[PrestonSturges]

Curiously, I got it (or it got bad enough to feel really ill) about a year after the only time I used Roundup (and got some on my skin). I've since checked online and there is apparently a lot of debate over whether Roundup could be responsible for a lot of celiac disease.

Either that or my mainly pizza and sandwich diet working away from home at the time was the tipping point.

The nice lady (Stephanie Seneff) pushing that "theory" about Roundup is that programmer from MIT and she is also an antivaxxer who says on youtube that nobody should be getting vaccinated for anything. So if by "debate" you mean insane people shouting gibberish, yes. Of course, someone will say "Just because she's a militant antivaxer doesn't mean she's wrong about other things!"

[davep]

There were plenty of different scientific pieces. Something designed to kill stuff could easily do damage to our gut flora, with potentially negative longer-term complications.

But correlation does not imply causation. It may have been a total coincidence in my case.

[Cog]

It could if it was designed to kill gut flora, which it is not. Roundup is one of the most researched herbicides known to man. It is harmless to humans when applied correctly to crops.

Just one of many that I could list

http://www.google.com/url?url=http://sc ... i6pQ_-fV_g

[davep]

It could if it was designed to kill gut flora, which it is not. Roundup is one of the most researched herbicides known to man. It is harmless to humans when applied correctly to crops.

Just one of many that I could list

http://www.google.com/url?url=http://sc ... i6pQ_-fV_g

It's a broad spectrum systemic herbicide. Your review is 16 years old. This is slightly more recent http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23224412

The effect of glyphosate on potential pathogens and beneficial members of poultry microbiota in vitro.

The presented results evidence that the highly pathogenic bacteria as Salmonella Entritidis, Salmonella Gallinarum, Salmonella Typhimurium, Clostridium perfringens and Clostridium botulinum are highly resistant to glyphosate. However, most of beneficial bacteria as Enterococcus faecalis, Enterococcus faecium, Bacillus badius, Bifidobacterium adolescentis and Lactobacillus spp. were found to be moderate to highly susceptible.

[Cog]

In vitro results? Test tubes. Salt is poisonous to bacteria in certain concentrations. Should we ban salt? Come now. You know damn well that you have to do animal and human studies on effects. Those have been done. The results are that the EPA and the FDA has concluded that glyphosate is not harmful to humans when applied properly to crops. Show me a peer-reviewed study that shows otherwise.

Like I originally stated, if Round-up is used in the proper application it is no threat to humans. There are many studies both in humans and animals that have confirmed this fact.

Bottom line is doomers hate corporations of all types. They hate when humans can enhance product yields by use GMO and herbicides. Why is this? My only conclusion is that doomers want more people dead than alive. At least Montequest was honest about this.

[davep]

If it kills beneficial gut flora and doesn't kill damaging gut flora, it doesn't need to be done on animals or humans and your salt analogy falls down.

Why jump to defend something with an ancient article you googled? Can you not entertain the idea that a poison could be potentially dangerous? I'm not anti-corporation, I'm anti-bad shit that happened to me. C Difficile etc have become more prevalent recently, which would correlate with increasing use of glyphosate. Yes, correlation does not imply causation, but it does mean more such studies are needed to gauge the extent of the risk. But you'd rather accuse me of being anti-corporate and come out with some BS about salt than actually consider mitigating potential risk.

Here's an interesting article from 2015 that goes into the ongoing risks of glyphosate http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150422-glyphosate-roundup-herbicide-weeds/ including the increasing use for dessication, and the unknown dangers of low, long-term exposure (oh, and the UN report saying it's a potential carcinogen).

[Cog]

where is your peer reviewed paper that shows that round up is harmful to humans? National Geographic article does not count as a peer-reviewed paper, by the way.I can post much more recent studies on roundup if you are too lazy to do the research yourself. just let me know.

[davep]

where is your peer reviewed paper that shows that round up is harmful to humans? National Geographic article does not count as a peer-reviewed paper, by the way.I can post much more recent studies on roundup if you are too lazy to do the research yourself. just let me know.

You cited a paper that was sixteen years old. The NG article was a synthesis of current concerns. And one of the major ones was Despite its widespread use, USGS hydrologist Paul Capel said there is “a dearth of information” on what happens to it once it is used. [in the environment]. That means there have not been studies of its impact once it gets into the environment, and hence the questions over long-term exposure.

And if you'd bothered checking the links in the article you'd see references to studies done by the WHO (for the cancer link) and others for the combined effects of glyphosate and the other agents it's combined with that are never actually tested together, yet are biologically active. Etc etc.

And are you suggesting my original link to the effects on gut flora isn't peer reviewed? If so, why? Your clown dancing routine is getting dull.

