Excessive glyphosate levels found in 1.3 percent of food samples: CFIA study

CORRECTION – The headline of this story originally stated glyphosate was found in 4 percent of food samples. The correct number is 1.3 per cent of food samples. Glyphosate was found in 4 percent of grain samples.

Health Canada has found that glyphosate exceeds maximum residue limits in grain products about four percent of the time.

The finding is from a Canadian Food Inspection Agency document that an agency employee emailed to U.S. Right to Know, a non-profit group that campaigns for a transparent food system. The four page report is titled Safeguarding with Science: Glyphosate Testing in 2015-2016. (PDF format)

A CFIA spokesperson confirmed that it is an agency document and the information is accurate

 The document summarizes CFIA testing of 3,188 food samples for glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and the most popular herbicide in the world.

The Agency began testing for glyphosate in 2015 to get a sense of the presence and levels of the herbicide in foods.

CFIA scientists tested fresh produce, processed fruits and vegetables, grain products, juice and other beverages, bean-pea-lentil products, soy products and baby food. They compared the amount of glyphosate in the food to the maximum residue limit (MRL) allowed for that product.

They tested:

•    869 grain products and found glyphosate in 36.6 percent of samples. 3.9 percent of samples had residues above the MRL.

•    869 bean-pea-lentil products and found glyphosate in 47.4 percent of samples. Only 0.6 percent were over the MRL.

•    82 samples of baby cereals. They detected glyphosate in 31.7 percent of samples. No samples exceeded the MRL.

•    127 samples of baby food. They found glyphosate in 30.7 percent of samples. No tests exceeded the MRL.

•    263 soy products. Glyphosate was detected in 11 percent of samples but none were above the MRL

ADVERTISMENT

•    496 juice and beverage samples. Around 16  percent of samples had residues and 0.2 percent exceeded the MRL

Overall, glyphosate was detected 29.7 percent of the time in 3,188 food samples. Only 1.3 percent of samples were above the MRLs.

“Most samples found with levels of residues exceeding Canadian limits were predominantly associated with grain products,” the report said.

The document doesn’t provide information on the amounts of glyphosate in the food samples, and it doesn’t tell Canadians if certain grain products were significantly higher than the residue limits or marginally above the MRL.

It omits the types and names of grain products, such as breakfast cereals, that may have exceeded the MRL.

The CFIA, in an email to The Western Producer, said it doesn’t plan to release such information.

“The report (on glyphosate residues) will not include raw data, company or brand names.”

The agency is withholding those details for confidentiality reasons.

“Information about individual companies and products are not included in the reports because the relationships between distributors and manufacturers of specific products may be confidential business information.”

Many Canadians have been waiting for the CFIA report on glyphosate residues because the herbicide has become extremely controversial.

Last year the European Union came close to banning it because of a scientific report from the World Health Organization.

In March of 2015 the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic” to humans.

ADVERTISMENT

Many toxicologists have condemned the IARC decision because numerous agencies, including Health Canada, the European Food Safety Authority and the European Chemicals Agency, have studied the herbicide. They all concluded that it’s not carcinogenic and not a threat to human health.

Despite the body of evidence showing it’s safe, the IARC report triggered lawsuits in the U.S.

Consumer and environmental groups are suing companies over glyphosate residues in foods like granola bars and honey.  

The state of California may soon require that Roundup and glyphosate have a label saying it’s a cancer threat because of the IARC ruling.

In its report, CFIA scientists said Canadians don’t need to worry about glyphosate residues in food.

“This data was evaluated by Health Canada and no human health concerns were identified.”

The agency will be posting the document on its website as a chemical residue report.

A CFIA spokesperson said the agency hasn’t decided when it will publish the document.

Health Canada maximum residue limits for glyphosate:

Barley        10 parts per million
Bean          4 p.p.m.
Lentil             4 p.p.m.
Pea              5 p.p.m.
Soybean        20 p.p.m.
Wheat         5 p.p.m.
General MRL      0.1 p.p.m.
(for other products)
Source: Health Canada

Contact robert.arnason@producer.com

ADVERTISMENT

  • anthony samsel

    There are no safe levels of glyphosate. Glyphosate integrates and becomes part of every body tissue without exception and including the milk of all mammals. Glyphosate is a synthetic amino acid and analogue of glycine that participates in biology with deleterious effects and it must be banned ….

