Roundup’s Glyphosate, Found in 100% of California Wines Tested

[PatSeg]

<Glyphosate usage has gotten so out of control that it’s seemingly taken on a life of its own and is now showing up even in foods that haven’t been directly sprayed, namely the grapes used to make organic wine.

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, is the most used agricultural chemical in history. It’s used in a number of different herbicides (700 in all), but Roundup is by far the most widely used. Since glyphosate was introduced in 1974, 1.8 million tons have been applied to U.S. fields, and two-thirds of that volume has been sprayed in the last 10 years.

/snip/

While glyphosate isn’t sprayed directly onto grapes in vineyards (it would kill the vines), it’s often used to spray the ground on either side of the grape vines. “This results in a 2-to 4- foot strip of Roundup sprayed soil with grapevines in the middle. According to Dr. Don Huber at a talk given at the Acres USA farm conference in December of 2011, the vine stems are inevitably sprayed in this process and the Roundup is likely absorbed through the roots and bark of the vines from where it is translocated into the leaves and grapes.”

http://www.healthy-holistic-living.com/roundups-toxic-chemical-glyphosate-found-100-california-wines-tested.html


According to the article, this was the result of only 10 wine samples that were tested, so the results were 100% of a relatively small sample.

[MohRokTah]

1. "The highest level detected was 18.74 parts per billion (ppb)"

"This was more than 28 times higher than the other samples tested."

So the only detectable levels in 9 out of 10 samples tested were in PARTS PER TRILLION!!!!, and one out of ten had such a small amount it was parts per billion.

THE FUCKING SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!! BE AFRAID BE AFRAID!!!!!!!!

[LanternWaste]

8. I doubt a concern merely voiced is equivalent to the melodrama of a falling sky

I doubt a concern merely voiced is equivalent to the melodrama of a falling sky. Though I do understand the desire to pretend as such... not many people make the arguments we can validly counter without ruining our narrative, while the invalid counter certainly does assist our ego ehen calling ourselves clever.

[PatSeg]

21. Some people

think that hyperbolic reactions are a clever way to conduct an intelligent debate about a serious issue. Actually is quite lazy and reflects worse on the person using it than on those it is directed towards.

[womanofthehills]

13. I really don't want to eat or drink anything carcinogenic

Glyphosate is in almost all our foods now so every time you eat you ingest a little more glyphosate which kills all you good gut bacteria.
All the small amounts lead up to a big amount.

[MohRokTah]

14. Then you will starve and dehydrate.

There are carcinogens at parts per trillion, and even parts per billion levels in every bit of food and drink you stick in your mouth.

And Glyphosate has yet to be shown to be carcinogenic in any legitimate study.

[womanofthehills]

38. Actually the Cancer Research Division of the World Health Organization disagrees with you

and "low and behold" the EPA is finally meeting this Oct to discuss glyphosate and cancer. Send input folks.

[MohRokTah]

39. And low and behold, you made a claim and didn't back it up. eom

[womanofthehills]

41. Look it up - we have been discusssing this forever

and everyone knows about the WHO Cancer Research.

[MohRokTah]

42. I'm not doing your work for you.

You made a claim, then refused to back it up.

Ergo, your claim must be considered false until you back it up.

[Gabi Hayes]

44. what about the scientific american link downthread? did you read that?

I know nothing about this, but they said it's not good to have it in your body.

[womanofthehills]

55. Check the video below from ABC news - it backs up my claim

[MohRokTah]

57. What video below? Link to it. eom

[womanofthehills]

67. post 48

[MohRokTah]

71. No video in post 48.

[HERVEPA]

182. The alleged logic in your statement is illogical.

[MohRokTah]

193. Flag on the play...

[trotsky]

235. You literally cannot avoid consuming or breathing carcinogens.

Even if your diet was 100% organic/non-GMO/whatever.

[Else You Are Mad]

29. Parts per trillion or billion...

May seem like a small number -- because it is. But, why should it be tolerable at all? Wine producers made significant amounts of money for millenia before there was any trace of it. Why is it necessary now?

Just because the measurements are high parts per does not negate the fact it has detrimental affects on the environment and on humans.

[MohRokTah]

37. BEcaue there are carcinogens in larger quantities in everything you put in your mouth. eom

[Else You Are Mad]

52. But, I can control when I drink alcohol.

I can't control what chemicals are on my eggplants or grapes that I buy.

[Else You Are Mad]

63. Wrong.

I know alcohol is a carcinogen, but that is a KNOWN risk of consuming wine. I should not have to worry about others. And, given that choice, I would refrain from drinking it.

[Else You Are Mad]

73. I shouldn't have to worry about that...

It is not just in wine.

[Else You Are Mad]

81. But all of those have been well regulated...

... we should well regulated glyphosate like it is lead or mercury.

[womanofthehills]

58. So put alcohol and glyphosate together

That will do you in faster

[Else You Are Mad]

50. Well.

Let me put it this way: I don't want any carcinogens in my food, and just because there are smaller amounts in the food chain does not make it any more right. Ingesting any carcinogen in any amount may result cancer and just because others do it does not make it right.

I don't want to consume any carcinogens, so your everyone else may give you cancer so this is OK argument is awful.

[MohRokTah]

54. Then you cannot eat or drink ANYTHING.

There are carcinogens in everything you eat and drink, so if you don't want to consume any carcinogens, your only choice is to stop eating and drinking completely.

And we haven't even started on the carcinogens you consume with every breath....

[Else You Are Mad]

60. You are missing the point.

You are saying that just because other things are carcinogens, I should just shut up and accept that I have ingest more carcinogens when I eat vegetables and fruits?

I might as well start smoking with your logic.

[MohRokTah]

62. Actually, you are missing the point

You are asying you don't want to consume any carcinogens and I showed you that is demonstrably impossible.

[Else You Are Mad]

64. No, I was saying I have no problem consuming known carcinogens.

If I drink wine, I know that alcohol is a carcinogen. I do not expect to be drinking other man-made carcinogens in my glass of wine. A glass of good wine from the 1800s was a carcinogen, but it didn't have utterly toxic man made chemicals in it.

[MohRokTah]

68. Actually, it had even more man made toxic chemicals.

Modern vintners have developed better sulfides to add than they had in the 19th century.

[womanofthehills]

66. WARNING: Only eat organic when on antibiotics - glyphosate equals antiobiotic resistance

because the glyphosate will invalidate your antiobiotics. And this is from Forbes - not exactly a liberal site.

Antibiotic Resistance From Unexpected Sources--Herbicides, Dust And Metals

More disturbing news was revealed this week on new sources of antibiotic resistance in the environment. First, in a troublesome report in mBio⁠, the journal of the American Society for Microbiology, researchers showed that three commercial herbicides—Monsanto’s dicamba (Kamba) and glyphosate (Roundup), and 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D)—could make strains of Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium less sensitive to antibiotics. (The response varied with different combinations of antibiotic, herbicide, and bacterial strain).

This is hugely important for several reasons: Herbicides are fairly ubiquitous in the environment. Glyphosate (Roundup) has been found in the milk and meat of cows⁠, and in human urine. According to German researchers⁠, “Glyphosate residues cannot be removed by washing and they are not broken down by cooking. Glyphosate residues can remain stable in foods for a year or more, even if the foods are frozen, dried or processed.” Thus, there is great chance for interaction of herbicides with antibiotics. Interestingly, Roundup alone had once been considered as an antibiotic, but resistance was found to develop rapidly.⁠ Dr. Jack Heinemann, the study’s lead author and professor at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand explains that while a bacteria alone might have been killed by an antibiotic, when exposed to an herbicide, a resistance gene is turned on, in effect “‘immunizing’ the bacteria to the antibiotic.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2015/04/01/antibiotic-resistance-from-unexpected-sources/#4621d066740d

[PatSeg]

100. That is a very disturbing article

[Gabi Hayes]

102. is the organic food grown in a greenhouse?

who trusts organic labels anymore?

[kestrel91316]

134. Uh, no. Roundup does not directly negate antibiotics.

Roundup causes bacteria to automatically become resistant to certain antibiotics.

So you should NEVER consume it. NOT just while on antibiotics.

Why it is still legal at all is utterly beyond me, given this problem alone. The carcinogenicity is irrelevant.

And yes, I do have a degree in microbiology.

[PatSeg]

152. That is really disturbing

How on earth can anyone argue that it is safe?

[Orrex]

190. We would all benefit from a link to your source

Roundup causes bacteria to automatically become resistant to certain antibiotics.

Which bacteria?
Which antibiotics?
Does this "automatic resistance" occur immediately or over time?
If the latter, then what is the time frame?
If the latter, then in what environments does this occur?
What is the nature of this immunity?
Does the presence of glyphosate change the chemistry of those antibiotics?
Does the presence of glyphosate alter the bacteria's reproductive process, yielding antibiotic resistance?
Do other pesticides yield similar resistance, or is glyphosate unique in this regard?

