Roundup appearing in much of our food supply- FDA about to start testing for it

[hstark]

http://civileats.com/2016/02/17/fda-to-start-testing-for-glyphosate-in-food/

Exerpt:
"Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, and is the most widely used herbicide in the world. Monsanto patented the herbicide in the 1970s, and it quickly became popular for its effectiveness in killing troublesome weeds. Glyphosate use skyrocketed after Monsanto introduced “Roundup Ready” crops in the mid-1990s, which were genetically engineered to be immune to glyphosate—meaning farmers could spray the pesticide directly over the crops. There are also many non-GMO crops, including wheat, that are sprayed directly with glyphosate before being harvested to help dry them out. Glyphosate is now off patent and is used in hundreds of herbicide products around the world."

Europe all upset about the Glyphosate: http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2014/04/ext...dup-found-food
Exerpt:
"A new study led by scientists from the Arctic University of Norway has detected “extreme levels” of Roundup, the agricultural herbicide manufactured by Monsanto, in genetically engineered soy.

The study, coming out in June’s issue of Food Chemistry and available online, looked at 31 different soybean plants on Iowa farms and compared the accumulation of pesticides and herbicides on plants in three categories 1) genetically engineered “Roundup Ready” soy, 2) conventionally produced (not GE) soy, and 3) soy cultivated using organic practices. They found high levels of Roundup on 70 percent of genetically engineered soy plants.

Crop scientists have genetically engineered soy to survive blasts of Roundup so farmers can spray this chemical near crops to get rid of weeds. But some so-called “super weeds” resistant to Roundup have developed. In turn, some farmers use yet more Roundup to try to kill those hardy weeds. This leads to more Roundup chemicals being found on soybeans and ultimately in the food supply."

Effects of Glyphosate on people: http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphogen.html What are some signs and symptoms from a brief exposure to glyphosate?

Pure glyphosate is low in toxicity, but products usually contain other ingredients that help the glyphosate get into the plants. The other ingredients in the product can make the product more toxic. Products containing glyphosate may cause eye or skin irritation. People who breathed in spray mist from products containing glyphosate felt irritation in their nose and throat. Swallowing products with glyphosate can cause increased saliva, burns in the mouth and throat, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Fatalities have been reported in cases of intentional ingestion.

Pets may be at risk if they touch or eat plants that are still wet with spray from products containing glyphosate. Animals exposed to products with glyphosate may drool, vomit, have diarrhea, lose their appetite, or seem sleepy. What happens to glyphosate when it enters the body?

In humans, glyphosate does not easily pass through the skin. Glyphosate that is absorbed or ingested will pass through the body relatively quickly. The vast majority of glyphosate leaves the body in urine and feces without being changed into another chemical. Is glyphosate likely to contribute to the development of cancer?

When high doses were administered to laboratory animals, some studies suggest that glyphosate has carcinogenic potential. Studies on cancer rates in people have provided conflicting results on whether the use of glyphosate containing products is associated with cancer. Some studies have associated glyphosate use with non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

___________________

You may not want to spray RoundUp under your figs... every indication is that it will enter the fruit, it's systemic through every part of the plant. And non-Hodgkin lymphoma is a not good cancer to expose yourself, family and friends to.

[DBJohnson]

I've been saying for years that Monsanto will eventually kill us all with the happy help of their bought and paid for politicians.

[brettjm]

Hmm. Ok I'm going to sound kinda preachy, but here goes....

Roundup is an enzyme inhibitor. It prevents plants from making a specific amino acid by blocking an enzyme used to build it. There is only ONE pathway in plants to make this amino acid, and if you block it, the plant dies. Roundup ready crops work by having an alternate method of making that amino acid. Thus, "roundup ready crops" you can spray Roundup to your heart's content, and they don't care while all other plants will die. You should NEVER spray Roundup anywhere near anything you care about, plant wise, including figs! Not because its toxic to you, but because it will kill your plants!

As for safety in people, Roundup is about as safe as it gets. Super non toxic, and it is difficult to absorb into our body, so it mostly just passes through us. That enzyme it inhibits? Yeah, we don't have it (or at least ours is different enough in structure that Roundup doesn't inhibit it well). It's non-carcinogenic (passes the Ames test), and most of the studies that link it to health problems have been published/funded by biased groups (e.g. anti-GMO people), and they had to give ungodly amounts of chemical per animal to induce any kind of problems (like...many hundreds of times the amount used in practice). Soap is also safe if ingested, on skin, and whatnot. I bet if you injected 5 pounds of it daily for 6 months you'd have health problems though, right?. As for the chemicals that are often applied alongside Roundup, I admittedly don't know a lot about them, so I'll keep my trap shut.

