Scientists find no evidence glyphosate causes cancer

A panel of epidemiologists and toxicologists says the World Health Organization is wrong about glyphosate.

Sixteen experts from Canada, the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom and elsewhere reviewed scientific literature on glyphosate and cancer. In a report released this morning, the panel said there’s no evidence that glyphosate causes cancer.

“None of the results from a very large database, using different methodologies, provides evidence of, or a potential mechanism for, human carcinogenesis.”

Glyphosate is the most popular herbicide in the world.  It is the active ingredient in Roundup, a Monsanto product.

The panel’s conclusion that glyphosate is safe contradicts a World Health Organization report released earlier this year.

Related story: Monsanto’s role in glyphosate study doesn’t discredit it: panel member

In March, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a panel of global experts, reviewed scientific studies on glyphosate and determined the herbicide probably causes cancer in humans.

ADVERTISMENT

The IARC finding was a surprise because glyphosate is known for being one of the safest and most studied pesticides in the world. Toxicologists and epidemiologists criticized the IARC conclusions, many arguing that IARC didn’t properly account for real world exposures to glyphosate.

The expert panel, which included University of Guelph toxicologist Keith Solomon, also said IARC relied too heavily on studies of questionable merit.

“IARC’s equivalent working groups’ reviews suffered from significant weaknesses such as: selectivity in the choice of data reviewed, failure to use all relevant biologic information to evaluate relationship to treatment in animal bioassays, and failure to use weight-of-evidence evaluations using all available data and appropriate weighting,” the panel said.

Intertek Scientific & Regulatory Consultancy recruited the 16 experts to participate in the panel. In July, Monsanto asked Intertek to assemble the panel to review the IARC findings.

You can find the list of those 16 experts here.

Contact robert.arnason@producer.com

ADVERTISMENT

  • stubblejumper

    “The IARC finding was a surprise… ” To whom? The writer himself? This a poorly written, pro-glyphosate article. “In July, Monsanto asked Intertek to assemble the panel to review the IARC findings.” What a surprise, Monsanto themselves initiated their own study, once again.

    • Eric Bjerregaard

      So, can you give specific example of errors to justify your claim that this is poorly written.

      • RobertWager

        What a surprise, three days and zero evidence.

  • RobertWager

    IARC cited Seralini seven times. Enough said.

    • SageThinker

      1991 EPA memo stated that Monsanto’s own unpublished studies in the 1980s showed significant correlation to pacreatic adenomas and other cancers. Enough said.

      • RobertWager

        And yet after thirty plus years no epidemiology study can find that link. funny eh?

        try these two reviews:

        Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and cancer: A review
        Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 63 (2012) 440–452

        “Our review found no consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between total cancer (in adults or
        children) or any site-specific cancer and exposure to glyphosate.”

        Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and non-cancer health outcomes: A review
        Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 61 (2011) 172–184

        “Our review found no evidence of a consistent
        pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between any disease and exposure to glyphosate.
        Most reported associations were weak and not significantly different from 1.0.”

        • razorjack

          Medical investigators can’t prove any causation if the substance they are studying is purposely hidden in the food supply like Roundup/glyphosate laden GMO foods are in North America.

          The government doesn’t test for glyphosate because they say it it to expensive.

          Yo can trot out all the industry propaganda reviews you want to, but this cherry picked science only looks at papers that support the corrupt GMO pesticide industry agenda.

          Smart people will pay attention to what The world Heath organization has to say, and they have labeled Roundup/glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.

          • RobertWager

            So what is your response to the other three (thats 3/4) WHO programs that did not find glyphosate to be a carcinogen?

            and while you are explaining things how about explaining why Seralini was cited seven times. Have you read the rebuttals from around the world against his work?

          • razorjack

            Monsanto has known that Roundup/glyphosate caused cancer for over 35 years. Monsanto’s own scientists did studies that it caused cancer. Monsanto found the results “inconvenient” and hid them a way from the people, other scientist, and the courts by claiming those studies were a trade secret.

            See:

            “35-year cover-up of glyphosate / cancer link exposed

            “For the past 35 years Monsanto has known of the link between glyphosate and cancer, but has systematically worked to cover it up through scientifically fraudulent methods in its safety testing research programme. This is the most significant conclusion to be drawn from a new research paper (1) published in the Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry and now available online.

            For the first time the authors, Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff, present in tabulated form the data contained in secret Monsanto studies conducted in the period 1980 – 1990 which showed unequivocally that animals exposed to very small quantities of glyphosate in their food supply developed tumorigenic growth in multiple organs. Both Monsanto and the American EPA knew of these and other deleterious effects, but the EPA agreed to refer to these early studies as “trade secrets” and prevented public scrutiny. The results were considered inconvenient, and so they were ignored. To make matters worse, the EPA then agreed to further Monsanto-sponsored studies which used inappropriate control group data to create “experimental noise” and to mask carcinogenic and other effects in the animal test groups. Other fraudulent practices have also been subsequently revealed, including the non-reporting of test group deaths, the fabrication of data tables, and the falsification of experimental data (2).

            Dr Samsel is the first independent researcher to have been given access to the full Monsanto / EPA dossier of research reports, and the new paper itemises the key research findings in these early papers and presents a number of detailed appendices of the results.

            The authors conclude: “In this paper, we have reviewed the research literature on glyphosate and on the biological processes associated with cancer, and we have provided strong evidence that glyphosate is likely contributing to the increased prevalence of multiple types of cancer in humans. Monsanto’s own early studies revealed some trends in animal models that should not have been ignored. Forty years of glyphosate exposure have provided a living laboratory where humans are the guinea pigs and the outcomes are alarmingly apparent.”

            In their Abstract (3), the authors say: “Glyphosate has a large number of tumorigenic effects on biological systems, including direct damage to DNA in sensitive cells, disruption of glycine homeostasis, succinate dehydrogenase inhibition, chelation of manganese, modification to more carcinogenic molecules such as N-nitrosoglyphosate and glyoxylate, disruption of fructose metabolism, etc. Epidemiological evidence supports strong temporal correlations between glyphosate usage on crops and a multitude of cancers.”

            Speaking on the day of publication, Dr Samsel said: “Glyphosate is a reactive product that causes damage at the molecular level. Chemicals that disrupt the microbiome and immune function do not belong in our food supply . To allow any living creature exposure to such a product is, in my opinion, poor judgment by government agencies and serves only to benefit the purses of corporations and their investors. Future generations will judge our actions or lack thereof and surely condemn those who repeat the errors of the past.”

            Speaking for GM-Free Cymru, Dr Brian John says: “In 1981 both Monsanto and the EPA were already aware of malignant tumours and pre-cancerous conditions in the test animals which were fed small doses of glyphosate in the secret feeding experiments (4). Although concerns were expressed at the time by EPA committees, these concerns were later suppressed while Monsanto was allowed to bring forward a range of cynically manipulated and fraudulent studies purporting to show that glyphosate was harmless (2). None of these studies has been made available for independent examination. That is a scandal in itself. There has been a protracted and cynical cover-up in this matter. Monsanto and the EPA have been fully aware of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate for at least 35 years. If they had acted in a precautionary fashion back then, instead of turning a blind eye to scientific malpractice, glyphosate would never have been licensed, and hundreds of thousands of lives might have been saved.”

            http://www dot gmfreecymru dot org/news/Press_Notice06Nov2015.html

          • Cavalierexpress57

            Monsanto [cares] nothing about public health. Their actions to suppress information and refusal to release their own initial research on this speaks for itself. They are the new Tobacco industry. They will eventually pay dearly for this denial. Another example of corporate malfeasance Exxon Mobile finally admitted they’ve known about global warmings connection to fossil fuels for 20 years, yet theyspent millions of dollars trying to discredit the facts. A CORPORATIONS PRIME DIRECTIVE IS TO MAXIMIZE PROFITS FOR ITS SHAREHOLDERS NOT TO MAXIMIZE PUBLIC HEALTH!

          • Damo

            Really?? “Purposely hidden” is quite funny, since you guys keep insisting it is everywhere.

          • razorjack

            Your corrupt GMO pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber PR squad has spent over 200 million dollars trying to keep cancer causing Roundup laden GMOs hidden from food buyer, and they spent over 75 million dollars on lobbyists to try and suppress labeling this year alone.

            Those kind of craven expenditures to keep people in the dark were done purposely and with willful intent.

          • Damo

            So, you mean roundup is in stuff that I don’t know about?? Like in my food, or in Windex, or what?? How is glyphosate hidden?

          • razorjack

            GMOs,most of which are genetically engineered to be cultivated with Roundu/glyphosate, take it up in the plant because the pesticide doesn’t work unless it does.

            The government allows a glyphosate residues of 20 parts per million in food. Trouble is, that Glyphosate causes cancer at par per trillion tlevels.

          • Damo

            Oh, so if you know that there is residue, it is not really “hidden” is it?

            Also, glyphosate doesn’t cause cancer at any level. You may have a higher risk for cancer at certain levels, but nothing like the amount you are talking about.

          • razorjack

            If you don’t know the residue is there it is hidden. People don’t know if cancer causing Roundup laden GMOs are in their food because they are purposely hidden and unlabeled.

            Monsanto has know for over 35 years that Roundup/glyphosate causes cancer because their own scientists studies told them. Instead of doing the ethical thing they choose to lock up all the science as a trade secret so they were unavailable to other scientists the public and the courts. Since that time Roundup/glyphosate has become the largest selling pesticide in the world with billions of pound used every year.

            “35-year cover-up of glyphosate / cancer link exposed

            “For the past 35 years Monsanto has known of the link between glyphosate and cancer, but has systematically worked to cover it up through scientifically fraudulent methods in its safety testing research programme. This is the most significant conclusion to be drawn from a new research paper (1) published in the Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry and now available online.

