Monsanto's Sealed Documents Reveal the Truth behind Roundup's Toxicological Dangers

[L. Coyote]

Last edited Tue Sep 29, 2015, 12:14 AM - Edit history (1)

Boycott poisons, eat organic.

Monsanto's Sealed Documents Reveal the Truth behind Roundup's Toxicological Dangers

......

Over the years a large body of independent research has accumulated and now collectively provides a sound scientific rationale to confirm that glyphosate is far more toxic and poses more serious health risks to animals and humans than Monsanto and the US government admit. Among the many diseases and health conditions non-industry studies identified Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and autism since Roundup has been shown to instigate aluminum accumulation in the brain. The herbicide has been responsible for reproductive problems such as infertility, miscarriages, and neural tube and birth defects. It is a causal agent for a variety of cancers: brain, breast, prostate, lung and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Other disorders include chronic kidney and liver diseases, diabetes, heart disease, hypothyroidism, and leaky gut syndrome. In addition to lung cancer, glyphosate may be responsible for today’s growing epidemics of chronic respiratory illnesses among farm workers and their families.[6] However, these findings derive from outside the Big Agriculture industry. Private industries routinely defend themselves by positing their own research to refute independent reports. Consequently, for several decades it has been a he-said-she-said stalemate. Monsanto is content with this. It can conduct business as usual, Roundup sales increase, and the debates and media wars continue without government interference. Then who is protecting the public?

Government officials and health regulators more often than not simply ignore these studies even if published in peer-reviewed journals. The bulk are independently funded. Most have been performed in foreign nations and therefore American bias dismisses them outright. Furthermore, Monsanto and other large chemical agricultural companies are quick to counter and discredit adverse scientific findings. The company has the financial means to retain large international PR firms, such as Burson-Marsteller and Fleishman Hillard, consultation firms and think tanks, as well as large armies of hired trolls and academic spokepersons to mobilize damage control upon notice and protect the integrity of Monsanto’s products and public image. It funds and orchestrates self-serving research at universities and research laboratories to increase an arsenal of junk science. And of course it has Hillary Clinton and Bill Gates as its celebrity cheerleaders.

The EPA continues to align itself with Monsanto’s safety claims and limits glyphosate’s risks to kidney, reproductive and carcinogenic damage; and the warning only applies for very long-term exposure to high levels of the toxin. Anything under that is considered harmless. The EPA continues to approve small amounts of glyphosate as safe in drinking water to children. Its safety level is 0.7 ug/L. This was determined back in 1994, and after 20 years of further research into glyphosate’s biomolecular activities and health risks, the level has remained the same.[7,8] A review of existing data sponsored by Moms Across America found that out of 21 drinking water samples analyzed, 13 had glyphosate levels between 0.08 and 0.3 ug/L, well below the EPA’s limit, but significantly above the European Union’s limit of 0.1 ug/L.

.....

[CanSocDem]

1. Good article.

The company has the financial means to retain large international PR firms, such as Burson-Marsteller and Fleishman Hillard, consultation firms and think tanks, as well as large armies of hired trolls and academic spokepersons to mobilize damage control upon notice and protect the integrity of Monsanto’s products and public image.


Do tell......

k & r


.

[L. Coyote]

2. In three, two, one .... no doubt.

Google bots keep a close eye on this site. I've been researching a topic as I post, and within minutes my DU OP will come up as the top result for my keywords.

[LiberalArkie]

3. Google got it 7 minutes ago

DU has Google do it search

[Omaha Steve]

4. Great post!

K&R!

[Wellstone ruled]

5. Get this crap off the market.

Who are they trying to kid?

[gratuitous]

6. Corporate messing with the food supply - what could go wrong?

Did you know that everyone who ate so-called "organic" tomatoes in 1850 is now DEAD? Good day. Nothing to see. I said GOOD DAY!

[L. Coyote]

7. Researcher Reveals Monsanto Has Known Since 1981 That Glyphosate Promotes Cancer

Researcher Reveals Monsanto Has Known Since 1981 That Glyphosate Promotes Cancer

......

Dr. Samsel is a research scientist who is passionate about farming, gardening, and agriculture, making him particularly suitable for investigating glyphosate.

"I was with the 'think tank,' Arthur D. Little (ADL) in Cambridge, Massachusetts for many years working as a research scientist on many types of projects, from product development to environmental sciences to later switching to health sciences," he says.

....... I realized they were using [glyphosate] on genetically engineered crops, and I started looking at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to see what food would have glyphosate or glufosinate in them.

[Glufosinate] is similar to glyphosate and used in genetically engineered crops. It's not as widely used as glyphosate, but that's still a problem to public health. All herbicides are 'a' problem to public health. There should be no herbicides in our food supply. None."

...........