[brettjm]

For clarification, I promise I don't work for Monsanto, though I tend to believe they are way less evil than most think. I'm fairly certain that millions of people who would have died of hunger long ago are thankful that roundup ready crops exist.

[WillsC]

Hmm. Ok I'm going to sound kinda preachy, but here goes....

Roundup is an enzyme inhibitor. It prevents plants from making a specific amino acid by blocking an enzyme used to build it. There is only ONE pathway in plants to make this amino acid, and if you block it, the plant dies. Roundup ready crops work by having an alternate method of making that amino acid. Thus, "roundup ready crops" you can spray Roundup to your heart's content, and they don't care while all other plants will die. You should NEVER spray Roundup anywhere near anything you care about, plant wise, including figs! Not because its toxic to you, but because it will kill your plants!

As for safety in people, Roundup is about as safe as it gets. Super non toxic, and it is difficult to absorb into our body, so it mostly just passes through us. That enzyme it inhibits? Yeah, we don't have it (or at least ours is different enough in structure that Roundup doesn't inhibit it well). It's non-carcinogenic (passes the Ames test), and most of the studies that link it to health problems have been published/funded by biased groups (e.g. anti-GMO people), and they had to give ungodly amounts of chemical per animal to induce any kind of problems (like...many hundreds of times the amount used in practice). Soap is also safe if ingested, on skin, and whatnot. I bet if you injected 5 pounds of it daily for 6 months you'd have health problems though, right?. As for the chemicals that are often applied alongside Roundup, I admittedly don't know a lot about them, so I'll keep my trap shut.

I could not possibly agree more. People hate Monsanto and perhaps for a good reason so they tend to hype dangers from any product linked to them. They had to inject rats with dosages of Glyphosate that were 1000's of times higher than what anyone would come in contact with just to show any damage.

[hstark]

I don't hate Monsanto. They are a business, and their business is to make GMO. But I figure there's enough toxins out there we are already exposed to that we should minimize it where we can. I read that the FDA is cracking down on the Roundup appearing in our food. I only exerpted some of the articles linked, didn't post them all, figuring anyone interested can read the entirety. Here's the first 2 paragraphs of the first link:

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the nation’s chief food safety regulator, plans to start testing certain foods for residues of the world’s most widely used weed killer after the World Health Organization’s cancer experts last year declared the chemical a probable human carcinogen.

The FDA’s move comes amid growing public concern about the safety of the herbicide known as glyphosate, and comes after the U.S Government Accountability Office (GAO)rebuked the agency for failing to do such assessments and for not disclosing that short-coming to the public."

This from the above New York Times link for the reversal on cancer position: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/bu...erns.html?_r=1

"Thirty years ago, an Environmental Protection Agencycommittee 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.

The declaration drew an angry response from Monsanto, the maker of Roundup, which has accused the agency of having an “agenda” and “cherry picking” the data to support its case.

The conclusion is “starkly at odds with every credible scientific body that has examined glyphosate safety,” Philip Miller, Monsanto’s vice president for global regulatory affairs, told reporters on Tuesday. That includes a recent review by German government regulators on behalf of the European Union.

The new controversy and the reversal by the E.P.A. decades ago demonstrate how the same data can be interpreted differently and how complicated and politically perilous such a decision can be. But the discrepancy between Monsanto and the health organization can be partly explained by the specific way its agency analyzes the data.

Officials at the agency, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, said they had no agenda other than to inform the World Health Organization. They said the conclusion was based on studies of people, laboratory animals and cells.

“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."

- The article is much longer, should read it directly... but Monsanto does have money at stake that their #1 top seller Roundup continues to be known as safe. On the other hand, Europe's health agencies and the WHO has no money at stake to tell the truth either way.

Whether we like it or not, we are eating the Roundup if it's in our oils and food supply because US cooking oil is mostly soybean oil, and the GMO controversy is mostly over that soy. The Norwegian agency tested out that we are in fact eating it anyway. It's not whether we can avoid it, we can't.

Not trying to start an argument here, I've been reading that some people like to roundup under their figs, and I just read that article about the FDA beginning to measure it, so thought I'd post a few links about it about the facts that:
1. FDA will start measuring it in food.
2. European non-monsanto controlled health organizations have linked it to cancer 'unanimously' only last year. This is new research, not old.
3. We are already eating Roundup in many foods.
4. We can choose or not choose to limit further exposure.

