgy, to emerge that IARC can cherrypick to claim carcinogenic properties, thus filing more notches on it’s obvious agenda. The IARC is a colossal joke. At first blush such chicanery makes IARC and supporting activist kooks look merely unreliable when, in fact, IARC can be relied upon to apply some level or other of bogus carcinogenic classification to pretty much anything they set their disapproving gaze upon, A farce without any of the humor that might at least make it entertaining. A paranoid conspiracy theorist’s playground.


          • The available evidence shows that glyphosate causes cancer. The more you stuff the truth, the more you invite other Solutions.

          • Wrong, as usual. The credible evidence shows that glyphosate does not cause cancer. Fool. What “Solutions”, is that you making some sort of veiled threat here? OK, now light up your edit button and rewrite the your stupid statements into some other phony blather and deny you ever threatened us. If anything needs to be stuffed it’s your woo, and you know where you can stuff it.

          • Even then, the IARC category is “probably not carcinogenic”.

            I think the larger issue is how to extrapolate from the massive doses used in animal toxicology studies to estimate the risk for humans exposed to minute traces of a chemical.

          • Ohhhhhh, I get it now!! The EPA is an industry apologist. But the IARC is not. Got it.

  3. I’m curious, if it is so safe, safer than coffee as this paper suggests, then how about we conduct a test with two live subjects. I volunteer to drink the coffee… the other, preferably a chemical company scientist hired to defend their industry, can drink a cup of roundup and lets see what happens?

    • If you were to volunteer to drink a cup of some inert but unpleasant substance — maybe vegetable oil, hopefully something worse-tasting — with 95 mg of caffeine in, it would be a closer comparison. Or equivalently, Dr Straw Man can drink some (decent) decaf coffee with a splash (0.1g) of glyphosate in… but why should they have to encounter all the unpleasantness? We can put a drop of emetic in your coffee, too.

      This is not to say that glyphosate tastes nice, or that it would be more *pleasant* than an untainted coffee, but that has nothing to do with toxicity and is a less ridiculous image than tipping a bucket of labelled herbicide down your throat.

      Equivalently, compare smoking a cigarette to ingesting 0.1g of glyphosate (which this website suggests is about the right amount of nicotine ). Many non-smokers would find either option similarly unpleasant, but based on the data the glyphosate is by far the lesser of the two evils — although of course both options are way below any real world clinical toxicity threshold.

      I would certainly rather drink glyphosate than one of the much nastier herbicides that it replaced, as the article makes clear. (Replaced, except in organic agriculture where several are permitted to continue, because demonizing “chemicals” is apparently sometimes more important than minimising environmental impact… *sigh*)

      The reason for the common-sense revulsion to the idea of drinking herbicide is mainly to do with social norms and psychology. That’s normal, natural, etc. — but is also exactly why the *data* is all that should actually matter.

    • Great idea! The only thing which would convince me (scientist). There is things that can be done about unpleasant tastes etc. But all the words instead, that is and remains only blablablabla…..

    • It says that it is safer than CAFFEINE, not coffee. You drink a cup of pure caffeine (equivalent to 190 cups of coffee), and I will drink a cup of roundup. I will call the ambulance for you after i finish rinsing out my mouth (tastes like weird soap). You will most likely be very ill or die, i will be fine.

      Only about 8% of people that try to commit suicide with glyphosate actually die, baby aspirin is more effective.

          • Well nothing is really “safe” , table salt, household cleaners, caffeine, and soaps are more deadly than glyphosate. They are accepted as generally safe.

            You ingest 100s of chemicals every day that are hundreds of times more deadly than glyphosate, why worry about this herbicide?

          • Salt is required in your diet. Small quantities of caffeine offer a positive benefit. Soap cleans us, removing dirt, oil and bacteria from our skin. Herbicide kill the plants that bees and other animals depend upon to live, disrupting the ecosystem and degrading our food production overall. So, aside from Monsanto profits, explain how it’s a good thing.

          • Herbicide kill the plants that bees and other animals depend upon to live

            All agriculture does this, weeds compete with the crop. All farming methods remove weeds from row crops, including Organic farmers.

            disrupting the ecosystem

            Agriculture disrupts the ecosystem, not herbicides. If you really want more nature, you should support more modern farming practices. The more food that you can produce on the same amount of land means more room for nature.

            degrading our food production overall

            Modern safe herbicides increase food production, record yields again this year.

          • Hey everyone its okay, Captain Monsanto has assured us all its safe. No need to panic, no need to have any doubts because ‘HyperZombie’ ( the absolute worst name, do they teach you how to cherry pick popular internet usage terms for your ‘handles’? ) _ has laid all our fears to rest with his company sponsored drivel Thanks Captain Monsanto, why can’t every corporate shill be as concise and condescending as you?

            By the way, genius, I own, work and live on a farm, ANY time you want to pop over here and quaff a litre of my pesticides I’ll pay your air fare and hold the camera while you die in writhing agony.

            mm’kay schnookums. toodles

          • the absolute worst name, do they teach you how to cherry pick popular

            It was my nickname in Jr high school.

            By the way, genius, I own, work and live on a farm,

            Me too..

            ANY time you want to pop over here and quaff a litre of my pesticides

            I will do Glyphosate or 2-4-D at field applied concentrations, but no Organic pesticides or any insecticides… Where do I send my personal info to get my free plane ticket?

          • aah. here he is.with sheep in tow.

            Top arguments by the way, almost convincing in a ” I Googled a few pro-glyphosate websites ” way, it almost sounds convincing to the untrained eye…………almost.

            But lets take this as a point in order shall we?

            Hyperzombie was your ‘nickname’ in Junior High? No, no it wasn’t. You want to know how its so blatantly obvious? Because its modernist and nicknames are ( by definition ) given to you by your peers and classmates. Offering up a non de plume that is counteracted by slamming two opposing words is more of an iGeneration/Millennial phenomena that began around the time Youtube reached its second major change which amounted in many people losing their ‘usernames’ and so the search for new names began. This, combined with the rate in which the ‘nerd culture’ and ‘internet speak’ grew during these opening years and meant that now instead of people merely choosing, say, FELIXjk007 for example, ( which would be deemed as ‘old fashioned’ in internet culture ) because of

            a) FELIX is my childhood nickname because I have very dark coloured eyes with little distinction between iris and pupil and so I look like a cat ( apparently….give them a break, they were 6 )

            b) the ‘jk’ are my initials

            c) the 007 is the year it was created ( 2 – 007 )

            now, if we are to look at the gamertags and usernames of those people caught up with non-linked accounts during the second great youtube/google amalgamation it will show easily as those people who took advantage of the fact that they could now use an alternative ( or even multiple if they didn’t mind losing their subscribers if they had any and were an active member ) and so they now made tags and usernames that were much more ‘internet savvy’, if you will, than those usernames created around the start of console based internet gaming meeting the WWW ‘world’.

            As the internet grows and becomes an all encompassing ‘geek-verse’ and gradually becomes a single entity of ‘nerd culture’ that draws inspiration from everything from everyday life to gaming, fetishism to anime, fandom to tech savvies and so much more…then so to do ‘fashions’ change here on the internet. One place that this can clearly be demonstrated is in the ‘fashion’ or ‘timing’ of usernames and gamertags

            Take then, these example-only names for the timeline of such tags and usernames

            (beginning in 2007 we look at the internet every year for tag trends)

            SapientMonkey37 ( inserted at any time as its usually a second account being it is a premade moniker )
            WhiteShadow ( HypeZombie possible creation date approximation if aware of internet trends )
            Real Name usage appears for the first time following Google+policy until people understand they can change it to anything on a second account or for a one time opportunity on their main account in 2013-14
            2015-16 sees the rise of politico tags due to the nature of many alternate media formats gaining support in the wake of anti-globalisation sentiment sweeping the internet and the Millennial generation.

            and there we have it

            So, what does that tell us….well, it tells us that people who use tags and usernames such as ” FELIXjk007 ” or ” Andrew111 ” are early internet users. Just as you can say that someone who uses a tag that says ” TurtleBiscuit17 ” or ” CinammonLizard22 ” is a user of a suggested name.

            This brings us to ” HyperZombie “. This ‘nickname’ ( it isn’t ) that you have had since Junior High ( you haven’t ) given to you by your peers ( it wasn’t ).

            ” HyperZombie ” is clearly a recent entry into geek culture monikers due to the positioning of counteractive words. This trend appeared only really quite recently in internet history, around 2012-13.

            Now, we see the use of these types of moniker everywhere but on the decline as the recent fad for juxtaposed contrasting words gives way to the new batch of politico-tags and the aloof-tags who like to think they are above it all but still surf every political post and forum posting their ‘factoids’ and sheepish arguments.

            So, where does this leave us: Well, the truth of the matter is that we can now add everything we now about internet tags and usernames and put it to the real world of ‘nicknames’.

            Now ‘nicknames’ are something completely different to ‘gamertags’, ‘tags’ and usernames…..nicknames are, more often than not, names ‘given’ to you. NOT ones that you choose yourself.

            And judging from the average age of the adult populous of the current batch of internet users that would put Captain Monsanto…whoops, sorry ” HyperZombie “, into the 30 something age group.

            Therefore, is ‘HyperZombie’ really attempting to pour out the deluded notion that kids in the Eighties were handing out ‘nicknames’ to people such as ‘HyperZombie’?

            No, no they weren’t. In all studies of socially active groups and peer groups the use of nicknames is, 9 out of 10 times, based upon the child’s physical appearance, ( such as if they hair colour, if they wore spectacles, had buck teeth etc ), their actual name and/or their behaviour.

            To suggest that children as young as seven gave someone the name ” HyperZombie ” is, quite frankly, laughable, but painful at the same time.

            Painful ‘why’?, because this demonstrates that the user has neither the correct grasp of nicknames and therefore had no genuine social interactions due to a lack of actual interactions with other children during the ages of around 7 to 9 years old when nicknames are typically allotted ( indeed ‘Junior High’ and younger ).

            This would point to a Walter Mitty type person who invents a ‘life’ for themselves to appear more popular, more attuned to the lifestyle they wish to portray, and especially ( in point of internet debates ) to denote their ‘e-credibility’. It is, however, as the description portrays…more often than not an unpopular child, a loner, one who has been segregated by their parents or one that was, on the whole, invisible to the popular cliques of the own peers during their childhood.

            Now, want to get started on your ridiculous Glyphosate arguments and your ‘evi-me’dence’? Or shall we just say that the Monsanto poison is carcinogenic and especially dangerous for animals with the numbers of pet owners living and walking their dogs within range of farmland documenting a rising toll of pets with Colitis, and Cancer?

            should we look to those facts? Or should we just believe ‘Captain ‘voted most likely to invent a life’ Monsanto?

            tell me, who actually gave you your ‘HyperZombie’ nickname?

            was it your imaginary friend? was it? it was wasn’t it?

            Now all in all, do you really want me to turn this onto your ‘corporate schill’ factoids and your statistical nonsense? I mean proving you are an outright liar by just using your weak-sauce nickname falsehood was, in reality, a breeze. As my wife suggests perhaps a ‘nickname’ change to ” Walter Mitty ” or ” Baron Munchhausen ” is in order?

            ( after all, you gave it to yourself a few years back so its still pretty fresh and no one will notice the change anyway )

            ” the kids at school called me HyperZombie ” :D lol

            only before the alarm woke you up for breakfast and then it was on to the nightmare of the school bus where the horror began in daily inevitability

          • Sheesh, all this inane babbling to tell us his dog got sick and he arbitrarily blames, well, gylphosate, of course.

            I have to wonder what school chums called FELIXjak00f back in junior high. I have a suspicion it wasn’t “Ace” or “Top Gun”

          • Your name is Judas the Shill. I dare you to watch
            and try and support the view that 2,4 D is safe.

            You are murdering humans with your keyboard with your lies or ignorance.

            Cancers, birth defects, children being born without kidneys and even children born without a brain have all been clearly linked with 2,4 D and you still trying to make a case for iit being safe. View the evidence and then delete your drivel.

          • Do you have any actual data about babies born without organs? Citing the anecdotal claim made by a GP 40 years ago is not exactly “clearly linked”. BTW the GP’s claim was about spraying of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D.

            I’ll admit that many medical discoveries start out as anecdotal observations by doctors. However, what’s needed is scientific follow-up. I don’t see much evidence that the 2,4-D used today poses a significant risk for causing birth defects. For example, effects seen in rats correspond to a human consuming about half a teaspoon of pure herbicide over several days. Not wise.

            Still, 2,4-D is widely used today, so if you have any clear evidence, please share it. THX.

          • A study by 26 experts from many countries have determined that glyphosate 2,4-d (a component of Agent Orange) is a “possible human carcinogen” as it has been shown to lower the human immune system and produce oxidative stress.
            We don’t need to take a great intellectual leap from there to come to a conclusion that more serious health outcomes await young children and foetuses exposed to this dangerous chemical.

            Just a quick Google Search using the keywords “roundup, proof, dangerous” quickly brought up this study from the International Agency for Research on Cancer:

          • Nice try. I looked at the link. NO mention of glyphosate! What is your impetus for spreading Bullshit? Or can’t you read?

            The chemicals they DID review:

            The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the specialized
            cancer agency of the World Health Organization, has evaluated the
            carcinogenicity of the insecticides
            dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT
            ) and the herbicide
            -d ichlorophenoxyacetic acid (

          • As a general rule of thumb when dealing with non-scientists on the internet – I always ask for the evidence that they have to back up their claims. After rejecting their memes and photoshopped package inserts – they get very hostile and begin attacking me personally. That always changes my mind to follow their argument! haha

          • He is right and i will back him on this as a reviewer
            glyphosate is safe and you are wrong. Sorry but you should research more.

          • a ‘reviewer’ LMFAO

            of what?? for who? Farmers Weekly? Cancer Now? The MacmIllan Trust

            shut your ridiculous trap you clown. never mind researching more you should stand in the corner and think about what you said you utter, UTTER melt

          • Not always, but … at least frequently, it is the IQ-impaired and the spirituality/civility-impaired who so very easily are provoked and readily resort to name-calling and ad hominem abusive tactics when their beliefs and opinions are challenged—even slightly.