            For the first time the authors, Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff, present in tabulated form the data contained in secret Monsanto studies conducted in the period 1980 – 1990 which showed unequivocally that animals exposed to very small quantities of glyphosate in their food supply developed tumorigenic growth in multiple organs. Both Monsanto and the American EPA knew of these and other deleterious effects, but the EPA agreed to refer to these early studies as “trade secrets” and prevented public scrutiny. The results were considered inconvenient, and so they were ignored. To make matters worse, the EPA then agreed to further Monsanto-sponsored studies which used inappropriate control group data to create “experimental noise” and to mask carcinogenic and other effects in the animal test groups. Other fraudulent practices have also been subsequently revealed, including the non-reporting of test group deaths, the fabrication of data tables, and the falsification of experimental data (2).

            Dr Samsel is the first independent researcher to have been given access to the full Monsanto / EPA dossier of research reports, and the new paper itemises the key research findings in these early papers and presents a number of detailed appendices of the results.

            The authors conclude: “In this paper, we have reviewed the research literature on glyphosate and on the biological processes associated with cancer, and we have provided strong evidence that glyphosate is likely contributing to the increased prevalence of multiple types of cancer in humans. Monsanto’s own early studies revealed some trends in animal models that should not have been ignored. Forty years of glyphosate exposure have provided a living laboratory where humans are the guinea pigs and the outcomes are alarmingly apparent.”

            In their Abstract (3), the authors say: “Glyphosate has a large number of tumorigenic effects on biological systems, including direct damage to DNA in sensitive cells, disruption of glycine homeostasis, succinate dehydrogenase inhibition, chelation of manganese, modification to more carcinogenic molecules such as N-nitrosoglyphosate and glyoxylate, disruption of fructose metabolism, etc. Epidemiological evidence supports strong temporal correlations between glyphosate usage on crops and a multitude of cancers.”

            Speaking on the day of publication, Dr Samsel said: “Glyphosate is a reactive product that causes damage at the molecular level. Chemicals that disrupt the microbiome and immune function do not belong in our food supply . To allow any living creature exposure to such a product is, in my opinion, poor judgment by government agencies and serves only to benefit the purses of corporations and their investors. Future generations will judge our actions or lack thereof and surely condemn those who repeat the errors of the past.”

            Speaking for GM-Free Cymru, Dr Brian John says: “In 1981 both Monsanto and the EPA were already aware of malignant tumours and pre-cancerous conditions in the test animals which were fed small doses of glyphosate in the secret feeding experiments (4). Although concerns were expressed at the time by EPA committees, these concerns were later suppressed while Monsanto was allowed to bring forward a range of cynically manipulated and fraudulent studies purporting to show that glyphosate was harmless (2). None of these studies has been made available for independent examination. That is a scandal in itself. There has been a protracted and cynical cover-up in this matter. Monsanto and the EPA have been fully aware of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate for at least 35 years. If they had acted in a precautionary fashion back then, instead of turning a blind eye to scientific malpractice, glyphosate would never have been licensed, and hundreds of thousands of lives might have been saved.” ”

          • Damo

            “If you don’t know the residue is there it is hidden”

            Shouldn’t we just presume it is there, since as you claim, the use is so widespread?

          • razorjack

            You can presume anything you want to.

            Smart people will get their information from someplace besides corrupt GMO pesticide industry disinformation PR designed astroturf sites.

          • Damo

            I do, it is called primary sources. Look it up sometime. Why do you keep saying “smart people know” every time you are questioned? It is a pretty poor deflection.

            I still want to know why you think glyphosate causes cancer at the part per trillion when all other science says it doesn’t cause cancer, however it may, when applied incorrectly, increase the risk for cancer? If smart people know the answer to this mystery, why not share it with those of us less smart?

          • razorjack

            Let’s just cut to the chase.

            Just show us ONE study that shows long term consumption of cancer causing Roundup laden GMOs is safe for long term consumption.

          • Damo

            Yeah, we have been through this–there are literally thousands of studies that show that GMOs have the same risk as other food. No of it is safe over the long term. It will harm you in certain quantities. All food. You know this …

          • razorjack

            Just show us ONE study that shows long term consumption of cancer causing Roundup laden GMOs is safe for long term consumption.

          • Damo

            See above. The truth won’t change no matter how many times you challenge it.

          • Robert

            Yes, we should. What is your point?

            And there are no “claims” necessary to prove it is used widespread. It is common knowledge that it used extensively on both GMO and conventional crops.

          • Damo

            Wait, wait, I just reread your comment–huh??

          • Deaner

            HAHA what satire website did you pull that … from?

            First off, crops do NOT ingest glyphosate for them to work. Glyphosate is a herbicide used to kill weeds that compete with your crop. The gmo just makes your crop immune to glyphosate so that it does not die when you spray it.

            Secondly, the amount of glyphosate actually used is about half a litre in an ENTIRE ACRE!! Which is about the size of that milk carton that you and your … friends drink at lunchtime …

            Thirdly, 90% of the time when glyphosate is sprayed, it is months before a seed has even developed in the plant. If it weren’t for GMOs there would be such a food shortage and half the world would go hungry because they wouldn’t be able to afford $20 for a loaf of bread. But please, keep preaching to us about the dangers of it when there are a lot more important issues that you … can protest about.

          • razorjack

            The government allows a glyphosate residues of 20 parts per million in food. From the US government.

            Glyphosate causes cancer at par per trillion levels. From journal Food and Chemical Toxicology
            Food Chem Toxicol. 2013 Jun 8. Epub 2013 Jun 8. PMID: 23756170

          • Peter Olins

            No. Cancer was no measured in this paper.
            Did you read it?

          • razorjack

            I’m not interested in playing semantic games …

          • atc333

            How is immunity developed? By introducing a very small amount of the disease into the person, plant, or animal sought to be made immune to the disease to create resistance. . If this pesticide is being spread at such a low level, as stated, then why do non GMO plants die unless Monsanto touches its genetics with its magic wand? Could it just be that glyphosate is a component of that wand?

            Strange other studies pick up the risk, even apparently Monsanto’s original work, yet this one does not?

            By the way Despite the GOP’s claim to be pro states and individual rights, when it comes to big oil, and big Monsanto, the GOP tries to oulaw states from requiring disclosure of GMOs in food labeling, and prohibiting fracking within their own borders, despite the ever increasing proof of both of these processes causing severe health issues in people as a result of deliberately polluting our water and food supplies with undisclosed “propitiatory” chemicals. Unfortunately, the proofs are slowly coming in with more deaths and illnesses.

          • joebud

            “If it weren’t for GMOs there would be such a food shortage and half the world would go hungry because they wouldn’t be able to afford $20 for a loaf of bread.”
            I’m not against GMOs in general but here you are exaggerating their benefit/effect.

          • joebud

            Uh, no.

          • atc333

            Do you see it on food labels, as apparently we will not GMO content on those same label? No.

          • Go GMO

            “Smart People” Only believe what they want to believe. Closed minded and only think they are “smart” and don’t need to read all the facts!!

          • razorjack

            Nonsense.

            Says …. Who ….?

      • ed

        These companies most certainly knew. Drug dealers know what they are selling to kids on the playground. They still do it right. Until you put them in jail, they are hard to stop. Revenue stream is the name of the game. These companies are far worse than drug dealers who walk away when you are sick. These guys are not done with you yet, they have a whole selection of pharmaceuticals to treat you with.

    • Rob Bright

      I would think you’d dismiss this completely, then, given your vehement animosity toward Seralini…

    • TZ

      NO not enough said, Seralini just WON two defamation lawsuits against his detractors regarding the study! This sums it up..http://www.gmoseralini.org/seralinis-team-wins-defamation-and-forgery-court-cases-on-gmo-and-pesticide-research/

      Unsubstantiated allegations of fraud or errors

      Paul Christou, the lead author of Arjo et al. [13], http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B13 demanded that our paper be retracted and insulted us personally. He claimed first in a letter addressed to the editor-in-chief that the publication of our study ‘does not meet minimal acceptable standards of scientific rigor’ and ‘will damage an entire scientific discipline due to flawed conclusion’ (personal communication). Then, he attacked us in an article published in the journal Transgenic Research on 20 December 2012 [13]. http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B13 The quantity of insults and defamations in this paper, authorized and co-authored by the editor-in-chief in a supposedly serious journal, is excessive. They include: ‘abject failure to treat the experimental animals in a humane manner’, ‘inability to formulate a valid hypothesis’, ‘media fanfare’, ‘fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements’, ‘unethical behavior’, ‘transparent attempt to discredit regulatory agencies’, ‘ammunition for extremists’, ‘flawed science’, ‘disingenuous or inept’, and ‘unjustified waste of animals’ (while at the same time asking for more animals in the groups). Christou and co-authors suggest that by practising ‘flawed science’, we are working against ‘progress towards a better quality of life’ and in fact are ‘actively working to make life worse’. We were not invited to reply. This behaviour can be explained, though not justified, by the undisclosed conflicts of interests.

      Christou is not only the editor-in-chief of Transgenic Research, the journal in which he published his article, but is also linked to Monsanto. [18] http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B18 He is named as the inventor on several patents on GM crop technology, for most of which Monsanto owns the property rights. These include patents on the plant transformation process [19] http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B19 used to make glyphosate-tolerant transgenic corn plants [20]. http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B20 He worked as a researcher at Agracetus Inc. (later acquired by Monsanto) for 12 years. Then, from 1994 to 2001, Christou worked at the John Innes Centre in the UK [18], http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B18 which is heavily invested in GM crop technology [21]. http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B21 He thus has no mammalian toxicology background. However, in his published article, Christou only gave as his affiliation his publicly funded position at a research institute. Christou’s failure to declare his current interests – his inventor status on patents concerning the company that developed the products we tested – could be considered grounds for retraction of a paper in a scientific journal, according to ethical guidelines for scientific publishing [22]. http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B22

      The Arjo et al. article was co-authored by Wayne Parrott, an active member of the Biotechnology Committee at the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) [23]. http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B23 ILSI is funded by multinational food, agribusiness, and biotechnology companies, including Monsanto and Syngenta [24]. http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B24 ILSI has proved highly controversial in North America and Europe due to its influence on risk assessment methodologies for chemicals, pesticides, and GM foods [25-27]. http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B25 , http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B27 Wayne Parrott also has an inventor status in patents on materials and methods for selecting transgenic organisms [28] http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B28 and transformation vector systems [29]. http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B29

      In addition, Christou and his co-authors made numerous mistakes, false and unsubstantiated assertions, and misrepresentations of our data. The title of Arjo et al.’s paper includes defamation and a misrepresentation of our research, implying that it is ‘pseudoscience’ and alleging that it claimed Roundup Ready maize and Roundup herbicide caused ‘cancer’ in rats – a claim we never made. We did not even use the word ‘cancer’ in our paper although this argument was reiterated in the final letter of the editor-in-chief of FCT when explaining his decision to retract our paper [30]. http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B30 Tumors do not always lead to cancer, even if they can be more deleterious in a shorter time because of their size or body position, by hurting internal functions.