Roundup is expensive. I buy a bale of hay for $6, and that can make a 6" thick weed proof moisture barrier for 3-4 large trees worth of protection that will both weed and feed the plants for at least 6 months-1 year, and break down to very fertile and rich soil as the years go by. I'm frugal, and I think hay is a cheaper solution. In most states, you can have hay delivered to you. This may not be available in cities, but bagged mulch or composted cow manure is.

We DO roundup under our holly hedges at the front of the house... and seem to have way more weeds there than the hay mulched fruit trees, so they get Round up sprayed a lot, even with bark mulch.

[figgary]

Monsanto AND the FDA knew for years the dangers of glysophate, the active ingredient of roundup. Monsanto created GMO, roundup tolerant crops, to sell more roundup. GMOs have not increased crop yields. 30,000 farmers a year are committing suicide in India. Why? The seeds from Monsanto are genetically engineered to produce plants with sterile seeds. The farmer cannot save them to re-plant. He can no longer afford to farm.
Roundup is now in all of us. We have NO choice. That isn't right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_AHLDXF5aw

https://www.youtube.com/sponsored-content?prx_t=CAV0YGAx9EMA

[cis4elk]

Not to mention pollen from GMO crops being carried to Non-GMO and polluting the genetics, even if it's not supposed to.

[Harborseal]

One of the problems here is confusing Roundup with glyphosphate. Roundup kills plants in days, glyphosphate takes 1-2 weeks. Roundup has to contain another herbicide to work so fast. Probably 2,4 D. In any case the worst thing about Monsanto in the long run is their attempted control of the world's food supply but the poisons are also as bad in the short term.

[figgary]

Bob, glyphosphate IS the active ingredient in RoundUp. It was discovered in 1970 as an herbicide and plant dessicant. Monsanto introduced it as RoundUp in 1974.

[Harborseal]

It's ONE of the active ingredients. Glyphospate doesn't work as quickly as round-up does. Companies don't have to put every ingredient on the label if they're present in small amounts.

[WillsC]

Figgary,

What Bob is saying is Roundup has another chemical in it in ADDITION to glyphosate that could be doing harm.

[figgary]

I agree with that, Wills. Even the 'inert' ingredients are toxic. In 2009, researchers found that one inert ingredient of roundup " can kill human cells, particularly embryonic, placental, and umbilical cord cells." This was reported in Scientific American.

[brettjm]

Figgary,

One point in my original post is that everything is toxic in high enough doses. Water is toxic if you drink too much. You'll die from it pulling out all your electrolytes, and you go into hypoatremia. Also, as someone who does cell culture all the time (seriously, I work in a lab), I can tell you straight up that many types of cells are super sensitive to pretty much ANYTHING you throw at them.

As an aside, Scientific American is not exactly primary literature. I'm not saying there's not good stuff in there, but it does have the opportunity to be sensationalized and taken out of context versus primary literature. They are in it to make a buck, and stories like that sell, because folks love to hate Monsanto.

[smatthew]

30,000 farmers a year are committing suicide in India. Why? The seeds from Monsanto are genetically engineered to produce plants with sterile seeds. The farmer cannot save them to re-plant. He can no longer afford to farm.

I'm tired of the BS about Monsanto killing farmers in india. News flash! Indian Farmers commit suicide all the time - often as a result of usurious lending practices, and bad weather leading to crop failure. Are destitute farmers using roundup-ready seed? No, they're using open-pollinated landrace seed.Or in the case of cotton - they're using BT cotton which has been adopted by 90% of indian cotton farmers, provides significant cost savings in spray reduction, and has increased the yield of cotton by over 50% in india.

[figgary]

Sorry Scott, I didn't realize that you'd been to India interviewing the farmers and their families. I was going on the Documentary film 'Bitter Seeds'. I should have known that they made it all up. My bad.

[smatthew]

That documentary is not without its detractors, including the influential journal Nature. Their analysis showed that the suicide rate increased before Bt cotton was introduced to India and has not increased since. Furthermore, farmers' profits (on average) increased 50% due to yield increases from transgenic cotton.

[smatthew]

Figgary,

What Bob is saying is Roundup has another chemical in it in ADDITION to glyphosate that could be doing harm.

The only other chemical in roundup is a spreading agent. That agent is highly toxic to aquatic life.