I'm sure that this information is immediately obvious to someone with a degree in microbiology, but those of us who lack such expertise are forced to ask silly questions for clarification. For that reason it would be greatly helpful to have a link to your source that details bacterial antibiotic resistance caused by glyphosiate.

Thanks!

[PatSeg]

195. Try Google, over 400,000 results

http://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2015/04/01/antibiotic-resistance-from-unexpected-sources/#4f4f14d5740d

http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/03/24/new-study-shows-roundup-herbicide-causes-antibiotic-resistance-in-bacteria/

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/mar/24/pesticides-antibiotic-resistance-study

http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-monsantos-glyphosate-is-generating-deadly-antibiotic-resistance/5446110


You may have to do some reading to get the answers to your questions, which are all very good ones by the way.

[kestrel91316]

246. I'm just making reference to an article cited and linked to upthread.

Read through the thread and you'll find it. I can't be bothered.

[Else You Are Mad]

69. Wrong.

Yes, alcohol is a known carcinogen. Any time I drink a glass of wine, I know I am drinking alcohol. But, given all of the pesticides used, I don't know what other chemicals I am drinking.

I drink wine for the alcohol, I don't drink wine for the pesticides.

[Else You Are Mad]

76. Ok, ignoring wine...

What about the non-alcoholic beverages that it is present in? How does that fit into your organic cigarette argument?

[Else You Are Mad]

82. So, my kid drinking grape juice...

Should drink a carcinogen so some company can make more money?

[Else You Are Mad]

87. That is a non answer.

You just said it is OK for children to drink juice with dangerous chemicals because you don't know what the safety levels are.

Maybe you should ask yourself if it is ok to subject children to chemicals that we don't known what levels are toxic?

[Else You Are Mad]

93. So, I should just accept it?

Just because there are dangerous chemicals in everything, I should just accept one more? Maybe we should draw a red line and not allow it.

[womanofthehills]

137. Some of the chemicals found in grapes by USDA - they test for all these pesticides

but do not test for glyphosate - USDA and EPA seem to have a close relationship with Monsanto. Actually, the EPA said they did not test for glyphosate in the past because they believed Monsanto's research - done by Monsanto's own scientists. EPA will be reevaluating glyphosate in Oct 2016 because of WHO ruling it's a possible carcinogen. I definitely only eat organic grapes. Lakewood makes a delicious organic grape juice not from concentrate. I'm sure the organic has some pesticides too but at least not glyphosate and the more toxic ones.


56 Pesticide Residues Found by the USDA Pesticide Data Program (Pesticides used on grapes - one can only hope not too many combined)

List at below link
http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/food.jsp?food=GR

1. Tests for any given food are often conducted in multiple years. In all cases WhatsOnMyFood shows only the most recent test year. The test results for Grapes come from test year 2010.

2. All pesticide residue results on this page and elsewhere on the WhatsOnMyFood website were obtained by the United Stated Department of Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDP)

[womanofthehills]

107. The EPA does not test grapes or any foods for glyphosate yet

Their excuse was that the equipment was too expensive, but another government agency said they had to test.

They say they now have the equipment and will begin testing but it has been 6 months and no one has heard anything. They will start with soy, corn, wheat, eggs, meat, milk and a few other items first.

[womanofthehills]

53. Scientists now saying no safe level of glyphosate in your body

[womanofthehills]

110. All the tolerances for residues in foods are in parts per million on EPA table

But what does this matter - there has never been testing to see if foods are under allowable tolerances.
You have to love the EPA - they make a chart of allowable limits but have NEVER (except for 1 food, 1 day long ago) tested the glyphosate levels in food. NO TESTS for the most used herbicide in the world. They test other pesticides on food but it seems like glyphosate was off limits. This shows how much power Monsanto has. Now, they finally say they will begin testing - but they give no timeline. The US Government Accountability office forced the EPA to test.

Animal feed is 400 parts per million (glad I only eat grass fed beef from local ranchers - watch out for grass fed that is corn finished)

Beets 10 ppm

carrot 5ppm

Barley 30 ppm

Oilseeds 40 ppm

pistachio 1ppm

plus more - OMG! The Moms Across America activists posted this chart - copied from the EPA website - this is from 2014 and it's been reported the government keeps raising tolerances so the levels are probably higher now.

http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/epa_glyphosate_list_allowable_levels_on_our_food

[pnwmom]

226. What is the safe level in your opinion? n/t

[Peregrine Took]

252. Ever take care of a person dying from cancer in a home hospice program?

Day by day you see the suffering get worse and there's nothing you can do and your heart is breaking? I think you might be a tad more vigilant of every single thing you put in your body - just in case.
If there's a shadow of a doubt - I don't want it.

[PatSeg]

253. Yes

People have to make a conscious effort to do whatever they can to prevent disease, not wait until they become ill and then hope medicine can cure it.

We know we live in a world full of carcinogenics and we can't avoid them all, but we can try to reduce our exposure to questionable chemicals and toxins.

[RapSoDee]

2. And...the GMO-glyphosate tragedy-shitstorm is intensifying

Well over 80% of GMO crops are fundamentally dependent on the herbicide glyphosate...

Despite what the army of GMO-chemical trolls claim:

Monsanto’s Superweeds Saga Is Only Getting Worse
Some farmers fear the next-generation line of GMO soybeans are trapping them in the corporation's technology....

http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/08/02/monsanto-superweeds-soybeans?cmpid=tpdaily-eml-2016-08-02-A

[PatSeg]

5. Nature has a way

of building up a resistance to any poisons that humans come up with. Insects and weeds not only become tolerant, but can become even more invasive as with the superweeds. Between climate change, fossil fuels, and chemicalized agriculture, we could see the end of the world as we know it in a few generations. Nature will recover, but I'm not too sure about humans.

I just checked your link and interesting that it referred to "dystopian sci-fi flicks", pretty much what I was envisioning.

[PatSeg]

6. You know

that is a new article about the superweeds. Maybe you should post it as its own thread, if you haven't already.

[womanofthehills]

25. Because of the superweeds Monsanto's toxic herbicide - DICAMBA to the rescue

Roundup resistant superweeds some 8 feet tall (amaranth, ragweeds, marestal, hemp, etc) are clogging up the farm machinery
so Monsanto came up with Dicamba. The war of the herbicides!!!

Only problem with Dicamba is that it's killing all the soy it drifts onto. This is from the Farm Press.

Improper dicamba use leaves Mid-South a multitude of drift cases
Xtend soybeans being sprayed over-the-top

In the run up to planting, Mid-South growers were repeatedly warned over-the-top applications of available dicamba products would not be allowed. Even so, state officials fretted improper spraying would happen following a 2015 growing season when “some individuals — a very small group — used a dicamba product not labeled for this seed,” said Susie Nichols at the Arkansas State Plant Board in April. “That’s a big worry for the Plant Board; there’s a lot of Xtend soybean seed in the state. We’ve tried to let everyone know it’s a violation to use any dicamba product on this technology because none is labeled for this use.

“It’s a major concern because dicamba has a very adverse effect on soybeans. It has a propensity to drift and can kill an entire crop and a lot of this new technology crop will be planted in close vicinity to (vulnerable) soybeans.”

Sure enough, despite the warnings the temptation to spray was too much for some growers. Now, neighboring fields are paying the price.

“This is a huge issue and is really unprecedented,” says Kevin Bradley, University of Missouri weed specialist. “The situation with drift in the Bootheel is unlike anything I’ve seen before. I don’t know of any cases outside the Bootheel.”
a
http://deltafarmpress.com/soybeans/improper-dicamba-use-leaves-mid-south-multitude-drift-cases

[PatSeg]

74. I was just reading about "dicamba"

This is the start of a very vicious cycle that could have some very serious consequences for the planet.

[jmowreader]

138. No crop is "fundamentally dependent" on glyphosate. Give me a break.

If you wanted to plant Roundup Ready soy then weed it by hand or use non-Roundup herbicide on it, it would work. (You'd want to because Roundup Ready soy yields higher than non-Roundup Ready soy.)

[PatSeg]

154. Non-GMO soybeans offer high yields at lower cost

<Conventional, non-genetically modified soybean varieties are making a comeback. Lower seed and weed-control costs, price incentives at the grain elevator and yields that rival genetically modified Roundup Ready beans have renewed interest in conventional varieties, said Grover Shannon, an agronomist at the University of Missouri Delta Research Center in the Missouri Bootheel.

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/nov08/non-gmo_soybeans_high_yields_lower_costs.php

[Dr Hobbitstein]

3. A study by Mom's Across America?

JFC, it's like you don't want to be taken seriously at all.