Monsanto Has Known for Nearly 35 Years That GMOs Promote Cancer

Dr. Samsel eventually asked the EPA for Monsanto's trade secret documentation, as most of the approval process for glyphosate was based on studies Monsanto had done by outside contractors. That process began in the late 1970s and concluded around 1983 with the registration of the chemical. Since then, it's gone through a couple of re-reviews. But Dr. Samsel wanted access to those documents to investigate what the EPA and Monsanto really knew about glyphosate from the very beginning.

"I asked EPA, as a research scientist, to be able to access those documents in my research. I was denied by the Environmental Protection Agency, initially," he says. "It finally took Senator Shaheen's office, here in New Hampshire, to move the EPA... They sent [the documents] to me on a disc. I had to sign for them. I was also told that I could not share them with foreign nationals under a penalty of law...

However, I've been going through 12 to 14 of these documents in the file. They represent thousands and thousands of pages of data on studies that were done on laboratory animals. What amazed me was that Monsanto knew in 1981 that glyphosate caused adenomas and carcinomas in the rats that they've studied...

................

[NuclearDem]

8. Organic Consumers Association and now Mercola?

Two amazing peer-reviewed journals, those!

[L. Coyote]

9. California Becomes First State to Label Monsanto’s Roundup as a Carcinogen

California Becomes First State to Label Monsanto’s Roundup as a Carcinogen

California’s Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) has issued plans to list glyphosate—the toxic active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide—as known to cause cancer.

[NuclearDem]

11. Eco watch isn't a journal either, silly!

[L. Coyote]

48. DU isn't a journal either.

Do you get all your news from journals?

[NuclearDem]

56. When a story discusses a scientific study, I read the study.

And I sure as hell don't trust Ecowatch, the Organic Consumers Association, Seralini, or Mercola to provide even remotely accurate information.

[Generic Other]

68. And I don't trust your rofl emoticons

You sound like Big Tobacco used to sound. The evidence is as obvious as your motives for denying it he dangers Many of us are not backing down no matter how many posts you make ridiculing our legitimate concerns. Call people names. Laugh at them. Undermine our faith in science by politicizing the conclusions of researchers.

If it is so safe, why don't you drink a glass of Round-Up and put your money where your mouth is.

[NuclearDem]

71. "If it is so safe, why don't you drink a glass of Round-Up"

If forks are so safe, why don't you stab yourself repeatedly in the hand with one, and put your money where your mouth is?

Glyphosate is not meant to be consumed in such a manner, and nobody (except for that one moron, and now the idiots using it as a "gotcha" tactic) says otherwise.

You need more than ridiculously flawed studies, people who believe HIV doesn't cause AIDS, and the propaganda of an interest group for a rival industry to actually give good reason to ban glyphosate.

Speaking of other industries, when is the organic industry going to release the data on its own pesticide and herbicide use?

[L. Coyote]

83. What? The "organic industry" doesn't exist. Nature is the fountain of organics unless poisoned

by humans. Organic is natural food unmodified by human additives such as pesticides, insecticides, other poisons, and fossil fuel fertilizers.

Agriculture might be called an industry, but organic is a quality of the products. Organic foods are safe for human consumption. Herbicides and pesticides are intended to kill organisms.

Your idea that "people who believe HIV doesn't cause AIDS" is being used to "give good reason to ban glyphosate" couldn't be more absurd. You really are conflating beyond any form of logic no matter how twisted.

[NuclearDem]

86. "The "organic industry" doesn't exist."

You've got to be shitting me.

[L. Coyote]

88. The automobile industry exists. It's an industry and produces autos. Organic food is grown, not made

Maybe a fine distinction, but my point is that organic food is a natural product, not an industrial product. In contrast, making poison is an industry.

[NuclearDem]

104. You've got to be shitting me.

[Maineman]

22. And the World Health Organization: "glyphosate a probable carcinogen"

[NuclearDem]

25. In the same category as shift work and working at a Great Clips.

[Major Nikon]

41. Along with aspirin, alcohol, cannabis, oral contraceptives, salted fish, testosterone, and fluoride

[AnAzulTexas]

20. the root of thinking like that

is that people read them. and take them seriously. that's why/how they exist

[Major Nikon]

33. Don't forget Seralini

All the pseudo-science one could ever want compiled in one place.

[MsLeopard]

13. Sorry for the language, but....

.....these asshole sons of bitches couldn't care less about the harm done to countless humans because of their complete disregard for anything other than fucking profit. All they care about is the bottom line, and they screw over anyone and anything which might get in their way.

Bring it on, Bernie, and take these assholes down! The "peoples revolution" Bernie wants will bring the oligarchs down. And it can't come soon enough. It's why I'm working my butt off for him.

[840high]

23. ...^ that

[fasttense]

92. You are so right.

Corporations are criminals and do not hesitate to perpetuate criminal activities, whether they be deadly or not, in order to make more profit. People dying from eating their poisoned food? They do NOT care one little bit. As long as they got your money you could suffer a slow and painful death right in front of them and they would walk over your body to get at the next dollar bill.

Monsanto - a criminal conspiracy masquerading as a chemical corporation.