            Enjoy your acrimony.

            It must suck to be you.

          • I call bullshit.

            You’re just another tin foil hat wearing conspiracy monger.

            Maybe you *will* actually put up—or shut up.

            I live in Hilo.

            Get my ticket ready. If you aren’t just blowing smoke.

          • who gives a solid shit what you think parrot boy? when I want your opinion I’ll tap it out in morse code on your Mum’s headboard okay?

            ” put up or shut up? ” fucking grow up

            enjoy your cancer crystals and hopefully you will drink a gallon live on youtube….for all you clowns waffle about how safe it is not one of you actually SHOWS a demonstration now do you?

            enjoy your slow lingering death you sheep

          • Damn, all this smoke. And hot air.

            Must … be … the .. CONSPIRACY MONGERS!


          • And the true colors of a vulgar, fact free, jerk reveal themselves under just a little pressure from folks who actually understand facts. Pathetic.

          • Ah, so much bullshit from (yet) another tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy monger.

            At the risk of exposing yourself as a TOTAL shill and shuckster (now that you’ve admitted to actually using “pesticides” on the “farm” that *you* supposedly “own, work and live on”): WHICH pesticides DO you use, GENIUS?

            OH, that’s right. YOU. ARE. A. LIAR.

          • Exactly. But, the human apologists need to keep finding humans guilty of “destroying the planet”. They are generally also the ones who wish to depopulate the planet. I always wonder who it is they’d like to kill off though, well, besides fetuses in the womb.

          • I don’t believe it’s the farmers fault I believe it’s a government thing & unfortunately “Read” what ready round up seed does to your soil after 5 /6 years! And yes this is killing Us so why don’t you research how many more illnesses & deaths are in farming communities..

          • Google : Ready round up seed… Wikipedia..if it didn’t do damage to the environment, people Animals,ex…then the judge in Jackson county (Oregon) would not have banned it & would not have made the farmers pull up their crops!!!.
            The only reason I have been so interested in this crap is because my boyfriend died 4 years ago on may 28 from ALS. And I knew his illness was connected to the this sugar beet company he worked for..(ready round up seed )if you want first hand information on this chemical & others contact hazmat , go in & talk to them , I have ..

          • Julie you seem like a nice person.
            Roundup has been used on soils since 1974, that is 42 years.

            Round up is one of the best herbicides, that protects soils and increases yield for farmers.

            If you have concerns about what is happening with modern farming, ask a farmer. We are able to discuss your concerns.

          • And so was agent orange it was around for years & they have just now have recently recognized the real out come of the effects or at least the VA has & is now paying the veterans for the problems associated with it!

          • Agent Orange has nothing to do with Roundup. It is not even close to the same. Agent Orange was a weapon of WAR.

            Round up is a weed killer used to control weeds in farmers fields, not even close to the same.

          • How can it be a Govenment thing? the Government doesn’t tell farmers what to grow or how to protect the crops.

        • “Conclusions. Despite treatment in rural hospitals with limited resources, the mortality was 3.2%, which is lower than that reported in previous case series. More research is required to define the mechanism of toxicity, better predict the small group at risk of death, and find effective treatments.”
          (from Clinical Toxicology:

          Remember, the study is concerning people trying to kill themselves using a herbicide. Doesn’t work too well–only 3 in a hundred succeed, but then we don’t know what else they tried along with their ingestion of the herbicide. Presumably, post mortem study could isolate the offending substance that caused the death.

          However, generally, people eating their veggies and salads are not trying to commit suicide and don’t tend to die from eating them, nor are they at higher risk of cancers. Just saying.

          • You do know that only 1% of people who slit their own wrists die from it? So turns out, you’ve got a 300% better chance of killing yourself drinking Roundup than slitting your wrists. Awesome.

          • Point? People shouldn’t try your method to commit suicide?
            Well, they wouldn’t likely be successful with Roundup unless they drank a full three plus gallons at once….
            Anyway, you’re probably a smart person and read and understood the article and so you know any alarms over glyphosate are unwarranted, and you realize that the product has been of tremendous help to agriculture in producing lots of good food for lots of people, and you were just trying to practice your banter skills. I get it.

    • I have a better experiment for you, Tito. You COULD just go eat at Chipotle’s. Organic, all-natcheral, pure, safe, non-GE. See how that works out fer ya. I’ll volunteer to stay home and eat GE corn.

    • One of the reps for round up used to do exactly this. He demonstrated by drinking a cup of round up. Like multiple times a week.
      The story is floating around. Can’t exactly recall how it ended. Personally I think I prefer my food without the application of chemical treatments.

        • Water is a chemical which is necessary for life to exist. Glyphosate, on the other hand, is proven to be a very dangerous carcinogen which does not occur naturally as does H2O…BIG DIFFERENCE.

          • Again, baloney. 1) This is a reprint in S. American from Environmental Health News.
            2) It quotes Seralini, long debunked on this topic.
            Even the IARC, a branch of the WHO, termed it a “probable carcinogen,” and put it in the same risk category as caffein, sunlight, and working night hours.
            More on this:

            But if you doggedly believe it is a “very dangerous carcinogen,” by all means stay away from it, and eat organic and non-GMO certified. And do not spray Roundup into your mouth.

          • Scientific American is an entertaining magazine, not a scientific journal. It’s great for introducing the public to important topics in science, but it is often short on accuracy. Many of the articles are written by people talking about their own work, rather than an objective review of the field. I still subscribe (after 50 years), but some of the articles are surprisingly inaccurate or biased.

          • Oh dear, a classic “fringe” website! Mae-wan Ho apparently believes all kinds of woo, including the idea that water has “memory”, and that DNA sequences can be reconstituted simply from water that has acquired this memory.

            The second author is a retired defense department physicist.

          • Yeah, kill the messenger cause you don’t like the message, WHO is NOT some fringe group they are the World Health Organization. Just because some nincompoop refers to a classic fringe site does not change the message, WHO,… not me, not fringe site, but the world authority. You calling WHO fringe now?!? Just cause you don’t like the message you attack the messenger, classic denial of reality tactics Mr. O.

          • 1). The article clearly states “… laboratory settings….” which do not represent actual field settings.
            2). The article cites Seralini, long debunked for his piss-poor “research” on glyphosate.
            3). Dose-dependency is what determines health risks. I read an article earlier this week about a woman who fatally killed her own baby with a tablespoon of salt, thinking it would help get her lover back. (Pathetic, sad, horrifying). A tablespoon of salt is definitely NOT using as directed. And there are no studies showing issues with glyphosate when used as directed. I wil say that again: When used as directed.
            Got it?

        • Ok, just for fun, water is a molecule, h2o as you know. It’s not considered a chemical, as such, water is a solvent. Water is known as the universal solvent. That should provide some background for your question.

          • Organic solvents are not chemicals, then? Organic solvents are all safe and yummy? Seriously, is that the position you’re taking, paulie? Are you incoherent? Maybe huffed too much ether? Are you brain damaged? Maybe huffed too much toluene? Or are you merely an ignorant dumbass? A hopelessly sold out agenda hawking dumbass.


    • The operative words, Tito, are “…when used as directed.” Would you drink a toxic amount of pure caffeine? And I do not ever remember reading that drinking a pesticide falls in line with using “….as directed.”

  4. This article (and entire site) is bordering on Lunatic Fringe – Glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor, kills gut bacteria and is killing our soil system. Anyone who has ever worked in science knows this.

  5. I don’t know what you are a “doctor” of, but it’s not in anything scientific. Glyphosate is absolutely NOT an endocrine disruptor. According to the National Pesticide Information Center and other independent agencies, including the federal government: “Researchers reviewed the scientific literature on glyphosate, its major metabolite AMPA, formulated Roundup® products manufactured by Monsanto, and the surfactant POEA. They found no evidence of endocrine effects in humans or other mammals.” (

    Moreover, substances that are endocrine disruptors are not necessarily harmful (ED is not a chemical ‘end point”). Soy and nuts are endocrine disruptors and are not harmful, for example. So, not only is glyphosate NOT an ED, even if it was, it would not necessarily be harmful. Glyphosate has an LD 50 toxic profile less harmful than table salt.

    • Just to be fair here, I believe Jon here is correct. I get most of my information on endocrine disruption from one of the major sites which publishes findings and results, where Theo Colborn is one of the major researchers on this and I have to admit, here is no mention of Glyphosate as a disruptor that I have found.

  6. hm maybe if Monsanto, with its sordid background and all removed itself from the GMO field, they’d be more accepted. Even GMO supporters dont like Monsanto, its background or its tactics.

    While GMO have been proven not to be dangerous overall, Monsanto and their prior history and agenda IS in question. Especially since glyphosate is no longer as effective as it once was (for the same reason that bacteria have gained immunity against many antibiotics and we need to get them out of our farms). Even GMO supporters see the dangers of a Monsanto monopoly, and want no part of it. I took this off of Monsanto’s own website (dont they ever read?) while the article is pro GMO it does poke holes in Monsanto’s propaganda that their products need less dangerous pesticides. As a matter of fact, Dow and Monsanto could have used much less dangerous pesticides than one of the two main ingredients of Agent Orange, but they chose to use the one they can make the most money from (patent):

    But less than 20 years later, over a dozen weeds have developed resistance to glyphosate, meaning that farmers have to use more of it, as well as other more hazardous chemicals such as 2,4-D, a powerful herbicide linked to reproductive problems and birth defects, says Chuck Benbrook, PhD, a research professor at Washington State University’s Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources. On the basis of 16 years of pesticide data, collected since GMOs were introduced, Benbrook predicts that use of 2,4-D will increase more than fourfold in the next decade, spurred by new GMO crops. “Twenty years from now we will look back and deeply regret the misuse and mismanagement of current-generation GMO technology,” he says.

    This is Agent Orange, the same carcinogen that Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, et. al, poisoned Vietnam and our soldiers with. Now they are trying to patent it as their new pesticide- this is the part everyone should be paying attention to

    These are also interesting reads- illustrative of what may happen in the future

    Note how scientists differed with Monsanto’s assessments and guess who the “regulators” listened to (and you can probably guess why- conflict of interest when they are allowed to be on the regulatory agencies.)

    But critics of the products say that is not the last word on the issue.

    Some international scientists are challenging the assertion and say many scientific studies show concerns with crops whose DNA has been spliced in ways not seen in nature.

    On Tuesday, a group with backing from institutions in Russia, the United States and Europe said it would undertake the longest, largest and most definitive study of GMOs to date to try to settle the debate once and for all.

    The $25 million study of 6,000 rats to be fed a GMO corn diet is designed as an independent examination of the health impacts of GMO corn and the herbicide used on it. The research is to be done in Russia and western Europe over two to three years. (

    “The science on these GMOs is not settled by a long shot,” said Bruce Blumberg, an endocrinology expert at the University of California, Irvine, who sits on the study review board. “Studies that were done by the manufacturers are the main ones showing safety, and those have an inherent conflict of interest.”

    • @Alex—You seem to have missed the title of the post. Or are you just using it as an excuse for a rambling rant about GMO’s, Monsanto etc.?

      Last February, the E.U. completed its 10-year review of the safety of glyphosate. This involved over 1000 toxicology studies, reports and peer-reviewed scientific articles The review confirmed the previous conclusion about the safety of glyphosate.

      It has been described as “a once-in-a-century molecule”, and I think rightly so, If one had to design a pesticide from scratch, it would be hard to design a better molecule (human safety, potency, selectivity, water-solubility, rapid excretion, simple metabolites, environmental persistence, simple synthesis, cost, etc.). It’s no surprise that it’s the world’s most widely used herbicide, with over a hundred companies that manufacture and formulate it (not just Monsanto!).

      An added benefit is that glyphosate has been used for over half a century, so there is a wealth of experience in the benefits and limitations of the molecule—unlike most of the other substances we are exposed to.

      • I think you missed my point- I was talking about Glyphosate resistance becoming so rampant that it’s being replaced with something far more toxic, something also mentioned in Scientific American and Nature.

        Hm it seems, like you are the one with the agenda, Pal ;-) I’m fine with transgenics, as long as Monsanto is driven out of the industry. Remove Bayer and Dow and any other chemical warfare company also. Other GMO proponents agree with me.

        Here’s the funny and ironic thing about that Fitness magazine article, it was a pro GMO puff piece Monsanto listed on their own Discover website- haha! Their own dumb commercials condemned them.

        And if the above aren’t good enough for you, perhaps Scientific American, Nature and the New York Times and Washington Post will be- unless you have a political agenda of your own.

        You mean peer reviewed or Monsanto reviewed? Because the conclusions are completely different. The point I made that you dont seem to understand, is that just like antibiotics resistance is growing, so is pesticide resistance. The newer pesticides (like 2-4.D aka Agent Orange) is FAR more dangerous and scientists are alreadty decrying its usage. There IS a FAR better way, just like there is a new emerging alternative to antibiotics.

        The fact is Monsanto, with their grisly background in chemical warfare, tried to hoodwink the scientific community with its promises that glyphosate resistance wouldn’t happen- well they were dead wrong. Makes you wonder what else they were wrong about- and no wonder they are trying to recoup their image with these silly TC commercials no one is buying.

        Sorry, no one buys your plutocratic notion of what science is supposed to be, I prefer my scientists to be free of any corruptive monetary influence, thank you very much.

        npr insect experts issue urgent warning on using biotech seeds

        But less than 20 years later, over a dozen weeds have developed resistance to glyphosate, meaning that farmers have to use more of it, as well as other more hazardous chemicals such as 2,4-D, a powerful herbicide linked to reproductive problems and birth defects, says Chuck Benbrook, PhD, a research professor at Washington State University’s Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources. On the basis of 16 years of pesticide data, collected since GMOs were introduced, Benbrook predicts that use of 2,4-D will increase more than fourfold in the next decade, spurred by new GMO crops. “Twenty years from now we will look back and deeply regret the misuse and mismanagement of current-generation GMO technology,” he says.