Pro-tip: Mom's Across America is a fringe anti-science group that not only opposes GMOs, but is anti-vax as well. Quit trying to pose fringe bullshit as fact.

Also, Don Huber? Mercola's golden boy?
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/don-huber-science-still-looking-for-purdue-professors-gmo-pathogen-time-bomb/

[PatSeg]

7. I have never followed Mercola

Most of what I've heard about him, came from derisive comments on threads like this. If his credibility is questionable for me, it would be because people have called him names while trying to fulfill some agenda. It is a very effective tactic, I must say, as I find that I unconsciously respond negatively when I see his name, even though I really know very little about him. (Please to not feel compelled to provide me links about the man. If I was to support Mercola, I would investigate him on my own.)

I did check out Dr. Don Huber who is mentioned in the article and his credentials are rather impressive. So I should disregard Huber, because people tell me that Mercola is a fraud or a quack, which he may be? But I am not ready to assume that Huber is also because some posters on an Internet forum tell me it is so and repeatedly post links to the Genetic Literacy Project, a corporate sponsored foundation meant to discredit anyone who questions GMOs and glyphosate.

<Dr. Huber is Professor Emeritus of Plant Pathology at Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. He received B.S. and M.S. degrees from the University of Idaho (1957, 1959), a Ph-D from Michigan State University (1963), and is a graduate of the US Army Command & General Staff College and Industrial College of the Armed Forces. He was Cereal Pathologist at the University of Idaho for 8 years before joining the Department of Botany & Plant Pathology at Purdue University in 1971.

His agricultural research the past 50 years has focused on the epidemiology and control of soilborne plant pathogens with emphasis on microbial ecology, cultural and biological controls, and physiology of hostparasite relationships. Research also includes nitrogen metabolism, micronutrient physiology, inhibition of nitrification, and nutrient-disease interactions.

In addition to his academic positions and research, Dr. Huber has had several concurrent careers including 14 years as a professional labor-relations mediator with 7 years service on the Indiana Education Employment Relations Board as a Mediatory/Fact Finder/Conciliator, and served 12 years on two school boards with recognition as a Master Board Member from the Indiana School Board Association and Honesty in Public Service Award from Taxpayers United For Fairness. He retired in 1995 as Associate Director of the Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Center (Colonel) after 41+ years of active and reserve military service.

He has received various awards for his scientific accomplishments and contributions to government. Dr. Huber is an active scientific reviewer; international research cooperator with projects in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Mexico, and Russia; and a consultant to academia, industry, and government. He is author or co-author of over 300 journal articles, Experiment Station Bulletins, research presentations, book chapters and review articles; 3 books, and 84 special invited publications. He is internationally recognized for his expertise in the development of nitrification inhibitors to improve the efficiency of N fertilizers, interactions of the form of nitrogen, manganese and other nutrients in disease, herbicide-nutrient-disease interactions, techniques for rapid microbial identification, and cultural control of plant diseases.>

http://farmandranchfreedom.org/bio-dr-don-m-huber/

[Dr Hobbitstein]

9. Don Huber is a quack who writes for quack site Mercola.

He has been debunked NUMEROUS times.

https://www.biofortified.org/2014/01/deconstructing-don-huber-a-tale-of-two-talks/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/2/26/950145/-
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/02/purdue-scientists-refute-anti-gmo-claims/#.V6IlklLmlXs

If you want to keep pushing debunked bullshit, so be it. But I'll be here to call you out on it.
Every. Single. Time.

[PatSeg]

10. Everyone has an opinion

Some just try to call it fact.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

16. I know. I don't understand why you keep doing that, though. nt

[PatSeg]

19. Oh, I'm quite sure that you do understand

Just like I understand why you keep doing what you are doing. My motives, however, are far different than yours.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

125. Yes, I believe it promoting science and fact.

And you apparently believe in promoting biased opinion and debunked bullshit as fact.

[womanofthehills]

133. Projection again and again

[Dr Hobbitstein]

146. Have you seen your posts?

They're 99% fact free.

[womanofthehills]

163. They are 99% backed up by facts

[Dr Hobbitstein]

170. No, they are not.

You need to look up the definition of fact.

[womanofthehills]

172. FACT - Roundup is a possible carcinogen

[Dr Hobbitstein]

174. See that word there? "Possible".

That means it's possible it's NOT a carcinogen. So, there's no fact. It's an unknown.

Science, at this point, points to it NOT being a carcinogen (according to the lastest UN/WHO studies).
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/16/glyphosate-unlikely-to-pose-risk-to-humans-unwho-study-says

[PatSeg]

176. Fact

Thalidomide is harmless to the fetus of pregnant women, until it is not. Those women and their doctors didn't even have the luxury of "possible".

If Donald Trump is elected president, all out nuclear war is "possible".

[Dr Hobbitstein]

183. Science has come a LONG way since the 1950s, Scooter. nt

[PatSeg]

186. And there is no END Spanky

[Dr Hobbitstein]

189. Of course there's no end.

Science is a continual process. But posting things that aren't true isn't science (like say, that 100% of California wines contain glyphosate).

https://www.accountablescience.com/no-there-arent-dangerous-levels-of-weed-killer-in-california-wines/

[PatSeg]

197. I very clearly added to the op:

"According to the article, this was the result of only 10 wine samples that were tested, so the results were 100% of a relatively small sample.

Just in case someone should make comments without actually reading the article.

[womanofthehills]

196. When the WHO says possible it's just like saying it is

They would not put themselves out there if it was not

[Dr Hobbitstein]

202. The WHO says it is likely not harmful.

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2016/05/un-who-glyphosate-herbicide-cancer-risk

That panel was based on numerous studies.

[NuclearDem]

18. ...

[Dr Hobbitstein]

126. Ha! nt

[womanofthehills]

11. Actually, I just got this information about EPA meeting from the great site "Moms Across America"

ABOUT CARCINOGENIC POTENTIAL OF GLYPHOSATE Great information from (those anti-science moms :=) over at Moms Across America - how dare they care with their kids eat.

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/07/26/2016-17707/federal-insecticide-fungicide-and-rodenticide-act-scientific-scientific-advisory-panel-notice-of


Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Scientific Advisory Panel; Notice of Public Meeti
Agency:
Environmental Protection Agency
Dates:
The meeting will be held on October 18-21, 2016, from approximately 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

There will be a 4-day meeting of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) to consider and review a set of scientific issues being evaluated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding EPA's evaluation of the CARCINOGENIC POTENTIAL of GLYPHOSATE, a non-selective, phosphonomethyl amino acid herbicide registered to control weeds in various agricultural and non-agricultural settings.

PLEASE WRITE COMMENTS TO EPA - see link

Comments. The Agency encourages written comments be submitted on or before October 4, 2016, to provide adequate time for the FIFRA SAP to review and consider the comments. The Agency encourages requests for oral comments be submitted on or before October 11, 2016. However, written comments and requests to make oral comments may be submitted until the date of the meeting, but anyone submitting written comments after October 4, 2016, should contact the Designated Federal Official (DFO) listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. For additional instructions, see Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

[Orrex]

12. "Great site"

[Dr Hobbitstein]

17. Completely unashamed to promote debunked bullshit. nt

[womanofthehills]

135. So how is a chart sourced from the EPA debunked bullshit?

[womanofthehills]

131. Yes, activist moms fighting GMO's

[Dr Hobbitstein]

15. Yes yes, I know.

You get all your pseudo-science from Mom's Across America.

You'd rather believe the vast majority of scientists are part of some conspiracy to hide the truth about GMOs or glyphosate than believe that a bunch of people with no science training (ie, MAA) are a bunch of quacks.

[womanofthehills]

43. Actually, I have rarely checked Mom's Across America but I think I now will

because that is where I found the info about the EPA meeting to discuss the possible carcinogenicity of glyphosate.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

124. You keep racing to the bottom! nt

[womanofthehills]

165. Your posts never have any information

No discussion - negative to the core

[Dr Hobbitstein]

167. Neither do yours.

Lots of fact free posts from you. Lots of words, but no information. Just manufactured bullshit.

[womanofthehills]

173. Give me a link saying Roundup is safe for our bodies, babies and the environment.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

175. There ya go.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/16/glyphosate-unlikely-to-pose-risk-to-humans-unwho-study-says

[PatSeg]

177. I don't think it was that black and white

“These conclusions relate to exposure through the diet – that is very important,” he said. “It is not a general conclusion because anything beyond the diet was not in our mandate. It remains less clear what the situation is with occupational exposure.”

“My personal assessment is that it is a very complex puzzle and we are adding more and more pieces to it, but it is not necessarily complete yet.”