But there is NO 2,4D in roundup.

[Harborseal]

Then why does Roundup now work in less than a week when 20 years ago it took 2 weeks? Generic glyphosphate still takes 2 weeks.

[bamafig]

I guess the roundup is now genetically modified as well.

[don_sanders]

It's hard to know what to believe these days with all of the sensationalism.

[DBJohnson]

Don't like big megcorps that care more for the bottom line than people's health and safety.

Don't trust a government that has consistently demonstrate that they are ready to be bought by the highest bidder.

Put the two together and I'm completely skeptical of anything either of the two have to say. GMO tampers with the way nature is suppose to work.

[cjmach1973]

Someone said the Ponte Tresa figs were toxic, so you need to send them all to me so I can destroy them for you. Ship them quickly to limit your exposure.

[hstark]

But... hay is cheaper than Roundup anyway, so you save money and reduce cancer risk... win win!!!

[cjmach1973]

The worms love the hay too.

[cjmach1973]

"In your journey through life, try to leave as small a footprint as you can".

[Pino]

Thanks for the interesting topic hstark!

Glysophate(roundup) was the hit in the early 70's that made Monsanto what they are today..lol

Now sInce year 2000 when their patent expired there are dozens of products that use glysophate. Who's counting? Who's checking? We'll never know in our lifetime all the real effects of this incredibly popular systematic herbicide that literally everyone is using.

For sure I would not use it near any of my food sources especially not near my fig trees. It does get absorbed and damage tree trunks and it does accumulate in the trees and soil.

But this is small change compared to the ocean of GMO being released on us.
Just saw a news story that most if not all farmed salmon in Canada is GMO and there is no legal requirement to label it GMO.

[brettjm]

You are correct in your long term assessment of glyphosphate. Long term, we CANNOT know what it might do, because it hasn't been around long enough (though it is starting to get close). It is possible it might increase the risk of Alzheimer's, or something. I will admit, as generally "pro roundup" as I am, there aren't long term studies that have been say, 50+ years of tracking people. Those types of studies are rare though, even for things we use on a daily basis.

[hstark]

It's a controversial subject... but I thought the news that the FDA was going to test for residue is a good thing. Whether GMO's are safe or not is still up for debate. I've personally been leaning towards GENERALLY safe because many versions may be like naturally hybridizing for plant vigor. But the DNA altering by adding non-original plant matter is a bit troublesome... maybe our bodies break them down into constituent chemicals when they pass through our digestion, so I try not to be too bothered by the idea too much since we can't fully control every ingredient in what we eat.

Chemicals that have very specific effects on enzymes and proteins are different. They are too new to fully appreciate the effect. The lawsuits over drug effects (think Thalidomide caused flipper babies) informs us that new chemicals are not entirely predictable in the human body. When I read some fig growers say they used roundup under their figs (on a different forum), I thought the subject should be brought up.

The definition of cancer is simply the abnormal growth of cells. Something organic or inorganic shuts something off in one cell of the billions in our body, and it goes crazy replicating. Just 1 cell out of billions gets corrupted at the core, and it goes wacky and can kill us. It seems that while we can't change everything, we try to change the things we can, to not take unnecessary risks. Besides, hay and composted cow manure are cheaper.

[brettjm]

GMOs....that's a topic I'm actually well versed in. GMOs are amazingly safe, for us at least. We've domesticated all crops to what they are today. That's thousands of rounds of selective breeding, done by man, to produce the heirloom Cherokee Purple tomato you might grow in your garden, or Granny Smith apple you buy at the grocery store. That's genetic (DNA) manipulation of plants (by man) over several thousand years, and no one questions it: the very definition of a GMO, just over a long period of time. With laboratory GMOs, we just take genes and transfer them across species. Believe it or not, this CAN happen naturally via a critter called a retrovirus, but it happens in a non-directed manner (e.g. randomly). Anyways, if we take a protein from a cow, and force a salmon to make that protein, then that salmon grows huge, what difference does it make? We eat the protein found in the cow anyways. Now its in salmon. Doesn't really matter where its coming from...its the same damn protein! That protein hits your stomach acid and a few digestive enzymes, and it's broken down to a few amino acids, just like any other protein. As a bonus, GMOs can (and do) help increase crop production worldwide. GMOs have even been developed to cause certain plants to make more vitamins to combat malnutrition in some parts of the world. Pretty sweet, right?