        This is Agent Orange, the same carcinogen that Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, et. al, poisoned Vietnam and our soldiers with. Now they are trying to patent it as their new pesticide- this is the part everyone should be paying attention to

        These are also interesting reads- illustrative of what may happen in the future

        Note how scientists differed with Monsanto’s assessments and guess who the “regulators” listened to (and you can probably guess why- conflict of interest when they are allowed to be on the regulatory agencies.)

        But critics of the products say that is not the last word on the issue.

        Some international scientists are challenging the assertion and say many scientific studies show concerns with crops whose DNA has been spliced in ways not seen in nature.

        On Tuesday, a group with backing from institutions in Russia, the United States and Europe said it would undertake the longest, largest and most definitive study of GMOs to date to try to settle the debate once and for all.

        The $25 million study of 6,000 rats to be fed a GMO corn diet is designed as an independent examination of the health impacts of GMO corn and the herbicide used on it. The research is to be done in Russia and western Europe over two to three years. (

        “The science on these GMOs is not settled by a long shot,” said Bruce Blumberg, an endocrinology expert at the University of California, Irvine, who sits on the study review board. “Studies that were done by the manufacturers are the main ones showing safety, and those have an inherent conflict of interest.”

        he program is implemented by farmers to assess non-GMO product performance compared to the dominant GMO products on their farms. “Buying seed is an investment and we understand our seed products must offer additional returns. Last year, based on 120 replications of farmer-generated data, we found non-GMO hybrids out-yielded GMO hybrids by an average of 4.7 bushels per acre,” says Odle. And he adds, “This is why we see our PlotPak™ program as a critical component of our story. The purpose is to empower farmers and re-engage them in the decision making process.”
        Antibiotic resistant bacteria at the meat counter
        May 2013
        The pork chops you buy in the supermarket neatly packaged in plastic and styrofoam may look completely sterile, but are, in fact, likely to be contaminated with disease-causing bacteria — and not with just any old bugs, but with hard-to-treat, antibiotic resistant strains. In a recently published study, researchers with the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System bought meat from a wide sampling of chain grocery stores across the country and analyzed the bacteria on the meat. Resistant microbes were found in 81% of ground turkey samples, 69% of pork chops, 55% of ground beef samples, and 39% of chicken parts. Of course, thoroughly cooking the meat will kill the germs, but if the meat is undercooked or contaminates other food with its bacteria — perhaps via a shared cutting board — the result could be an infection that can’t be cured with common medications. Such infections are a serious health concern — a strain of antibiotic resistant staph was recently estimated to cause nearly 20,000 deaths per year in the U.S. — and the problem seems to be getting worse. An evolutionary perspective helps us understand how antibiotic resistance arises in the first place and why the prevalence of resistant bugs in livestock has health professionals and scientists worried.

        antibiotics alternatives that a new type of treatment had been effective at curing five out of six patients whose skin had been infected with MRSA or methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus — one of the scariest bugs around because it appears to shrug off even the most powerful antibiotics available. The initial trial was small and limited to those with eczema, contact dermatitis and other skin infections but the company said it is beginning clinical trials for other types of infections.

        Antibiotics work by getting inside bacteria, but in recent years many bacteria that cause common illnesses such as tuberculosis or salmonella have mutated to have thicker membranes that stop the medicine from getting inside.

        The new drug — which the company has dubbed Staphefket — works from the outside by latching on to the outer cell wall of bacteria. It uses an enzyme known as endolysins to degrade the wall and thereby kill the bacteria. Scientists theorize that bacteria will be less able to evolve to protect themselves against this type of attack because endolysins tend to evolve with their hosts. They are also believed to have another advantage over antibiotics: They can be targeted to only kill specific types of bacteria while antibiotics tend to kill a whole spectrum of them — both good and bad for the body.

        Micreos said in May that it had tested the drug against 36 strains of bacteria, eight of them MRSA.

        The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology in September issued a long-awaited report on the matter warning that antibiotic resistance threatens to undue all the progress we’ve made in the past century in terms of controlling infectious diseases.

        Tell EPA to Reject the Use of Toxic 2,4-D Herbicide for Dow Chemical’s “Agent Orange” GE Crops

        EPA is deciding whether to allow the use of the herbicide 2,4-D for Dow Chemical’s genetically engineered “Agent Orange” corn and soybeans. Tell EPA to deny approval for these additional uses of toxic 2,4-D.

        The Environmental Protection Agency has just opened a public comment period on the approval of the use of toxic 2,4-D specifically for Dow’s GE corn and soybeans. EPA is timing their approval process with that of USDA, with both agencies proposing approval of the Dow Agent Orange, GE crop system.

        Dow Chemical, the same company that brought us Dursban, Napalm, and Agent Orange, is now in the food business and is pushing for an unprecedented government approval: genetically engineered (GE) versions of corn, soybeans and cotton that are designed to survive repeated dousing with 2,4-D, half of the highly toxic chemical mixture Agent Orange.

        Agent Orange was the chemical defoliant used by the U.S. in Vietnam, and it caused lasting environmental damage as well as many serious medical conditions in both American veterans and the Vietnamese.

        Tell EPA, USDA, and President Obama to stop Dow Chemical’s “Agent Orange” crops!

        Wide scale use of Roundup with Roundup Ready GE crops has already led to an epidemic of resistant weeds, and the next step in the chemical arms race is 2,4-D — a chemical linked to major health problems including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, endocrine disruption, and reproductive problems. Industry tests show that 2,4-D is contaminated with dioxins—often referred to as the most toxic substances known to science.

        EPA has reported that 2,4-D is the seventh largest source of dioxins in the U.S. Dioxin contamination in the rivers and soil around Dow Chemical’s headquarters in Midland, Michigan has led to the highest dioxin levels ever found by the EPA in fish, and has been linked to increased breast cancer rates in the contaminated areas.

        EPA’s approval would lead to a massive increase in the use of this toxic, dioxin-contaminated herbicide on our farms!

        If approved, Dow’s “Agent Orange” crops will trigger a large increase in 2,4-D use–and our exposure to this toxic herbicide—yet the government has completely failed to investigate the harms such increased use would cause. This is part of a growing problem, an escalating chemical arms race going on across America’s heartland.

        Dow Chemical is hyping GE 2,4-D corn, soy and cotton as the “solution” to Roundup-resistant weeds caused by GE Roundup Ready crops. But by driving up 2,4-D use, Dow’s crops will generate even more intractable weeds resistant to 2,4-D and other herbicides. This GE crop system ensures a toxic spiral of ever-increasing chemical use on our land and food, which benefits no one but Dow.

        Tell the government to reject Dow Chemical’s “Agent Orange” crops and the toxic chemicals they rely on!

        SHARE THIS

        For more information:

        CFS’s Dow Campaign website:

        EPA’s Environmental Risk Assessment of Proposed Label for Enlist (2,4-D Choline Salt), New Uses on Soybean with DAS 68416-4 (2,4-D Tolerant) and Enlist (2,4-D + Glyphosate Tolerant) Corn and Field Corn:!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0195

        USDA’s draft environmental impact statement:

        CFS factsheet, “Agent Orange” Corn: The Next Stage in the Chemical Arms Race”:

        CFS report, “Going Backwards: Dow’s 2,4-D-Resistant Crops and a More Toxic Future”:

        • Did you seriously just say, “I prefer my scientists to be free of any corruptive monetary influence”, then followed up by a NPR article? Wow. Sorry, this warrants the rest of your text without credibility.

          • Ha I already went after NPR dont worry, sometimes they do show both sides, on rare occasions….

      • and feel free to explain these
        Get rights and content

        The cytogenetic effects of pesticide mixtures were evaluated on CHO cells.

        A 20-fold enhanced activity was observed in mixture with the four pesticides.

        It was 100-fold increased after light-irradiation, through oxidative stress.

        It highlighted the importance of cocktail effects in environmental matrices.

        It showed the limits of usual strategies to estimate environmental risks.
        The photo-inducible cytogenetic toxicity of glyphosate, atrazine, aminomethyl phosphoric acid (AMPA), desethyl-atrazine (DEA), and their various mixtures was assessed by the in vitro micronucleus assay on CHO-K1 cells.

        Results demonstrated that the cytogenetic potentials of pesticides greatly depended on their physico-chemical environment. The mixture made with the four pesticides exhibited the most potent cytogenetic toxicity, which was 20-fold higher than those of the most active compound AMPA, and 100-fold increased after light-irradiation. Intracellular ROS assessment suggested the involvement of oxidative stress in the genotoxic impact of pesticides and pesticide mixtures.

        This study established that enhanced cytogenetic activities could be observed in pesticide mixtures containing glyphosate, atrazine, and their degradation products AMPA and DEA. It highlighted the importance of cocktail effects in environmental matrices, and pointed out the limits of usual testing strategies based on individual molecules, to efficiently estimate environmental risks.

        Glyphosate; Atrazine; Pesticide mixture; Pesticide metabolites; Genotoxicity; Photoactivation
        Get rights and content

        Glyphosate at 10−12 to 10−6 M promoted growth of T47D cells via estrogen receptors.

        Glyphosate produced the activation of ERE which can be blocked by ICI 182780.

        Glyphosate altered estrogen receptors by increasing expression ratio of ERα and ERβ.

        Glyphosate had an additive effect with genistein on ERE activation and cell growth.
        Glyphosate is an active ingredient of the most widely used herbicide and it is believed to be less toxic than other pesticides. However, several recent studies showed its potential adverse health effects to humans as it may be an endocrine disruptor. This study focuses on the effects of pure glyphosate on estrogen receptors (ERs) mediated transcriptional activity and their expressions. Glyphosate exerted proliferative effects only in human hormone-dependent breast cancer, T47D cells, but not in hormone-independent breast cancer, MDA-MB231 cells, at 10−12 to 10−6 M in estrogen withdrawal condition. The proliferative concentrations of glyphosate that induced the activation of estrogen response element (ERE) transcription activity were 5-13 fold of control in T47D-KBluc cells and this activation was inhibited by an estrogen antagonist, ICI 182780, indicating that the estrogenic activity of glyphosate was mediated via ERs. Furthermore, glyphosate also altered both ERα and β expression. These results indicated that low and environmentally relevant concentrations of glyphosate possessed estrogenic activity. Glyphosate-based herbicides are widely used for soybean cultivation, and our results also found that there was an additive estrogenic effect between glyphosate and genistein, a phytoestrogen in soybeans. However, these additive effects of glyphosate contamination in soybeans need further animal study.
        Get rights and content

        Addresses gap in information about glyphosate and AMPA in urban riparian groundwater.

        Glyphosate and AMPA detected at most sites, 1 in 10 samples overall.

        Detection frequency varied between sites – from none to found in most samples.

        AMPA was correlated with glyphosate, not acesulfame, suggesting a glyphosate source.
        The herbicide glyphosate and its putative metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) have been found in urban streams, but limited information is available on their presence in urban riparian groundwater. Information is also lacking regarding the source of AMPA in these urban settings (glyphosate metabolite or wastewater), and whether, if present, glyphosate residues in urban riparian groundwater contribute significantly to urban streams. Glyphosate and AMPA were detected in shallow riparian groundwater at 4 of 5 stream sites in urban catchments in Canada and each were found in approximately 1 in 10 of the samples overall. Frequency of observations of glyphosate and AMPA varied substantially between sites, from no observations in a National Park near the Town of Jasper Alberta, to observations of both glyphosate and AMPA in more than half of the samples along two short reaches of streams in Burlington, Ontario. In these two catchments, AMPA was correlated with glyphosate, rather than the artificial sweetener acesulfame, suggesting that the AMPA is derived mainly from glyphosate degradation rather than from wastewater sources. Land use, localized dosage history, depth below ground and other factors likely control the occurrence of detectable glyphosate residues in groundwater.

        Glyphosate; AMPA; Urban groundwater; Riparian; Metabolite
        Get rights and content

        Roundup® induces Ca2+ influx through L-VDCC and NMDA receptor activation.

        The mechanisms underlying Roundup® neurotoxicity involve glutamatergic excitotoxicity.

        Kinase pathways participate in Roundup®-induced neural toxicity.

        Roundup® alters glutamate uptake, release and metabolism in hippocampal cells.
        Previous studies demonstrate that glyphosate exposure is associated with oxidative damage and neurotoxicity. Therefore, the mechanism of glyphosate-induced neurotoxic effects needs to be determined. The aim of this study was to investigate whether Roundup® (a glyphosate-based herbicide) leads to neurotoxicity in hippocampus of immature rats following acute (30 min) and chronic (pregnancy and lactation) pesticide exposure. Maternal exposure to pesticide was undertaken by treating dams orally with 1% Roundup® (0.38% glyphosate) during pregnancy and lactation (till 15-day-old). Hippocampal slices from 15 day old rats were acutely exposed to Roundup® (0.00005–0.1%) during 30 min and experiments were carried out to determine whether glyphosate affects 45Ca2+ influx and cell viability. Moreover, we investigated the pesticide effects on oxidative stress parameters, 14C-α-methyl-amino-isobutyric acid (14C-MeAIB) accumulation, as well as glutamate uptake, release and metabolism. Results showed that acute exposure to Roundup® (30 min) increases 45Ca2+ influx by activating NMDA receptors and voltage-dependent Ca2+ channels, leading to oxidative stress and neural cell death. The mechanisms underlying Roundup®-induced neurotoxicity also involve the activation of CaMKII and ERK. Moreover, acute exposure to Roundup® increased 3H-glutamate released into the synaptic cleft, decreased GSH content and increased the lipoperoxidation, characterizing excitotoxicity and oxidative damage. We also observed that both acute and chronic exposure to Roundup® decreased 3H-glutamate uptake and metabolism, while induced 45Ca2+ uptake and 14C-MeAIB accumulation in immature rat hippocampus. Taken together, these results demonstrated that Roundup® might lead to excessive extracellular glutamate levels and consequently to glutamate excitotoxicity and oxidative stress in rat hippocampus.
        Get rights and content
        Glyphosate is the primary active constituent of the commercial pesticide Roundup. The present results show that acute Roundup exposure at low doses (36 ppm, 0.036 g/L) for 30 min induces oxidative stress and activates multiple stress-response pathways leading to Sertoli cell death in prepubertal rat testis. The pesticide increased intracellular Ca2+ concentration by opening L-type voltage-dependent Ca2+ channels as well as endoplasmic reticulum IP3 and ryanodine receptors, leading to Ca2+ overload within the cells, which set off oxidative stress and necrotic cell death. Similarly, 30 min incubation of testis with glyphosate alone (36 ppm) also increased 45Ca2+ uptake. These events were prevented by the antioxidants Trolox and ascorbic acid. Activated protein kinase C, phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase, and the mitogen-activated protein kinases such as ERK1/2 and p38MAPK play a role in eliciting Ca2+ influx and cell death. Roundup decreased the levels of reduced glutathione (GSH) and increased the amounts of thiobarbituric acid-reactive species (TBARS) and protein carbonyls. Also, exposure to glyphosate–Roundup stimulated the activity of glutathione peroxidase, glutathione reductase, glutathione S-transferase, γ-glutamyltransferase, catalase, superoxide dismutase, and glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase, supporting downregulated GSH levels. Glyphosate has been described as an endocrine disruptor affecting the male reproductive system; however, the molecular basis of its toxicity remains to be clarified. We propose that Roundup toxicity, implicated in Ca2+ overload, cell signaling misregulation, stress response of the endoplasmic reticulum, and/or depleted antioxidant defenses, could contribute to Sertoli cell disruption in spermatogenesis that could have an impact on male fertility

  7. Seneff claimed a 0.99999 percent correlation (yes 5 decimal places) between glyphosate use and the rate of certain diseases, in her testimony to Pennsylvania’s house of representatives’ Agricultural committee.

