Scientist raises concerns about GM crops and glyphosate

Cause of diseases?


Future historians may well look back and write about our time …. about how willing we are to sacrifice our children and jeopardize future generations with this massive experiment that is based on false promises and flawed science just to benefit the “bottom line of a commercial enterprise,” said Don Huber, referring to the North American “experiment” with glyphosate and genetically modified crops.

He was speaking at November’s Organic Connections conference in Regina.

He is an emeritus professor in plant pathology at Purdue University, a retired colonel who worked with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to reduce the impact of plant disease outbreaks in the United States and a member of the emerging diseases and pathogens committee of the American Phytopathological Society.

He has the usual markers of academic success: journal articles, books, awards and honours. In other words, he is a real scientist with the ability to read the scientific literature and weigh its impact, especially in the area of his expertise: plant diseases.

Huber began his presentation by describing glyphosate as a chelator, something that binds with a number of nutrients such as manganese, zinc, copper, and iron. Once a nutrient is chelated, it is unavailable to the plant, or for that matter, to most soil microbes.

He said it is through a change in the soil ecology, and by disabling the plant’s ability to resist disease, that the glyphosate has its effect.

“In agriculture, we’re farming an ecology,” he explained.

Glyphosate changes the soil ecology, killing many bacteria, and giving other bacteria a competitive advantage. It also makes plants highly susceptible to soil borne diseases. With increasing use of glyphosate, Huber said a number of plant pathogens are “emerging” or “re-emerging,” in-cluding a number of fusarium and root rot diseases.

At the same time that diseases are increasing, glyphosate has a negative effect on a number of beneficial soil organisms, including those that fix nitrogen, mycorrhizae, plant growth promoting organisms and earthworms.

Huber’s allegations of the impact of glyphosate in soil sterility echo those of Elaine Ingham, a soil ecologist with the Rodale Institute.

In insect and microbial communities, ecologists generally suggest that epidemics can be avoided by a balanced ecology. Beneficial organisms tend to overwhelm pathogenic organisms in a healthy system. This is why some suggest it is useful to eat yogurt after a round of antibiotics, and that antibiotic body products are probably not a good idea.

Local evidence is supportive of this idea. Myriam Fernandez, a plant disease specialist with Agriculture Canada, found that fusarium in organic systems tended to be dominated by saprophytic species (not disease causing) whereas pathogenic fusarium (causing disease) were more abundant in other systems where GM crops and glyphosate were commonly used.

“There is nothing substantially equivalent to gene insertion in nature,” Huber said.

He said he worries about the possibility of epigenetic effects that disrupt the normal control systems of the genes in the plant.

He said the GM crops had lower water use efficiency and less tolerance to lodging, tend to be nutrient deficient, have increased bud and fruit abortion and be predisposed to infectious diseases and insect damage. These he characterized as epigenetic effects.

Huber feels the application of phosphorus fertilizers could release the glyphosate in the soil so that it becomes active once again, damaging crop yields.

If all these problems are in fact linked to glyphosate and Roundup Ready crops, why are we not hearing of widespread crop failure? Introduction of GM crops into India is said by some to have delivered these effects.

Perhaps in North America these effects are overwhelmed by increased fungicide and insecticide use?

In many places on the Prairies, it would be hard to separate that from the effect of too much rain at the wrong time. As in any ecological disturbance, many factors are bound to be involved.

Huber suggested that Roundup Ready crops, treated with glyphosate, had higher levels of mycotoxins and lower nutrient levels than conventional crops. When consumed, the GM crops were more likely to cause disease, infertility, birth defects, cancer and allergic reactions than conventional crops.

Huber claimed that consumption of food or feed that was genetically modified could bring the altered genes in contact with the microbes in the guts of the livestock or people who ate them.

He felt this increased diseases such as celiac disease, allergies, asthma, chronic fatigue syndrome, diabetes, gluten intolerance, irritable bowel disease, miscarriage, obesity and sudden infant death syndrome.

Much of the data Huber showed here seemed correlational: the diseases and the use of glyphosate increased in a similar pattern over time.

This isn’t proof that the diseases are caused by the glyphosate, but it suggests a pattern to be investigated.

He feels safety evaluations have been inadequate, suggesting that research was “substandard and extremely misleading interpretation of results” or worse.

Because of difficulties for independent researchers to examine the licensing agreements for GM products, third party opinions are hard to come by.

The allegations that Huber has compiled are incredibly damning of GM products and the inherent increase in glyphosate that goes with the Roundup Ready products. Those people who have confidence in the wisdom of our governing and regulating bodies will find these stories hard to believe. Some will suggest that science has shown these technologies to be safe. That would be misinterpreting the science.