The Green MEP for the south-west of England, Molly Scott Cato, said: “With ongoing controversy over the health risks of glyphosate, we can be quite sure it has no place in the human body. We hold concerns for its impact on biodiversity, with evidence of glyphosate having detrimental impacts on the honey bee, monarch butterfly, skylark and earthworm populations, and posing a threat to the quality of our soil.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/16/glyphosate-unlikely-to-pose-risk-to-humans-unwho-study-says

[Dr Hobbitstein]

184. Nothing is black and white.

Water, which is essential to life on earth, can also be a toxic killer.

Everything boils down to amounts.

[womanofthehills]

199. Above link NOT a study but a PANEL- Reuters misleadingly reported stroy

The above is not a study but a VERDICT and 2 members of the panel have huge ties to the pesticide industry - Alan Boobis and Angelo Moretto - Both have ties to Internation Life Science Institute funded by Monsanto, Dow, etc.

Many different divisions of WHO - The International Div of Cancer Researchers sticks by their research that glyphosate is a possible carcinogen. I would go with the Cancer Researchers rather than the Industry Insiders Panel.

Reuters misleadingly reported this story with the headline, “UN experts find weed killer glyphosate unlikely to cause cancer”.

The Reuters reporter wrote, “The conclusions appear to contradict a finding by the WHO's Lyon-based International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which in March 2015 said glyphosate is ‘probably’ able to cause cancer in humans and classified it as a 'Group 2A' carcinogen.”

But Reuters’ interpretation of the JMPR verdict is incorrect. JMPR was only addressing risk, the likelihood that actual exposures to glyphosate will cause cancer, and specifically through diet. IARC, for its part, also addressed risk, because it considered that glyphosate causes cancer at real-life exposure levels. But in addition it addressed hazard, the potential for glyphosate herbicides to cause cancer due to their intrinsic properties.

So first, the JMPR’s verdict does not in any way contradict the verdict of the IARC. The JMPR verdict is in any case fatally undermined by the conflicts of interest of its panel members.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

200. ALCOA!

[womanofthehills]

201. Actually, Dr. Hobbitsein - your link has been tainted by Monsanto insiders & money

UN/WHO panel in conflict of interest row over glyphosate cancer risk -
( 6 figure donation from Monsanto - it never ends.)

However, the International Cancer WHO scientists - stick by their study that glyphosate is a possible carcinogen.

A UN panel that on Tuesday ruled that glyphosate was probably not carcinogenic to humans has now become embroiled in a bitter row about potential conflicts of interests. It has emerged that an institute co-run by the chairman of the UN’s joint meeting on pesticide residues (JMPR) received a six-figure donation from Monsanto, which uses the substance as a core ingredient in its bestselling Roundup weedkiller.

Professor Alan Boobis, who chaired the UN’s joint FAO/WHO meeting on glyphosate, also works as the vice-president of the International Life Science Institute (ILSI) Europe. The co-chair of the sessions was Professor Angelo Moretto, a board member of ILSI’s Health and Environmental Services Institute, and of its Risk21 steering group too, which Boobis also co-chairs.

In 2012, the ILSI group took a $500,000 (£344,234) donation from Monsanto and a $528,500 donation from the industry group Croplife International, which represents Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta and others, according to documents obtained by the US right to know campaign.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

204. Yes, it's all a big conspiracy!

Everyone's a shill for Monsanto. Posters here, the vast majority of scientists, facts, science publications... We're all tainted. I got paid thousands for this thread, alone.

With that said, be on the lookout for the black helicopters... My employers are not pleased with you.

[PatSeg]

254. You're really on a roll today

Sometimes all one has to do is "Follow the money".

[womanofthehills]

49. Wow - here a GREAT VIDEO I found on Mom's Across America RELATING TO OP

Actual "REAL SCIENTISTS" say in video - NO SAVE LEVEL OF GLYPHOSATE. Don't you just hate moms who are activists.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

123. GREAT. You keep saying that word.

I don't think it means what you think it means.

[womanofthehills]

168. Your posts are very familiar

do you have a twin with a screen name ending in B?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

169. No, but I'm glad I'm not the only one on this site willing to call you out on the bullshit that you

like to post.

[PatSeg]

20. Very interesting

Didn't you realize that "Moms" = "Ignorant"? As soon as someone says that mothers care about the environment or their family's health, it is assumed they are uninformed and gullible. I wonder what the response would be if it was "Dads Across America", because everyone knows that MEN are smart and rational.


FederalRegister.gov - Is that one of those Woo websites???

[Orrex]

23. That's a childish objection

I defy you to find anyone on DU who thinks that "Moms"="Ignorant."

And it's preposterous to imagine that an organization is a credible source of scientific information simply because it uses "Moms" in its name.

[PatSeg]

27. Well

As a woman, I can say that I've seen a lot of sexism here and as a mother, I've seen "moms" demeaned and marginalized time and time again.

What you may consider "childish", a lot of women will tell you is an unfortunate reality.

[Orrex]

65. Forgive me, but that has nothing to do with the organization's name

The undeniable fact that you've endured (and will no doubt continue to endure) sexism and marginalization is irrelevant to the quality of the organization Moms Across America.

In choosing that name, they made a cynical and calculated effort to evoke the wholesome and noble feelings we associate with motherhood. But that doesn't mean that their beliefs are sensible or that their science is sound.

[womanofthehills]

171. Those poor "unscientific" activist moms are now reporting glyphosate in their breast milk -

Try this on for size:

1. You get a sample of milk & give it to the lab to test for glyphosate
2. A lab gives you the result of glyphosate levels

and you think I should not post this on DU because - WHY? THE MOMS MAY ALL NOT be scientists.

The reason the "ignorant unscientific moms" are doing this is to force research on this.

World’s Number 1 Herbicide Discovered in U.S. Mothers’ Breast Milk

Urine Testing also Shows Levels over 10 Times Higher than in Europe
Water Testing shows 70% of American household's drinking water positive for above detectable levels

In the first ever testing on glyphosate herbicide in the breast milk of American women, Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse have found ‘high’ levels in 3 out of the 10 samples tested. The shocking results point to glyphosate levels building up in women’s bodies over a period of time, which has until now been refuted by both global regulatory authorities and the biotech industry.

The levels found in the breast milk testing of 76 ug/l to 166 ug/l are 760 to 1600 times higher than the European Drinking Water Directive allows for individual pesticides (Glyphosate is both a pesticide and herbicide). They are however less than the 700 ug/l maximum contaminant level (MCL) for glyphosate in the U.S., which was decided upon by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) based on the now seemingly false premise that glyphosate was not bio-accumulative.

The glyphosate testing commissioned by Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse, with support from Environmental Arts & Research, also analyzed 35 urine samples and 21 drinking water samples from across the US and found levels in urine that were over 10 times higher than those found in a similar survey done in the EU by Friends of the Earth Europe in 2013.

The initial testing that has been completed at Microbe Inotech Labs, St. Louis, Missouri, is not meant to be a full scientific study. Instead it was set up to inspire and initiate full peer-reviewed scientific studies on glyphosate, by regulatory bodies and independent scientists worldwide.

WARNING: THESE "MOMS" MIGHT NOT BE SCIENTISTS
http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/glyphosate_testing_results

[PatSeg]

179. Warning: These "Moms" might not be scientists!!!

[Orrex]

180. Who called anyone "ignorant unscientific moms?" Certainly not me.

You should probably raise that objection to the people who called them that.

[womanofthehills]

26. Who buys most of the groceries?

and wants to make sure they are not feeding thier children pesticides.

[PatSeg]

34. Yes

You know, looking back on my life, I can remember when I started paying attention to the foods that I bought and prepared. Once you have children, health becomes more than some fad. Caring parents will do anything they can to raise healthy, happy children. It is such a great responsibility and I sure wouldn't trust a large corporation with a terrible track record, to do what is best for my family.

[NuclearDem]

47. Oh good lord, that's just dumb.

It takes an astounding level of dishonesty and cowardice to assert that someone calling a shit source for what it is hates mothers.

It's pretty clear you have no intention of wanting to be taken seriously with comments like this.

[womanofthehills]

51. Moms Across America is not a shit site - it's a site of WOMEN ACTIVISTS

and you totally dislike them because they are VERY ACTIVE against GMOS. Glyphosate is in women's breast milk - let alone tampons.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

127. No, it's a site of idiots who claim to have "concerns" about non existant things.

They are anti GMO and anti Vax. They are nothing but quacks.

[womanofthehills]

178. So according to you GLYPHOSATE IN BREAST MILK is a concern about something non existant.

By IDIOT and QUACK moms. So only an idiot, quack mom over at Moms Across America would want to care about what her baby is ingesting?

So Glyphosate is good for babies???? and all Moms over at Moms Across America are delusional?

Are you sure you are not a twin of that person who has a B at the end of his name?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

181. Yes, it's a non existant concern.

Promoted by Mom's Across America, a quack group.