    When was the last time such correlations were seen in non-communicable diseases?

  8. “Seneff and Samsel have no expertise in toxicology or agriculture” FALSE: Seneff has a B.S. in Biophysics, earned before her MS and PHd, all from MIT.

    Note that another thing that is being overlooked today: Monsanto also brought us DDT, and provided false analysis showing that it was perfectly safe. Are you really willing to trust them again? Pure foolishness.

  9. Paid opinion by a young immigrant writer not a researcher or scientist, IMHO Junk Science article paid for by the industry.

    First of all caffeine does not bio accumulate and article makes assumptions folks will not inhale, absorb or drink Round Up, article uses flawed EPA data and the whole comparison and chart is a strawman.
    and this article was written by an intern at Boston U XiaoZhi Lim known as X currently working as a ____ guess it… “Productions Intern the American Chemical Society”!!! , XiaoZhi Lim also is a recent graduate of the Boston University Science #Journalism Graduate Program and a native of Singapore. She would be just the type to write such an article for pay, she has more to lose than her honor…

  10. this quote: “. According to plant pathologist Steve Savage, glyphosate has also replaced mechanical tillage to destroy weeds, which is “a substantial positive for the environment because of reduced erosion and retention of soil carbon.””:
    How is the destruction of so-called “weeds” reducing soil erosion and causing retention of soil carbon? If the “weeds” are not present, then what is holding the soil in place, reducing erosion? Many plants that are called weeds because they “compete” with the crop planted for nutrients are actually beneficial plants. They contribute to the entire ecosystem. They may be the preferred food or nutrient source for animal “pests” which turn to the planted, cultivated crop for an alternate source of nutrients to survive when their preferred food is removed from the environment. These “weeds” may well also be a source for an entire network or ecosystem which includes pollinators, and possibly non-pollinating insects, which are food-for-birds and food for other fauna species. The practice of eliminating a multiplicity of plant species and replacing them with engineered varieties of one specie of plant from a terminal seed is infinitely short-sighted, as the reduction in biodiversity leaves the earth vulnerable to massive crop failures with no back-up genetic material that might survive in a different environment as growing conditions and threats to survival change and fluctuate. The primary and fundamental objection to the use of these herbicides is precisely that those who promote them consider their science more sound than a million years of evolution….We don’t know what we destroyed until after we have destroyed it. It isn’t that opponents of these herbicides are alarmist out of ignorance. To assert that is to disrespect the experience and perceptions of those who are seeing a very big picture and the minutest details there-of.

    • Savage is stating that reduction of mechanical tillage reduces soil erosion and promotes rentention of soil carbon.
      The rest of your post is a condemnation of all agriculture that has been practiced over the last 10,000 years.

      • The rest of my comment is no such thing. I take grave offense at that assertion. How do you figure I am condemning cultivation and agriculture by saying that combinations of various species living together benefit each other, and herbicides can be more harmful than the developers there – of are ready to accept?

      • No till farming can be accomplished without GMOs and their accompanying pesticides. It’s labor intensive until well-established. Plus, no-till has its drawbacks too. The biggest problem with GMOs (and with any agriculture that is developed around pesticides and not around IPM) is pesticides. Glyphosate may be RELATIVELY safe, but it has already given way to more toxic pesticides in newly engineered pesticide-tolerant crops. We’re going backwards now and need to face the hard questions of growing toxicity in the environment, and the consequences to our own health and habitat.

  11. So, here’s the thing… I pull the weeds in my garden. I don’t use poison. I mix steer manure in with the soil. I get awesome fruits and vegetables. I lose some to bugs (who wants a tomato with a bug bite out of it?), but enjoy the knowledge that my crops are free of poisons. It’s more labor intensive, but seems to me that we need to put more people to work, and we’ll need to do that even more in the future.

    • How many acres is your garden? Do you know that there is almost 100 million acres of just corn grown in the US, even if a person could weed an acre of corn we would need 100 million people to weed just corn… Kind of impractical don’t you think?

  12. This article is so ridiculously skewed in favor of gmo’s that it becomes incredibly clear it is one of MANY articles written to confuse or sway people in favor of gmo crops, and is clearly put together by the gmo industry giants most often Monsanto.

  13. “GMO” genetically modified organisms are as unhealthy as they sound… I have been researching a company for 5 years that My boyfriend had worked for (before I had ever heard about GMO) and with all the material from back then to now I have 100% proof that the herbicides,pesticides & fungicides that are coated on the seeds to create these foods (GMO’s) cause serious health issues and before long nothing will be 100% organic since dust from the seeds blows to other farms & gets into Our rivers which go to Our oceans….My Boyfriend will not even be alive another year due to ALS-Lou Gerhig’s disease which is just one of the killers this crap can cause ..By breathing the dust daily like Our honey bees,baby birds & Monarch butterflies it hits the neurological system and kills them!

    • Dear Guest: All pesticides, organic and conventional, including glyphosate are toxic–that’s why they are called pesticides. All are AT LEAST slightly toxic to birds and fish…as many chemicals all. The point is that glyphosate, when compared to organic and other conventional pesticides, is extremely mild. It does not “poison” birds or fish or humans. But there are some conventional pesticides and organic ones that will kill fish and birds. Your concerns, while understandable, are not grounded in science.

    • I think the issue here is just scientific vs. “normal” use of language. Scientists will never say “non-toxic”, because everything, including all sorts of substances that you think are completely innocuous, will induce toxic effects at some level. Saying “non-toxic” technically implies absolutely zero effect, which isn’t something that a measurement is ever going to tel you with complete certainty.

      The definition of “slightly” in this context is included in the independent NPIC data sheet for glyphosate at and you’ll see that the effects are _very_ slight: in normal, non-scientific use, “non-toxic” would be a pretty reasonable description. There are far more toxic pesticides in use, including in organic agriculture as Jon mentioned.

      Which doesn’t mean that things can’t be improved, but glyphosate is already a big improvement in terms of reduced toxicity over the herbicides that came before, and there is no evidence of wildlife or human health problems related to it.

  14. I’m not taking a strong stance on either side, but to the point about caffeine toxicity…
    Most people obviously feel the physical effects of caffeine well below the LD50 value. I would argue that that the effects of a relative ratio ( 0.78% of the lethal dose using the articles numbers based on a 140lb human) of glyphosate could also produce noticeable physical effects.

    I have yet to find studies of the short term effects of low doses of glyphosate through food ingestion and would be curious to read some from either side as I believe this is the real underlying issue for most people.

    • The lethal dose of any chemical in an animal model can never be used as an exact predictor of the effect of low levels of exposures in humans, and some people put far too much emphasis on animal studies; however, it’s a reasonable starting point for an overall safety assessment. If you are interested in the current U.S. regulatory position, check out:

      The E.U. recently completed an updated safety analysis, including about 300 safety studies and about 900 potentially relevant research papers. I don’t claim to be familiar with all this information, but as a result of this analysis, the E.U. has not changed its position on the safety of glyphosate at typical levels of exposure. (This vast amount of scientific information still hasn’t prevented some politicians from writing legislation to restrict the access of the general public to glyphosate! Coffee is still permitted…)

      Unlike the tens of thousands of substances we are exposed to, what’s great about glyphosate is that we have so much data. (No doubt, I’ll get some heat for saying “great”). Of course, nothing is guaranteed in life, and science is just a process for getting closer to the truth. but in the mean time, we have plenty of KNOWN risks that we could address through lifestyle changes or legislation.

  15. What this article fails to discuss is the toxicity of the formulations of pesticides (specifically the active ingredients + the inert ingredients) which has been shown by numerous studies published in reputable sources (including the ncbi) that the toxicity of these formulations are over 1000 greater than the active ingredients alone i.e. glyphosate and that in the long term exposure to these formulations can lead to the disruption of the endocrine system.

    • @dereks — It would help if you were a little more specific about your claims. If you are referring to the fact that animal cells grown in culture in the absence of the normally protective serum are vulnerable to surfactants (claims from the Seralini group?), then I would agree with you. But it is bogus to claim that this is a measure of toxicity to humans. If you get shampoo or dish soap in your eye, it will sting, and the toxicity of surfactants to cultured cells is well established.

      Are you really saying that glyphosate may be 1000 times safer than soap? If so, I may quibble about the numbers, but I think you may have a good grasp of the situation.

      As far as endocrine disruption goes, please give us more specific detail about which endocrine system you are referring to.

        • I’d have thought this would be covered implicitly by the animal testing that is used to determine the glyphosate chronic toxicity levels — no? That data would suggest that while glyphosate can in principle kill gut bacteria, in vivo it seems not to do it enough to cause serious disruption until quite high (far above residue exposure) concentrations. Am I missing something?

          • I noted that assertion as well. Peter, you’re all right man. Just because we don’t agree doesn’t mean we don’t think alike. I suspect that we have a lot in common with regard to how we come at these things. We just happen to be coming at them from polar opposite starting points.

          • I think our main difference is our value systems, or set of assumptions. From your posts, I get the sense that you approach the world with the assumption that everything is dangerous, unless proven otherwise. I’ll admit that everything has the POTENTIAL for being dangerous, but you seem to be unwilling to define what it would take to remove the fear that you have. If someone gave you $5 million, could you design a set of studies that would assuage your concerns about glyphosate or GM technology?

            There are thousands of unknowns in the environment we are exposed to, but life is short, and I think it’s much more important to use our best judgement to focus on which things are either most likely to be true, or to have the greatest potential for harm.

            Also, there’s more to life than avoiding risk.

      • Hi Jon, since this keeps coming up (e.g. every post from SageThinker), can you post some explicit references that cover it? Maybe as a separate article rather than just buried in the comment threads. Thanks.

          • I’m a scientist, so I’m always willing to be proven wrong. These are your exemplary studies of glyphosate toxicity in regard to the flora of the human gut? You picked ‘em!

            You proposed:…

            Here’s the sense of the abstract: We selected three microbes sensitive to glyphosate. There are differences in how they reacted. Please note(!): the study is nearly 30 years old.


            This is a study of poultry microbes in vitro: Salmonella and Clostridium are highly resistant to glyphosate. “However, most of beneficial bacteria . . . were found to be moderate to highly susceptible.”

            Do you propose that chicken microbes in vitro is an adequate analog for the human gut? Even if so, this study doesn’t support your position.


            This study is about microorganisms (starter cultures) in milk. “Our work is consistent with previous studies which demonstrated that the toxic effect of glyphosate was amplified by its formulation adjuvants on different human cells and other eukaryotic models.” Also, “The presented results evidence that Roundup has an inhibitory effect on microbial growth and a microbicide effect at lower concentrations than those recommended in agriculture.” By the way, “. . . unpredictable consequences of Roundup on soil microorganisms have to be considered.”

            They studied three microorganisms.

            Geotrichum candidum – a pathogenic fungus in citrus fruits, tomatoes, carrot, some other vegetables. Can also cause a disease of the lung or other organs in humans.

            Lactococcus lactis – used in the production of buttermilk and cheese

            Lactobacillus delbrueckii – used in the production of yogurt

            Tell me why I should think you’re serious about the question of glyphosate vs. human gut flora.

          • In my first citation, the Fischer group found that 400 ppm glyphosate inhibited the growth of the common gut bacterium, E. coli. (These cells were grown in the absence of amino acids—the most stringent conditions for testing the effect of glyphosate). For comparison, the glyphosate I use in my yard is about 4000 ppm. So, yes, drinking a glass of glyphosate might upset your guts, but this is thousands of times higher than the likely concentration that our gut bacteria would be exposed to from the diet!

            Just think of a few common food items in your diet (sugar, for example); then imagine the effect of consuming thousands of fold the normal amount. Chances are the gut microbiome will be affected.

  16. I hope everyone enjoyed seeing, “Me” getting booted from here as much as I did.

    It was almost as much fun as watching “Claude William Incest” get the boot.

  17. Actually, Dr. Stephanie Seneff is a senior research scientist at MIT with a B.S. degree in Biophysics, M.S. and E.E. degrees in Electrical Engineering as well as a Ph.D degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, all from MIT. We are not talking about some random, uneducated conspiracy theorist, but about a very intelligent woman whose thorough research has led her to the conclusion that glyphosate is quite harmful to human beings. The seemingly unrelated plethora of diseases Dr. Seneff equates with glyphosate exposure are in fact all related by the action of the glyphosate on the cell level. So, in spite of your discounting her studies, she may have a point.

  18. Being that glyphosate has been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organisation (WHO), as “probably carcinogenic to humans” has your opinion on the matter shifted at all?