      Arjo et al.’s paper begins with a false assertion that is not evidenced in the paper or in the cited source: ‘It started with a press conference in which journalists agreed not to engage in fact-checking’. The authors made other false assertions about our study, for example, alleging that ‘the water consumption was not measured’. In fact, we measured both the water and food consumption, and the stability of the Roundup solution over time. This was indicated in the paper, in which we explained that all the data cannot be shown in one paper and that we concentrated on the most important data; these parameters were only part of a routine survey. They also falsified the reporting of the data, compiling the mortality data only at the end of the experiment and ignoring the originality and the major findings of the differential chronological effects between treated rats and controls, which we established by measuring tumor size twice a week over 2 years. Moreover, we respected legal requirements and ethical norms relating to animal experiments, and Arjo et al. present no evidence of the contrary, so their allegation of inhumane treatment of the rats is without substance.

      Importantly, we had already answered many of the criticisms of our paper made by Arjo et al. in a paper that was published before that of Arjo et al. [12]. http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B12 Their publication was received on 20 December 2012, when our paper was published on 9 November 2012. Our published answers were simply ignored.

      Christou was not alone in failing to declare conflicts of interest in his criticism of our paper. Since we underlined that 75% of the comments addressed to FCT within a week after our study was published came from plant biologists, it was discovered that several had developed patents on GMOs. Some authors were employees of Monsanto Company, which owns NK603 GM maize and sells Roundup herbicide [4,11]. http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B4 , http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B11 Other more recent papers, published by plant biologists and/or affiliates of the industry-funded group ILSI [15,16], http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B15 , http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B16 repeated the arguments. The author of a separate article criticizing our study expressed concern that our results could damage public opinion about GM crops [14] http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B14 – a sentiment that gives precedence to economic interests over public health. An article in Forbes magazine even alleged, without presenting any evidence, that we had committed fraud [31]. http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B31 Surprisingly, even Monsanto authors [11] http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B11 declared that they had ‘no conflicts of interest’ in their first draft published online on FCT website. Investigative reports [32,33] http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B32 , http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B33 evidenced that many authors of these opinions had failed to disclose their conflicts of interest, including Henry Miller, Mark Tester, Chris Leaver, Bruce Chassy, Martina Newell-McGloughlin, Andrew Cockburn, L. Val Giddings, Sivramiah Shantharam, Lucia de Souza, Erio Barale-Thomas, and Marc Fellous. The undisclosed conflicts of interest included links with biotechnology companies that develop GMOs and with industry-backed lobbying organizations.

      All of this has huge implications for public health. We observed an intense lobbying in parliaments, as well as proofs of conflicts of interests for persons involved in the regulatory decisions for the commercialization of these products [26]. http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B26 A series of high-profile conflict-of-interest revelations (not restricted to GMOs and pesticides) led to the resignations of leading administrators involved in decisions affecting the assessment of these products, including the European Commissioner John Dalli [34] http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B34 and the former chair of the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) management board Diana Banati [35]. http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B35 In February of 2013, a strange occurrence following the publication of our paper raised questions about the connections of industry to scientific publishing, described below.

      • Damo

        “NO not enough said, Seralini just WON two defamation lawsuits against his detractors regarding the study!”

        … Those lawsuits do not mean that the study was valid, the study was still flawed. The lawsuits (one of which was about forgery and not defamation) were of another civil matter.

        No doubt, if Seralini or Seneff were actually producing good science there will be other studies for you … to fall back on, but they don’t, so you don’t.

        • TZ

          Yes it does mean the study is VALID and always was valid…the biotech vested interest detractors that criticized the study made fraudulent false claims! If they were true statements he would not have won the case!!! …

          • Damo

            No, that is not what the case was about. …

          • TZ

            Yes it is!! http://www.gmoseralini.org/seralinis-team-wins-defamation-and-forgery-court-cases-on-gmo-and-pesticide-research/

            Unsubstantiated allegations of fraud or errors
            Paul Christou, the lead author of Arjo et al. [13], http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B13 demanded that our paper be retracted and insulted us personally. He claimed first in a letter addressed to the editor-in-chief that the publication of our study ‘does not meet minimal acceptable standards of scientific rigor’ and ‘will damage an entire scientific discipline due to flawed conclusion’ (personal communication). Then, he attacked us in an article published in the journal Transgenic Research on 20 December 2012 [13]. http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13#B13 The quantity of insults and defamations in this paper, authorized and co-authored by the editor-in-chief in a supposedly serious journal, is excessive. They include: ‘abject failure to treat the experimental animals in a humane manner’, ‘inability to formulate a valid hypothesis’, ‘media fanfare’, ‘fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements’, ‘unethical behavior’, ‘transparent attempt to discredit regulatory agencies’, ‘ammunition for extremists’, ‘flawed science’, ‘disingenuous or inept’, and ‘unjustified waste of animals’ (while at the same time asking for more animals in the groups). Christou and co-authors suggest that by practising ‘flawed science’, we are working against ‘progress towards a better quality of life’ and in fact are ‘actively working to make life worse’. We were not invited to reply. This behaviour can be explained, though not justified, by the undisclosed conflicts of interests.

          • Damo

            … The defamation suit was against another journal, not the journal the paper was featured in. It did not validate any science. It merely said, that one guy in that magazine said somethings that he couldn’t back up–like “actively working to make life worse” not that the paper had any scientific merit.

            And you posted it just here just now. You proved my point. The Seralini paper was discredited, and despite being republished in a less than stellar journal, is still discredited. The fact that he used too little subjects, rats that were too old to be studied, and his methods and results were a mess that others couldn’t make sense of, still remains and has not been addressed in this court case.

          • TZ

            There is no way if you review the material without an agenda that you would not agree that Seralini was a victim of lies, political pressure which corrupted the scientific process..

          • TZ

            http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16557-seralini-s-team-and-criigen-win-two-court-cases-about-their-research-on-toxicity-of-gmos-and-pesticides
            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.

    • TZ
  • Trish Jordan

    Yea…guess this independent group of experts has zero credentials to scientifically review (read with sarcasm) http://www.monsanto.com/iarc-roundup/pages/intertek-expert-panel.aspx

    • Funny, the page you linked states, “In July, Monsanto retained Intertek Scientific & Regulatory Consultancy to convene an expert panel to review the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) monograph on glyphosate.” This means they put together their own panel to review an independent finding. If you’re using this link to claim Monsanto owns or influences IARC, that doesn’t mean much because they wouldn’t bother putting together their own panel to review or check their own findings.

      • RobertWager

        First rule in science. Is the science sound? if yes then incorporate the findings into base knowledge. if not then look at funding. So far the critics have not demonstrated a single science fact to be incorrect. All they can do is scream conspiracy, bias, etc. It speaks volumes about the critics pov.

        • richard

          First rule in marketing 101…..what does the enlightened consumer want? Fifty three percent want nothing to do with transgenics and pesticide residues in their food…..It speaks volumes to the disconnect between cloistered academics and reality…..

          • Hayman

            It actually speaks volumes of the ignorance of the general public on the best practices of growing enough food economically for the world.

        • Debbie Owen

          Not independent, not even all peer reviewed, it’s all self serving and we can all see that.

        • Rob Bright

          First rule of science should be: is your research biased? In this case, ‘Yes, it most certainly is.’

    • Bill Roubanis

      I have no opinion on whether glyphosate is carcinogenic, nor do I worry about it.
      What I worry about is people being such idiots that they can’t distinguish between honest and dishonest studies.
      This panel was retained by a company paid by Monsanto to retain experts who would prove that the WHO claim is false.
      It does not matter how qualified they are.
      This finding is immediately tainted but virtue of the selection process.
      We, even those of us who may be scientists, do not have the time anymore to keep finding the lies and inconsistencies in every new study out of THOUSANDS which Monsanto commissions to keep “debunking” everything it doesn’t like.
      I have read several of Monsanto’s “debunking” articles on studies, and they are ALL distortions.
      So I don’t believe anything that has anything with the name “Monsanto” hovering around it.
      They are worse than Whole Foods, RJ Reynolds and ExxonMobil combined.
      Not even Dr Oz lies as much as they do.

      • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

        Trish Jordan’s profile says she works for Monsanto Canada as PR, at least this one is honest about her connection to the company … Her employer Monsanto also sued Maui to avoid independent tests on GMOs here where Monsanto’s new GMOs are created.

      • Sheryl McCumsey

        Same names keep coming up over and over again…hmmm.

    • richard

      …..While the dependent group of experts has huge credentials…..but only with those to whom they are heeling……

    • Harold

      This statement comes directly from the EMPLOYEE OWNED company that Monsanto hired: (Quote) “What kind of science do you need?” “As the science behind your success, were here to provide you the science you need right at the intersection where your problems meet our solutions.” (see for your self) I regard myself as being, as most, a reasonable person. It would seem to me that if their staff cant help you, they don’t get paid. (vs. Monsanto has that problem?) Doesn’t sound independent to me. On the other hand, I am sure that if your success was based on proving that Glyphosate was harmful, you’d get the result you need as well. According to the staff there, there are great Bonuses. (for what ?) Also, its interesting to see that the majority of the Scientists on the panel, have worked on Monsanto projects in the past. Now being a reasonable person, I sometimes take my “clients” out for a BONUS “dinner” and I insist on “paying” their “bills”. After all, you want them to think of you first. Further, a staff member of the company says that budgets are tight in the work place. (see for yourself) Perhaps he should go and work for Monsanto. As for me, I don’t blindly accept terms such as, “group of scientists”, as being of any credible information for my consideration, other than to help me find the office door.