The fact is, there is NO glyphosate in breast milk. Just more lies promoted by Quacks Across America.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150723133120.htm

[PatSeg]

192. That is really good news

and that was actually a very good link!

[womanofthehills]

220. Actually, Monsanto did the tests saying no glyphosate in breast milk

and will not release their study or any information. Author did test jointly with Monsanto. They even asked Moms Across America for their help.

Washington State University has issued a bizarre press release claiming that “WSU researchers find U.S. breast milk is glyphosate free”. The press release reports a “study” by Dr Shelley McGuire, involving Monsanto. The study aims at discrediting the survey by Sustainable Pulse and Moms Across America, which found glyphosate in breast milk.

Sustainable Pulse and Moms Across America have published an incisive reply (below).

The WSU press release provides no further documentation of the study that could supply important details such as the method used and when the samples of breast milk were collected. If the date of collection was before GM glyphosate-tolerant crops became popular, then levels may well be too low to detect.

The language used in the press release by lead researcher McGuire is extraordinarily unscientific. She states, “The Moms Across America study flat out got it wrong.” But there is no way that McGuire can know that. All she can say is that her study found something different. After all, McGuire did not have access to the samples tested by Sustainable Pulse and Moms Across America.

The press release totally ignores a German survey which found glyphosate in human breast milk at the expected low levels, and matching what has been reported in urine. This suggests either that the researchers are ignorant or that they are intentionally ignoring this investigation, both of which smack of negligenc



http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/87-news/archive/2015/16317-wsu-researchers-find-glyphosate-free-breast-milk-for-monsanto

[PatSeg]

222. Now that is really intersting

I have to check that out!

[womanofthehills]

239. Slack Science Destroys Monsanto Breast Milk Study

Interesting info on the study

The Presentation has Revealed some Major Faults in the Study:

The LOD (lower limit of detection) for the Monsanto/Covance Laboratories breast milk methods mysteriously changes throughout the one page presentation from 2 PPB to 1 PPB.
The LOQ (Limit of quantification) for the breast milk methods used is at a high 10 PPB.
The urine results from the Monsanto/ WSU study are mysteriously much lower than current and recent Urine testing done across the U.S. using validated LC/MS/MS methods in a number of independent labs.
The ‘new’ validated LC/MS/MS methods for breast milk used by Monsanto / Covance Laboratories have the same LOQs (Limits of Quantification) to methods used by many U.S. and global labs for testing dairy products. This leads us to ask have they just validated these methods for breast milk? These methods are not accurate enough for human biological samples according to experts in the field because of their very poor reproduce-ability.
No explanation is given as to why the strange number of 41 samples was used.
No explanation as to how and when the samples were collected is given.
How can Monsanto /WSU claim that they have proved glyphosate does not bio-accumulate in this study considering the LOQ for urine is 0.2 PPB and the LOQ for breast milk is 10 PPB? They also did not test blood or tissue samples.



http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/07/27/slack-science-destroys-monsanto-breast-milk-study/#.V6OiL7U1R-I

[womanofthehills]

240. ALSO, Monsanto won't say when or where they got the breast milk

They might have gotten the milk from the women of Sir Lanka as glyphosate is outlawed there big big time.

[PatSeg]

241. It is so exhausting

to have to question pretty much everything we hear. In order to survive, we have to be our own advocates.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

231. No shit.

I don't post garbage bullshit links.

Unlike some posters on this site.

[closeupready]

247. But you seem to think profanity marks you as smart.

Judging by the fact that you managed to insert the word "shit" twice (and notably, your last 'sentence' is incomplete). Too smart by half?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

249. .

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015-12-17/study-people-who-swear-more-are-smarter-have-larger-vocabulary

[PatSeg]

255. Thanks

I was really starting to get a headache.

[womanofthehills]

215. Actually German studies find glyphosate in breast milk - unlike the Monsanto lab tests

Just NOT when it's tested at Monsanto's Labs - who will not release full detail of study. It's in breast milk studies in Germany. Moms Across America are currently going to test a larger sample of 200 women.

Author of your above link in BED with MONSANTO : Michelle McGuire

The McGuire family has had a long-standing relationship to Monsanto and Dr. Shelley McGuire’s husband Dr. Mark McGuire, Animal and Veterinary Science Department Head at the University of Idaho, was deeply involved in the scientific promotion of Monsanto’s infamous recombinant bovine growth hormone Posilac.

Without releasing full details of the method or the limits of quantification used McGuire stated in a WSU press release Thursday that her and Monsanto’s study “strongly suggests that glyphosate does not bioaccumulate and is not present in human milk.”

McGuire and Monsanto’s study directly contradicts validated and low LOQ testing in Germany that was carried out earlier in 2015 which showed that German women’s breast milk contained glyphosate at levels between 0.210 and 0.432 ng/ml.

WARNING STILL IN EFFECT - UNSCIENTIFIC MOMS
http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/surprise_monsanto_says_no_glyphosate_in_breast_milk

[PatSeg]

223. +1

[Dr Hobbitstein]

229. Yes, I know. You hate science.

How's the weather on Bullshit Mountain these days?

[womanofthehills]

244. Actually, it's beautiful up here - it's our monsoon season

The high desert has turned green.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

251. Well, at least you admit you live up there on Bullshit Mountain. nt

[PatSeg]

256. Sigh

[LeftyMom]

140. Women activists who don't fucking understand basic science, maybe.

Now let me explain something to you: "oh noez it's in breast milk" is a dumb and dangerous argument.

Testing anything that metabolizes in fats tends to be done with breast milk because healthy bodes don't excrete fat otherwise, so other methods would be invasive and expensive. Testing breastmilk requires a squeezing motion and a cup. It's an easy way to look at body burden of any given substance, but breast milk isn't unusually at risk.

But when you start on with "oh noez it's in breast milk" you're both making a lazy emotional argument AND you're contributing to women's perception that their bodies are damaged or their kids are at risk. Which they're not, moms and kids are as healthy as human kind has ever seen. What's dangerous is discouraging breastfeeding by ignorant shouting about how contaminated breastmilk is.

And any substance involved in cotton cultivation will show up in tampons to some degree. Now one exciting thing about tampons is that women insert them while their bodies are engaged in their self-cleaning cycle! It's not exactly the ideal time to absorb some vanishingly small amount of a substance that doesn't appear to be particularly harmful even in modest doses. The only significant risks associated with tampons are vaginal infection and TSS.

[PatSeg]

86. More hyperbole

I never said anyone "hates mothers" and you are calling ME "dishonest" and "cowardly".

It is pretty clear you would rather provoke than carry on a reasonable discussion about an important issue.

[NuclearDem]

95. Oh, beg your pardon, you're right.

I wonder what the response would be if it was "Dads Across America", because everyone knows that MEN are smart and rational.

Instead of trying to say he hates moms, you tried to accuse him of being a misogynist. Still dishonest and cowardly, covering for your absolutely terrible source by screaming "bigot."

Typically, people resort to accusations of bigotry when they know they can't defend their ideas or arguments and just want a cheap escape hatch.

[PatSeg]

101. Still putting words in my mouth

I did not say "misogynist" or "bigot". That is your inference.

[NuclearDem]

104. Oh good lord, just own it already.

You cannot possibly think people are stupid enough to not know what you were saying.

Didn't you realize that "Moms" = "Ignorant"? As soon as someone says that mothers care about the environment or their family's health, it is assumed they are uninformed and gullible. I wonder what the response would be if it was "Dads Across America", because everyone knows that MEN are smart and rational.

You suggested that people criticizing that terrible source do so because they think women/mothers are ignorant, but think men are rational. That's accusing someone of sexism. This:

I did not say "misogynist" or "bigot". That is your inference.

is just stupid and hilariously transparent.

[PatSeg]

106. I see a lot of "hilariously transparent"

around here, using age old tactics that are meant to wear down opponents with ridicule, mockery, condescension, diversion, and occasionally flat out insults. They are often effective, but would never be tolerated in a real debate.

I think right now, you've used diversionary tactics and quite skillfully I might add.

[womanofthehills]

132. It's not a fringe anti-science group - it's a mom's activist group fighting GMO's

[SidDithers]

4. Mercola shill site says what?...nt

Sid

[GreatGazoo]

22. well we wouldn't want broad leaf weeds growing in our wine

problem solved

[Gabi Hayes]

24. what about scientific american? are they quacks? or rubes?

I have no idea what to think about this, but I found this in a second.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

The new findings intensify a debate about so-called “inerts” — the solvents, preservatives, surfactants and other substances that manufacturers add to pesticides. Nearly 4,000 inert ingredients are approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, is the most widely used herbicide in the United States. About 100 million pounds are applied to U.S. farms and lawns every year, according to the EPA.