  19. I have had glyphosate on my skin and immediately felt nauseated, short of breath, and felt a tingling on my skin at the point of exposure. Without this experience, I would not feel qualified to comment on the matter. From personal experience, I would not dare touch this chemical. The Ivory Tower people can have their highfalutin discussions, but us regular folk have to actually physically deal with the chemical. That is why they don’t give two tugs of a dead dog’s paw about whether it is safe or not. They never have to handle it. A serious message from those who have handled this substance: it should be pulled from the market immediately and replaced with an organic alternative. This is the future. Mark my words. The people, once freed from mass media brainwashing, will awaken and destroy the insidiousness inside the system, like chefs cutting out rot on over-ripe fruit. Just wait, overloads, just wait…your time is just about over and Our Day will overcome your greed ridden march to humanity’s annihilation. The Genetic “Literacy” Project is a sham paid for by Monsanto. Science that is 100s of years old is constantly under revision and criticism. How can we trust a branch of science for which they only found the blueprints in the 1950s? Genetic Engineering is not safe, not thoroughly tested over the course of decades, and is less understood than the public is led to believe. The Blindfolded are leading the blind. We must force them to take off their masks and recon with reality. Pride will be our fall unless we humble ourselves and admit we know less than we would like to admit.

    • “I have had glyphosate on my skin and immediately felt nauseated, short of breath, and felt a tingling on my skin at the point of exposure.”

      Nope, although it may make your skin itchy, it does not causes nausea, or definitely not shortness of breath (it is not volatile). i hate to sound like a jerk but if you experienced these symptoms, it was most likely all in your head.

      I have had Roundup sprayed in my face (jerk brother), down my back (broken spray hose), In my boots (another broken backpack spray hose) and never even once did I experience any of the symptoms that you mention.

      “I would not dare touch this chemical.”

      You are not supposed to touch it, it is a plant spray, not a skin treatment.

      “They never have to handle it.”

      What??? I handle it all the time.

      “it should be pulled from the market immediately and replaced with an organic alternative.”

      Well first of all there is not an organic alternative that works even as close to as well, and second Organic herbicides are even more damaging to the environment, and human health.

      • So you’re telling this person that they did not have the experience that they say they had? Either they’re lying or their delusional? Anyway, i have inhaled a very small amount of dust of 2,4-D and i was sick the next day, throwing up in the morning, which i never do… it seemed to be pretty clearly related to the exposure. Will you also deny that this happened to me?

        • Sorta like the reverse of the placebo effect, it’s for real.

          Recently I had an ugly mole suddenly grow out of control and couldn’t book an appointment with a dermatologist for 6 weeks. Tried to stay calm but all those really dreadful warnings about skin cancer are in all the magazines, on the radio, on TV, even on a billboard near here. By the time the doctor’s appointment finally rolled around I just knew it had to be melanoma, so certain I could feel the metastasized brain tumor growing in the left side of my head. Couldn’t remember for sure if the wiring crosses up coming out of the brain so I went ahead and felt vague shifting numbness in alternately my right side, my left side, then the right, etc. Every little muscle twitch or miscue only confirmed the prognosis. Yep, I managed to keep it all to myself, but I was a goner, sure as shootin’.

          Heh, turned out to be a keratoma – nuthin’ significant, nuthin’ at all. Thank goodness I didn’t tell the doc all the symptoms I had. Even so, boy, did I feel foolish but I was instantly cured of the brain lesion. It was a damned medical miracle! Also I learned that 6 weeks is a long, long time.

          • I had a big scare as well. A big assed tumor appeared on my right hand, I thought for sure it was bone cancer, and I was going to die> finally went to the doctor. He said we can do surgery or deal with it now, I said now?? he whacked my hand with a phone book and the cancer was gone, it was just a growth, no biggie.

        • You really want to make the argument that X “caused” Y? You’re really sure of that? Tell ya what. You should try it again. Just as an experiment. See if you replicate the results. Go inhale some more and report back. .

  20. You say

    “Following the same calculations, it would take 12.5 oz of glyphosate to kill an average 140 lb human being. That means drinking about three gallons of Roundup Original.”

    A study in Taiwan of glyphosate poisoning cases reports that in the 7 deaths in 93 poisoning cases, the range of consumption of a 41% glyphosate solution was 85ml to 200 ml. (2.9 oz to 6.8 oz). This does not mean that all people who consume that range will die – just that appreaciable fraction of people do.

    Acute poisoning with a glyphosate-surfactant herbicide (‘Roundup’): a review of 93 cases.

    Talbot AR1, Shiaw MH, Huang JS, Yang SF, Goo TS, Wang SH, Chen CL, Sanford TR.

    Between 1 January 1980, and 30 September 1989, 93 cases of exposure to herbicides containing glyphosphate and surfactant (‘Roundup’) were treated at Changhua Christian Hospital. The average amount of the 41% solution of glyphosate herbicide ingested by non-survivors was 184 +/- 70 ml (range 85-200 ml), but much larger amounts (500 ml) were reported to have been ingested by some patients and only resulted in mild to moderate symptomatology. Accidental exposure was asymptomatic after dermal contact with spray (six cases), while mild oral discomfort occurred after accidental ingestion (13 cases). Intentional ingestion (80 cases) resulted in erosion of the gastrointestinal tract (66%), seen as sore throat (43%), dysphagia (31%), and gastrointestinal haemorrhage (8%). Other organs were affected less often (non-specific leucocytosis 65%, lung 23%, liver 19%, cardiovascular 18%, kidney 14%, and CNS 12%). There were seven deaths, all of which occurred within hours of ingestion, two before the patient arrived at the hospital. Deaths following ingestion of ‘Roundup’ alone were due to a syndrome that involved hypotension, unresponsive to intravenous fluids or vasopressor drugs, and sometimes pulmonary oedema, in the presence of normal central venous pressure

  21. Anyone want to discuss the creation of vast ecological deserts by the continuous use of pesticides and herbicides. Monoculturing and soil destroying crops is an unsustainable way to maximise short-term profits for people who’ve forgotten what real long term farming requires. In not bothered about ingestion – we all have choice; the natural world has no choice and is being decimated.

    • Can you tell me where these deserts are?

      I know of desertification that has occurred due to traditional farming techniques, but none that I know of due to “continuous use of pesticides.”

      • Yep, ’cause you’re about the only one around here who has perfected a willful ignorance of modern agriculture and deluded himself to such an extent that you believe there exist “vast ecological deserts” caused, not by exponential population growth and unsustainable urbanization, but exclusively by modern agriculture. You’re nuts Mike. So, yeah, it’s “all you”. You are the problem, not the solution, Mike. And we really don’t care to have to listen to you screaming in the night.

        • Ooh! Don’t take it so personally….. how’s the soil quality and structure on your farm. I don’t blame farmers, but Monsanto, Beyer, Cargill et al seem to be implicated here and most arable is now for animal fodder and corn-fed obesity. Its far from sustainable and has little to do with proper diets.

          • What’s your problem with animal fodder? Farm animals are simply a way of generating a wide range of delicious and nutritious (animal)-processed foods: meat, eggs, dairy. For the people of the world who can afford them, these foods are definitely part of a “proper diet”.

            “Sustainability” is a much larger topic, and should not be reduced to a simple phrase. However, I think that poor productivity results in over-use of arable land, resulting in environmental degradation—definitely not sustainable.

          • This is one of the great ironies of alt-ag stupidity. Alties like to preach the only proper way to utilize soil resources is to keep them covered with grasses. OK, that’s fine as far as it goes but how do people derive nutrients from grasses? Well, by using them as fodder for herbivores and eating the resulting animal products. So they gripe if you disturb the grass, they gripe if you feed the animals, they gripe if you eat the animals, they gripe if you are not 100% “sustainable” in everything you do (no one is, especially not the haughty complainers), they gripe about everything…except their own ignorant wastefulness. These altie morons are consumed by their own hubris and too damned ignorant to see it. They all must have slept through eighth grade Earth Science class. Idiots.

          • What you would never understand, Mike, is our soils are just fine, functioning better than ever — we’re the fifth generation of our family on this land and we intend to continue improving things around here for the next five or more generations. What have you or your people ever done to preserve or improve anything, eh? I thought so.

            What makes your flabbery-assed existence sustainable for you or your offspring, Mike? Nuthin’, since you spend your time consuming energy intensive manufactured goods, most of which require electricity or fossil fuels to operate to your satisfaction. Then you consume tons of fancy food (and complain about farmers with your mouth crammed full), food which you use for nothing more constructive than to build up unsightly flab and convert the balance to human excrement, which you flush into a leaky septic tank or into a waste treatment system that converts your excrement to municipal sludge that’s dumped in a landfill somewhere (when your sewage isn’t being flushed by storm water directly into a stream or lake).

            My soils are more productive than ever before, likewise my livestock. Your ignorant opinion of how livestock should be fed is of absolutely no consequence since you possess not the first friggin’ clue as to what you prattle on about. As for obesity, that must be your problem, bubble butt, ’cause nobody around here is obese. You never did explain where those “ecological deserts” you were screaming about are located. As for sustainability, you offer no truly sustainable alternative — if you did we would have adopted it by now — instead you merely bad mouth producers and ag suppliers you know absolutely nothing about except by the smarmy urban myths and activist propaganda you stupidly feed upon. You and useless ignorant consumers like you are the cause of unsustainability — you are the problem and not the solution. All your asinine blaming and lecturing is a waste of oxygen and bandwidth. Go waste some more resources, you ignorant ass.

          • Bring an intelligent original thought and we can have a real discussion. The tired old propaganda you’re peddling deserves only laughs and derision. You should be ashamed to let propagandists jerk you around by the hair and tell you what to think, and even more ashamed to display your ignorance here.

          • Guess I did pull my punches a little bit with Mikey but he may be fragile and unable to handle the whole truth, so you know me, Pete, at the end of a long day; the ever empathetic master of diplomacy ;>)

      • Glyphosate does affect the soil micribiota, and it affects the microbiota of plants — the endophytic bacterial population. It is a selective microbicide, affecting some species and not others. Therefore, it has a strong long-term ecological effect on the microbes exposed to the chemical.

      • The Roundup Ready alfalfa plant has escaped into the wild and is found in many wild stands of alfalfa in the Pacific Northwest. Now it is becoming a pest in fields of other Roundup Ready crops, being Roundup tolerant. These are the sorts of unintended but quite foreseeable ecological consequences that we can speak about. But nobody in the industry speaks about them. It is a culture of silence and disciplined doublespeak.

        • I think youre very well aware of the impacts of industrial agriculture. And that other angry lunatic’s in complete denial. If people can’t see the reality, there’s no hope of improvement.

          • So, you’re complaining about nobody wanting to talk about something, but then you refuse to talk about it? Makes sense.

          • Modern agriculture has been responsive, has routinely improved in every category. Improvements continue at a brisk pace. It’s tightly programmed alternative agriculture schemes like organic farming that cannot improve. With organic the “rules of the road” are explicitly carved in the virtual stone of the NOP and National List. No wiggle room, no possibility of evolution or improvement. Just stuck forever in the 1950s, as if that was the be-all end-all in agriculture. Only ignorant armchair agrarians would be sucked into believing in that arbitrary capricious nonsense.

          • OK, Peter Olins and Dell Boy – this is like good cop, bad cop….. My concern is for the natural environment- our foundation – you have no answers for that. Enjoy your lives.

          • The “natural environment”? Huh? Aww, that only leaves you with that much more explaining to do mike. Why are you so cryptic, what are you hiding mike? You don’t have a valid point to make, do you mike?

          • OK mike, run off with your tail between your legs. Without your amateur opinions we won’t be missing anything. Thanks anyway for the wooden nickels. Happy trails to ya, pardner.

          • GE crops have been shown to use less water by significant amounts, less tillage of the soil, less diesel, less compacting of the soil, and less runoff. Significant ecological advantages.

          • Where exactly are these vast ecological deserts? Desertification is a serious problem worldwide, but appears to occur when soil quality declines as a result of excessive demands for productivity and/or shifts in climate.

            Or perhaps you are referring to the focus on promoting the survival of a specific species, while reducing competition? Another word for this is “agriculture”.

            Like many people, you use the word “sustainable”. This is certainly a feel-good word, and I am also passionate about sustainability, but what exactly do you mean by it, and what has this got to do with pesticides or monoculture? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’d like to hear more about how you arrive at this conclusion.

    • “……vast ecological deserts….” Sounds scary! And can you point out any of these sci-fi imaginings you refer to?
      Do you want to define “natural”?

  22. you should note, that glyphosate is nothing you would drink in a glass. – “Ingestion of >85 mL of the concentrated formulation is likely to cause significant toxicity in adults. Gastrointestinal corrosive effects, with mouth, throat and epigastric pain and dysphagia are common. Renal and hepatic impairment are also frequent and usually reflect reduced organ perfusion.”

  23. if it is so safe I have some, would you like a glass of it to drink???
    No, Really. All this smoke and mirrors you use with your information overlooks the very, all too real issues. to address acute toxicity and never address chronic toxicity is just more smoke and mirrors. also if you want a more credible source than scientists who are not in the “field” look at Theirry Vrain the former GMO scientist and his take on glyphosate. I notice you conveniently left him out of your nay sayers list. Also there are microbes in our gut that ARE directly affected by the patented antibiotic/herbicide glyphosate. That DO have the shiikimate pathway. So once again you never address that carefully crafting your smoke and mirrors around the real issues. or will you actually address them now that I have brought them to your attention. and also what about the enzyme CYP 450 that we humans DO have that is disrupted by Glyphosate?? Or is that a fiction?

    • Why do desperate anti-glyphosate agenda whores always resort to daring their more sane and knowledgeable opponents to drink a glass of the stuff? How childish! And, of course, one could safely drink Roundup; it wouldn’t kill you but the soapy surfactant it’s blended with tastes bad enough to make you regret the stunt.

      Oh, and Theirry Vrain has previously been discussed and exposed for the scaremongering nincompoop profiteer he is:

      Quacks, cranks, kooks and gullible boobs should all go guzzle a pitcher of fresh organic fertilizer. I won’t taunt them to drink a glass of certified organic copper pesticide because that would kill ’em deader than a hammer and I, at least, have some compassion for lizards, snakes and anti-GMO zealots…not much but some, enough anyway.