[Cog]

Still waiting on the peer reviewed paper that suggests that Round up is harmful to humans. I guess I have time enough to wait before Round up kills me.

Your gut flora paper shows what happens in a test tube. That is not a peer-reviewed paper on what happens to humans with the dosages that humans are exposed to. Those papers indicate there is no harm to humans. Prove me wrong. You can be the hero here. Just cite the paper.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I just noticed this. (Sorry if a repeat).

So, it would seem that the WHO's claim that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic in humans" is at odds with other credible agencies. Apparently their findings are also highly biased, as they ignore data they don't like and also sources they don't like, and will declare a few positive findings enough to declare a hazard while they IGNORE negative studies.

Funny, if this kind of blatant bias came from an industry study, the GMO haters would have a fit. But if its from the WHO and supports their position, then mum's the word. Nice (NOT). Credible (NOT).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate

World Health Organization position[edit]
In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer published a summary of their forthcoming monograph on glyphosate, and classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic in humans" (category 2A) based on epidemiological studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies; it noted that there was "limited evidence" of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.[5][11][12][65] The German Institute for Risk Assessment responded that the work group reviewed only a selection of what they had reviewed earlier, and argued that other studies, among them the widely-cited cohort study Agricultural Health Study, do not support the classification.[66] The IARC report did not include the German regulatory study published in December 2014, nor did it include industry-funded studies. The IARC also does not conduct risk assessment; their goal is to classify carcinogenic potential, and "a few positive findings can be enough to declare a hazard, even if there are negative studies as well."[67]

Glyphosate toxicity[edit]
Human toxicity[edit]
Human acute toxicity is dose-related. Acute fatal toxicity has been reported in deliberate overdose.[56][57] Early epidemiological studies did not find associations between long-term low-level exposure to glyphosate and any disease.[58][59][60] In 2013 the European commission reviewed a 2002 finding that had concluded equivocal evidence existed of a relationship between glyphosate exposure during pregnancy and cardiovascular malformations and found the evidence "fails to support a potential risk for increased cardiovascular defects as a result of glyphosate exposure during pregnancy."[61] A 2013 review found that neither glyphosate nor typical glyphosate-based formulations (GBFs) pose a genotoxicity risk in humans under normal conditions of human or environmental exposures.[62]
US Environmental Protection Agency position[edit]
The EPA, which last reviewed glyphosate in 1993, considers glyphosate to be noncarcinogenic and relatively low in dermal and oral acute toxicity.[33] The EPA considered a "worst case" dietary risk model of an individual eating a lifetime of food derived entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields with residues at their maximum levels. This model indicated that no adverse health effects would be expected under such conditions.[33] As of March 2015, the EPA was in the midst of reviewing glyphosate's toxicity.[5]
European Food Safety Authority position[edit]
A 2013 systematic review by the German Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), conducted as part of the EFSA's review process, examined epidemiological studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies that it found valid, and found that "no classification and labelling for carcinogenicity is warranted" and did not recommend a carcinogen classification of either 1A or 1B.[9]:Volume 1, p139, see also 34–37 It was provided to the EFSA in January 2014 and published by the EFSA in December 2014[9][63][64]

[PrestonSturges]

where is your peer reviewed paper that shows that round up is harmful to humans? National Geographic article does not count as a peer-reviewed paper, by the way.I can post much more recent studies on roundup if you are too lazy to do the research yourself. just let me know.

You cited a paper that was sixteen years old.
...
suggesting my original link to the effects on gut flora isn't peer reviewed? If so, why? Your clown dancing routine is getting dull.

OK, I'm going to say this once, because this state of the art microbiology, well state of the art for 1940 anyway.

If you grow bacteria in vitro, you see all sorts of things. Specifically, you get to see which bacteria can grow on little more than a carbon source on "minimal media"

(wikipedia)

Minimal media are those that contain the minimum nutrients possible for colony growth, generally without the presence of amino acids, and are often used by microbiologists and geneticists to grow "wild type" microorganisms. Minimal media can also be used to select for or against recombinants or exconjugants.
Minimal medium typically contains:
a carbon source for bacterial growth, which may be a sugar such as glucose, or a less energy-rich source like succinate
various salts, which may vary among bacteria species and growing conditions; these generally provide essential elements such as magnesium, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur to allow the bacteria to synthesize protein and nucleic acid
water
Supplementary minimal media are a type of minimal media that also contains a single selected agent, usually an amino acid or a sugar. This supplementation allows for the culturing of specific lines of auxotrophic recombinants.

If you grow bacteria on minimal media (in vitro) and add roundup, which makes them fail to grow because it interferes with the shikimate pathway this HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW BACTERIA WOULD GROW ON RICH MEDIA OR IN VIVO because they get the amino acids they need from their environment. That's simply the whole basis of microbial genetics.