[Dustlawyer]

19. Thanks. I am rounding up (pardon pun) info on this for our law firm to review.

It appears they are doing just what the asbestos manufacturers did to cover up the dangers and kill generations of workers and bystanders.

[AnAzulTexas]

21. hopefully you scratch the surface

deep enough to get some sort of real result

[Dont call me Shirley]

50. Much luck to you, Dustlawyer! This crap must be stopped.

[Nitram]

10. The inclusion of autism in this list alone is proof of its BS factor.

The science is still out on the dangers that glyphosphate might or might not present to human health. This post just lists the speculative dangers that the anti-herbicide people feel might be associated with exposure to Roundup. You can hate Monsanto for their monopolistic policies, and I for one am opposed to that aspect of their business model, but there is no evidence that Roundup causes any health issues when applied as directed and with Monsanto's recommended safeguards. Conditions in the Third World are cause for concern, both as pertains to the application of Roundup, and the use of pesticides that are banned in the U.S. Please don't conflate the two issues.

[mopinko]

14. +1

what do people want? to bring back ddt? or to starve?

yup, monsanto does some evil shit, but glyophosphate is still safer than the chemicals it replaces.

[WheelWalker]

53. I'm pretty sure glyphosate didn't replace ddt, lol...

one is an herbicide... the other an insecticide. However, Monsanto was one of the first to manufacture ddt so there is THAT connection

[Ichigo Kurosaki]

29. I agree and

it's like a lot of people think that farmers are just pouring it all over their crops way above the recommended application rates because they just love to waste expensive chemicals...
With corn and soy beans the Roundup doesn't even come in contact with the kernel/pea.

I've worked with farm pesticides (chemicals) that are far more dangerous than Roundup.
Some people might even be surprised how dangerous some of the organic approved chemicals are.

[pnwmom]

32. Why? Something that causes cancer could also cause damage to a developing fetus. n/t

[Duppers]

12. K & RRRRRRR!

[Archae]

15. This is the biggest pile of pure horseshit I've seen about Roundup.

An organic advocacy site and Mercola?

You really expect us to take them seriously, no matter how much bullshit they've thrown at the wall in the past?

[NuclearDem]

16. If you can't trust a site that believes cell phones cause cancer

and microwave ovens dangerously irradiate your food, or that HIV does not in fact cause AIDS, then who can you trust?

[Archae]

17. I know, the first link has this doozy on their site.

Alzheimer's, is caused by DIET??!!??

https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/human-human-alzheimer-transmission-theoretical-evidence

[Major Nikon]

42. Big Fluoride is making teh children stupid!

[alarimer]

80. The invocation of Mercola (a known charlatan) is enough to invalidate the whole article.

Mercola is a fraud. He promotes quackery, primarily of the anti-vaccine kind.

I really, really hate having to defend Monsanto or any corporation at all, but if you are going to advocate for safer food, you'd better use the facts and not some made-up fear-mongering nonsense. The fact remains that so-called "organic" farming uses chemicals too, some of which are arguably worse. But the fact is, it is just a marketing term and means nothing as far as food safety is concerned.

So here's a summary of some of Mercola's hijinks.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/08/03/15-years-of-promoting-quackery/

[Ford_Prefect]

18. Worse than Big Tobacco.

Deny it, bury the evidence, buy, discredit or murder the professional witnesses.

[progressoid]

24. Half of the natural organic pesticides are carcinogenic as well.

Contrary to what most people believe, "organic" does not automatically mean "pesticide-free" or "chemical-free". In fact, under the laws of most states, organic farmers are allowed to use a wide variety of chemical sprays and powders on their crops.
So what does organic mean? It means that these pesticides, if used, must be derived from natural sources, not synthetically manufactured. Also, these pesticides must be applied using equipment that has not been used to apply any synthetic materials for the past three years, and the land being planted cannot have been treated with synthetic materials for that period either.
Most organic farmers (and even some conventional farmers, too) employ mechanical and cultural tools to help control pests. These include insect traps, careful crop selection (there are a growing number of disease-resistant varieties), and biological controls (such as predator insects and beneficial microorganisms).
ORGANIC PRODUCE AND PERSONAL HEALTH
When you test synthetic chemicals for their ability to cause cancer, you find that about half of them are carcinogenic.
Until recently, nobody bothered to look at natural chemicals (such as organic pesticides), because it was assumed that they posed little risk. But when the studies were done, the results were somewhat shocking: you find that about half of the natural chemicals studied are carcinogenic as well.
This is a case where everyone (consumers, farmers, researchers) made the same, dangerous mistake. We assumed that "natural" chemicals were automatically better and safer than synthetic materials, and we were wrong. It's important that we be more prudent in our acceptance of "natural" as being innocuous and harmless.
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html

[longship]

26. Mercola... Waiting for citations of Seralini studies.

One can hate Monsanto without destroying science.