      • thank yo for the quuuick reply, and the great info about T.V. Yes it was childish of me to offer you a glass to drink, it was a childish joke. I am not “anti-glyphosate”. I am just “pro-organic” food. Stuff your and my parents used to eat all the time and called it “food”. We had to label it organic now just to differentiate it from the poisoned(herbicide/pesticide), genetically modified produce that is “food”.

        • Heh, heh, organic is pesticide-free? In your dreams, curt.

          Sure enough, organic produce is practically never tested, but when USDA tested it just a couple of years ago they found 43% of organics had detectable pesticide residues. Of those 4% had ILLEGAL pesticide residues.

          So, when you buy 3 different organic foods you can safely assume one of the three contains pesticide and it’s better than average odds a second of the three does also.

          That’s not to mention all the fecal bacteria smeared all over organic produce. We don’t have to get into all that, curt, unless you insist, since your concern was about pesticides.

          • Yes, you are certainly right, I have a LOT to learn. And again that is why I thank yo for your input. Some pesticides are necessary, obviously. Although glyphosate is used for more than a herbicide, i.e. dessicant too. But no my concern is not only about pesticides. It is about understanding what we really are eating and how do we get the stuff we need and stay away from the stuff we should not eat. and although I am not a farmer and have never farmed, I understand that Fecal matter is what farmers used for millenia to fertilize fields and that “Organic” has become a marketing gimmick. So what do you do?

          • What do I do? Well, I’ll tell you one thing I don’t do — I don’t use glyphosate or anything else, for that matter, as a dessicant. None are required here in America among professional farmers who understand how to select plant varietals matched with microclimate and timely field work to assure our crops are clean, plump, mature and dry at harvest. No farmer I personally know uses any dessicant. That’s something we’re told some growers in northern Europe sometimes use, but I cannot verify that they do.

            I will agree with you on one thing — you have a lot to learn. You have a lot to learn about modern agriculture. You have a lot to learn about organic agriculture. You have a lot to learn about being sucked into believing urban myths. And you really ought to learn to engage your brain before running your mouth, curt.

          • Regarding fecal matter, Curtis, there have been some serious recent incidents of contamination with e.coli, salmonella, and listeria. Whole Foods has just received some more-than-warning letters from the FDA about filthy conditions in their stores. Chipotle, which promotes itself as being proudly (and sanctimoniously) “organic, non-GMO,” poisoned dozens of people last year. Organic “non-GMO” Clif health bars just had to recall three of their health-food bars.
            That is one reason I myself do not eat organic. (In addition to its hype and false marketing as being healthier.). Another is that organic corn, if not sufficiently protected from the corn borer through use of organically-approved Bt (which also happens to kill innocent non-target insect species that happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when organic guys spray their corn with Bt), may have neurotoxins left by the corn borers that do survive in their organic corn. You can find studies on that by googling “mycotoxins organic corn.” Nasty stuff.
            It takes a lot of discernment to figure out the woo pseudoscience anti-GE pro-organic hypsters from the legit science about biotech. Keep reading, and use your best logic and senses, and you will learn a lot!

          • yes, it seems a complex issue that the average American is not willing to spend the time to research. After all America’s got talent is on tonight. Oops, that was last night!

          • Well, some quick hints: Stay away from organically-sponsored sites, as they are full of woo and pseudoscience. Stay away from anything from Food Babe, Mercola, Oz, Dr. Bronner, Michael Pollan, Jeffrey Smith, Seralini. Stay away from “GMO right to know” people.
            Use Google Scholar as a search mechanism on a topic of interest. It is easy-peasy for activist entities to make all kinds specious claims about GE crops that, upon even the slightest digging, show a vested interest in selling a woo product (Food Babe is THE worst), and much more difficult and time-consuming for credible scientists to rebut ridiculous claims. If you look at the anti’s on this page, you will see crap responses from activists, in response to credible posting. Look at Maurice Ryton’s post below, as an example. Sigh.

          • Also, if the average American isn’t willing to dig into it even just a little bit, then they probably don’t want to go off spouting woo about it, because better-than-average Americans (and others) will smack ’em with science.

          • I do appreciate your response to my inquiry. I would gladly be smacked with science, as long as it is not bad science, or pseudo-science(woo pseudoscience as you put it). However to smack a fellow human being with insults and belittling and name calling is thoroughly immature and inappropriate. So thank you for not engaging in such antisocial behavior as I experienced from farmer in a doll.

          • yes I would be thankful to be smacked with science, as long as it is not bad science or pseudoscience(or woo pseudoscience as you put it). However to resort to slanderous name calling and belittling and verbal abuse is thoroughly immature, totally uncalled for and clearly an embarrassment to participate in. So thank you for not engaging in such thoroughly inappropriate behavior as I experienced from farther in a doll.

          • Well, with all due respect, I know that FWAD, who is one of the go-to guys on this site re actual on-the-ground farming realities, can get cranky when hit with crack comments all the time. And, again with all due respect, you DID start the thread with a “Drink this shit!” post, and from my observations, that is not the best way to start a convo with FWAD. Just a heads up; just sayin.’

          • already addressed that one. you are welcome to kick the horse. One more time, it was a joke. SORRY to you and to FWAD. Gotta love that acronym F-WAD. Yeah, he may be a go to guy, but I obviously got his panties up in a wad with my wise crack. I will stop already. And by the way I never called it “shit” or used any profanity. But you are welcome to embellish. And FYI I never started a convo. with F-WAD although he certainly jumped in there from thin air quickly to respond to my wise crack. Anyway, you guys take it easy. Breathe easy. and don’t take everything that all too real seriously, please. Hope y’all have a great day.

          • A joke. Oh. I didn’t get that it was a joke. Usually folks don’t go around advocating drinking glyphosate, as a joke. Ha. Ha. Ha.

            Oh, but back to the point: I believe you have been asked to provide a citation for this statement of yours:

            “Also there are microbes in our gut that ARE directly affected by the patented antibiotic/herbicide glyphosate.”

            Did I miss seeing that citation?

          • Yeah, well when I stated here in your website eariler, and I quote, ” it was a childish joke. I am not “anti-glyphosate” In response to F-WAD’S B.S. should have clueds you in, but whatever. Yo0u go have a great breakfast with your go to bud F-WAD. I am done with your propaganda site, and your traffic citations.

          • Curtis, you appear to have overlooked the second half of my post. Here is is again. Please do respond.

            I believe you have been asked to provide a citation for this statement of yours:

            “Also there are microbes in our gut that ARE directly affected by the patented antibiotic/herbicide glyphosate.”

            Did I miss seeing that citation?

          • Give it up, agsci, looks like ol’ curt has nothing to contribute to any intelligent conversation, only another recitation of the usual True Believer urban myths. Pretty clear he just dropped by to press a few buttons and see what happens. If he was dropping by to learn something, well, he got that done too (though not quite as he expected).

            No justification for all his pathetic whining. He came out swinging with his opening comment, the weary old ‘go drink a glass of Roundup’ taunt, then he gets right down to fishing for an opening to talk up organic by running down GE and conventional agriculture. Our trolling friend curtis never intended to have to deal with real people wielding facts. He miscalculated and blundered into a buzz saw. He opened with his cute little jab & cover routine and I landed a couple of real punches to find out if his head rattles or not, KO’d in the first round and now curtsie is blubbering ‘unfair’.

            If someone wants to actually carry on a rational discussion, I love to accommodate that (nothing I like better than talking about farming and agriculture). If someone wants a boxing match, fine, I’ll accommodate that too (I’m also a scrapper, do love to see the red snot fly). And counter-punching to win is how these activist boxing matches are going to be fought from this agriculture corner, from now on. Just sayin’, so there is no confusion and no point in whining and crying when a would-be anti-GMO anti-ag pugilist takes an ass kicking.

            Cry baby curt has no cause to run off whining. Hell, he never even got into the red meat of the thing. Let’s hope he keeps his promise and stays away…unless he truly wants to carry on a rational discussion. Probably smartest in that case for him to open with a question or even an opinion instead of a taunt.

          • Your comments made me laugh out loud, FWAD.
            I like to give these guys every opportunity to do some ‘splainin if they make an undocumented assertion, but I think ole Curt will run and whine rather than explain his ridiculous assertion about our gut microbes being affected by glyphosate. I mean, glyphosate is an herbicide for plants.
            Well, I’ve had my good laugh of the day, and won’t hold my breath for a credible link on that from our friend Curtis.

          • Yeah, it’s a learning process for them. Seems like when they first venture out into the real world they all need to have a little sense cuffed into ’em. Guess they really think all of us out here really are some sort of fictional cyber-shillbots to be played like a video game.

            Oh well, trolls must live and learn. Now, curt, just pick up your nerdy hand-knitted 100% alpaca wool nepal hat off the driveway, brush off the dust and chaff and chalk the whole thing up to experience. See, girl, your day wasn’t a total waste after all — ya larned sumpthin, yay!

          • Fischer, RANDY S., et al. “Comparative action of glyphosate as a trigger of energy drain in eubacteria.” Journal of bacteriology 168.3 (1986): 1147-1154.

          • C’mon, Sage! You have been over this topic with several commenters for over a year. The paper you cite SUPPORTS the idea that no effect would be expected. Why do refuse to accept the amazingly simple concept that high concentrations (of anything) do not automatically mean that the same effect will be seen at normal levels of exposure? What’s not clear?

            You could just as easily pick a few common food items and ask what would be the effect of consuming, say, 100,000-fold more. For example, a kilo of salt might kill you, while a grain would be pleasantly salty.

          • Strawman, man. I don’t disregard concentration. Jaworski’s 1972 paper shows serious inhibition of a bacterium at 10 uM concentration — 10 microMolar — very low.

          • And in 40 years have findings of this obscure report been successfully replicated and confirmed? Say what? Why not?

            I owned a GMC pickup in 1978 that refused to start one cold morning By your reasoning, tinkler, GMC trucks will not start. BTW, what brand of truck is your employer’s preference, nailbender?

          • Dude, Ernest Jaworski was a Monsanto chemist, a well known one, they named a building (or a wing) after him and gave him awards and accolades…. so if you’re questioning the veracity of that 1972 paper, you’re questioning one of the early notable Monsanto research on glyphosate…. anyway.

          • Well Ernie didn’t replicate the results and neither have you. What the hell has been keeping you guys? You and Ernie can each have a star named after you, for all anyone cares, but that doesn’t advance the science one little bit. You have your work cut out for you, so get cracking. Approach this like you do your day job — those shingles ain’t gonna strip themselves up there and you ain’t gonna talk ’em down, so cut the gab, grab your tear off tool, mount that ladder and get on with it.

          • I don’t see the relevance of your new citation: it just shows that glyphosate applied to soil can affect the balance of different microbes. So what?

            Humans do not drink pesticides at the concentration applied to fields. I still think you haven’t grasped the simple concept that a substance can be toxic at high levels and benign at low ones. What’s not clear?

          • What’s not clear is why you have been doing this work for over a year now, the continual “debunker” of me. What’s your m.o. and why do you show up everywhere to try to convince me that i’m wrong? Don’t answer that because you’ll lie, but Occam’s razor makes it clear, and something is rotten in the state of Denmark, and methinks thou doth protest too much. In other words… what looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, generally is related to a duck’s gene pool.

            To answer your condescension, i do not ignore dose or anything else, and i’ve done the calculations to show that the dose of glyphosate in a typical diet is enough to deliver a few thousand molecules for every single one of the 100 trillion or so gut microbes in our microbiome.

            Every day.

            What’s not clear is why you are an active denialist of glyphosate risks. Very weird hobby, sir…. why not go fishing? Why not tend some bonsai? Retirement goals: troll to defend glyphosate daily?

          • It shows that glyphosate can inhibit bacteria as very low concentrations.
            If you don’t see that then i suggest you remove your blinders.
            The bacterium happens to be R japonicum, a soil bacteria.
            It is the fact that it shows the inhibition at serious levels in pure culture at 10 uM that is significant.
            One can safely extrapooilate that there is inhibitory effect at 1 uM very reliably, and this would be significant in an ecology of many species as it confers a selective pressure. It’s probably even effective at 0.1 uM judging from the numbers. You need to understand that small inhibitions in an ecology can reduce the viability of the species affected.
            If you have an open mind you will understand what i am saying.
            If you are predetermined to argue against me due to your allegiances (which i think you are judging from our 1 year history) then you will ignore the simple things i am saying and argue against me …. again…. because you want to push an agenda and not see reality.

          • I have no problem with it Tinkler. You’re the one with the problem — that singular finding in

            that singular study has not been replicated in order to follow up on it. It has not been elevated even to the level of a legitimate scientific hypothesis, much less to a theory or a fact. Your problem, Tinkler, is to develop your hunch beyond just a compulsive obsession with the self-importance of your own amateur opinion. Complete the rest of the science and establish some credibility for yourself instead of looking like a foolish hand wringing alarmist roofer’s grunt and a deceptive propagandist who sneaks around editing the content of his comments after the fact Instead, Tinkler, you should read and improve your mind…thereby improving your puerile understanding of the scientific method and how it is pertinent to your peculiar obsession….


            Until you learn and apply this most basic understanding of what science really is, Tinkler, you won’t have any credibility with people who do appreciate science. ‘Course there’s no science (except maybe gravity) involved in doing roof tear offs, Tinkler, so maybe you should just stick to doing that and leave the science to scientists?

          • Why you have been doing this work for at least a year now, the continual “debunker” of me and the full-time “internet warrior” for the chemical industry, primarily for Monsanto, and for GMOs and glyphosate in particular. What’s your m.o. and why do you show up everywhere to try to convince me that i’m wrong? Don’t answer that because you’ll lie, but Occam’s razor makes it clear, and something is rotten in the state of Denmark, and methinks thou doth protest too much. In other words… what looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, generally is related to a duck’s gene pool.
            To answer your condescension, i do not ignore dose or anything else, and i’ve done the calculations to show that the dose of glyphosate in a typical diet is enough to deliver a few thousand molecules for every single one of the 100 trillion or so gut microbes in our microbiome.
            Every day. And if 10 uM shows huge inhibition of a bacterium in single culture, then imagine a similar concentration daily in an ecology of many species. If you understand ecology at all you will know the significance of what i am saying.
            What’s not clear is why you are an active denialist of glyphosate risks. Very weird hobby, sir…. why not go fishing? Why not tend some bonsai? Retirement goals: troll to defend glyphosate daily?