Now the downside. Yes, GMOs have their problems. They are spectacularly safe to eat, which is why the FDA hasn't require labeling. It's also why most of Europe is rather stupid in their ongoing battle against GMOs. I honestly equate that battle to the same folks who are anti-vaccination, then their kids die from whooping cough and they get all pissed off. The problem with GMOs is that they can get out and screw with local populations of stuff. Salmon that grow bigger, if they escape captivity, out-compete native populations, and can disrupt the food chain. They're supposed to be sterile, I think, but that hasn't been perfect. If I'm not mistaken, the gene for roundup ready crops has now been found in other plants, suggesting it has gotten out into the native population of plants. Those types of things HAVE to be better controlled if we are to continue to use GMOs.

I'll try to answer questions on the subject today if anyone has any.

[brettjm]

Fair enough. I understand that some folks want to make their own choice on what to eat. That being said, most produce at the grocery is non-gmo. Corn and soy products are the big 2 I think. I think most companies are avoiding the investment for fear of product labeling in the future, which due to poor public outreach on the subject (their fault), would devastate sales.

[figgary]

brett, also Papayas from Hawaii, some zucchini and crookneck squash, cotton, canola, and sugar beets. GMO corn oil, canola oil, cottonseed oil, or soy oil is in nearly all processed foods. GMO corn syrup is in most sweetened drinks, sodas, etc. GMOs are nearly impossible to avoid. Even most beers have GMO ingredients. There is a good, NON-GMO Verified program, which more companies are applying for.

[hstark]

Thanks for the heads up on this Figgary... I found the list of currently Non-GMO Verified products... going to start buying these when I can: http://www.nongmoproject.org/find-no...ting-products/

[cis4elk]

I remember required labeling of GMO containing products being on a ballot at one time in Colorado. They played it as a burden to the poor farmers who would end up getting hurt because of the all the "relabeling" and such that would result. But it would just be the CO farmers, we would be the only ones, then it would increase the cost of groceries to everyone in CO for the same reasons (as well as some other well thought out arguments) and that would be a financial burden on struggling families. The "No" side had much better advertising than the "YES" side. I completely agree it should be labeled, you should be able to go to a Kroger store and walk down the isles until you find the GMO isle if you want. I don't think it would last long like that.

Selective breeding and hybridizing are not even in the same universe as gene splicing. Pollen to ovum, if it takes..great, it happened because it is naturally able to. Some GMOs I admit aren't that extremely out of the ball park, like the Arctic apple that doesn't brown. But others are like..forget about species, genus, or even the same family...they are jumping to phylum and kingdom! Nature doesn't do that and neither should we.

[brettjm]

Nature can (and does) do it, actually . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

It's pretty common in bacteria, actually, but it happens in larger organisms as well, just not as frequently.

[hstark]

Just found this article... hmmm: http://www.gmoseralini.org/seralinis...cide-research/

"On 25 November 2015, the High Court of Paris indicted Marc Fellous, former chairman of France’s Biomolecular Engineering Commission, for “forgery” and “the use of forgery”, in a libel trial that he lost to Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini. The Biomolecular Engineering Commission has authorised many GM crops for consumption.

The details of the case have not yet been publicly released but a source close to the case told GMWatch that Fellous had used or copied the signature of a scientist without his agreement to argue that Séralini and his co-researchers were wrong in their reassessment of Monsanto studies.

The Séralini team’s re-assessment reported finding signs of toxicity in the raw data from Monsanto’s own rat feeding studies with GM maize.

The sentence against Fellous has not yet been passed and is expected in June 2016.

Defamation case

The latest ruling marks a second court victory for Séralini’s team.

In September 2012, an article written by Jean-Claude Jaillette in Marianne magazine said that “researchers around the world” had voiced “harsh words” about the research of Séralini and his team on the toxic effects of a GMO and Roundup over a long term period – research that was supported by the independent organisation CRIIGEN. The journalist wrote of a “scientific fraud in which the methodology served to reinforce pre-determined results”.

Séralini, his team, and CRIIGEN challenged this allegation in a defamation lawsuit. They were assisted by the notaries Bernard Dartevelle and Cindy Gay.

On 6 November 2015, after a criminal investigation lasting three years, the 17th Criminal Chamber of the High Court of Paris passed sentence. Marianne magazine and its journalist were fined for public defamation of a public official and public defamation of the researchers and of CRIIGEN, which is chaired by Dr Joel Spiroux de Vendômois.