      • RobertWager

        if what you say is true then it will be easy for you to demonstrate where they got thee science wrong. We await your expertise in this matter.

        • Harold

          If what I say is true? Didn’t you look? Perhaps you could demonstrate where they got the science Right. We await your expertise. (even though this was not the what my comment was about) Some of us look further than a dead weed beside a thriving plant.

          • Damo

            I think he was saying, if Monsanto is automatically guilty simply for trying to defend itself, then no amount of argument will change your mind. In other words, attack the science, not the relationship. But you can’t, so instead you attack the relationship. Of course the company paid by Monsanto to defend Monsanto will be biased, but that bias should be evident in the science. If it is not, well it is possible that they are telling the truth, regardless of who is paying their bills.

    • Dayton

      Trish, could Monsanto be more blatant?

    • Harold

      Lets look at this. Monsanto is responsible for PCB’s -1920, Polystyrene-1941, Saccharin -1970, DDT, Dioxin, Agent orange, Aspartame (nutra-sweet/equal), Bovine growth hormone, sterile grains-unable to germinate- 1990. And for your information, there isn’t one scientist or organization that Monsanto uses that is not self sponsored or owned. Please find out for yourself. There is also a list of Lawyers and ranking former employees of Monsanto who now hold prominent Government roles. This is all available for you to find out if you care to limit your sarcasm. Further, in 2016 the company is going to international court, charged with crimes against Humanity. Should prove interesting.

  • richard

    One things we do know, it causes amnesia…… fourteen weed species on sixty miliion acres resist glyphosate (USDA/WP March 2015) So much for the cancer subterfuge from the mythologists……its finished.

    • Sterling Ericsson

      14 species in 50 years of usage? That’s the best, and lowest, record of pretty much any pesticide that was ever put into widespread usage. Most other pesticides get way, way more resistant weeds than that in just a fraction of the time.

      • richard

        Great!…..and what are you gonna do about it? Oh yeah, mix another obsolete agritoxin ( 2-4D) into the tank. Nothing like two obsolete, suspected cancer causing toxins held up as the poster boys for the wonders of transgenic plant breeding…..Talk about your karma running over your dogma!

        • Sterling Ericsson

          There is no actual evidence that either are cancer-causing. And even if there was a possibility that they were, dosage is the measure by which that is determined. Picograms of residue aren’t going to cause cancer.

          As for using two at once, that’s actually a great strategy. It’s similar to the method used to fight HIV and its aggressive mutation rate. By having multiple modes of action, the likelihood of any one HIV virus (or weed in the case of crops) developing a mutation and resistance to both or more modes of action at the same time is practically non-existent. It’s a very simple facet of mutation and natural selection.

          • richard

            Great strategy….are you sure? Sounds like more ivory temple hubris to me…..I think we both know that repetitive reductionist “answers” to complex ecological problems leads to nothing but more of the same……Kinda like a dog chasing its own tail…..Except in the case of the dog he eventually realizes that he’s an idiot…..and stops…..We live in an age of immunological breakdown sir…..and to think your sacred agripharmatoxins have nothing to do with it is just more of the “better living through denial” nonsense that prevails. Neither you nor I have any idea what picograms of residue cause….. …

          • … Yes. Combining these two ingredients is great advice for total vegetation control. …

        • … They are obsolete by whose standard ?!?! …. All is well since all conventional pest control products have been evaluated for their carcinogenic potential. http://wp.me/p1jq40-6yf Scientific research proves that pest control products cause no harm and do not cause cancer. Pest control products causing cancer IS A MYTH. http://wp.me/P1jq40-2nl Even Canadian Cancer Society’s own web-sites state repeatedly that scientific research does not provide a conclusive link between pest control products and cancer. http://wp.me/P1jq40-4qC …. The following is a list of the causes of human deaths world-wide, arranged by their associated mortality rates … • heart disease 30% • cancer 25% • chronic lower respiratory diseases 5% • accidents ( unintentional injuries ) 5% • stroke ( cerebrovascular diseases ) 5% • alzheimer’s disease • diabetes • influenza & pneumonia • nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, & nephrosis • intentional self-harm ( suicide ). There are thousands of known deaths per year from known cancer-causing factors such as unhealthy diet, physical inactivity, excess body weight, alcohol consumption, and over-exposure to the sun. There are NONE related to pest control products, which are SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE, and will NOT CAUSE HARM TO PEOPLE, ANIMALS, OR THE ENVIRONMENT. http://wp.me/p1jq40-7HR http://wp.me/P1jq40-2ha http://wp.me/p1jq40-5ni

      • SageThinker

        Sterling, it’s more like 20 years of widespread usage — and more like 15 years of truly widespread usage as Roundup Ready corn and soy became dominant in the marketplace. Sure, we’ve had glyphosate as a potential herbicide since the mid-1970s, but it was not widely used in crops until around 1997, 1998… really took off around 2000. So the timeline you give seems ingenuine.

  • Sterling Ericsson

    Well, it should be noted that IARC never said that glyphosate DID cause cancer, they just said there was a possibility of it being carcinogenic.

    But, yeah, there were a number of other issues with the IARC report in addition to cherry-picking of studies. The big one is direct misrepresentation of the studies they did use. This site actually did the previous article on that.

    Anyways, here’s the author of one of the studies IARC used calling them out for completely misrepresenting and misusing the conclusions of the study he published.

    http://www.producer.com/daily/toxicologist-pans-un-glyphosate-report/#.VRcWRvrM3o4.twitter

    • Let’s see, what else is “possibly carcinogenic?” Processed red meat, for one. I presume that includes Chipotle’s menu?

      • Captain Moonlight

        The psoralen that occurs in celery rates
        Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans.
        Where is the labelling campaign?

        • SageThinker

          Captain, what i read about psoralen is that it’s possibly carcinogenic in combination with UV light. I’ve gotten photodermatitis from picking cow parsnips as a cut flower for market. I suppose that is the same, as it’s in the same family as celery and lovage, etc… But, a very brief literature scan tells me that it’s possibly mutagenic in combination with UV light. Do you know more about it? Is it carcinogenic by itself, not with UV light? Is it a risk to eat celery? Somehow i feel that if it were a risk, i would know about it.

          • Captain Moonlight

            The 5-Methoxypsoralen in celery gets an IARC carcinogen rating of 2A, which is the same as glyphosate. It can cause photosensitivity both by ingestion and touch. At least one conventionally bred celery cultivar had to be withdrawn from production because it express too much 5-Methoxypsoralen.

            On rare occasions common celery cultivars express too much 5-Methoxypsoralen because of a stressed growing environment and this has led to an outbreak of photosensitivity in farm workers and grocery workers. I’ve read that organic celery is more likely to express greater amounts of increased insect damage, 5-Methoxypsoralen is after all one the hundreds of natural pesticides plants use to reduce herbivory but I’m not aware of studies that back that up that theory.

          • Bruce__H

            I think the discussion here is missing the point that the IARC are hazard classifications. They are not risk classifications.

            Something is a hazard if there is some dose at which it has toxic effects. You can be exposed to a hazardous substance without ill effects if the exposure is below the toxic range. Risk is the chance of being exposed to a hazardous substance in its toxic range.

          • Damo

            You know, I know that, I have just never actually gotten around to expressing it the way you just did. Thanks.

          • Damo

            Thanks, I will add celery to carrots and spinach as “organic” food that contains “toxins” next time I hear such foolishness from science skeptics regarding GMOs.

      • Rob Bright

        … glyphosate is a PROBABLE carcinogen, not a POSSIBLE carcinogen. (Big difference there…)

    • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

      Incorrect! IARC determined glyphosate to be a Probable Carcinogen that is category 2a, possible carcinogen is a class lower 2b. Roundup is Known to the State of California to Cause Cancer.

      http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanonc/PIIS1470-2045%2815%2970134-8.pdf

      • Sterling Ericsson

        And yet, as I noted above, other regulatory agencies in Europe do not agree with IARC on its conclusions.

        • Debbie Owen

          Of course they don’t agree, they don’t agree with any science that doesn’t support Monsanto.

          • Damo

            Now, that is funny. What science??

      • … If you question that glyphosate is carcinogenic based on the IARC’s study, perhaps you should consider advocating bans against similarly classified products & activities, like bacon, baked food, burgers, cooked meat, fish, fried food, grapefruit juice, night shift work, paint remover, roasted food, sausages, and vegetables. IARC has also evaluated chemical agents & activities that have HIGHER carcinogenic hazard than glyphosate, like alcoholic beverages, baby oil, oral contraceptives, outdoor air pollution, painter, plutonium, and sunlight. In essence, glyphosate WILL NOT CAUSE CANCER, and it is SAFE when used properly. The IARC’s anti-glyphosate study is SEVERELY FLAWED, DISTORTED, BIASED, & UNBALANCED. IARC IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED !

    • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

      IARC determined glyphosate to be a Probable Carcinogen, possible carcinogen is a class lower. Roundup is also Known to the State of California to Cause Cancer.

      • Verna Lang

        California uses the IARC monographs as a basis for their rating system, so the decision by California to list glyphosate as a probable carcinogen is not independent corroboration. Your statement that glyphosate as being known to cause cancer also goes well beyond the hazard rating given by IARC.

        • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

          … while California used the IARC as the major basis of their decision, RoundUp must add the label “Known to the State of California to Cause Cancer.” IARC are internationally respected experts and their findings are also agreed upon by the American Cancer Society. I could have told you this was going to happen 15 years ago when I was in the lab for university.