Until now, most health studies have focused on the safety of glyphosate, rather than the mixture of ingredients found in Roundup. But in the new study, scientists found that Roundup’s inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cells—even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and lawns.

One specific inert ingredient, polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, was more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself – a finding the researchers call “astonishing.”

“This clearly confirms that the [inert ingredients] in Roundup formulations are not inert,” wrote the study authors from France’s University of Caen. “Moreover, the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death [at the] residual levels” found on Roundup-treated crops, such as soybeans, alfalfa and corn, or lawns and gardens.

The research team suspects that Roundup might cause pregnancy problems by interfering with hormone production, possibly leading to abnormal fetal development, low birth weights or miscarriages.

have they gone round the bend?

[PatSeg]

31. What is disturbing

is that article is from seven years ago and we still are seeing very few restrictions on the use of Roundup in this country. We get the best legislation and regulations that money can buy.

[Gabi Hayes]

35. am waiting for the ones here who claim to know what they're talking about deal with it.

I have no idea, no axe to grind, other than wanting to know how toxic this stuff is, if at all, cause it appears to be in just about EVERYthing

[PatSeg]

85. There is so much corporate money

promoting GMOs and glyphosates, that it is really difficult to bring about meaningful change. We saw how the tobacco industry knowingly suppressed the truth about the dangers of tobacco for decades. The same is true with energy companies and climate change, though they are finally losing ground. If you have enough money, you can buy almost anything, including your own scientists and research.

[womanofthehills]

75. It is disturbing - hopefully the EPA will do better in their Oct Roundup evaluation

[womanofthehills]

36. Many herbicides and pesticides won't work without the toxic "inerts"

People buy pyrethrums thinking they are better than pyrethroids but both have piperonyl butoxide as an inert. Without the synergist PBO, these pesticides would not be able to kill bugs but the PBO damages the bug's liver -giving these pesticides more killing power. Without PBO, the bugs often could just detoxify the pesticide.

So people think, pyrethrum is from a daisy so it's good. It's almost inpossible to find Pyrethrum without PBO in any store. And PBO is a group C - possible human carcinogen - not allowed on organic produce.

The POEA in Roundup makes it much more toxic in the same way, however, tests are always being done on the glyphosate alone without the "inerts."

[Gabi Hayes]

40. thank you. what about the statement that says the inerts are NOT inert?

am I reading that wrong? and if they're not inert, doesn't that make them, uh, ert? meaning they react somehow with whatever other killing agents are in there?

please explain

thanks again

[womanofthehills]

78. Agreed - I would say "inert" is pharma talk

[stevil]

103. Which scientists?

Who lead the team?

And why don't you know what to think about that?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

128. Scientific American is a pop-sci magazine.

It is no more a scientific publication than Psychology Today is.

Give me peer-reviewed data in a publication with a large impact factor and THEN we can talk.

[PatSeg]

136. Yeah

Many famous scientists, including Albert Einstein, have contributed articles in the past 170 years.

[Humanist_Activist]

144. Yes, and my grandmother submitted an article in a medical magazine about my grandfather's...

quadruple bypass surgery and recovery. It was a nice story, accurately told, but it wasn't a scientific paper and certainly not to be used to diagnose anything.

[PatSeg]

147. And I know a lot of people who submit

scientific opinions to Democratic Underground, but that doesn't make them scientists.

[Humanist_Activist]

216. Have any of them claimed to be scientists doing independent research? No, so your point is...

invalid.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

145. It's not peer-reviewed science, however. nt

[PatSeg]

148. "Peer-reviewed"

[Dr Hobbitstein]

149. Oh, I know damn well what it means.

Here's a hint: you won't find peer-reviewed articles in pop-sci magazines or anti-vax blogs like your OP.

[PatSeg]

151. Nothing is infallible

"More than 120 bogus scientific articles have been published in peer-reviewed publications) from 2008 to 2013, according to computer scientist Cyril Labbé, confirming suspicions that sometimes, papers that read like gibberish are actually gibberish."

http://www.thewire.com/technology/2014/03/more-computer-generated-nonsense-papers-pulled-science-journals/358735/

[Dr Hobbitstein]

153. That's what the peer review process is for.

To weed out bullshit. That's something that popsci and your favorite pseudoscience blogs have in common: no accountability.

There was this asshat named Seralini who did a study on GMOs and rats. The study was quite flawed. The peer review process ended with the study being pulled, and Seralini thoroughly debunked (although, that asshat later published it in a low IF pay-to-play publication that the psuedoscience crowd love to post all over again and nobody reviews due to the low IF).

[PatSeg]

155. New Peer-reviewed Paper's Bold Statement

One of the benchmark moments in the movement for GMO transparency came in 2012 when professor Gilles-Eric Séralini of France and his team published a study showing the toxic, carcinogenic effects of Monsanto’s Roundup and Roundup-Ready corn on lab rats.

The study was retracted, however, amid a firestorm of controversy and questionable ethics surrounding the Biotech industry and its role in getting the paper taken out of the peer-reviewed journal Food and Chemical Toxicology.

Eventually, Séralini and his study were able to resurface as it was later published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe, a development that was far less covered in the mainstream media than the retraction of the paper, and the controversy surrounding Monsanto’s role in that process as well.

Now, yet another peer-reviewed paper is once again backing the Séralini study and asking deeper questions about what has become of science in an era where commercial and corporate interests are taking an active role in deciding what results should be deemed acceptable.

http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/new-peer-reviewed-papers-bold-statement-seralini-study-on-gmos-tumors-was-right-after-all/

Science must be defended against commercial interests that attempt to get important papers on GMOs and pesticides retracted rather than encouraging further research to clarify any uncertainties, says an important new peer-reviewed paper published in Environmental Sciences Europe.

The paper, authored by Drs John Fagan, Terje Traavik and Thomas Bøhn, details the events that followed the publication of the research study led by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini on GM maize NK603 and Roundup. The Séralini study found toxic effects in rats, notably liver and kidney damage, from NK603 maize and Roundup, both individually and in combination.

The paper was attacked by pro-GMO scientists, who argued that it should be retracted. Eventually the journal editor capitulated and retracted the paper, though it was subsequently republished in Environmental Sciences Europe.

The authors of the new paper comment on this row, lamenting the growth of “a trend in which disputes, between interest groups vying for retraction and republication of papers that report controversial results, overshadow the normal scientific process in which peer-reviewed publication stimulates new research, generating new empirical evidence that drives the evolution of scientific understanding”.

http://gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16380-science-must-be-protected-from-commercial-interests


You might want to give this whole "peer-reviewed" meme a break.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

156. March Against Monsanto and GMWatch.

Quack blogs criticizing actual science publications and supporting woo.
Environmental Sciences Europe is a low IF (impact factor) publication, and it is also pay-to-play. That is, you have to pay to submit to it. It's not a reputable publication at all, which is why he was able to republish his debunked study in it.

Give the quack bullshit a rest. Try reading a real science publication. Maybe take a couple science classes at your local community college. Reading bullshit blogs and purporting it to be science is rather unhealthy.

[PatSeg]

157. I knew you were going to do that

You and some of your friends might want to quit posting information from corporate financed so-called "Institutes". Meanwhile, you didn't even read the articles or check the sources.

If something is "peer-reviewed", it does not matter who says it and where. So instead of responding to the information in the articles you attack the website and the person who posts the information. This is a tactic, nothing more, and it does not advance any meaningful discussion. But then, I suppose you know that already.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

159. You keep posting bullshit from psuedo-science sites.

Of course I'm gonna call you out.

Peer-review has WAY more credibility than pulling stuff out of your ass (which is what GMWatch and March Against Monsanto are doing). If you want to have a meaningful discussion, please post something meaningful. If I was posting links to RedState or National Review all day, the messenger would be attacked all day. Same when you post links to anti-vax, pseudoscience, and other bullshit woo sites. I will attack the messenger, because the messenger is a fucking liar. If you want to believe the liar, so be it. But don't expect me (or anyone else) to allow you to post said lies without calling you out.

[PatSeg]

162. You still have not

addressed what the articles said about Seralini and peer-reviewed studies. Was he or was he not vindicated? Is Environmental Sciences of Europe a peer-reviewed journal or is that a lie?

"Anti-vax, pseudoscience, and other bullshit woo sites" are just inflammatory catch phrases meant to divert attention from what the articles said.

I am not sure who you are calling a "fucking liar" and I haven't found any evidence of LIES. Maybe it is too early to have a coherent discussion.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

166. He was NOT vindicated.

His study is still debunked. Just because he published it again doesn't make it less so.

And those aren't "inflammatory catch phrases", it's truth. Those sites are promoting anti-vax and psuedoscience (pseudo means not real), aka woo.

The sites are the fucking liars. Those that write the articles.