The trial demonstrated that the original author of the fraud accusation, prior to Marianne, was the American lobbyist Henry I. Miller in Forbes magazine.

Miller had previously lobbied to discredit research linking tobacco to cancer and heart disease on behalf of the tobacco industry. Since then he has tried to do the same in support of GMOs and pesticides, through defamation.

The long-term toxicity study by Séralini’s team was republished after the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology retracted it under pressure from lobbyists. Séralini’s team has just published a summary of the toxic effects of Roundup below regulatory thresholds."

[hstark]

And: http://yournewswire.com/scientist-wh...-wins-lawsuit/

Exerpt:
"This was the second such court victory for the professor’s team, following a November 6 victory in adefamation lawsuit over an article in the French Marianne magazine which categorized the Séralini team research as “scientific fraud”.

What few people realize about the original Séralini study on GMOs is that it was only retracted after a serious PR offensive from Monsanto and the Biotech industry, one that included the creation of a whole new position on the original Food and Toxicology journal: Associate Editor for Biotechnology.

The new position was actually filled by a former Monsanto employee who helped convince the journal’s author to retract the study.

Now more than 2 years later, these are the facts: Séralini and his team’s original study has been republished in a different peer-reviewed journal, Environmental Sciences Europe; they have won two key lawsuits against those who have attempted to ruin their reputations; and a recent peer-reviewed letter even asserted that Séralini and his team may have been right after all on their discovery showing tumors in lab rats fed GMOs.

In other words, the jury is still out on GMO safety to say the very least, just as countless independent scientists have warned, and Séralini’s study stands as yet another cause for concern with the ongoing GMO experiment. It also shows the lengths that the Biotech industry will go to in order to discredit any independent science that clashes with their own version of science."

[brettjm]

Here's what Wiki had to say on it. Some folks don't trust Wiki...I find it correct or very near correct 99% of the time.

"The study was criticized by various regulatory authorities and scientists. With few exceptions, the scientific community dismissed the study and called for a more rigorous peer-review system in scientific journals."

Scientists generally do not hesitate to call other scientists out on crappy science. If anyone is interested, read this section of the Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A...fic_evaluation
It overviews the main criticisms of the paper pretty well. Good wiki article. I particularly liked this bit: "In addition, if the survival of the rats is less than 50% at 104 weeks (which is likely for Sprague-Dawley rats) the recommended number of rats is 65.[3][36][37] The Séralini study had only ten per group.[3]" So they used really inappropriate statistics and used about 15% of the animals they should have for a study like that, then drew conclusions on that really small sample size.

So remember the paper where one lab said vaccines caused autism? That single, @@@@ing paper (please censor me if you see fit, moderators) has caused hundreds of kids to die, because stupid, naive parents think they know better than "scientists." That paper was full of misrepresented or straight up falsified data, and that P.O.S. guy fought until the bitter end about how everyone was out to get him. Finally he conceded, but the damage was done. It was all about publicity (and that's what I think this scientist's deal is). So if, and to quote wiki "With few exceptions, the scientific community dismissed the study," then you should better believe that it was a crappy study. Also, not all journals undergo peer review. Most do, and sometimes they only get looked at by 1 or 2 folks. A lot of smaller journals (like the one that republished that article) don't have the resources that the big journals have to fact check everything.

I also have no problem with Monsanto (among a ton of others, including non-biotech people) calling for retraction of those papers. If it really was crappy science (and it sounds like it was), then at the very least they should have redone the experiments with better controls, larger sample size, etc.

Sorry, rant over. I don't think I'm going to be convincing anyone that GMO's are safe for us, and that avoiding them is (mostly) silly, but I'll be damned if I didn't try.

[hstark]

Well, Wiki is typically edited by Americans. The study was done by French researchers in France. French researchers probably don't spend their time scouring our Wiki to make corrections in English. Anyone can technically edit a Wiki, see the edit button next to the paragraph you linked? Press it. If the volunteer google reviewer (and anyone can apply to be a google reviewer) lets it stand, it stands. I do agree with you that Wiki is mostly accurate. Where it gets gray is when they refer to foreign situations, who don't know about it to correct.

Besides, both articles I linked mentioned the attacks on the Seralini studies. Further, it appears that Monsanto's European supporters (who stood to make a whole lot of money distributing Monsanto's sterile seed) even got the courts involved... twice. And lost, twice. But that's only 1 study, and science is only science if it can withstand challenges, as you pointed out.