          • Verna Lang

            If the state of California knows that glyphosate causes cancer, then they need to publish their findings so that they can justify that label. They have stepped well past the findings of IARC, and are leagues beyond a more recent human health assessment from the BfR of Germany that collected the largest database of publications on glyphosate to date and stated this: “After reviewing all studies, documents and publications available to date, including the glyphosate monograph of the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the WHO (IARC), BfR comes to the conclusion that, based on current scientific knowledge, no carcinogenic risk to humans is to be expected from glyphosate if it is used in the proper manner for the intended purpose.”
            http://www.bfr.bund.de/en/frequently_asked_questions_on_the_assessment_of_the_health_risk_of_glyphosate-127871.html#topic_195669
            You have also stepped well beyond what The American Cancer Society says about the lists from IARC and the National Toxicology Report. The lists are prefaced by notes that caution about reading too much into a classification. They clearly state: “In most cases, the ACS does not directly evaluate whether a certain substance or exposure causes cancer. Instead, the ACS looks to national and international organizations such as the NTP and IARC, whose mission is to evaluate environmental cancer risks based on evidence from laboratory and human research studies.” Hardly a ringing independent endorsement of the IARC findings.

            If you worked in a lab, then you should be more aware of the difference between hazard, like what IARC assesses, and risk. If you are working with a commonplace hazardous lab chemical like an acid, you read up on the safety precautions so that you can work with that acid with minimal risk to yourself. Try applying the same reasoning, instead of hyperbole, to glyphosate.

      • Sterling Ericsson

        Being probable and not possible is not a very meaningful difference. If it’s not group 1, then it’s all just a matter of probability for the others, with lower amounts for the higher groups. And with the issues with IARC’s report as I noted in my comment above, even putting it in the probably carcinogenic box is rather questionable. And other regulatory agencies reviewing their report did not come to the same conclusion. Here is the European Food Safety Authority response, for example:

        http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/151112

        • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

          It’s a huge difference and that is why you knowingly used possibly instead of probable! It is Known to California. It is also known that EFSA is as corrupted as FDA. American Cancer Society agrees with the finding of the WHO IARC, who are the accepted experts on this field. Many on the IARC felt it should be classified as known based on the evidence; however, the power of Monsanto has influenced even that group.

          • Sterling Ericsson

            The EFSA is a representation of its member states and their conclusions on subjects. Unless you are claiming every government in Europe and their regulatory agencies are corrupt, which would be a claim befitting the Illuminati or the NWO, then your statement of corruption is bogus.

            Please do give me a link to what the American Cancer Society says about the IARC report, i’d love to read it.

        • SageThinker

          Sterling, i wonder what is your take on the 1991 EPA memo in which there is data that shows glyphosate strongly correlated to cancer in a study with 180 rats over two years. Pancreatic adenomas to be specific, with a p value of 0.018 for one of the datapoints… and yet this was dismissed as not a reliable correlation because the trend was not monotonic? It could have simply been a threshold response, as any basic toxicology student would know. I wonder why the EPA signed off on this, and why three of the EPA staff refused to sign and wrote things like “DO NOT CONCUR”, and also why this data was not included in the list of data that seems to indicate a possible causation of cancer by the chemical.

          • Sterling Ericsson

            Likely because actual scientific data says otherwise? There were likely issues with whatever study that memo was referring to, which caused it to not be reliable, as multiple studies since then have not backed up claimed links between cancer and glyphosate. Here’s a systematic review on the subject:

            Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and cancer: A review
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230012000943

      • … Glyphosate ( Roundup ) WILL NOT cause cancer. World Health Association ( WHO ) has NEVER issued a statement concerning glyphosate and cancer. IARC, a mere subsidiary of WHO, has NOT classified glyphosate as « carcinogenic to humans ». However, on March 20th, 2015, the IARC’s study arbitrarily classified the herbicide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, as « probably carcinogenic » on the basis of « limited evidence ». IARC’s use of the term « limited evidence » clearly implies that its study is SEVERELY FLAWED, DISTORTED, and UNBALANCED. Nonetheless, the IARC’s study has NOT classified glyphosate as « carcinogenic to humans ». In other words, according to IARC, glyphosate is NOT « carcinogenic to humans ».

    • GreenSenior

      The WHO (IARC) didn’t say “there was a possibility.” They said it is “probably carcenogenic.”

      • Sterling Ericsson

        Not a very meaningful difference. If it’s not group 1, then it’s all just a matter of probability for the others, with lower amounts for the higher groups. And with the issues with IARC’s report as I noted in my comment above, even putting it in the probably carcinogenic box is rather questionable. And other regulatory agencies reviewing their report did not come to the same conclusion. Here is the European Food Safety Authority response, for example:

        http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/151112

      • Peter Olins

        Out of 985 chemicals reviewed by the IARC, only ONE was considered to be “probably not carcinogenic”. I have to wonder what evidence it would take for them to be be willing to declare something “not carcinogenic”.

  • Ddant
  • Stephane Northon

    I do not believe you Robert. Quoting Seralini is a severe red flag. The IARC ? :/

    • Dee Nicholson

      What red flag? Seralini’s findings have been reproduced, and his study results verified. Didn’t know that? Tsk tsk. Must keep up. Bigger revelations are emerging, all verified with good science that even the shills can’t dispute. Drs. Samsel and Seneff are doing a great job at that as we speak. Glyphosate mimics our amino acids and invades all cells, opening us up to multiple serious health problems. Look these things up for yourself. Take no-one’s word they are safe until you dig deep and know the facts… and by facts, I do NOT mean the one Monsanto has paid big money to manipulate.

      • Verified? Oh hell no…..Seneff isn’t even remotely close to a qualified expert except in computer AI.

        Also, have you looked into how much money Big Organic is paying to manipulate public opinion?

        • Debbie Owen

          What is big organic?

          Organic is proud to label, it is the GMO biotech companies that spend millions of dollars fighting proposed GMO labeling laws in an attempt to keep their products hidden.

          • Damo

            If you don’t know that organic is sold at a premium in grocery stores all over the country, well, it is, and by, get this, corporations. Yep, those evil guys have done it again and ruined something else you like. Guess you will have to eat GMOs, since that is what family farms are doing now.

          • richard

            The beautiful thing about corporate hubris is that by living in denial ( ie. GM labelling), the perpetrators unwittingly accelerate the publics desire for an unadulterated foodstream….. The shift is on, the age of transparency is here and status quo ignorance and walls of myths are finished…..

          • Debbie Owen

            So then by your standards, companies like kellogg’s is considered “big organic”, LOL.

          • Damo

            Since Kellog’s has subsidiaries that market organic products, yes. Look at Kashi–a few years ago caught violating organic rules. Don’t really see how “organic” makes a corporation not evil.

          • Debbie Owen

            It doesn’t, why do you think many of us make a point to boycott Kellogg’s?

          • Damo

            Really? This is the first I have heard about boycotting Kellog’s. Regardless, when you continue to spread false claims about their product or the products of their competitors–which you do when you continue to lie about organics and GMOs, you are helping them.

          • Debbie Owen

            The Kellogg’s boycott has been going on for quite some time, this is not news.
            The false claims I see come from the pro-GMO side, the side that wants to keep GMOs hidden in our food supply. It is very hypocritical to be both pro-GMO and against labeling GMOs.

        • razorjack

          Are you talking about General Mills, Hormel, Campbells, and other big corporations that are aggressively going organic when you say “big Organic”?

          • Damo

            I think he means companies like Kashi–who profit over charging a premium to sell you the same food he buys just in a different package.

          • razorjack

            Kashi is owned by Kellogg’s. Much of the Kashi line is not organic. Smart people will avoid Kashi just like they do Kellogg’s.

          • Damo

            I agree that Kashi is not organic–but they certainly promote themselves as such. Stop it with the smart people line, it is untrue and obnoxious. Smart people can and are fooled all the time, and when you support lies that these companies tell, you are supporting them fooling people–smart or not.

        • richard

          By “Big Organic” do you mean hard working honest farmers who choose not to swim in agritoxins? Or do you mean those big mean children speaking out at school? Or possibly the National Research Council of the USA who in 1988 resoundingly endorsed organic agriculture in “Alternative Agriculture”….. those bad organic meanies? Funny, I dont see any of them with full pages in newspapers, dementia inducing radio ads and spine numbing rhetoric from tenured reactionaries…….

      • Captain Moonlight

        **backs away, closes door**

      • 2wheeldeal

        Seralini’s paper was republished, not reproduced, at least i couldn’t find any examples. Tsk Tsk, there is a HUGE difference there. The paper was reprinted in a low-impact pay-to-play journal. Seralini has still refused to release the data from his poorly designed study and all the scientific and statistical criticisms from the first print still stand.
        Please supply references to reproduced study (if any).

      • RobertWager

        Would you like to read the European Food Safety Authority opinion of the Seralini papers? Or other food safety authorities? I would be happy to send a link.

      • Verna Lang

        Samsel and Seneff? They do no actual laboratory research. They gather together papers already written and mine them for phrases they can cobble together. Which is why you will find them using a study in fungi as support for their speculation about what occurs in intestinal bacteria. That’s not even apples and oranges. That is comparing apples to nudibranchs.

        • SageThinker

          It’s actually relevant to see what glyphosate does in endophytic and soil bacterial communities, in regard to what it might do in the human gut microbiome. It’s an adjacent field of data, and interpolation is useful in hypothesis generation in science. And why is there apparently no research on whether glyphosate affects the gut microbiota of mammals? I’ve looked for a long time for any such research and found none at all. It seems a think that Monsanto would want to research, unless they’re worried about finding out that there is an effect, thereby limiting the sales of their product.