Mercola is an utter hack, as posted below. And the science on Roundup is that it is fairly safe.

This is just another ideological post, full of rubbish.

Some folks think that their ideology excuses making shit up. That would be Mercola, and Seralini, and many others in the anti-GMO crowd.

What do they expect to gain by making shit up?

[Archae]

27. Money.

The anti-GMO organic people sell their foods at 2, 3, even 4 times what other farmers do.

Organic is big business.
It is *NOT* a bunch of hippies singing while tenderly watering each plant.

[Major Nikon]

34. Not surprisingly, Seralini is in the OP

[AwareOne]

28. I trust the EPA to certify herbicides

I believe government works and the EPA is a strong and serious advocate for the American public. I know this from working directly with them for 25 years or more. If you think the EPA is some evil organization in bed with industry you are wrong. Don't act like a bunch of Republicans attacking the EPA and wanting to abolish it.

[CanSocDem]

38. That's hilarious!!

The EPA....??? I googled EPA mistakes and got over a million hits. Here ya go:

https://www.google.ca/search?q=EPA+mistakes&sitesearch=&gws_rd=cr,ssl&ei=D2wJVpfPBobHogSP25noCA#q=EPA+mistakes&start=0



.

[Major Nikon]

43. "cell phones cause cancer" also yields over a million hits

Pro-tip:
If you're channeling the relevance of the number of google hits, the likelihood you have no idea what you are talking about greatly increases.

[Major Nikon]

63. The chemophobic would rather trust no-shit nutjobs like Mercola

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola#Views_and_controversy

[L. Coyote]

30. About Roundup Ready Crops - Genetically Modified Food

About Roundup Ready CropsJean Roe - Fields - Genetically Modified Food

Roundup Ready crops are crops genetically modified to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup. Roundup is the brand-name of a herbicide produced by Monsanto. Its active ingredient glyphosate was patented in the 1970s. Roundup is widely used by both people in their backyards and farmers in their fields. Roundup Ready plants are resistant to Roundup, so farmers that plant these seeds must use Roundup to keep other weeds from growing in their fields.

The first Roundup Ready crops were developed in 1996, with the introduction of genetically modified soybeans that are resistant to Roundup. These crops were developed to help farmers control weeds. Because the new crops are resistant to Roundup, the herbicide can be used in the fields to eliminate unwanted foliage. Current Roundup Ready crops include soy, corn, canola, alfalfa, cotton, and sorghum, with wheat under development.

Roundup Ready crop seeds have notoriously been referred to as "terminator seeds." This is because the crops produced from Roundup Ready seeds are sterile. Each year, farmers must purchase the most recent strain of seed from Monsanto. This means that farmers cannot reuse their best seed. ....

[Major Nikon]

35. Not sure why anyone would want to quote this

For one thing, not all, if any Roundup Ready seeds are sterile. For another, hybrid seeds created by conventional breeding methods are almost always either sterile or subsequent generations produce a drastically inferior product.

[hunter]

52. That's the point of hybrid seeds, really.

The farmers have to buy them every year.

Traditional varieties of seeds, adapted to a particular place, farming methods, and local tastes, can't be mass marketed. There is no mass market.

This mass market sort of monoculture is designed from the ground up to keep farmers tied to the mass marketers.

It's the same business model as Microsoft or Apple, as compared to Open Source software.

The problem with this "Roundup Ready" sort of agriculture is the damage it does to whatever is left of the surrounding natural environment. Little out-of-the-way microenvironments that used to support birds, bees, and butterflies are destroyed by infestations of Roundup resistant weeds. The evolution of these weeds, in turn, requires the use of more herbicides.

I don't think things like ethanol-gasoline mixes, cheap factory farm pork, and high fructose corn syrup soft drinks are making the world a better place.

[Major Nikon]

55. So why not call them "terminator seeds"?

The point of the post in which I was replying was the allegation that RR seeds are sterile, which is not only wrong but even if it were right the best it would be is misleading. Most commercial agriculture does not reuse seeds and this was going on long before GMO was introduced. It's a nonsense argument designed to mislead the uninformed. Always has been and always will be.

This mass market sort of monoculture is designed from the ground up to keep farmers tied to the mass marketers.

Actually it's designed to provide a superior product, because if it wasn't, farmers wouldn't buy it.

The problem with this "Roundup Ready" sort of agriculture is the damage it does to whatever is left of the surrounding natural environment. Little out-of-the-way microenvironments that used to support birds, bees, and butterflies are destroyed by infestations of Roundup resistant weeds. The evolution of these weeds, in turn, requires the use of more herbicides.

Which is no less true for any herbicide and in fact it's less true for Roundup which kinda destroys the point you're trying to make here.

I don't think things like ethanol-gasoline mixes, cheap factory farm pork, and high fructose corn syrup soft drinks are making the world a better place.

Which has pretty much squat to do with the OP, the message in which I replied, or anything I posted in this thread.