17 scientists got together (see original article I started the thread with), from all different nations, conducted their own research and validation... and UNANIMOUSLY agreed (pretty unprecedented) that GMO can pose a cancer risk to humans. Not just from the one Seralini study, which was cited, but
" the conclusion was based on studies of people, laboratory animals and cells.
“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."

Three lines of study, people, laboratory animals, and cells, not simply Seralini's single study, for which study he was recently exonerated in court per the article. And this from multi-national scientists, chaired by a retired US National Cancer Institute scientist (who ought to know something about cancer).

I'd say that's conclusive that GMO can cause cancer. I have never heard of a scientific position that is more broadly accepted than 'unanimously' by lead cancer scientists from many different nations of the world.

All that said, we're eating GMO anyway, because it's already in our food. We can pretend it's not putting us at risk ... but we are still pretending. But we don't have to eat more of it... didn't you mention moderation?

As for the vaccinations causes autism... as you say, that's ONE study. The GMO was apparently more than 1 study.

[figgary]

You did try, brett. These topics are hot potatoes, but I'd like to add a few more points. The purpose of many GMOs is that they can be sprayed with RoundUp. Monsanto sells both. Though many feel it harmless to humans, latest studies have shown that it binds to minerals in the body, making them unavailable. It has also been shown to kill bacteria in the gut, particularly beneficial bacteria. Leaky gut is just one of the consequences. The World Health Organization has found glyphosate to be a "probable carcinogen." Since 1974, 3.5 BILLION lbs of RoundUp have been used in the U.S. As frightening as that is, it is only 19% of what has been used worldwide. You cannot avoid it, it is everywhere.

[brettjm]

Gary,

What's interesting to me is that the science behind it doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm intrigued at why they reclassified it from "possibly carcinogenic" to "probably carcinogenic." Found an article on the subject...some of the studies mentioned are crap (like the rat study mentioned above that got retracted), but I'm not as familiar with some of the others, so I cannot comment. Most carcinogens have mechanistic functions. For example, I use ethidium bromide every day in lab. It's what we call a "DNA intercalator." Basically, it sticks between the bases of your DNA (which is actually the exact reason we use it...long story, not important). When your DNA undergoes replication, the ethidium bromide gets in the way, and can cause DNA damage. Still, it's only considered a "probable carcinogen," and is actually non-toxic to rats, mice, cows, and humans. We treat it like its dangerous though, just in case.

My point is, typically there is a REASON things are reclassified. Ethidium bromide sticks to DNA bases. Other chemicals destroy enzymes that repair DNA, or otherwise modify it. There are a thousand different ways this can happen. What's frustrating to me is that none of those things have been described for glyphosphate. I'll buy that it screws with gut microbes, which can be important for a variety of reasons, but then again, so does eating yogurt every day, or taking a dose of antibiotics for a sinus infection...maybe it matters to our overall health maybe not. I'm just not sold on it being dangerous until there is a mechanism that is described (and accepted) by the scientific community for it being dangerous.

Aside from the carcinogen stuff...

I personally think the GMOs themselves have absolutely zero negative health impacts. I'd bet all the beer in my house (sadly, not that much..but still) and all my fig trees (sacrilege!) on it, though proving a negative is difficult. From an anatomy perspective, and from a science perspective, it simply doesn't add up that GMOs are harmful. As for glyphosphate, the jury is still out. I think that the current science shows it is mostly, if not completely harmless at the doses that your average consumer is exposed to. As for farmers, MAYBE they come into contact with high enough amounts for it to cause problems. Maybe. Still, you gotta remember that EVERYTHING can and will give you cancer (not literally, but still). The char-marks on your steak, for example, are carcinogenic and have been linked to throat and stomach cancer. Does anyone stop eating steak? I suppose the difference is that you have a choice of whether to eat the steak, or smoke cigarettes, stay in the sun too long, or whatever your poison is...but until there are concrete reasons why we should avoid glyphosphate, I suppose I just don't see having a choice as important. When the day comes that 10+ independent labs funded by non-biased groups come to the conclusion that glyphosphate is dangerous, and the rest of the scientific community accepts it, I suppose I'll lay down my weapon.