          • Verna Lang

            There was work done in the early days of using glyphosate in agriculture before herbicide tolerant crops were ever in use. Bacterial species that were normally found in the gut had to be exposed to an order of magnitude higher levels of glyphosate than plants encounter in the field in order to see growth inhibition. Note that the bacteria were inhibited, and not killed. Most started regrowing as soon as their media was supplemented with the amino acids that were shut off by exposure to glyphosate. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC213615/
            If you eat protein, those same amino acids would be present in the digestive tract and freely available to your gut bacteria. Considering that you would need to drink glyphosate in order to mimic the amount of glyphosate used in those bacterial studies, putting a grant proposal in to study the gut microbiota in the presence of glyphosate at real world concentrations would likely land your research proposal squarely on the bottom of the stack. No conspiracy nonsense needed. Just no reason to waste resources on trying to prove an extremely unlikely outcome.

          • SageThinker

            Note that in the very paper you cite, Verna, the inhibition of B subtilis in our gut is *not* revered by presence of aromatic amino acids. Note also that there are many unculturable strains in our gut bacterial communities, and note also that R japonicum (a single species found in roots) is inhibited at < 10 uM of glyphosate (a very small concentration). And note also that selective pressure does not require the same level of inhibition as would show in single-strain open-fiueld testing. So all these points add up to the fact that we still don't know and the research has not been done. I ask why.

          • Captain Moonlight

            Even if glyphosate had some impact on our gut bacterial communities at some point, you would expect those bacteria to be immune by now. Gut bacteria are trillions of times more common and reproduce at an astronomical rate.

            Gut bacteria are not pussies:

            When scientists first made contact with an isolated village of Yanomami hunter-gatherers in the remote mountains of the Amazon jungle of Venezuela in 2009, they marveled at the chance to study the health of people who had never been exposed to Western medicine or diets. But much to their surprise, these Yanomami’s gut bacteria have already evolved a diverse array of antibiotic-resistance genes, according to a new study, even though these mountain people had never ingested antibiotics or animals raised with drugs. The find suggests that microbes have long evolved the capability to fight toxins, including antibiotics, and that preventing drug resistance may be harder than scientists thought.

            Of course, anti-biotic use, alcohol, diet and one thousand other things all impact on our gut bacterial communities.

            I’m guessing the consequent yawn factor is why no one has wasted time and scarce resources to whack this particular mole on its head.

          • SageThinker

            You might think so, and you might be right but you might be wrong. The reason for doing simple research is to find the answers empirically.

            You’d be surprised how glyphosate affects endophytic bacterial communities.
            Seriously, it changes the species composition dramatically, leaving Pseudomonas and a few other species only, and completely eliminating some other species to undetectable amounts. That’s dramatic. Of course plant microbiome is much different from human microbiome, but still, that’s a thing to consider. It does affect microbial communities dramatically.

          • Captain Moonlight

            Sage, you have been saying for months if not years that no research has been done on the impact of glyphosate on human gut bacteria. You said you knew this because you had scoured the science databases and found no evidence of such research. Yet Vera found some research that you had overlooked. What are we to make of this?

          • SageThinker

            That you’re either mistaken or lying. That’s all. Because Vera’s paper is a paper i’ve read and cited already numerous times, about the way that glyphosate drains energy of bacteria differently, especially how it is a constant drain on B subtilis that’s not stopped by presence of aromatic amino acids, because the matabolic feedback loop in that bacteria is different from that in E coli and other bacteria… gives a view on the diversity of bacterial responses to glyphosate.

          • Captain Moonlight

            You said earlier: ” And why is there apparently no research on whether glyphosate affects the gut microbiota of mammals?”. Right, so you knew such research already existed when you made this comment. Who’s dishonest?

          • Denise

            No doubt some of the microbes in our gut can evolve over TIME and adapt to new invaders. But that evolution occurs over a long, long period of time, in NATURE. Remember the laws of evolution? Only the fittest survive to a changing environment.
            I’m afraid we (the people) have NOT been genetically modified (GM)or engineered (GE), like the GM plants, to tolerate or withstand Roundup’s combination of glyphosate and its very toxic adjuvants) plus various other chemicals we’re faced with.
            These GM plants have been engineered to tolerate these poisons. WE, people, who are also part of this complex ecosystem, and web of life have not had our genes altered to stave off with this invasion of toxins into our bodies. Nor the bees ,butterflies many birds, aquatic life etc. etc.
            Results: A lot of sick people taking pills and medicines to deal with stomach and intestinal inflammation, colitis,non Hodgkins lymphoma, kidney and liver disease and various forms of cancer through the human body. Great business for Big Pharma but it’s killing us.

          • Captain Moonlight

            Rhizobium japanonicum isn’t part of the human gut bacteria community, so I’m not sure why you raise it here.

            Re Bacillus subtilis:

            We investigated the potential of glyphosate degradation and bioremediation in soil by Bacillus subtilis Bs-15. Bs-15 grew well at high concentrations of glyphosate; the maximum concentration tolerated by Bs-15 reached 40,000 mg/L.

            wwwDOTncbi.nlm.nih.govFORWARDSLASHpubmedFORWARDSLASH26600533

            Sounds rather robust in the presence of glyphosate to me.

          • SageThinker

            I know that R japonicum is not a known human gut microbe. However, it shows that *some* microbes are known to be inhibited at very low levels of glyphosate and therefore it’s possible that others are, including some that are in the human gut microbiome.

            We now have the technology to work with communities of microbes and we can do the research. We need to do it.

            According to the paper cited by Vera above, B subtilis is inhibited at levels much lower than that. Perhaps Bs-15 is a resistant strain found in soil.

          • Verna Lang

            It’s Verna, by the way. Did you not read the concentrations of glyphosate used from the graphs? That is a much higher level of exposure than needed in plants to produce inhibition. Bacteria, B. subtilis included, are inhibited by exposure to glyphosate in the mM range and plants are inhibited by microMolar amounts. The kinetics of inhibition are not with you. Unless you are supplementing the level of residual glyphosate found in food with a chaser of glyphosate, you are not going to get that concentration of glyphosate in the gut. Not even if you are a farmer that has just mixed tanks of the stuff for application.

          • Captain Moonlight

            Thanks … Verna.

          • Bruce__H

            You are absolutely correct in what you say.

            SageThinker knows you are correct because he and I went over it all last spring. At that time, I pointed out (as have a number of others since) that there is no evidence for inhibition of gut bacteria at real world-concentrations. In fact we discussed published in vivo evidence that gut bacterial populations are pretty robust to challenges from glyphosate or roundup.

            The work done on mammalian and avian gut seems to have slipped his mind now since I now see him asserting that such work has not been done. The only thing he seems to have stuck in his mind is a single unreplicated study (Jaworski, J Agric and Food Chem 20:1195, 1972) showing more than 50% inhibition of growth of R japonicum at 2 ppm glyphosate. Now R japonicum is not a gut species, it is symbiotic in the roots of plants, but this has made no difference to SageThinker. He has excluded from his thoughts the work on gut species of bacteria and the in vivo work, and now the single unreplicated study from more that 40 years ago has become the centre of his arguments.

          • Verna Lang

            I forgot to include this comment about your “useful in generating a hypothesis” statement. That may be a starting point for research, but Samsel and Seneff don’t do research. They used the bacteria are like fungi analogy as support for their conclusion that glyphosate switches the gut bacteria to anaerobic metabolism. “A switch to anaerobic metabolism is also suggested from a study showing that, in soil treated with glyphosate, the total count of fungi was significantly increased, while oxygen consumption was significantly inhibited.” If your head didn’t just hit the desk after reading that, you don’t know enough about intestinal conditions to know that the gut is anaerobic. Arguing that glyphosate causes the gut to become anaerobic when the conditions are already anaerobic just shows that the authors don’t even know enough Microbiology to pass an intro course. They have no business passing themselves off as any sort of experts in the field.

          • SageThinker

            Well, no worries. I haven’t actually read more than a few paragraphs of their papers and i have no intention or need to. I have worked in a lab with anaerobic microbes myself, in an anaerobic chamber, growing Sporomusa ovata, for instance. I like to read actual science, by which i mean the papers on glyphosate from 1972 forward.

          • Verna Lang

            You haven’t read more than a few paragraphs of their papers and yet you jumped in here defending their so-called findings?

          • SageThinker

            Ok i’m sorta done here. I am not defending them but saying that some of the ideas i’ve seen mentioned of theirs have some validity. I’m not here to argue with rhetoric, but rather things of substance.

          • Captain Moonlight

            Your substance has been sadly lacking, as Verna has demonstrated.

          • SageThinker

            I have plenty of substance, Captain. I thrive in a dialogue that is about content, but in reply to comments like these, there is not much substance to address. I think this comment of yours is simply empty rhetoric. There is plenty to discuss about glyphosate, as its dynamics are rich and very complex in the real world. I’ve read hundreds of studies about it and learned so much about it to date. Happy to discuss in good faith any aspect of glyphosate, but not willing to be part of bad dialogue or rhetoric.

          • Damo

            What comments are you talking about that don’t have substance?? The ones where Verna proved you wrong? …

            Seems like the subject had enough substance for you, until you got caught either lying or being uninformed–then suddenly there was no substance.

          • Verna Lang

            I’m not arguing rhetoric either. I nearly ODed on the highlighter I used to mark all their scientific inaccuracies. There is no substance in a paper when the premise is so seriously flawed because of the lack of understanding of the basics of the science. If you cannot read a publication and measure its quality, then your critical thinking skills are flawed or lacking. …

          • SageThinker

            Verna, i pretty much agree with you, that it’s not sound enough to warrant really caring about or using. It does collect a lot of hypotheses, but not in a way that is careful enough to be of service to me. That is why i’ve not felt compelled to even read a Seneff paper through, even though i’ve read hundreds of papers about glyphosate. I would rather sift through the primary research record on my own and draw my own conclusions more carefully, sifting things into the “definitely not”, “maybe”, and “probably” categories based on my own reckonings. I also am not afraid to maintain that there are things that we just don’t know until we do know them. That’s important to good science.

          • Captain Moonlight

            …[C]rusade[s] to prove that glyphosate is linked to all types of terrible diseases, including cancer and autism, is reminiscent of the “God of the Gaps” arguments used by the creationists. Until glyphosate is subject to every conceivable test known to man, Sage will keep shouting from the rooftops that biotech scientists, the FDA, the EPA and Monsanto are involved in a conspiracy the likes of which the world has never hitherto known.