[hunter]

58. Good job you are doing here, associating substantial objections to this shit with the fringe...

... and then diverting from the actual issue by claiming "profits" trump all other considerations.

Actually it's designed to provide a superior product, because if it wasn't, farmers wouldn't buy it.

This faith you have in the so-called free market is just another thoroughly fucked up religion.

These things we call "economic productivity" in today's world are a direct measure of the damage we are doing to the earth's environment and our own human spirit.

[Major Nikon]

59. That's probably because those cited by the OP ARE the fringe

So what you call "diverting", I call staying on topic.



Now you want to orchestrate your own diversion by trying to associate any bullshit calls on this fringe nuttery with some kind of fucked up guilt-by-association gibberish.

Your appeal to nature and other associated fallacies are getting old really quickly. If you want to engage in such childish tactics you can argue with yourself as I have exactly zero interest in nonsense that has zero substance.

Cheers!

[hunter]

65. You won't address my concerns. Got it.

It's the pro GMO scientific "skeptic" crowd vs. the crazies.

It's the pro-nuclear crowd vs. the anti-nuclear crazies.

It's the "I like my electronic voting machines" vs. the Bev Harris "Black Box Voting" crazies.

It's the Drug Warriors and Pharmaceutical Corporations vs. the Hippy Stoner crazies.

etc.

I think I'm understanding this game.

Meanwhile, in my own personal universe, it's all shades of grey. The 0000,0000,0000 blacks are as rare as the FFFF,FFFF,FFFF whites, enough so that I am suspicious of them all as bad pixels.

Heck, thoroughly inspecting all the outliers is good science.

[Major Nikon]

67. In this case it's the pro-Mercola crowd vs anything remotely approaching reality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola#Views_and_controversy

So if your "concern" is nothing more than guilt-by-association horseshit, then I'll simply play your same guilt-by-association horseshit game and throw you in the same boat as the anti-vaxxers, AIDS deniers, and homeopathic nutters, but who knows, maybe your far right-wing hero Mercola is the "outlier" who's really right and those who reside in the world most call reality are wrong. It could happen.

[hunter]

69. Thanks for the smear.

I'll add it to my collection.

Black and White cave man grunt "GMO GOOD!" vs. "GMO BAD!" is nuts.

I like my birds, bees, and butterflies. Everyone in my family is fully vaccinated.

I'm not going to blame my familiar autism on GMO or vaccines or anything else. The autistic stuff is simply a dominant gene in my family, sometimes useful, more often, not. For every rocket scientist you get a handful of dysfunctional people staring at the ants crawling up the bark.

I'll presume to rate my life in the arts of science well above the 99.9%. Documented.

In my own experience sometimes applied science makes the world a better place, and sometimes it doesn't.

[Major Nikon]

72. Aren't you special?

You can dish it out but can't take it.

I'm not surprised, BTW.

Cheers!

[stevenleser]

78. Jury Results: 6-1 to leave

On Tue Sep 29, 2015, 10:52 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

That's probably because those cited by the OP ARE the fringe
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7210957

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Name calling is outside the parameters of civil discussion.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Sep 29, 2015, 11:08 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Borderline. It's more addressing the substance than addressing the poster.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: hunter made some interesting points. Major Nikon responded to each point. hunter accused Major Nikon of ignoring his/her points. Snark is pretty much called for at this moment.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Poster did not attack the person but the person's methods of argumentation.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't see any name-calling in this post. Lots of references to arguments--bullshit, guilt by association, gibberish, etc.,
but no real name-calling. Just another day on DU.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What name-calling? And anti-GMO = anti-vaxxers.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Major Nikon]

79. So someone thinks calling the far right wing Mercola a fringe nut is OTT

So I'll do it again.

Creme-de-la-quack Mercola is a right wing fringe nut who is an AIDS denier, an anti-abortionist, and all around asshole.

Thanks for posting the results, BTW. I can always use the chuckle.

[L. Coyote]

31. NY Times: Weed Killer, Long Cleared, Is Doubted

Weed Killer, Long Cleared, Is Doubted

Thirty years ago, an Environmental Protection Agency committee determined that the popular weed killer Roundup might cause cancer. Six years later, in 1991, the agency reversed itself after re-evaluating the mouse study that had been the basis for the original conclusion.

Now the issue is back again, in an even bigger way. An agency of the World Health Organization has declared that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, “probably” causes cancer in people. One piece of evidence the agency cites is that same mouse study.

......

“All three lines of evidence sort of said the same thing, which is we ought to be concerned about this,” said Aaron Blair, a retired epidemiologist from the National Cancer Institute who was chairman of the group of 17 reviewers from around the world; agreement on the classification was unanimous.

Glyphosate, introduced in the 1970s, is the most widely used herbicide in the world, sprayed on farms, in forests, on road sides and in gardens, and has a reputation for being benign, as pesticides go. It is now generic and used in many products, not only Roundup.

Use of glyphosate has soared in the last two decades because of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready crops, which account for most corn and soybeans grown ......