    • Stephen Daniels

      That’s not what the scientific studies say whether the studies are funded by Monsanto or not simple google search shows that.And besides pretty sure the fluoride in my drinking water gives me immunity to glyphosate least that’s what one unscientific study on the internet says.

    • Verna Lang

      You keep saying that glyphosate acts as an amino acid analog and becomes part of every body tissue. Please cite your sources for that contention. Studies using radiolabeled glyphosate have not shown it to behave like an amino acid. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1916078
      Glyphosate in breast milk? Not if you look at evidence based sources such as the German BfR. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jafc.5b05852
      If you don’t believe these credible citations that I have given you and you paint yourself as such a hot-shot scientist, repeat them and prove them wrong. Twisting someone else’s data to meet your own criteria doesn’t count. Hands on studies in your lab only.

      • anthony samsel

        Verna, throw those two studies in the trash… I will explain why neither study is any good. First, Monsanto’s study in 1974 in dairy cows says otherwise, dairy cows fed a diet containing glyphosate residues have glyphosate in their milk. ref: MONSANTO 1974, Milk and Tissue Residue Study with N-Phosphonomethylglycine in the Cow…DUPONT’s work in dairy goats in 2007 also supports this statements..

        The breast milk study you cited is defective, its rigged because they used acidulated methanol in the LC analytical procedure. Glyphosate readily reacts with acidulated methanol and hundreds of organic compounds producing ESTERS… Esterification by methanol occurs at room temperature.. So, if you want to hide low levels of glyphosate from detection ??? Use that method like the Germans and the folks at the University of Washington. You too can say there was no glyphosate found…LOL Lying BASTARDS…. ELISA for glyphosate in water-based systems is very accurate and supported by HPLC and GC as well as 14-C LIQUID SCINTILLATION COUNTING …

        Glyphosate is a synthetic amino acid and analog of glycine that participates in all biology. More of Glyphosate’s integration with proteins is discussed in my new paper just approved for publication, titled: Glyphosate pathways to modern diseases VI: Prions, amyloidoses and autoimmune neurological diseases.. It will be online very soon …

        • Peter Olins

          Anthony,
          The study by Steinborn et al. describes alternative analytical methods in great detail. They were able to detect trace amounts of glyphosate deliberately spiked into milk, at greater than 90% recovery. Using this method, they found that levels in 114 samples of breast milk were below the level of detection.

          https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291945977_Determination_of_glyphosate_levels_in_breast_milk_samples_from_Germany_by_LC-MSMS_and_GC-MSMS

          Their results are similar to those obtained by McGuire et al.
          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27030536

          What’s not clear?

          • anthony samsel

            Peter, what is very clear to me is that the Steinborn and Washington State University studies were BOGUS.

            Why ? They removed the fats and proteins prior to analysis…The glyphosate is bound to the proteins and must be extracted and it takes time as I have found in the lab….

            Protein extractions to separate amino acids can take at times 24 hours to free the amino acids. So, IMHO, they threw the baby out with the bathwater !!! Thats why there was such a discrepancy between ELISA, HPLC MSMS and GC >>>>>

          • Peter Olins

            Anthony, I haven’t seen any papers validating the use of ELISA for detecting glyphosate in complex matrices such as milk or blood (the mothers against america claims were never published). In any case, if glyphosate WERE covalently bound to proteins, a competitive ELISA would not be valid, since there would be no way to calibrate it. (I suspect that a competitive ELISA would grossly underestimate the levels of glyphosate).

            I hate to sound personal, but your previous publishing of false data makes it harder to believe anything you might claim now. If you are serious about covalent incorporation of glyphosate into proteins (and the dire consequences that you claim), I urge you to partner with an outside collaborator with the appropriate technical expertise to investigate the co-translational and post-translational incorporation that you think is occurring.

            Finally, have you contacted the McGuire and Steinborn groups to discuss your concerns about he validity of their assays? I’m sure they would be very interested in comparing notes.