            In this particular morality tale, Monsanto stands in for the devil and Godless atheists.

          • Captain Moonlight

            Verna:

            Bacteria, B. subtilis included, are inhibited by exposure to glyphosate in the mM range and plants are inhibited by microMolar amounts. The kinetics of inhibition are not with you.

            Sage, how could you miss this? I mean, seriously, how could anyone who claims expertise on this subject … miss something that obvious?

          • SageThinker

            There are many bacteria inhibited at micromolar concentrations, so the point *may* be valid regarding B subtilis (or may not) but there are many bacterial species that are definitely inhibited by low micromolar amounts.

            Captain, i did not miss this, of course. So your claim that i missed it it wrong and your attempt to discredit me by that means is of course equally wrong because the factual basis of the claim is wrong.

          • richard

            Interesting discussion….. I wonder if the authors are aware that Glyphosate inhibits and destroys the viability of seed….. Thats an empirical fact. Its hard to imagine how dead food is going to lead to health and vitality of human civilization….. regardless of what the microscope says……

          • SageThinker

            Is that a fact? I don’t think that’s true, richard, or at least i have not found empirical evidence to suggest that glyphosate destroys the viability of seed. Can you explain more about what you mean and maybe provide some references? I’m curious but doubtful about that claim. I know a lot about glyphosate by this point, including how it affects microbial communities, but i haven’t heard anything about it affecting viability of seed.

          • richard

            Well my old son…..talk to the maltsters, talk to the oat millers, talk to the seed growers….. dont shoot me, I’m just your humble messenger?

          • SageThinker

            Richard, i am simply asking for more evidence or explanation. Please don’t think i am shooting the messenger. You said that glyphosate harms the viability of seed, and while i’ve read tons of papers about glyphosate, i haven’t seen anything about this before, so i asked. Please accept it as a good faith question.

          • Damo

            Funny, I do talk to farmers–they plant within 48 hours sometimes (not the recommendation) and seem to have no problem with their seeds germinating and becoming full grown plants.

          • richard

            Funny, because maltsters, oat millers and most lentil buyers want zero to do with grain dessicated with glyphosate…….Thats right, injecting the chemical right into the germplasm of the food we eat…….Are we living on the planet of the apes?

          • Damo

            Well, desiccation is totally different. I wouldn’t expect that seed that did not reach maturity to germinate, regardless of the reason why it stopped maturing.

            I am not saying using RoundUp is safe for desiccation (I am not an expert, maybe it is, maybe it isn’t), but that is a totally different argument than using it as weed control.

          • richard

            Not an expert…..hard to imagine…..I never was talking about weed control…. And its not safe for dessication …..and it has nothing to do with maturity……It compromises the life force in the seed…… …

          • richard

            Yeah nothing like dead food in your diet….. … …… there is some very good research going on correlating the proliferation of glyphosate as a dessicant in cereals and gluten intolerance in humans……Nothing like mainlining a systemic toxin into guts of unsuspecting test rats……and we call this progress….

          • richard

            …..and furthermore since progress has become nothing more than a relative ideological term we should not be surprised that an entire caste of believers have staked their professional careers on the fate of one ingredient…..a boiler cleaner, an antibiotic, a mineral chelator, a molecule that was originally registered with no known mode of action…..This cannot possibly end well for either the chemical or its missionaries…..Kinda like the wonders of thalidamide, DDT, rgbh, PCBs, dioxins, ractopamine, zilmax, antibiotics as prophylactics, neonics, watersheds contaminated with nitrates and phosphates….and we call this progress.

          • Damo

            You were never talking about weed control?? So why were you posting on a discussion about herbicides then?

            And yes, using glyphosate as a desiccant is all about maturity–they spray the crop with herbicides so that it dies early.

            And way to insult me for admitting that I don’t know the effects of using glyphosate for desiccation on the seed. Perhaps it would do you some good to admit what you don’t know, because so far you made a statement that was not true–then said you were talking about desiccation. Then attacked me, but haven’t provided any proof for your initial claim. But making a second claim that proves you do not even know what desiccation is. …

          • richard

            I’m really sorry…..Merry Christmas!

          • Bruce__H

            “There are many bacteria inhibited at micromolar concentrations …”.

            There are? What sorts?

      • Damo

        Really?? Where have they been reproduced?

    • SageThinker

      There is more than Seralini involved. And Seralini just won a lawsuit against his defamation, by the way. It’s not as cut and dried as you make it out. We need good science, unbiased science. It’s hard when the elephant in the room does its own studies to show that their own product is safe. Of course they do. And their unpublished studies from the 1980s remain unpublished and the correlation to cancer in those studies remains swept under the rug by a single odd 1991 EPA memo that was not signed by three of the EPA staff, who wrote “DO NOT CONCUR” and yet… that moment in 1991 means what? What was that about? I haven’t seen a good explanation for that yet.

  • John Charron

    Well, well. Chritmas is coming and I guess the author’s fishing for a fat bonus with this headline! Still, I feel compelled to give credit for the punchline you provided as the last paragraph is really all the info that’s pertinent here. Merry, Merry…

  • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

    Hilarious, as the article points out, the 16 “experts” in the panel, were hired by Intrek who was hired by Monsanto, big surprise…

    Every water sample tested by the state of Hawaii tested positive for glyphosate. Now that it is off patent and Monsanto is moving to RNAi, it is finally being exposed.

    • Robert

      I’m surprised Monsanto hasn’t yet sued Hawaii for “adding” their glyphosate to the water supply. Isn’t that pretty typical of their MO?

      • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

        Lol, in this Orwellian world, where Monsanto, and the rest of the big six (now big 5) GMO/Chemical pushers and the banksters who pull their strings have purchased the government plus most of the media it is possible. They already sued 3 of 4, Hawaii, counties to overturn laws. Glyphosate was originally patented as a Chelator, the county is getting free descaling agent to remove mineral deposits from pipes.

  • ed

    I reviewed the Bible and other than the words that made certain claims made by people with credentials that could not be verified, found no evidence of Jesus or mention of dinosaurs for that matter. The conclusions that I made based on that, backed up my previously held notions and must be deemed certify-ably accurate because of my expert analysis of the book says I, and this should now supersede any and all work, data or opinion compiled on the subject to date.

  • SageThinker

    Monsanto hired Intertek to form an “expert panel” to conclude that glyphosate doesn’t cause cancer. However, the 1991 EPA memo stated otherwise. Of course Monsanto’s panel decides Monsanto’s outcome — fox and henhouse 101.

    They’ve been running from this for 24 years now.

    http://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/chemicalsearch/chemical/foia/web/pdf/103601/103601-265.pdf

    • … One test. ONE BLOODY ISOLATED TEST. The ONLY test you could find, amidst thousands. Tens of thousands. EPA, Health Canada, and other science-based regulatory agencies have clearly demonstrated that glyphosate is LESS TOXIC THAN Aspirin, baking soda, caffeine, cannabis, nicotine, table salt, and Tylenol. Glyphosate is NO MORE TOXIC THAN ethanol ( an edible beverage constituent in beer, wine, and other intoxicating beverages ), mouthwash ( Listerine ), and Vitamin C. Glyphosate is scientifically-safe, practically non-toxic, will cause NO harm, will NOT cause cancer, and will NOT cause irreversible damage if consumed orally. The probable lethal dose for a person ingesting the concentrated form of glyphosate is ONE LITRE, the volume of an entire milk carton. By comparison, drinking SIX LITRES of water, a fluid that is seemingly harmless, can lead to water poisoning or dilutional hyponatremia, which is a potentially fatal disturbance in brain functions. In essence, water is only FIVE TIMES SAFER than glyphosate. IARC’s false-evaluation against glyphosate is indicative of a conflation of advocacy with science. Because of pesticide-hating activism, IARC has distorted the assessment of health risks. For more information about IARC, go to … THE PESTICIDE-HATING IARC IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED !

  • GreenSenior

    “Monsanto asked Intertek to assemble the panel to review the IARC findings.” That says it all. Who do you believe, the foremost health organization in the world, or a panel presumably “hired” by Monsanto, who have billions of dollars in sales riding on this. Enough said.

    • RobertWager

      Three of the four WHO programs found glyphosate is NOT carcinogenic. The only one that did find it to be carcinogenic cited the most discredited science on this subject, Seralini papers seven times in their report.

      • Debbie Owen

        … Seralini is very credible, the only one’s who say he isn’t is the GMO biotech industries and their supporters. The IARC looked at peer reviewed studies, now you want us to believe that Monsanto’s unpublished, self serving studies should be more credible. Nope, won’t fall for that one.

    • … We believe Monsanto, and NOT IARC ! We believe regulators and NOT IARD. National government regulators world-wide have concluded that glyphosate is scientifically-safe, and yet only IARC arbitrarily claims it may cause cancer. IARC is NOT a government regulatory agency. It has NO regulatory authority whatsoever. IARC most certainly is NOT a science, NOT a research, and NOT a health organization. IARC is a mere subsidiary of the World Health Organization ( WHO ). If the IARC hazard study against glyphosate is truly valid, then why doesn’t WHO itself demand more government regulation ?!?! Why should national regulatory agencies listen to IARC when it is ignored by WHO ?!?! In fact, glyphosate WILL NOT CAUSE HARM and WILL NOT CAUSE CANCER ! It is clear that IARC has an agenda-driven bias for reasons of mere pesticide-hating fanaticism and politicized science. IARC IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED !

  • Kate B

    Okay. Let’s use our imaginations for a minute to pretend glyphosate (and other Monsanto poisons) don’t cause cancer. Let’s do that. Now, let’s talk about all of the other high incidences of disease, morbidity, infertility and miscarriage/stillbirth, and genetic abnormalities in communities with high exposure. And let’s talk about places – in this country yet – with lower exposure and fewer incidences of such as mentioned. It is a mass, unauthorized science experiment, and people are suffering and dying because of it. Please don’t think for a moment that a company making billions cares for a minute about the human cost, or that they won’t do everything they can to hide their guilt. Follow the money! Concerned parties aren’t making billions by asking for transparency.