[Bonx]

36. Is this the weekly anti-Monsanto fake-science screed ?

from the organo-hack-blogosphere ?

[L. Coyote]

37. No. Widely Used Herbicide Commonly Found in Rain and Streams in the Mississippi River Basin

NO, but thanks for asking.

Widely Used Herbicide Commonly Found in Rain and Streams in the Mississippi River Basin

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
Office of Communications and Publishing
12201 Sunrise Valley Dr, MS 119
Reston, VA 20192

Glyphosate, also known by its tradename Roundup, is commonly found in rain and rivers in agricultural areas in the Mississippi River watershed, according to two new USGS studies released this month.

Glyphosate is used in almost all agricultural and urban areas of the United States. The greatest glyphosate use is in the Mississippi River basin, where most applications are for weed control on genetically-modified corn, soybeans and cotton. Overall, agricultural use of glyphosate has increased from less than 11,000 tons in 1992 to more than 88,000 tons in 2007.

"Though glyphosate is the mostly widely used herbicide in the world, we know very little about its long term effects to the environment," says Paul Capel, USGS chemist and an author on this study. "This study is one of the first to document the consistent occurrence of this chemical in streams, rain and air throughout the growing season. This is crucial information for understanding where management efforts for this chemical would best be focused."

In these studies, Glyphosate was frequently detected in surface waters, rain and air in areas where it is heavily used in the basin. The consistent occurrence of glyphosate in streams and air indicates its transport from its point of use into the broader environment.

Additionally, glyphosate persists in streams throughout the growing season in Iowa and Mississippi, but is generally not observed during other times of the year. The degradation product of glyphosate, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), which has a longer environmental lifetime, was also frequently detected in streams and rain.

Detailed results of this glyphosate research are available in "Occurrence and fate of the herbicide glyphosate and its degradate aminomethylphosphonic acid in the atmosphere," published in volume 30 of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry and in "Fate and transport of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in surface waters of agricultural basins," published online in Pest Management Science. Copies of the reports are available from the journals or from Paul Capel ([e-mail]).

Research on the transport of glyphosate was conducted as part of the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program. The NAWQA program provides an understanding of water-quality conditions, whether conditions are getting better or worse over time, and how natural features and human activities affect those conditions. Additional information on the NAWQA program can be found online.

[Major Nikon]

39. Your own link shows glyphosate doesn't persist and breaks down as intended

You can track just about anything applied to fields in the watershed, BTW, which includes so-called "natural" products applied to so-called "organic" agriculture, much of which actually does persist and doesn't break down, unlike glyphosate.

Meanwhile you seem to be doing a pretty good job of dodging the junk science contained in your OP by regurgitating google nuggets you don't seem to understand.

[Bonx]

40. If your science is bad, add more links !1!

[L. Coyote]

44. If you don't believe science, just call it bad science.

The science isn't bad. Read the science.

[Major Nikon]

74. Mercola? Really?

Who reads garbage from a well known quack who thinks HIV doesn't cause AIDS and promotes homeopathy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola#Views_and_controversy

[L. Coyote]

45. Want more links: Argentina: The Country That Monsanto Poisoned

This is what bad science does to people. Bad science is using industry-funded studies top gain approval for placing a carcinogen on the market.

Argentina: The Country That Monsanto Poisoned

American biotechnology has turned Argentina into the world’s third-largest soybean producer, but the chemicals powering the boom aren’t confined to soy and cotton and corn fields. They routinely contaminate homes and classrooms and drinking water. A growing chorus of doctors and scientists is warning that their uncontrolled use could be responsible for the increasing number of health problems turning up in hospitals across the South American nation. In the heart of Argentina’s soybean business, house-to-house surveys of 65,000 people in farming communities found cancer rates two to four times higher than the national average, as well as higher rates of hypothyroidism and chronic respiratory illnesses. Associated Press photographer Natacha Pisarenko spent months documenting the issue in farming communities across Argentina.

Most provinces in Argentina forbid spraying pesticides and other agrochemicals next to homes and schools, with bans ranging in distance from 50 meters to as much as several kilometers from populated areas. The Associated Press found many cases of soybeans planted only a few feet from homes and schools, and of chemicals mixed and loaded onto tractors inside residential neighborhoods. In the last 20 years, agrochemical spraying has increased eightfold in Argentina- from 9 million gallons in 1990 to 84 million gallons today. Glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Round Up products, is used roughly eight to ten times more per acre than in the United States. Yet Argentina doesn’t apply national standards for farm chemicals, leaving rule-making to the provinces and enforcement to the municipalities. The result is a hodgepodge of widely ignored regulations that leave people dangerously exposed.

BASAVILBASO, Argentina (AP) — Argentine farmworker Fabian Tomasi was never trained to handle pesticides. His job was to keep the crop-dusters flying by filling their tanks as quickly as possible, although it often meant getting drenched in poison.