Like I said, you want a meaningful discussion about science? Post a meaningful article that has basis in reality from a reputable source (ie, not a blog or pop-sci magazine).

[PatSeg]

185. We can't have a meaningful discussion

about science, because you only acknowledge the evidence you agree with and frequently cite industry financed front groups or think tanks as a valid source.

When that doesn't work, you resort to mockery and name-calling. In your so-called scientific world, everything is black or white, truth or lie, up or down, which is everything that science isn't. Science is always changing and evolving. There is no final answer or anything.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

187. We can't have a meaninful discussion about science because you REFUSE to post links

to actual science journals, instead posting from holistic sites, March Against Monsanto, and GMWatch.

If you actually posted from actual science-related sites, we could have a discussion. As it stands, you have not so far.

[PatSeg]

191. That would be true

if a meaningful discussion was what you wanted. I have never seen evidence of that. I have never heard a meaningful discussion about anything that involved mockery, ridicule, and personal insults.

Enjoy your day!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

28. Cocaine was found on 100% of US paper money

... 92 %, but close enough.

http://cocaine.org/cokemoney/index.html

[PatSeg]

32. Who eats money?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

33. You don't get it. It's not about destinations, it's about sources. . . nt

[Squinch]

30. Hey, wait! The Gish-galloping "I drink a glass of glyphosphate every day" guys haven't gotten

here yet! Someone better tell them they are falling down on the job.

[PatSeg]

90. "Gish-galloping"

A little bit slow today or not very creative!

[Bonx]

96. Oh, you mean the people that understand science.

[PatSeg]

105. Oh, I think he means

the people who claim to know everything talk down to people who have the nerve to ask questions.

[Bonx]

113. Are you sure? His post is cryptic. I'll stay with my position.

[PatSeg]

116. As you wish

[closeupready]

48. I've essentially stopped buying California wines.

Which is sad for a number of reasons - 1) I enjoy the taste; and 2) I drink wine probably every day.

But between glyphosate, uranium-rich soils, higher than normal cancer rates in California, I'm keeping my distance.

[JoePhilly]

80. Uranium??? Damn, I should either be 40 feet tall, or have super powers by now!!!!

[womanofthehills]

92. What about all the cesium from Fukashimi

and a dash of plutonium.

Up around Los Alamos, here in NM, we have radioactive ants. Maybe I could dip them in chocolate. Yum!!

[JoePhilly]

97. Shrink, Grow, Invisibility ... give me SOMETHING!!!

[Starry Messenger]

111. I'm levitating right now! ;)

I'm holding out for a third eyeball.

[Igel]

130. The risk is chemical, not nuclear.

Uranium is a heavy metal and is toxic.

Even with a 4.5 billion year half-life.

[womanofthehills]

88. Sadly, even organic wines are testing for glyphosate but at lower levels

time to grow your own grapes.

Those "stupid, unscientific " ACTIVIST MOMS over at "Moms Across America" had the audacity to send wines to a lab to be tested for glyphosate and found even organic wines had glyphosate.

[PatSeg]

89. Darn Moms!

[BeeBee]

98. Yes, very scientific (sarcasm, if needed).

"An anonymous supporter of advocacy group Moms Across America sent 10 wine samples to be tested for glyphosate."

[BeeBee]

99. Could you please cite some sources. n/t

[womanofthehills]

112. WHO Publishes Full Probable Human Carcinogen Report on Glyphosate

follow the link (in blue - it just says - the report) to the full report by the World Health Organization's, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IRAC)

The World Health Organization’s cancer agency IARC has published the full report which caused a huge worldwide response, when they announced earlier this year that the World’s most sold herbicide, glyphosate, is a probable human carcinogen.

http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/07/30/who-publishes-full-probable-human-carcinogen-report-on-glyphosate/#.V6JwyI41R-I

[BeeBee]

115. My question was to closeupready...

He or she said "But between glyphosate, uranium-rich soils, higher than normal cancer rates in California, I'm keeping my distance."

[LeftyMom]

141. Odd concerns in a hepatoxic carcinogen you ingest daily.

[nationalize the fed]

108. k&r

[PatSeg]

117. And when no one will take their bait

they talk to each other. We live in some very strange times, but the tactics haven't changed.

“These campaigns are designed to make it appear that an issue has widespread public support (or public opposition) even if it doesn’t. If a campaign sows enough doubt, excitement, or skepticism about a contentious issue or individual, it can shape the opinions of real people. And that’s the primary goal.” – Source: Turf Wars

https://experiencelife.com/article/turf-wars/

In the end they almost always lose though, but it can be a long painful process.

[NuclearDem]

118. Congratulations!

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

120. I rest my case.

[NuclearDem]

121. Okay, whatever you say.

[PatSeg]

122. A man of few words

Well played.

[PatSeg]

119. Tips to distinguish turf from truth

This one looks very familiar to me:

Listen for recurring sound bites. Terms like “pseudoscience,” “quack,” “fearmonger,” “woo,” “alarmist,” “fanatic,” “hysterical,” and “nut” are often co-opted by astroturfing efforts because they discredit the target and create doubt and anxiety in the mind of the reader. Echoed statements may also indicate that an organized group or automated astroturfing effort is working from a set of talking points.

https://experiencelife.com/article/turf-wars/

[Humanist_Activist]

142. Honestly, how are we supposed to take such websites as that seriously when they...

advocate for such BS as "detox" treatments, "cleanses" and other psuedoscience bullshit?

Other examples are pure magic, such as under the "heal" drop down menu, under "alternative therapies" talking about acupressure points and other magical means to "heal oneself".

[PatSeg]

158. Nice diversion there

but does not address what was actually said.

Ridicule is a really poor debate technique.

[Humanist_Activist]

206. Oh, you mean the page that basically says, "if we are called out its SHILLS!" I thought that...

didn't need to be addressed because its stupid.

[PatSeg]

209. Wait, I'm curious

So are you saying that there is no such thing as paid corporate shills on the Internet? Is that some wacko conspiracy theory? Of course, it is possible that someone just made that up to undermine science.

[Humanist_Activist]

211. 9 times out of 10 its crazy assed conspiracies, the fact is that...

when honest disagreement is treated like a conspiracy theory against your pet beliefs, you should reexamine your beliefs and those you sources.

You don't see us science advocates, outside of being sarcastic, accusing you of being paid shills for the Organic industry or Alternative Medicine or Supplement industries, and these aren't small companies, their revenue is in the billions. Why do you think that is? Isn't it, given what you just stated, just as likely that those industries are paying for astroturf if the "other side" is doing it?

[PatSeg]

217. You know

I guess it is possible, though I don't see it as probable. If it was, I'm sure we'd see proponents of organic food being accused of being paid shills. Nonetheless, I will keep an open mind about the possibility.

By the way, I really have no "pet beliefs". I am far more open minded than you realize.

[Humanist_Activist]

218. Really? Then why do you deny basic scientific facts?

Also, talk about a circular argument! So if I just started accusing you of being a shill, asking who you work for, etc. That would be evidence that astroturfing takes place? Are you fucking kidding me?

[PatSeg]

221. I think you must be confusing me

with someone else. I have never accused anyone here of being a shill. I have never asked anyone who they work for and I don't deny basic scientific facts, though I question some people's interpretation of them.

Now you are swearing at me, so I think I'm going to go do something else.

[Humanist_Activist]

225. Sorry, I have a tendancy to lump all science deniers together, their positions seem to...

just morph into a ball of BS from which there is no escape.

Also, what interpretations? This isn't the Bible we are talking about here, do you even know how science works?

[PatSeg]

227. Sorry

The condescension doesn't work with me.

[Humanist_Activist]

232. Its difficult to not condescend considering the quality of the sources you use.

I'm just being frank here. What's next, Alex Jones?

[PatSeg]

238. If you absolutely must have the last word

Go for it!



I have other things to do.

[jmowreader]

139. Okay Pat, riddle me this...

1) How is glyphosate, which binds VERY strongly to the soil it's sprayed on, magically making its way to the roots of grape plants if it's sprayed several feet from said grape plants?

2) How is this glyphosate not killing the grape plants?

3) Where do you get an instrument that will accurately measure glyphosate in the parts per trillion range, especially when there's probably more glyphosate floating around in free air than that?

4) And how can we believe the results of this instrument when the tests that were made on it were paid for by a Big Organic front group?

[PatSeg]

150. What would organic farmers

stand to benefit from these tests as glyphosate was found in wine produced from organic grapes?

Also in the article:

<“This results in a 2-to 4- foot strip of Roundup sprayed soil with grapevines in the middle. According to Dr. Don Huber at a talk given at the Acres USA farm conference in December of 2011, the vine stems are inevitably sprayed in this process and the
Roundup is likely absorbed through the roots and bark of the vines from where it is translocated into the leaves and grapes.”