Fine, if someone just stepped out of a time machine from the 1930s, we would not expect them to know that. But for someone today who claims to care so very very much about these "issues" that they berate people using their supposed expertise, it's just pedantic anti-intellectual hooliganism.

And of course the same people that reject basic plant science have no trouble rejecting basic microbiology and no problem reject vaccinations. Follow the issue and you'll see how many of these people pass through homeless shelters, and no wonder! Jesus, everyone is in denial about something, but trying to knock down reality itself like so many bowling pins doesn't end very well. If I ever went that route, I'd at least hope to end up in a mental happy place rather than a pit of psychopathic anger.

[PrestonSturges]

And I just want to add that in many cases these are also the same people that are animal rights activists that claim the only possible reason for animal research is pure sadism and evil and they are somehow saving the world by ranting at strangers. Some of these people have been ranting away for literally 30 or 40 years, bouncing from issue to issue.

[vox_mundi]

Finally,' FDA Will Start Testing Food for Presence of Monsanto's Controversial Glyphosate

The Food and Drug Administration will begin testing food for glyphosate, the world’s most commonly used pesticide, according to Civil Eats. This marks the first time a U.S. agency will routinely test for glyphosate residue in food. It comes after the Government Accountability Office released a report condemning the FDA for failing to disclose its failure to test for glyphosate in its annual pesticide residue report.

The World Health Organization found that glyphosate, commonly known as Roundup, was a probable human carcinogen and has been named as a leading cause of massive declines in monarch butterflies.

“In the wake of intense scrutiny, the Food and Drug Administration has finally committed to taking this basic step of testing our food for the most commonly used pesticide. It’s shocking that it’s taken so long, but we’re glad it’s finally going to happen,” Nathan Donley, a scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity, said. “More and more scientists are raising concerns about the effects of glyphosate on human health and the environment. With about 1.7 billion pounds of this pesticide used each year worldwide, the FDA’s data is badly needed to facilitate long-overdue conversations about how much of this chemical we should tolerate in our food.”

Leading scientists published an article about the exploding use of glyphosate around the world in yesterday’s issue of the journal Environmental Health. Pointing to concerns over rapidly increasing use, outdated science and the WHO’s finding, the authors called on regulatory agencies to take a fresh look at the real-world impacts of glyphosate and to start monitoring its levels in people and in food.

“The alarm bell is ringing loud and clear. The current cavalier use of glyphosate and lax regulation, cannot remain in place,” Donley said. “It’s long past time to start reining in the out-of-control use of this dangerous pesticide in the United States and around the world.”

Just last week 35 members of the U.S. House of Representatives sent a letter to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy expressing concerns regarding the potential negative health and environmental impacts of a pesticide, Enlist Duo, that combines glyphosate and 2,4-D. EPA is currently reanalyzing its decision to register the dangerous pesticide following a remand order from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Monsanto is also now embroiled in a legal battle with the state of California over the state’s move to list glyphosate as a carcinogen under Proposition 65 law. As the legal battle plays out California, a new report from the Center for Biological Diversity found that more than half of the glyphosate sprayed in the state was applied in the state’s eight most impoverished counties.

[KaiserJeep]

Just because you repeated those quotes does not mean that the actions enumerated therein will happen.

Monsanto's glyphosate-resistant corn varieties are GMO plant varieties. They however enable "no-till" agriculture which along with other unsustainable practices such as the direct injection of gaseous ammonia into the ground, boost the corn production to somewhere in the 100X to 150X the yield of the same ground using organic farming methods (the range of yields is seasonal rainfall variations). American farmers thus produce enormous amounts of corn (and other grains) from what is essentially a sterile growing medium which they add chemicals to - which is why I did not call it "soil".

The corn is used to produce ethanol which comprises 10% by volume of the "normal" gasoline sold in the USA, or 85% of the E85 grade. Banning glyphosate would only happen after you have vanquished the ethanol lobby in Congress, which has thus far proved invincible.

Americans do not eat this corn directly (it would have to be labelled as a GMO) but we do consume the corn sweetener which is the same substance used to brew the ethanol, in approximately 40% of the packaged foods in our supermarkets. Such foods are not labelled as GMO's because the glyphosate-resistant corn is blended with other corn varieties before the corn sweetener is produced - a loophole in the law. The remnants of the corn after ethanol production are enriched with more GMO corn plus chopped cornstalks ("silage") and fed to cattle.

Incidentally, the corn sweetener added to so much of our food promotes obesity and adult-onset or Type 2 diabetes, not only from excess calories, but because the corn sweetener contains a natural chemical that suppresses serotonin production - aka that "I'm full" glow.