As for all the Monsanto hate, I've mostly snagged information from Wikipedia reading up on the subject. Documentaries are generally built around a narrative. "We think there is a problem, let's go interview 10,000 people, and take the 10 who agree with us to help our argument." Wikipedia is quite raw...it can be pretty boring, but its typically not too biased, and the nice part is the information has citations. The vast majority of the lawsuits Monsanto has started involve people who intentionally broke the contract they signed with Monsanto. The best part? Monsanto donates 100% of the proceeds from their lawsuits to charity. Now, it's unfortunate that often-times Monsanto is the only vendor available for large amounts of seed in parts of the world, but that's not exactly Monsanto's fault (though I do not know whether they offer heirloom vs GMO seeds...probably not). They do tend to have a lot of political sway, and a lot of ex-Monsanto employees end up on commissions, panels, etc that decide how things are labeled, where things are distributed, etc. There's good reason for that though...they employ a TON of people, and those people are well-qualified for the government positions they take. I sold shoes as a part time job in my undergradate. I'm well qualified to sell you shoes that will help your feet. I don't give a damn about the company I worked for though. They can rot, for all I care. Just because you are a "former employee" doesn't make you a dedicated slave, and that's important to keep in mind.

Hope this helps with my viewpoints a bit. I do appreciate the discussion, and my goal is never to completely sway someone. Like I said, not sure I'll convince anyone, but I do think many have the wrong picture, and I want to paint a picture that at leaves gives people something to think about....the pro-GMO side of the argument should be heard, at the very least. If folks really truly want GMO-labeled items at the grocery, fine; but I think the public, as a country, should be educated on what GMOs actually are, how they are made, and why they are not dangerous to us, but may be bad for the environment. I think most in the scientific community don't consider them dangerous, but most people don't sit down and read scientific journals daily (I don't blame them...it can be awesomely boring sometimes). No one writes articles on why GMOs are safe...that doesn't sell. But if you can sell GMOs as the boogieman...big bad Monsanto is giving you cancer and causes 30,000 Indians to kill themselves every year (sorry, you had that coming...that was a very silly and out of context statistic)...THAT sells to the public, unfortunately.

[hstark]

Well, here's the problem Brett... who would fund these studies in the USA anymore? Our budget for science are not what they once were. On the other hand, Europe and Asia are still forging ahead in research... and these are the people saying GMO cause cancer. They have no horse in the race, why would they bother lying about it? Monsanto and their affliates have a VERY large financial stake in its safety. Trillions of dollars. So on the one hand, can you trust researchers who don't really care other than the science or on the other hand, trust Monsanto and affiliates who make money if it's safe, and will defend it whatever it takes because if it's not safe, they will be financially ruined.

I just think it's rare for someone self interested financially to be right about an issue that scientists with no stake argue about. Sort of like if you want to buy a car, and the dealer's mechanic says it's perfect, do you trust him or the independent mechanic you took it to for a 2nd opinion telling you it's got major issues?

[brettjm]

I think our budget for science is actually the biggest in the world. The US budget for science is the 2nd highest among the G8 (france, germany, US, Russia, Japan, Italy, Canada, UK) based on GDP. Only Germany beat us out, but our GDP is way higher than all of those countries, so the total amount of money is waaaay higher in the US. As for Europe/Asia saying it causes cancer, you're forgetting that most of the scientific community dismissed that work by Séralini. They thought it was crap. It was crap. If it's a crap study, no one should trust the data. That has nothing to do with Monsanto. Monsanto just pushed to get it retracted.

I do agree that you shouldn't necessarily trust science when there is self-interest involved, but I'm sure Monsanto isn't the only one who has confirmed these studies, plus most of them have federal oversight. That doesn't mean there wasn't influence, but I'm willing to bet you should trust that data more than you think.

Edit: Forgot a word.

[figgary]

We agree to disagree, then. But relying on Wikipedia for unbiased info, really? That site was outed 10 years ago.

[brettjm]

Sorry you feel that way. While not perfect, it's probably the single greatest source of information the world has ever known. You've been relying on documentaries, youtube, and tertiary literature for your information, so you're not really one to criticize.

[FMD]

Great discussion on an incendiary topic...without the F4F flamethrowing and name-calling.

[brettjm]

We've been trying. It's certainly inflammatory. Good discussions are often inflammatory though...as long as they end with a drink shared between the parties involved and a handshake, or whatever the internet equivalent is. Happy figging?

[lilfiggy]

a very interesting scary and informative postings by everyone. I learned a lot and wish we had good natural food available instead of doctored products. I know there are sections in our stores that say organic but really are they? we will never truly know in my opinion unless you have a farm nearby that practices organic standards but that is a way small source for our nutritional needs and who knows what is in that bag of flour sack of grits bag of beans etc?