Now, at 47, he’s a living skeleton, so weak he can hardly swallow or go to the bathroom on his own. ............

[Major Nikon]

61. All anecdotal, zero science

Using words like "poison" as if the alternative is actually better.

Still batting 0

[rhett o rick]

46. But you've offered nothing except derision. Where is your science? I bet

you can come up with some testimony from scientists that cigarette smoking is safe, oops, I mean Roundup is safe.

[Bonx]

47. I bet you can come up with some real science articles that roundup isn't safe.

Actually, I bet you can't.

[rhett o rick]

51. So you have nothing to show Roundup is safe. I go with unsafe until proven safe. nm

[NuclearDem]

57. Just because you haven't bothered to do the research, it doesn't mean glyphosate hasn't been tested.

Seralini's bullshit study doesn't count.

[L. Coyote]

49. If only the CEO of Monsanto would testify to Congress the poisons are safe.

Then we could all put this debate to rest and drink their cool kill aids in our water and eat them in our food without a single worry!!!!

[rhett o rick]

54. Why do people think it's necessary to come to the defense of Monsanto?

I think it's an authoritarian problem. Some like to hang with the biggest bully.

[Major Nikon]

60. That which can be debunked should be

[LanternWaste]

85. And that which can be rationalized, is.

And that which can be rationalized, is.

[Major Nikon]

87. Yes, very profound that

Along with water is wet, grass is green, and the sky is blue.

[L. Coyote]

76. Maybe because they spray Roundup where their children play.

Or they are in denial that their food supply is dangerous to their health.

[Major Nikon]

89. Defending Mercola has its own pathology

As does imagining things that are safe aren't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemophobia

[rhett o rick]

93. Agree that denial is a big part of it. nm

[NuclearDem]

64. Might not want to play the shill card

Especially when your OP is sourced directly from an organic food industry group.

[Major Nikon]

73. The EPA is biased, but Mercola and Séralini aren't

I'm pretty sure the irony is lost

[Major Nikon]

62. If guilt by association logic had any merit...

We can safely conclude that those who channel Mercola are anti-vax nutjobs, hold far right wing anti-abortion positions, AIDS deniers who think cell phones cause cancer, microwave ovens cause radiation poisoning, and sunscreen causes skin cancer.

So not really sure you wanna go there.

[blackspade]

66. This should be entertaining...

[Deadshot]

70. The source for this article comes from a crappy pseudoscience blog.

I thought this website could do better than this.

SMH.

[Humanist_Activist]

75. Stuff like OP belong in Creative Speculation, not in General Discussion. n/t

[Deadshot]

81. I agree.

[L. Coyote]

77. And the idea behind posting it is, .. wait, ... here it comes ...... "discussion"

Whoa, who could have foreseen that .....

[Deadshot]

82. Nobody should be discussing pseudoscience.

It's giving credence to something that shouldn't have credence.

[L. Coyote]

84. Who can argue with that, unless, of course, you get to decide which is which first.

Is it pseudoscience to say that poisons are poisonous?

[Major Nikon]

91. Yes, that's exactly what pseudoscience is

Water is poisonous in the right dose. Calling something "poison" without the consideration of dose is about as useful as man nipples, and when stated with a clear intention is mislead most certainly is pseudoscience. In fact, it's the epitome of pseudoscience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

[L. Coyote]

96. Calling a poison non-poisonous in a low dose is useful if you are the corporation making it.

Do you dispute that glyphosate is toxic?

[Major Nikon]

98. Actually it's useful to most anyone north of a room temperature IQ

Here is a copy of my local water quality report.

It lists arsenic, chloride, sodium, and other scary sounding chemicals, all completely harmless at the indicated levels.

Do you dispute that glyphosate is toxic?

I would most certainly dispute that glyphosate is toxic in all instances as this is ignorant to the point of being moronic.

I would not dispute that glyphosate can be toxic anymore than I would dispute that water, salt, vinegar, and thousands of other relatively benign substances can be toxic.

Now that I've answered your question, here's one for you that I'm pretty sure you won't even attempt to answer.

Do you dispute that formulated Roundup is less toxic than salt and vinegar?

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2014/06/salt-vinegar-and-glyphosate/

[L. Coyote]

100. Air is toxic.

In the wrong formulation. Try breathing only nitrogen for a while. That fits the toxic definition as poisonous, noxious, deadly, dangerous, harmful, injurious, and arguably pernicious. Yet, we breathe nitrogen with every breathe. But, is nitrogen known to be carcinogenic? No. I don't want ANY carcinogens in my food if I can control that, no matter the dose. Same as arsenic. I sure wouldn't want arsenic spread on my garden to kill something, same as most anyone north of a room temperature IQ.

So, to be more specific then:

Do you dispute that glyphosate is a known carcinogen?

[Major Nikon]

103. Dodging the question noted

I answered your question, now it's your turn to answer mine. No fair jumping back in line.