Unfortunately, science cannot prove a technology is safe. It can only fail to observe a problem under the conditions of the test. Perhaps scientists fail to observe a problem because none exists.

If even a small part of what he suggests is true, we would be well advised to reconsider the policy of treating GMOs as “substantially equivalent” to non-GM products and instead, investigate the technology further.

In the meantime, some of us may wish to avoid products using this technology. Some may claim this is fear mongering. If this is, in the end, a subject upon which we must agree to disagree, labelling of GM products would at least give us the ability to disagree in a meaningful way.

Brenda Frick, Ph.D., P.Ag. is an extension agrologist and researcher in organic agriculture. She welcomes your comments at 306-260-0663 or email [email protected]

7 Responses

Post a response
  1. Valentine Dyall on

    “If even a small part of what he suggests is true…..” wrote Brenda Frick. But suppose, as seems likely on the basis of evidence, not hearsay, that NONE of it is true. What then? A bit of scaremongering, perhaps, by the “Western Producer”? In whose interest, do you suppose?

    • Becca on

      I heard Dr. Don Huber, an expert in soil pathology, speak via various videos in Dr. Mercola’s emails and on youtube. He has a long history of being sought after and being truthful in what he’s uncovered.

      Why would this honorable scientist spew disinformation? He has nothing to gain by not telling the truth. If the government takes action, we all have our health and quality of life to gain.

      Now, I can understand the reason Big Brother (Monsanto) does not tell the truth. They have a history of disinformation even before the company reorganized and became a biotech-pesticide company from previously being a deceitful chemical company. Disinformation is what Monsanto does best.

    • Marshall Hinsley on

      If the evidence were only correlative, then the naysayers in this comment thread would have some ground to support their contention. But the evidence is more than correlative because it looks at the mechanism of how glyphosate works and then poses a connection to how that mechanism may cause reactions in crops and in the human body. In other words, if we know that a bullet tears into flesh, and we find a dead body with a round wound in it and a handgun nearby, we can correlate that the person dies of a bullet wound.

  2. Lyricalpursuit on

    In response to Valentine’s comment- “…as seems likely on the basis of evidence…” I would say that when you mess with mother nature by spraying pesticides, herbicides, chemicals, growth hormones in/on our soil/plants/animals, there will be negative consequenses. When looking for evidence, you might start with the increase in cancers and autism.

  3. I could draw parallels and create supposed trends with any information I get my hands on. Home ownership has went up just like cancer cases or autism cases, does that mean that’s the cause of autism? Likely not! You can’t just draw parallels without SCIENTIFIC evidence that is accepted by the majority of scientists. The fight against GMOs isn’t based on facts, but rather on emotions of what a farm should be, how it was in the past. Agriculture is allowed to use technology to advance as well, so why are we inhibiting it?

  4. Jayson on

    I don’t know what it is about agriculture but it is the only industry I can think of where the sellers are the ones trying to tell the buyers what they should want and buy. No other industry does that. You don’t walk into a clothing store and get handed a purple shirt and are expected to be happy with it because the science says it’s safe to wear. You don’t go into a Chevy dealer looking for a new Silverado and leave with an F150 because the science says it’s “substantially equivalent”.

    But for some reason in agriculture, we have our customers saying we don’t want GMO crops and instead of supplying what our customers want. We keep fighting them tooth and nail to force them into taking something they don’t want. And for what? So the big agri-businesses can make billions off of farmers? So we can spend more tax dollars on trade missions to sell something to people who don’t want it? So we can repeat what happened with Triffid flax and ruin our reputation and existing markets? Never mind the real or perceived health effects, it just doesn’t make a drop of business sense.

  5. I am in the medical field (for 34 yrs.) and live in a rural area where there are a lot of GMO crops raised and also a lot of pesticide spraying. There is no doubt in my mind that GMOs have caused my gluten intolerance, caused my gut inflammation, and affected the people around me as well. I have seen cancer, bowel disorders, childrens’ “behavior issues”, obesity, and dementia, as well as many other neuro disorders, rise right along with the introduction of GMO crops and increased use of pesticides. I have a combination of medical knowledge, personal experience, and nutritional study that makes this a no-brainer to me. Follow the money. Monsanto will do anything to make money, control what farmers are using and what we’re eating, and not give a second thought to how it harms us. I look at things logically and try to make sense of evidence I find. Believe me, there is reason for GREAT concern. Think about this too; why is Monsanto so protective that they want laws passed to keep truths from the public? Why not label GMOs stating what they are? Message for Monsanto: Americans, the world, and farmers are getting wise to what’s going on. Just be honest and care about people instead of profits. Thank God some scientists have the courage to say what is happening based on solid, and not “bought” research. Thank you Dr. Huber.

Respond





You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>