  • richard

    Pleeeeease…..How could no human health concerns be identified when they don’t have a sniff what they are looking for….? Do you think fifty existing auto immune diseases with unknown origins might be worth a peek? Earth to Health Canada……Don’t you think its time we really outta come out of the dark?

  • neil

    As a grain farmer who uses glyphosate I am disappointed that 3.9% of grain samples are above the maximum residue limit (MRL). I believe it occurs when crops are uneven in maturity particularly on rolling landscape. The low areas that are higher yielding are usually slower maturing than the majority of the field. We farmers must use the product responsibly and wait longer for the greener areas to be the proper mature stage before we spray the crop or we will lose the use of this valuable product in our production systems. I do wait until all the field is the proper stage but not all farmers do. I will likely be severely criticized on this comment page for using glyphosate at all but it is a much more complicated discussion than this forum allows to have a reasonable discussion about why we farm the way we do. It is my choice not big Ag, controlling me as some believe.

    • Norm

      Neil, I agree completely with your statements. As a farmer and adviser to farmers I believe the culprit is the pre-harvest application on uneven fields. At the same time, I also believe that can easily be proven, and rectified. I too see the importance of glyphosate in my farming operation. I no longer grow Roundup Ready canola to reduce my use of glyphosate, not because the RR system isn’t effective, but to reduce resistance potential so that I can continue to use glyphosate as a pre-seed and pre or post-harvest product for weed control. The environmental degradation that would be caused by the loss of this product is nigh unimaginable. Not just from the dust storms and water erosion that would result from the lost ability to direct seed and a return to cultivation, (which would then lead to a greater nutrient, pesticide and sediment loading into our water bodies), but from the shift which would occur to herbicides which are much more toxic and more environmentally harmful.

      • Happy Farmer

        Norm, I agree.

        • richard

          Thanx for the news captain obvious(s)…..At least now you all know why the increasingly educated public has no faith in industrial agriculture…. Absolving yourselves from any personal responsibility is simply avoidance of the facts…..and this is why glyphosate, if not banned, will be made socially unacceptable….same fate as its mentor….tobacco.

          • Happy Farmer

            I am not sure how you feel we are absolving ourselves from responsibility. If you feel that our choice to disagree with your viewpoint is the “absolvance of responsibility”, you are on a very slippery slope. Many of us have taken steps for the good of our own farms, most of which are also good for the food supply chain. You should also have noted the fact that farmers are always changing and adapting, and will continue doing so.

            The “educated public” as you say, is definately being fed one side of the story. But look at Norm’s last sentences again. His statements about erosion, dust, and cultivation bring up many bad memories for farmers. We as farmers would just like to “educate” the public about those problems as well.

            I do find it interesting that while smoking may be, as you say, “socially unacceptable”, it does not go away. It is still a thriving industry for some.

    • Happy Farmer

      Neil, I agree.

      • Dr

        In a society where choice is valued above all other things a very basic choice is being made for us. That is that we cannot choose to have no glyphosate , I mean zero, nunca, nada, glyphosate in our food. It is a contaminant and the corporate and biotech community is trying to convince us that there is an acceptable limit. Even after the IARC stated “probably causes cancer”.

        Some people would like that choice NOW. Not in 30 years when it is deemed unsafe just like BP plastics, plastic in the oceans CO2 in the environment. The choice is being made for us all to have their maximum allowable rate and they are corporations with limited liability. No citations of scientific papers or talk about methods of protein separation. However These dots are easily connected. Big Picture??