    • RobertWager

      Yes lets follow the money. The anti-GMO industry is pending 10-15 billion dollars each year to make the public afraid of conventional agriculture products including GE crops and derived foods. Their sales of alternative products is over 100 billion annually.

      Monsanto made $15 billion last year, just slightly more than Whole Foods.

      • richard

        Show us the paper trail on the 10-15 bill please? …

          • richard

            Thank you for the link… interesting article but clearly no paper trail to anything resembling the the 10-15 billion the author recklessly claims…… Of course the sector contributes to all kinds of environmentally engaged parties but we both know that it is a pittance compared to thirty five thousand paid lobbyists in Washington promoting such wonders as armaments, banking manipulation and pesticide proliferation…… The organic sector sir, is a hundred billion dollar business globally and is a success story because it is self evident….the rest is peripheral….. Why would anyone choose an apple that has been sprayed four to six times with agritoxins, when they can buy an organic one for virtually the same price??? Talk to the best chefs in the world….They choose organic because it tastes better, keeps longer and supports local enterprise…. In the age of transparency, war on nature is on longer gonna cut it…..the jig is up…..the technological myth makers and their 9B 2050 delusion no longer have the floor……

      • Debbie Owen

        Where is your proof? It is the pro-GMO industry that spends a fortune to make the public afraid of simple labels. The bottom line is anti-GMO is proud to label and is for transparency, pro-GMO is for keeping people in the dark. There is a reason for that.

      • SageThinker

        Occam’s razor does not follow this conclusion. There’s a clear vested interest in one case, and not much of a direct vested interest in the other case.

      • TZ

        Citation please!

    • Damo

      Uh, since those things in the second sentence have known causes (which glyphosate isn’t one), what exactly is your point?

  • RobertWager
  • The World Health Association ( WHO ) has NEVER issued a statement concerning glyphosate and cancer. On March 20th, 2015, the IARC, a mere subsidiary of WHO, arbitrarily classified the herbicide glyphosate as « probably carcinogenic » on the basis of « limited evidence », rendering its study as SEVERELY FLAWED, DISTORTED, and UNBALANCED. If the IARC’s anti-glyphosate study is truly valid, then why doesn’t WHO itself demand more government regulation ?!?! Why should national regulatory agencies listen to IARC when it is ignored by WHO ?!?! If you question that glyphosate is carcinogenic based on the IARC’s anti-glyphosate study, perhaps you should consider advocating bans against similarly classified products & activities, like bacon, baked food, burgers, cooked meat, fish, fried food, grapefruit juice, night shift work, paint remover, roasted food, sausages, and vegetables. IARC has also evaluated chemical agents & activities that have HIGHER carcinogenic hazard than glyphosate, like alcoholic beverages, baby oil, oral contraceptives, outdoor air pollution, painter, plutonium, and sunlight. For more information about IARC, go to … http://wp.me/p1jq40-8RO http://wp.me/p1jq40-5Lc http://wp.me/p1jq40-8M4 For more information about GLYPHOSATE, go to … http://wp.me/P1jq40-1Jb

    • Rob Bright

      “Mere subsidiary?!” … It’s the branch of the WHO that SPECIALISES in cancer research for crying out loud! …

      • … Indeed, IARC is NOT even a regulatory authority. It is a mere subsidiary of the World Health Organization ( WHO ). If the IARC’s anti-glyphosate study is truly valid, then why doesn’t WHO itself demand more government regulation ?!?! Why should national regulatory agencies listen to IARC when it is ignored by WHO ?!?! IARC merely looks at what is called hazard, and NOT risk. It DOES NOT take into consideration how much of, or how commonly, a risk glyphosate poses in the real world. IARC has also failed to provide any new research concerning glyphosate. Why do science-based national regulatory agencies around the world conclude that glyphosate is scientifically safe while only IARC arbitrarily claims it « probably » causes cancer ? Because IARC is NOT a government regulatory agency, and it DOES NOT evaluate risk. IARC most certainly is NOT a science, NOT a research, and NOT a health organization. In fact, glyphosate WILL NOT CAUSE HARM and WILL NOT CAUSE CANCER ! It is clear that IARC has an agenda-driven bias for reasons of mere pesticide-hating fanaticism and politicized science. IARC IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED !

  • Debbie Owen

    Obviously this wasn’t an independent panel, hired by Monsanto. The studies they looked at were not independent, not even all peer reviewed, just self serving. Nope, glyphosate is a probable carcinogen.

  • Debbie Owen

    From the Interek website…”We protect our customers’ interests, helping them successfully meet regulatory obligations and bring products to market in a time-efficient and cost-effective manner.” Yep, protecting Monsanto’s interest, not independent at all.

  • Bobbtuiidbd

    Great article, small correction… Glyphosate is a herbicide, not a pesticide.

    • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

      This issue often causes confusion, technically insecticides and herbicides can both be called pesticides; however, I agree that herbicide is a better term as I personally agree with your comment as I don’t consider them a pest, but a signal of what is happening in the soil.

      http://agroforestry.org/free-publications

  • This comes as no surprise to anyone with any formal education in biochemistry. It’s generally pretty easy to look at a molecule and tell if it’s carcinogenic or not (e.g. densely halogenated aromatics), and of the few carcinogens that don’t have obvious clues, they tend to show up pretty clearly in epidemiology studies.

    Glyphosate is not an obvious carcinogen, and has been used so widely for so long that it should have left a trail of correlated cancer incidents if it were carcinogenic, but it hasn’t.

    I will continue to eat roundup-ready corn without hesitation.

    • Damo

      Do they make RR corn for humans?? I was under the impression that it is a field corn.

      • It is approved for human consumption, and some sweet corn is RR.

  • John Fefchak

    A story from long ago, “Belling the Cat!”
    (or Monsanto)
    How does one separate politics /Monsanto and science to arrive at the truth? (Is it even possible in to-days society ?)

  • Terry

    There is always debate about who wrote the studies and how they were written. In playground terminology this equates to “he said she said” . What about the massive overuse of glyphosate ? We are at the top of the food chain and things tend to bioaccumulate so is it really “known” or do these studies really hold a lot of credibility? So many things we use and have used in the past have been found to cause cancer and other diseases after using them for 30 years however we are still optimistic about bought science. Do we really trust the companies that sell things to us to make them safe? Driving cars and making emissions was considered safe. Here is an experiment we can all do : lock yourself in a room with limited water and food and a waste management system..,stay in there for 30 years . What happened? Did you now what was going to happen at the beginning? Middle ? End? Did you stay in there?
    …like the adage goes, common sense, it’s not that common.

  • Yeah, I thought so, 12 of 16 “experts” have direct connections to Monsanto, as is so often the case with the studies Monsanto uses to make it’s cases, they are not only funded by Monsanto but are conducted by “experts” who are essentially on their payroll. …

  • … One test. ONE BLOODY ISOLATED TEST. The ONLY test you could find, amidst thousands. Tens of thousands. There is NO evidence of carcinogenicity, and hence, glyphosate DOES NOT cause cancer.

  • Sage – I’ve reviewed your commenting history and it appears to me you and the Capt. have a running dialog on multiple sites. Further, it appears your comments also oscillate…

    I’ve allowed you two to “go at it” a bit as it seemed you both have some knowledge of the subject and your opinions on it could help move the discussion along.

    Now seems like a good time to remind ALL posters to keep the comments focused on the issue, not one another.

    Cheers,
    Paul – WP web ed

  • Dan Salazar

    This study appears to be purely observational. This sounds more like a review and not an actual study. Also, 12 of the 16 experts on the “panel of experts” have worked for or work for Monsanto, and this review was funded by Monsanto.

    http://www.monsanto.com/iarc-roundup/pages/2015-glyphosate-expert-panel.aspx

  • Damo

    His defamation lawsuit was not about the validity of his study–stop pretending one has something to do with the other.

  • Bruce__H

    This story is about a debate over the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate. But let’s say that glyphosate does cause cancer. What is wrong with using a cancer causing substance at concentrations far below its toxic range?

  • Denise

    “Nero fiddles while Rome burns”. That describes our governments’ (USand Canada) very well when it comes to the lack of protection we are getting from the government agencies,whose mandate is to protect our food supply.
    Putin: Russia Will be the World’s Largest Supplier of Healthy Organic Food
    Thailand bans GMO foods from their schools.
    http://www.sustainablepulse.com
    And we we wonder why the world’s super power, USA, is going the way of the Roman Empire. And Russia was supposed to be evil empire?

    • richard

      Read Edward Hyams, “Soil and Civilization” or John Brunner’s, “The Sheep Look Up”……..Turns out its “deja vu all over again”

  • ed

    Roundup has been linked to many cancers and although dulled down from it’s early usage days in Vietnam as a dessicant, it still is not that safe.

  • L. Caceres

    I suggest everyone, including “experts” and corporate Monsanto executives, be brave enough to drink a 4 ounce glass of this stuff, and record the expert “long term” effects. Let’s see who dies and who doesn’t? Smile at toxicity…and so will the Grim Reaper.

  • Christina Struck

    How is it that wheat in Europe isn’t a problem, but in the US the smallest amount causes pain in some people? Glysophate is a poison and you allow them to put it on your FOOD. Yum.

  • Welcome2ThePoliceStateComrade

    Go ahead and eat your glyphosate, I will stick with the organic. You can choose to trust a company who has been proven to be evil if you want but I will not. That’s the great thing about America, I can vote with my dollar. The scientific studies linking glyphosate to cancer have been upheld by many supreme courts around the world. I am sure monsatan is paying top dollar buying scientists to say otherwise. The elephant in the room is monsantos own studies on glyphosate or the lack there of.

  • Pard

    Corn and wheat are GMOs and have been for over a hundred years. No negative effect.