          • Never said you “ignore dose”. Said you ignore the scientific method.You need to read that link for comprehension. You’re getting way ahead of yourself, TInkler.

            OK, so you have a hypothetical causative agent in glyphosate and now you’ve expanded your hallucination to include 100 trillion gut microbes, some bacteria and some protozoa, presumably. What you don’t have is a disease or disorder in any or all of these microbes. Lacking a disorder you also lack a mode of action by which glyphosate might cause the disorder..

            Those glaring disqualifying omissions notwithstanding, you blithely go on to postulate an unknown derangement of one or all of these gut microbes will then cause disease in the human host. Once again, you have no specific hypothetical human disorder in mind and, so, you have no hypothetical mode of action by which hypothetically deranged gut microbes could hypothetically cause a hypothetical human disorder. Whew, you’ve climbed pretty high up a slippery slope (or in your case a steep pitched roof), Tinkler. And you have no safety harness and no net — because the fields of toxicology and epidemiology have only been imperfectly merged, there are gaping holes in the construct through which you will pass in your headlong fall.


            Are you planning to cap your hallucination with a hypothetical infectious disease caused in populations of humans by your hypothetical deranged gut microbes? Heck, you might as well, you’re so far gone you may as well shoot the moon. If so, you will need to familiarize your self with Koch’s postulates, Tinkler:


            You should not interpret any of this schooling you are receiving as “condescension”, Tinkler. It is not; it is merely an exposure of your profound ignorance of biology and medical science. You are hopelessly lost, so much so as to attract unflattering attention to yourself. My interaction with you is a Samaritan act. Whenever I see anyone drowning I instinctively throw ’em a lifeline, try to haul ’em back in to terra firma if only they will take the line in hand. But you are a sad, sad case Daft Tinkler. You’ve been so persistent at throwing the wet line back at us, venting your frustration by angrily calling us shills of Monsanto and the chemical industry. We are not. And you are still drowning in your own ignorance Tinkler. Just because you walk/strut like a fool, and quack like a fool, and flail about like a fool doesn’t make you swim like a duck. You are in way over your head, dude.

          • Dude, you’re laughable. You know how to talk to a person so they respect you and thing you’re worth listening to. (Not.) We’ve been around this block a thousand times and you’re pushing industry propaganda in the form of pseudoscience. I’m blocking you. Waste of my time, every single time.

          • Jaworski studied a soil bacterium, not a human one. The culture was done in the absence of amino acids, which is likely quite different from the human gut environment. Inhibition was only seen at far higher glyphosate concentrations than would typically be seen in the human gut.

            We have been over this before, Sage: why do you keep bringing it up? What’s not clear?

    • Enough with these wild claims, Curtis! Do you have any evidence (or rationale) for glyphosate inhibiting the growth of gut microbes, or inhibiting human cytochrome P450 enzymes, at the levels we are exposed to to in our diet? I have followed the scientific literature on these topics, and haven’t come across any smoking guns, so I’m amazed how these myths have taken hold on the the InterWebs. Seriously, Curtis, where do you get these ideas?

      To answer your question directly, yes, the answer is “fiction”.

      • all right, glad to hear your answer that is not fiction, but absolute scientific fact. Thanks Pete. After all it was only a question. And as far as wild claims. I will leave that realm to you. I will just pose questions, which you will always give unbaised thoroughly researched scientific responses to, So, thank you

        • OK just to clarify, there is no evidence that normal human levels of exposure will affect gut microbes or human cytochrome P450 enzymes. Hope that helped.

          I’m still curious where you got these ideas, but I’m glad we put them to rest.

    • Theirry Vrain the former GMO scientist “

      He is not a GMO scientist, he was a mid level bureaucrat for the federal Government in Canada . He is also a Organic farmer.

      patented antibiotic/herbicide glyphosate.”
      Nope, glyphosate has been off patent for about 20 years now. And it is not an antibiotic it is an anti protozoan.

    • Isn’t it odd that every single safety assessment ever conducted disagrees with your conclusion? I mean…. These are only the world’s most respected chemical regulatory and food safety agencies. Weird…. Right?

      • All the safety assessments are obviously bought out by biotech companies. Specifically Monsanto. They clearly own everything and have the ability to make anything say what they want to because harming and killing the end users of your products is the key to sustainable profits. Duh.

        • You seem to be stating that glyphosate is chronically toxic and adversely impacts gut microbes. Yet… Every single safety assessment ever seems to disagree with that.

          • You didn’t notice, but your link is to an opinion piece in an anti-GE rag.
            That ain’t science. It’s propaganda.
            Credibility: Zero.

          • Are you the talking head for your buddy “stretch”?

            You all come right out of a comic book.

            Anything that does not come from an pro-GE rag is desperately discredited by you Monsanto apologists. Good job!

            That science is simply not bought and paid for by the biotech industry.

          • “That science [sic] is simply not bought and paid for by the biotech industry.”
            Correct. Because 1) it’s not science, and 2) it’s bought and paid for by the $70 billion organic industry.

          • Naaaah. What I object to are the lies, distortions, false claims, and woo pseudoscience around organic, that leads people to presume without justification that organic is “better” or “classic” food, words that are mush-language and that mean nothing.
            I think the cute little organic industry, about 4% or 5% off all food, should continue its cute little niche. And label their foods proudly, in BIG letters, so people like you can easily find them, without even having to engage their brains. They cost more, but hey, if you believe they are “better” or “classic,” whatever that means (squat), you have the right to be led around by advertising gimmicks, with glazed eyes, drooling, believing anything you wish.

          • That’s not a safety assessment, bonehead. That’s a news article on yet another of your ridiculously biased activist websites. They’re even citing Samsel & Seneff. That should have tipped you off….but I get it. You’ll take anything you can get.

            So, no. It wasn’t a stretch.

          • Yes, there is a bone in my head, and its known as a skull, which most normal people have. At least my head isn’t always stuck up someone’s arse.

            If your blinded eyes weren’t so wide shut, you may have noticed a list of several studies included at the bottom of the page, “STRETCH”.

          • Ugh… One of the big reasons you’re constantly wrong is that you don’t know the meaning of the things you’re arguing about.

            A safety assessment is not a handful of citations at the bottom of an opinion piece.

            When you understand what you’re arguing about, get back with me. Until then, what I’m gonna need you to do is to just try super-hard not to be an ìdlot…. m’kay?

          • RE: “A safety assessment is not a handful of citations at the bottom of an opinion piece.”


            English comprehension does not come easy to you, obviously.

            Thank you for the many opportunities to educate.

            EMPHASIS supplied.

          • How great that it highlights a few studies! Most comprehensive safety assessments incorporate many hundreds of studies.

            I repeat. Get back to me when you understand the topic you’re arguing on.

          • Rather; why don’t you get back, and with a reference to ‘your’ claim: “…many hundreds of studies”.

          • Is 9 not many hundreds? How many hundreds would qualify as many? What in the hell does the history of the bfr have to do with the number of studies involved in a comprehensive safety assessment?

            And allow me to refresh your memory on what I said:
            “Get back to me when you understand the topic you’re arguing on.”

          • RE: “What in the hell does the history of the bfr have to do with the number
            of studies involved in a comprehensive safety assessment?”


            Exactly as expected.

    • Curtis,
      There’s no evidence that human gut microbes, or the human CYP450 enzymes, would be affected by the traces of glyphosate in our diet.

      So, to answer your question,
      Yes, it’s fiction.

    • No, there is no fiction regarding your comments on GLYPHOSATE, other than the obvious bias comments from the Monsanto apologists.

      Peter Olins, so-called food safety and nutrition advocate, spent most of his career in the Pharmaceutical and Biotech industries.

      If you Google his name, you will see that he and his cohort Brian Scott, are listed as so-called Independent experts, on their website. The sole purpose of this site is to propagandize, and try to convince the public on the safety of Roundup/glyphosate.

      Have a look at Olins Linkedin page, and you will see the pride in which he advertises his role as an “Searle/Monsanto (Pfizer) Research Group Leader”.

      Scott’s profile on states that he (a farmer) is in contract with Monsanto.

      I’ll bet money that these two scientists eat the best of ‘Certified Organic’ diets.

      The following study discusses it all, and I’m almost certain that you’ve seen it before, but if not; you can search the following title, or use the link (.pdf) to the complete study.

      Samsel, A., and Seneff, S. 2013. Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases

          • So its not okay for the organic industry to support researchers, but okay for the biotech industry to support GMO research?

            Thanks for making that crystal clear.

            I know where you can find a bobblehead of yourself (DroneFarmerBS) for the top of the dash in your tractor – do you want the link again?

          • Difference is the organic industry hires propagandists as their “researchers”, no real research is done. The biotech industry hires real scientists who do real science and deliver real products.

            Your bobblehead farrmer statuette is cute. Not a very good likeness, but cute all the same. Nothing to compare with the anti-technology pro-organic bobblehead shill you aspire to be, I must acknowledge.

            Troll away, BobbleheadPC, troll away!

          • You dare talk about propaganda and trolling?
            All the comments you post are made up of exactly that, propaganda, and its as clear as stone that you are a troll, shilling for the ‘industry’, spewing nothing but DroneFarmerBS.

            There are bobbleheads of farmers you know – do you want the link to the website again, where you too can have one for the dash of your toy tractor?

          • Ah, there it is! The frustration and lashing out, the vacuous accusations of “shill” and “troll” that serve as a proxy for crying “uncle” when you’ve been ass-whooped, BobbleheadPC. You anti-tech anti-ag cultists are all the same, why can’t you just accept defeat and skulk off, tail tucked between your legs, to educate yourselves and possibly one day become productive citizens? Would that be too grown up for you fools?

          • This links to a simply precious pseudo-professional disappointment rendered in pen and ink.

            The authors review a variety of risk assessments, virtually all demonstrating a minimal risk being adequately managed under current circumstances. This good news, however, clearly is unexpected and unpalatable to the authors, so they find themselves apologizing at every juncture for encouraging results. At every turn the authors grudgingly acknowledge the factual results, invariably falling back upon an almost whining caveat that maybe, just possibly and by all means hopefully “more research” will magically invert the established results and alert competent scientists to the error of their stodgy factual scientific ways. Certainly glyphosate MUST be dangerously toxic to life, at least in amphibians, mustn’t it, somehow?

            This paper is a fine reminiscence for me. It reminds me of some early “research” into homeopathic remedies conducted back in the early 2000s when the certified organic scam was in its infancy and it was still full of piss and vinegar. Attempt after attempt was made within the parameters of acceptable science to “prove” the efficacy of quack cures. Of course, each legitimate field trial returned disappointing results (quack remedies are a farce and they do not “work”). Soon enough the discouraged “researchers” gave up on true science and resorted to science fiction and pop science to affirm and seemingly validate their inner beliefs. Heh, the glyphosate haters are going the same way. Just so many ineffective irrelevant quacks with their little army of faithful sycophants following along behind, their empty heads bobbling in unison with their marching orders.

          • RE: “This links to a simply precious pseudo-professional disappointment rendered in pen and ink.”

            Sure; based on your DroneFarmerBS.

          • So sad you bite the hand that feeds you, necktie. You are so locked into pseudoscience that there is no way of opening your mind.
            Thus, Plan B is what I recommend for you. Plan B is perfect for you! Plan B is simple. Stick to organic and nonGMO certified food. Clearly labeled, and you don’t have to think about a thing. You don’t have to trust oversight and research agencies, academics, (horror!!), farmers, or scientists.

          • Ah, poor necktie. You didn’t even read the article. Or even the summary at the front, which says the opposition of what you claim.
            Please enroll in a critical thinking class. I teach one, but I would not permit you to be in my class as you do not grasp even the most fundamental principles of why critical thinking skills are important in an educated society.

          • No; its the poor agscienceiliterate who reads but has little comprehension. I teach reading classes for children of 5 year old, but I would not expect them to comprehend what ‘they’ read either.

            “The proprietary nature of these mixtures often makes it difficult to assign toxicity to a particular chemical, but the most commonly tested surfactant is POEA which is still used extensively in multiple commercial formulations. With such a diversity of formulations in agricultural use, it is reasonable to conclude that aquatic species may be exposed to constituents of multiple formulations simultaneously.”

          • Ah, the squirm words: “… may be….” No evidence. Just trash mush pseudoscience language.
            Try again.
            There is one basic reason you wouldn’t qualify for my critical thinking class. And that is one attribute that will determine whether you are successful in life or not. That attribute is intellectual curiosity.
            You lack intellectual curiosity. I grill prospective students before they are permitted to take my class. If they do not have basic intellectual curiosity, they do not get in. Your children of 5 years old have immense amounts of intellectual curiosity, on the other hand — they are open to science, facts, bubbling over with questions and interest. Somehow, their curiosity gets dulled and stamped out along the line, in many sad cases, by “teachers” who have their minds made up, and who discourage questions and independent thought. “Teachers” like you. A flat, dulled mind like yours, “teaching” children, is just sad to me.

          • When all else fails with you GMO apologists, your only recourse is to resort to typical agscienceiliterateBS.

            When ever the talk about Glysophate comes up, even when uttered by your host scientist, Peter Olins, very little is mentioned about the proprietary surfactants (POEA) used…Monsanto’s Roundup and POE-15

            The word (OTHER – Proprietary Ingredient) ‘surfactant’ isn’t even mentioned in this story.

            What is the typical lame argument used by Olins; “don’t you also use soap”?

            Find me a personal hygiene, laundry or dish-washing soap that has Polyethoxylated tallow amine [POEA] as an ingredient – SEE: 12. Ecological information –

            The typical surfactant used in these products (household) is Sodium laureth sulfate –—sodium-laureth-sulfate/

          • Glyphosate has been off-patent for years.
            Try yet again. Keep phishing. You are desperate.
            And don’t use soap, but stay away from me.