[L. Coyote]

97. That's like saying, "Nobody should be posting satire." Or, "... bad grammar."

Now there's an idea I can get behind.
Ban any thought expression not perfectly written grammatically.
One typo, you're out, or not using paragraphs properly, delete post.
After all, if it's not perfection by my criteria, it should not be posted.

Seriously, posting something for discussion should only be taken as posting something for discussion. Especially if no comment is made, just as it should not be seen as an endorsement of bad grammar or a satirical ploy. Why assume it is done to endorse what is written? If I post a Kissinger quote I don't endorse what he said by doing so.

How about, instead of broadbrush swipes, people actually discuss issues.

[Zorra]

90. Internet trolls promoting the production and use of harmful toxic substances for their own profit,

and for corporate profit?

What kind of horrible person would do such a thing?

[Major Nikon]

94. What kind of troll promotes an AIDS denier, a quack, and a far right wing loon?

http://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/203188108697677824

[L. Coyote]

95. The taxonomy of trolls is more interesting than poisons in food perhaps

but you can't eat trolls. Their toxic. Ahhh, now I understand how they fit under the discussion at hand, eating poison. I know you wouldn't want to go off topic.

[Major Nikon]

99. You can't eat bullshit either, or at least I wouldn't want to

More to the point, the OP pegs the meter, and rather than attempting to defend promoting AIDS denying quacks, you prefer to engage in useless rhetoric.

Very telling that.

[L. Coyote]

107. You certainly can eat bullshit if you use it to grow something more edible.

Bullshit is a wonderful thing in the garden, just as long as it isn't contaminated by Monsanto's poison.

[Major Nikon]

109. It's just contaminated with things that actually are dangerous

Crops treated with glyphosate hasn't managed to kill anyone or make them sick, unlike the bullshit you are propagating.

Raw manure applied to soil can contaminate crops with pathogens such as Escherichia coli ( E. coli), shigella and salmonella, according to Mike Doyle, a microbiologist and director of the Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia. They come from the stomachs of animals like sheep, cows and deer, and are shed in their manure. Once in the soil, they can transfer to the plants, or they can contaminate water used to irrigate or wash produce. Most farmers have developed antibodies to these infections, but they can kill the elderly or very young, or cause kidney damage.

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2004/June/organic.asp

[Zorra]

101. I was simply pointing out that internet trolls who get paid by corporate interests to promote

harmful toxic substances and/or corporate interests, are of extremely questionable character.

I don't see why anyone would pay an AIDs denier, a quack, and a far right wing loon to troll the internet.

There's no profit in it.

Is Neil deGrasse Tyson an AIDs denying quack, and a far RW loon? I know almost nothing about him. Who is it that pays him to troll the internet in their interests?

[Major Nikon]

102. My point was a little more subtle

I was pointing out that those who trot out shill gambit nonsense shouldn't be taken seriously. It should also be noted that Mercola makes millions off his quackery and those who trot his nonsense out for free are not without question.

NdGT is saying those who use the word "toxic" on the internet probably don't have a clue what they are talking about.

[Zorra]

106. Well, no offense, but who you think should be taken seriously is meaningless to me.

I don't know you, you are just some anonymous poster on the internet who seems to often champion corporate products that large numbers of people either believe may be unsafe, and/or do not wish to purchase. If I recall correctly, you do not believe that people should have the option of knowing exactly what their food consists of as well.

I am skeptical of the opinions anyone who needlessly argues against transparency, and against giving people reasonable choices.

Mr. Tyson is apparently an astrophysicist of some sort who is somehow profiting by very unscientifically claiming that relatively untested agricultural products are completely harmless to human beings and/or other life forms.

Toxic:

adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, affected with, or caused by a toxin or poison:
a toxic condition.
2.
acting as or having the effect of a poison; poisonous:
a toxic drug.
noun
5.
a toxic chemical or other substance.

[Major Nikon]

108. Likewise I could give a day old dogshit about childish shill accusations

Just sayin'

And you don't recall correctly as I've never advocated against people having "the option of knowing exactly what their food consists of". Knowing what is in your food and how it's produced are two different things. Anyone who suggests otherwise is trying to piss on your shoes and tell you it's raining.

[NuclearDem]

105. "There's no profit in it."

You've got to be kidding me.

There's no profit in AIDS denialism, medical quackery, and far right lunacy?

[Major Nikon]

110. Here's the really fun part

The OP is directly from the OCA which receives almost it's entire budget from the multi-billion dollar organic industry, and has paid advertisements from the same right on their website, while simultaneously promoting woo and batshit crazy conspiracy theories from other no-shit shill dipshits like Mercola, Séralini, and even Mike Fucking Adams. It's no small wonder Alex Jones thinks so highly of them. Yet anyone who dares to point these things out must be part of big-agra's vast conspiracy to sell synthetic products, because as we all know nobody ever manages to die or get sick from e. coli, shigella and salmonella laced organic produce.

I'm sure the irony is lost on them.