These cattle are fed enormous amounts of corn, and injected with antibiotics to minimize the losses due to the digestive tract tumors the GMO corn causes, and injected with artificial hormones (yet another petrochemical) to increase their growth rates. The high grain diet and the hormones are adjusted until the resulting fatty meat just barely meets the USDA standard for "Choice" grade beef when slaughtered at an absurdly young age. This fatty beef is however the main source of cholesterol in American diets (The "Prime" grades of meat are produced from cattle fed with some amounts of grass and which exercise more in a pasture rather than a feedlot). (Knowing all too much about this, I buy grass-fed beef and bison meat - even though most bison in America is owned by that flaming liberal, Ted Turner.)

Enough of this corn is exported (mainly to places like Africa and India) as to make the difference between starvation and mere malnutrition for approximately 82 million people, who would actually die without cheap American grain.

Good luck with your crusade against glyphosate - I will be mightily impressed if you get anywhere with this, considering the armies of lobbyists arrayed against declaring glyphosate to be a carcinogen.

[vox_mundi]

It's a tough call

http://bestdemotivationalposters.com/wp ... osters.jpg

http://newsexaminer.net/wp-content/uplo ... -twain.jpg

[dohboi]

KJ, vox clearly doesn't have the stomach, and I'm not sure how far I can stomach wading through your random rant.

But just to start out:

""no-till" agriculture which along with other unsustainable practices"

no-till is not an unsustainable practice and can be done without herbicides. Look up 'crimping.' Or see here: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_D ... 018551.pdf

"[chemical based corn production methods] boost the corn production to somewhere in the 100X to 150X the yield of the same ground using organic farming methods"

Wow. Just wow. I won't ask where you even got such a fantastic number.

For some glimmering of reality, you might start here:

Organic corn and soybean yields exceeded conventional
Typical of transitioning organic fields, organic corn yields were less than conventional during the first two years of the LTAR experiment. By the third year organic and conventional corn yields were about equal.

In the fourth year organic corn yields averaged across all rotations was 130 bushels per acre and greater than the conventional corn yield of 112 bushels per acre in the corn-soybean rotation.

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/f ... tional.php

OK, I can't stomach any more. Maybe try checking some sources before posting once in a while.

[KaiserJeep]

doughboy, the figures I used came from the permaculture thread here at PO.com. The figure for GMO corn, with no till, chemical injection into the soil, and aerial crop spraying of both glyphosate and various insecticides was 325 bushels per acre, maximum for an ideal rainfall year - and without crop rotation. The figure for natural sweet corn varieties, intended for direct human consumption, with manual cultivation and no irrigation, was 0-18 bushels per acre, depending entirely upon rainfall. The usual range was 100-150X and admittedly this depends primarily upon natural rainfall. In times of drought, American mechanized farmers often spray deep well water, laden with minerals, onto the soil which is gradually rendered incapable of organic production - when compost is combined with such sterile soil, it does not rot. Thereafter only chemical injection works in such soils, they have been poisoned for microbes and nematodes and worms and so forth.

I admit, this is an apples to oranges comparison, because the corn varieties are so different. But it is also a refresher for something you seem to be in denial of - which is that without mechanized agriculture and petrochemical fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides, America cannot feed itself, much less be the world's breadbasket.

There simply is no way that fully organic methods outproduce mechanized agriculture. There MAY be a happy middle ground where with PermaCulture techniques and some mechanized assistance, a greatly expanded agricultural workforce may be able to feed America in the absence of cheap oil, and do so without destroying topsoil. IIRC, this was a 62X increase in the present number of farmers. Again, this estimate was from the PO.com PermaCulture debate of 2013.

[dohboi]

Still not sure how you got 100x to 150x.

Did you just randomly pick 1 from your unsupported range of 0 - 18?

Why not pick zero; then you could say that poison based ag produce literally an infinite amount more than non.

Note, even in the darkest days of the dust bowl, farmers were averaging over 18.

http://www.worldofcorn.com/#us-average-corn-yield

And of course modern organic farming is not the same as 'farming before chemicals.' We have, after all, learned a lot about how to farm effectively without chemicals over the last 80 or so years.

Referring to some other yahoo's stats on some other thread does not instill confidence, by the way.

But I think vox had it right. No use bantering with one so utterly benighted.

[C8]

Life is full of picking lesser evils.

Roundup increases food production greatly- do people want certain starvation instead of a possible cancer risk?

DDT was banned in many tropical areas for potential fears- and then malaria went unchecked and killed millions.

Life is not a tidy black and white math problem- mature people see complexity and make trade offs.

[dohboi]

Ah, and now more unsubstatiated bs from C8. Best to just bow out till the current troll swarm passes, I guess.