As for how the organic wines became contaminated, it’s likely that the glyphosate drifted over onto the organic and biodynamic vineyards from conventional vineyards nearby.

It’s also possible that the contamination is the result of glyphosate that’s left in the soil after a conventional farm converted to organic; the chemical may remain in the soil for more than 20 years.>
http://www.healthy-holistic-living.com/roundups-toxic-chemical-glyphosate-found-100-california-wines-tested.html

I personally think the sampling is too small to be conclusive, but it is still warrants some concern.

[sendero]

161. Have you ever BEEN to a vineyard?

It is not "sprayed several feet from" it is sprayed typically it a 2-3 foot swath with the grape vines in the center of the swath.

I'm laughing at everyone here who thinks these people are less honest than the industrialists who have $$$ to lose. It's frankly ridiculous, virtually every industry with something to lose spends lots of $$$ on their own propaganda, Exxon is still funding climate-change deniers but I'm sure you trust them implicitly.

[PatSeg]

164. If they'd actually read

the rather short article, the method used to spray the grape vines was explained.

[jmowreader]

188. Do you know what parts per billion are?

I'm laughing at everyone here who's falling for this Vani Hari-level anti-Monsanto propaganda.

It's not possible to accurately measure near-homeopathic levels of anything. The levels you're talking about here are roughly equivalent to the levels in the air a quarter-mile from a hardware store. They are far below the level anyone should be concerned about...unless you make money pushing the "Monsatan" meme.

[PatSeg]

210. Like lead in drinking water?

Anything 40 parts per billion or higher is considered cause for immediate action by the EPA. No, that doesn't sound like very much. We don't know enough about glyphosate to know what levels are safe.

Who on earth gets paid to push "Monsatan" memes??? That's a new one for me.

[Humanist_Activist]

214. First things first, the effects of lead poisoning are well known, along with what are...

acceptable levels in water supply, etc.

The effects of glyphosate are also well known, and its considerably less toxic than lead, hence tolerances are higher, a lot higher.

[PatSeg]

219. The problem with using words like "known"

is that what is "known" changes all the time. We are discovering new things every day. It took a long time to establish acceptable limits on the amount of lead in water and the lead industry fought regulations with corporate paid scientists for years.

Glyphosate has only been around for a short time compared to the history of lead in society. We most certainly to not KNOW the effects at this very early date.

How many times have we seen "known safe" products pulled from the shelves when they were discovered to be harmful or even lethal? I am old enough to say, that I have witnessed more than I can count.

[Humanist_Activist]

224. Glyphosate has been widely used for about 2 generations now, if there were adverse effects...

to exposure either in our food or during direct contact that radically affect our health, frankly we would have heard about it by now. For example, the claim that glyphosate is carcinogenic, if that were so, then we would have seen a dramatic increase in cancer rates in this country and others over the past 30 years or so. We have not, in fact, cancer rates for most types of cancer have fallen. Is it possible that everyone born since, let's say 1980, are going to develop a glyphosate triggered cancer by the time they turn 80 years old? Unlikely.

I mean, the only evidence is from a poorly managed meta-analysis that even the source studies' scientists have disavowed.

[womanofthehills]

230. FALSE - CDC says cancer on rise 24% in MEN, 21% in woman

New Cancer Cases
We predicted trends in new cancer cases and cancer deaths in the United States to the year 2020.

In this video abstract, CDC’s Dr. Hannah Weir talks about her work to project trends in new cancer cases and deaths to the year 2020. Rates for many cancers are decreasing or stabilizing, but the number of cancer cases and deaths will continue to increase.

Between 2010 and 2020, we expect the number of new cancer cases in the United States to go up about 24% in men to more than 1 million cases per year, and by about 21% in women to more than 900,000 cases per year.

The kinds of cancer we expect to increase the most are—

Melanoma (the deadliest kind of skin cancer) in white men and women.
Prostate, kidney, liver, and bladder cancers in men.
Lung, breast, uterine, and thyroid cancers in women.

Over the next decade, we expect cancer incidence rates to stay about the same, but the number of new cancer cases to go up, mostly because of an aging white population and a growing black population. Because cancer patients overall are living longer, the number of cancer survivors is expected to go up from about 11.7 million in 2007 to 18 million by 2020


http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/articles/cancer_2020.htm

[PatSeg]

234. It certainly feels like

more people are getting cancer than ever before and I've been around a long time. For a lot of people it is starting to feel inevitable, even if there is little or no cancer in their families.

[Loki Liesmith]

242. Cancer is inevitable

Live long enough and you will get it.

[Humanist_Activist]

250. Did you even read the link? It says incidences will stay the same...

The increases will be due to the aging population.

[Humanist_Activist]

212. Don't lower yourself to their level, while people like Vani Hari are unethical people...

profiting off of gullibility of others, we shouldn't debase ourselves by claiming their followers are shills. I believe they believe what they are saying, the problem is lack of education in the scientific method and biology.

[womanofthehills]

233. We get it - woman activists are not your thing

[NuclearDem]

236. Scientifically-illiterate morons are not limited to one gender.

Mike Adams and Joseph Mercola are just as bad (in many cases, are actually worse) as Food Babe and Vandana Shiva.

[womanofthehills]

243. So lets see, Food Babe is a "scientifically-illiterate moron" because she is getting GMO's,

antiobiotics, hormones, pesticides, food aditives out of our food supply.

Thank God, Food Babe that "scientifically-illiterate moran" somehow pulled herself together and got ALL THIS DONE: I guess I have to keep posting this list over and over and over.....




And that "moron" Food Babe had the nerve to want our food labeled.

[NuclearDem]

248. No, she's a scientifically-illiterate moron

because she thinks that the non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation emitted from a microwave is akin to nuclear waste, thinks airplanes are sprayed with pesticides before takeoff and that nitrogen circulated in the cabin's air is dangerous (78% of the air you breathe outside is nitrogen), is an anti-vaxxer who thinks the cure for the flu is contracting it and getting a little bit of sunshine, thinks raw milk is healthier for you, despite it carrying a much, much higher risk of E.coli and listeria, and that deodorant gives you breast cancer.

She's not an idiot because she's anti-GMO. She's an idiot because she's an idiot.

[Humanist_Activist]

245. Propogating ignorance isn't my thing, the gender of the person...

Propogating it is irrelevent.

[womanofthehills]

228. Riddle me this - answers

1. 2. Glyphosate is applied through irrigation system directly under plants - plants need to be at least 3 yrs old or they will be damaged

3. The FDA just bought 5 million dollars worth of equipment that will a measure gylphosate levels - but I would trust the tests done by private labs more than the FDA

4. How do we believe the results of the FDA's testing when they are in bed with Monsanto.

[PatSeg]

237. Revolving doors

Thought we needed a bit of humor!

[Humanist_Activist]

143. Oh look, an anti-vaxxer site...

Look at this bullshit:

http://www.healthy-holistic-living.com/vaccines-followed-tylenol-increase-risk-autism.html

Even better, examine the sources, they are a hoot, even includes OP's favorite crank, Stephanie Seneff!

[PatSeg]

160. You must be thinking someone else

I have only recently become aware of Stephanie Seneff. She is not my favorite anything, though I haven't seen any evidence that she is a "crank". I suppose that could be a good or a bad thing.

"Anti-vaxxer" as become a catch-all word to dismiss and mock pretty much anything that opposes your particular point of view. If I say "organic" = "anti-vaxxer". Sounds like a song.

[Humanist_Activist]

205. Uhm, its literally an anti-vaxxer site that claims that there is a link between Baby Tylenol...

and vaccinations to autism.

And Seneff is a crank, her "research" consists of googling for possible evidence of things that support her conclusions. She doesn't conduct science.

[RAFisher]

194. Beyond Stupid. Article just throws numbers around. Measures beer in μg/L and wine in ppb. WTF?

Do some god damn math instead of just scaring people with numbers. Use a control. Just stupid.

[PatSeg]

198. The beer tests were from Germany

Here is a Reuter's link to the German tests that may be better written. Once again the issue of a very small sampling is brought up, though I'm sure that Munich Environmental Institute will probably conduct more because of Germany's strict laws about the purity of their beer.

Under the "Reinheitsgebot", or German purity law - one of the world's oldest food safety laws and celebrating its 500th anniversary this year - brewers have to produce beer using only malt, hops, yeast and water.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-beer-idUSKCN0VY222

[workinclasszero]

203. Nothing like a big glass of Roundup to end the day!

[PatSeg]

207. And you could always follow it

with a Flint Water chaser!

[workinclasszero]

208. Yeah, how about that?

[PatSeg]

213. Now and then

I get a taste for good old fashioned DDT. Somehow food doesn't taste the same without it.