          • So what is your point?

            Please provide a list of the proprietary ingredients then.

            “The surfactant in Roundup PRO is the proprietary PROformance system.”

            “EPA Registration Number: 524-343
            Active Ingredient: Glyphosate 53.8%
            Other Ingredients 46.2%”


            “Roundup PROMAX, Roundup PRO and Roundup PRO Concentrate are all fully loaded with Monsanto’s proprietary surfactant systems. No additional surfactant is needed or recommended for these products.”

            By the way; there are soaps which do not contain Sodium laureth sulfate.

          • You’re truly desperate. I’m not gonna play your nitpicking games anymore. Eat organic and non-GMO certified.

          • Oh, good lord!!! Academics!! So much worse than paid organic industry shills. We always knew academics knew nuttin’ and ain’t worth nuttin.’
            Stick with the organic lobbyists, necktie! Believe them! Eat organic and nonGMO certified food. Perfect for you, with YUGE labels — in p.c. green — and you don’t have to think!

          • ‘Course, since that hatchet piece was published Folta has been exonerated, Benbrook not so much. How did Benbrook put it…”skunks”, that’s it, yep, you and Benbrook and the organic special interest lobby are like a pack of skunks, all sleeping together, all reeking the same.

          • Yep, that and about 200 years of technology successfully employed by 4 generations ahead of me…and a bright future in agriculture, technology and generations of this farm family looming ahead of us. Yep, that’s all.

            What good have you or your people ever accomplished, BobbleheadPC. Yep, I didn’t think so.

          • RE: “…4 generations ahead of me…and a bright future in agriculture”

            I’m sure – a ‘glowing’ future.

            You’re probably one of those people who sent their DNA into these TV commercial ads, to find out who your ancestors were.

          • Ah, poor necktie. Charles Benbrook is a well-known pay-for-publish antiGE pro-organic lapdog. He advertises that he will “testify” about the dangers of glyphosate, for pay.

            You keep casting about in foul waters to try to pull up some kind of responsible “study,” and you keep coming up with activist organic-financed pseudoscience.
            You sound desperate to find something credible to link to your fears and distrust of glyphosate. Keep casting about. Keep posting. I and others have read those sites and those studies, and know they are total organic propaganda.
            More about the “I’ll-bash-GE-for-cash” guy:

      • Is suppose I would prefer to get my information regarding genetic engineering from a competent current scientist in the field, like Pete Olins, than I would from some ditzy paid talking head like Diane Sawyer or Charles Benbrook. Same way I prefer to purchase sophisticated farm implements from established high-end globally recognized manufacturers via a licensed and bonded dealer instead of from some Pakistani charcoal forge via ebay. But feel free BobbleheadPC to take your information from whatever spurious source makes your empty head bobble most excitedly.

        • RE: “I would prefer to get my information regarding genetic engineering from a
          competent current scientist in the field, like Pete Olins”

          Yes I know you would – and that is what keeps you stuck in fairyland, or on your Path of Least Resistance.

          Coincidental that Monsanto removed all traces of his connections to them, especially from ‘their’ website.

          • Your cherry-picking is so highly developed. Are you a fruit-picking laborer in the summer? I hope you get minimum wage, at least, because even neckties deserve decent treatment out in the fields. You get today’s Expert CherryPicking Award!!

          • Hey; you know what? You continue to pick your GMO fruit, and I’ll continue to pick the non-GMO/GE ones.

            Hope your diet serves you well.

          • Heh, agsci will outlive you, BobbleheadPC. That will be your final humiliation. And you will have earned it!

          • I certainly out-think him. It’s like taking candy from a baby, and I feel chagrined that it is so easy.

          • Hmm; taking candy from a baby?
            Is that your excuse – as a baby you had too much candy, and stole the candies of others.

          • Uh, that is a metaphor. Ever heard of them? It means “You are so easy to counter, when you post desperate pseudoscience, that it is as easy as taking candy from a baby.” That is called a metaphor. Or, a figure of speech. Amazing, but not surprising, that I would have to explain that to you, but you don’t read much, I guess.
            You are welcome.
            Please, stop pretending to “teach” children. They merit a much higher level of engagement with an adult. Please go back to cherry-picking in the fields.

            Isn’t it just a bit disconcerting to you that you are so desperate in your evangelism, that you feel the need to prosetylize with your religious nonsense? I mean, isn’t it enough for you to just simply go about your cherry-picking life and eat organic and non-GMO certified, and leave the rest of us alone? You need so desperately to affirm some empty part of yourself that you throw garbage after garbage pseudoscience out? So desperate to get “converts” to your “religion”? You ain’t getting any converts here. But you would be a hero if you post this woo on Food Babe’s site, so please go there. She LOVES corruption theories and bad science citations. Take your religious crosses with you, and your organic bibles.

          • RE: “You are so easy to counter…”

            Problem is; you have no idea what’s really under the counter, or behind the curtain…Dorothy.

          • RE: “Heh, agsci will outlive you”

            Perhaps agscience-iliterate may, but will you ever know?

            More DroneFarmerBS.

          • Uh, the only GE fruit on the market is papaya, engineered to combat ringspot virus and to save the industry in Hawaii. I know, you think the industry should have failed.
            And we are awaiting the Artic non-browning apple, which has the “browning” gene switched off. You won’t eat that either.
            My diet serves me excellently, and I appreciate your sincere interest in my health and well-being.

          • I tread confidently along the path of technological progress while you, BobbleheadPC, totter fitfully backward in futile resistance. Why do you insist upon humiliating yourself in front of us all when you could discretely practice your woo worship in the relative privacy of your own echo chamber websites? Some masochistic dysfunction you harbor, no doubt. Oh well, sucks to be you, BobbleheadPC, troll on!

          • You dare not leave your Path of Least Resistance – or you will have a very restless sleep – you will be awaken through the night, with thoughts you will not know how to face, let alone have the courage or knowledge.

          • We seem to be managing successfully and cheerfully around here. The “path of least resistance” would be to join you in your hallucinatory Chicken Little despair with no viable alternative. No thanks, BobbleheadPC, you’re welcome to your anxiety and sleepless nights, you’ve earned ’em.

          • RE: “We seem to be managing successfully and cheerfully around here.”

            Sure; have some more of the communal kool aid.

            You drive that tractor on the Path of Least Resistance everyday of your life.

          • Threats?


            Its just a product of typical (yours and your science) human programming, or so-called education.

            It does foster some fear however, if you attempt to leave your Path – but through greater knowledge, you will overcome the fear.

          • Ha!, we are reduced to listening to the distracted blathering of a disturbed brainwashed, ie. “programmed or educated” bobblehead spambot. So this is what the anti-technology anti-agriculture activist agenda distills down to in the end, just so much disturbed pseudoscience faux psychobabble. Just what anyone might expect from a bobblehead activist.

          • Interesting… you referenced the “path of least resistance” but that is exactly what you follow. Lies, woo, pseudoscience…it’s easy. I takes little critical thinking and really only needs a compelling “bad guy” story line to spread it.

            Real scientific discovery take time, money, tons of critical thinking and is generally pretty boring, making it difficult to spread.

            I would call that the path of MOST resistance.

          • RE: “I would call that the path of MOST resistance.”

            It is very difficult to get off, and stay off, your Path – it is, MOST resistant for those like yourself.

          • Well, I imagine it’s really difficult when you decide your path despite what the evidence tells you.

            It’s not difficult at all when you choose your path based on the evidence.

    • “There is no evidence whatsoever that the minute traces of glyphosate in our diet are sufficient to inhibit cytochrome C P450 enzymes. However, phenolics (such as the resveratrol in wine) are actually present at relevant levels in our diets – Peter Olins”


      You will see that glyphosate is mentioned numerous times.

      I-Team investigates controversy over weed killer and California wine – Tuesday, May 10, 2016

      “Just 11 days ago, the EPA posted a report on its website announcing that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans”, and then, three days later, they pulled it off the web. They said their evaluation is not final and told the I-Team, “The agency is working through some important scientific issues on glyphosate.”

      • Ha, ha, ha, ha, “I-Team” and “ABC News”, ha, ha, ha…

        Yeah, whatever the talking heads say is good enough for BobbleheadPC, whose big empty paper mache head always bobbles obediently in agreement.

        ABC News…aren’t they the same slapstick outfit that over-hyped the libelous “pink slime” hysteria ginned up by silly mommy blogger Bettina Siegel, which resulted in the loss of nearly 700 jobs in a recession economy where a person literally couldn’t buy a decent job, and all because elitist scare monger Bettina Siegel thought “pink slime” sounded yucky?

        Yep, that’s the same ABC News, alright. Still scaring and shilling for ratings. ABC News is garbage.

      • This appears to be another example of you commenting on things you don’t understand. Peter commented on the trace amounts of glyphosate found in wine. And your rebuttal was link showing that glyphosate is used in vineyards.

        Uumm.. no duh?

        And your second link doesn’t say anything about his quote being wrong either.

        Have you EVER take any sort of science class? Really?

  24. I wonder why Monsanto/Bayer and all their bio-genetic engineers have never opened glyphosate to INDEPENDENT review by peers who are not under the financial wing of the parent company, Universities it financially supports, in countries where it holds no corporate presence. They will never do this for the scrutiny would be devastating. Instead they have relied on nepotism back patting of peer to peer review all of which have been sponsored by the company.. Monsanto has also successfully played political chess via lobbying political parties resulting in political appointments of crony executives labelled as unbiased experts in the USDA, FDA and CDC.. BTW the FDA did give a carte blanche approval of any GMO glyphosate as presented in Attorney Steve Drunker’s book “Altered Genes:Twisted Truths,” the basis of which comes from him successfully suing the FDA and gaining access to all their communications, documents, tests results for all GMO products introduced for approval by Monsanto, Dow, Cargill and many others..
    I am also wondering why on the chart that you use that you have not included glyphosate? Finally, everything is toxic in excess and if you simply read the instructions on any round-up label it specifically spells out the exacting conditions needed for the product to work and unfortunately in large commercial operations reviewing and making sure these conditions are met is not considered rather they create a spray schedule and apply glyphosate onto fields like they were following instructions on any shampoo bottle.

    • Getting information on herbicides from an attorney is a bit like asking a plumber to take out your appendix: they can both poke around in approximately the right place, but I wouldn’t rely on their judgement.

      Why not check out the conclusions from the German safety agency (BfR), which reviewed nearly 1000 relevant reports and publications?

      • I here you, but take the time to look at the Attorney’s credentials and you will see he is not chasing $…. As far as safety… it all comes down to the sales agent selling to the local agro supplier. I live on the island of Pantelleria, Italy. 30 miles north of Cape Bon Africa. We get on average 400mm or rain per year. We have no natural source of fresh water. Our land is terraced and not irrigated. We follow the same farming tradition for the last 2000 years. There are no mechanism only hand labor. Given the scenario I present, the agro officials here give 60 hour courses and part of that course is how to apply Roundup… they inform farmers who are not educated to mix 1 liter of round up liquid with 10 liters of water, even though the mixture should be 100 liters of water to make the mixture for 1 hectare of land.. well terraced fields do not match up to hectares easily. and since water is a commodity here the average farmer will not even buy the product. So the instructor tells them it like making coffee, make it strong is better than making it weak… So you scientific studies do not mean shit in the real world. What is important is the proper education of how to use a tool. Going back to your comment about lawyers… when was the last time you used a chain saw? Well if you look on this piece of equipment it contains a warning informing the user not to try to stop the chain saw with their hand instead use the safety stop or turn off the machine.. Why is this warning there because if it was not someone who does not know would try to stop the chain in the saw with their hand and another lawyer would sue…. So Round up is like a chain saw only it does not contain any warnings because they paid for policy in agro government offices to allow such so that they would be accepted and made a standard… I have seen this once before and it was when female contraception pills were introduced in the 1960s the pharma companies had no idea what the long term use would result in their health so they all charged a lot of money for future law suits…..

  25. There has been so much lying in research and the industries have infiltrated the science to the point that it has become somewhat meaningless. Do they think we are stupid? All of us?? This same corruption is happening in the wireless industry and the medical/pharmaceutical industry. The research is tainted by the industry. The regulations are written by the industry. The industry basically does what they want due to lobbying efforts. The public needs to remember how safe all the players said tobacco was. What about asbestos? What about Agent Orange? They all said those things were safe. What about lead? The public seems t obe brain dead—maybe from all the toxins—but we get screwed like this all the time. Believing that the industry isn’t only out ot make a profit and could care less about your families health is a deadly bet to make.

  26. Xiaozhim Lim said:
    “Seneff and Samuel have no expertise in toxicology…”

    Sure, lets believe this journalist who is offering us Dangerous lies regarding the safety of these toxic chemicals and tries to discredit the authors above who have offered both ample and credible evidence by way of numerous studies supplied in their “References” at the end of their article.

    What makes you Xiaolin Yin that more entitled to offer an opinion than the authors that you try to discredit ?

    Personally I think that the majority of the handful of evidence you are quoting on behalf of your viewpoint comes from your own website which interestingly enough no one has taken the time to put their name to….. ( a shame-proof strategy ?) while the other authors you attacked have provided enough evidence to sink you.

    • Hi Ricko,
      Is it possible that you haven’t actually read any of the papers from these authors? Please pick a specific example of one their claims that you find most credible. and I would be glad to discuss it.

      Seneff and Samsel are experts at cataloging hundreds of papers that have a slight relevance to the topic they’re interested in (Seneff is an expert in automated searching of databases). However, they seem to be incapable of objectively evaluating the significance of these papers, and seem to lack the most fundamental skill of a trained scientist: the ability to test the validity of their own ideas.

      Perhaps the underlying issue here is how we decide who is a credible source of information. This is especially true in a world where science is advancing at a phenomenal pace, but science literacy (in schools, the adult population, and in politics) appears to be seriously on the decline. I think that Google has played an important role in dumbing-down our population, since it allows people to find “information” that confirms whatever bias they already have.

      You may be interested in a recent review of this topic from the U.S. National Academies:

Leave a Comment