    • Harold

      I do not understand your need to avoid criticism. When did criticism become a bad word other than by those wishing to conceal a wrong doing. One being critical may support what you are doing or they may support what another is doing. A critical examination of something means what? A non-critical examination means what? To criticize means what? To be severely criticized means what? In one breath you say that you want to be criticized and in the next breath you say that you do not. I will further point out that when a consumer decides that the product glyphosate will not enter into the mouth, whether or not you use the product is of no concern to the public who have made this choice. Therefore there is no reasonable discussion related to why you treat with glyphosate. There is also no reasonable discussion for why you don’t treat with glyphosate. The consumer’s critical examination of Glyphosate has already been completed. On the other hand, your critical examination determines your use of glyphosate. To be critical of the product glyphosate is to study the product make up. To be critical of Glyphosate use is to study the results after it has been released onto the field. Upon your critical study you have determined that glyphosate creates your desired results. This is your examination and “not big Ag” just as you said it is.
      Perhaps when Authority said “do not to criticize” the meaning of “we will not accept your examination” was lost. Seriously, does a movie critic not send you to the best movies? How will he do this if he doesn’t look at the film and criticize everything in it in fullness? If we don’t want criticism, we examine the movie and criticize the movie ourselves. Criticism is not a negative action.

      • neil

        I never said I did not want to be criticized I just said I would be. I said that because the majority of the comments are very negative about glyphosate and it’s use in our farming systems.

  • Welderone

    So CFIA found about 4% of food grain samples had the levels of glyphosate above Canadian government guide lines. Really two economic giants in Europe already ban glyphosate use in their countries. The two countries are Germany and France. So thank-you organic wheat growers. I only buy organic bread. Reports such as this one by the CFIA make me glad I do. And 4% is really no small number in grains like wheat. This report then says with 100,000 bushels of conventional grown wheat just under 4,000 bushels had levels of glyphosate to high using Canadian government guide lines.

    • Peter Olins

      Residues were found in the following grains: barley, buckwheat and quinoa. Hardly a major segment of the Canadian diet.

      • Welderone

        The above article does not even mention the grains barely and buckwheat. It states in the first sentence. They tested: They tested 869 grain products. And 3.9 percent of the samples had residues above the MRL. …

      • anthony samsel

        You forgot the wheat and chick peas they analyzed as well as the gluten-free products that you would be interested in ……. There were around 8,000 records of analysis for glyphosate in the Canadian records. This article discusses CFIA records for 3,188…. Where’s the other 4,800 plus records for glyphosate in foods examined by the agency ? Seems like they have selectively eliminated FOOD FOR THOUGHT ….. Deception ? Probably … To see them you can read Tony Mitra’s summary

        • Peter Olins

          Anthony,
          I checked out Tony Mitra’s site, but only found promotional material for his new book. Can you point me to actual scientific data about wheat (assay details, sample sources, values, etc.), rather than Mitra’s personal interpretations?

          If Mitra’s claims are correct, the values sound remarkably similar to the published trace levels found in European grains (but I’d prefer to see the actual data before commenting further). Mitra clearly believes that the presence of ANY level of glyphosate is inherently “dangerous”, but he offer no rationale for why he is unwilling to accept the simple model that “the dose makes the poison”. If you have some evidence or rationale for why this is untrue in the case of glyphosate, I would be eager to hear it.

          • anthony samsel

            Peter, you just have to pull the numbers and ignore the dialogue. I have seen the numbers and they are accurate extracted from spreadsheets…

          • Peter Olins

            Mitra claimed average values for glyphosate in the range of 100 ppb in a variety of wheat-derived products — not a cause for concern, in my opinion.

            Levels in bran were about 10-fold higher—as might be expected—but again, little cause for concern, since bran is a minor component of the human diet. Now, someone eating a Kg of bran each day will have digestive problems entirely unrelated to the presence of any glyphosate!

            Looking at Mitra’s blog, he has a simplistic model of toxicity, where foods are either “clean” or “dirty”. I am not willing to buy his’s book in order to see whether his numbers are credible. Since you say that you have seen the data, did you find anything surprising?

  • Mike Hamm

    I think I’m confused. The heading says 1.3% (corrected from the 4% previous), then the article goes on to say it is 36.6%. Knowing that no levels are safe, and that government poated safe levels are bought and paid for by Bayer and Monsanto, what is this article trying to do? Confuse? Mislead?

    • Happy Farmer

      Mike, I had the same confusion at first, I read it over a couple of times and it became quite clear to me. You need to take special note the article is distinguishing between crops and food.

    • Jason

      Why do you make the claim (and what evidence do you have) that there are no safe levels? This flies in the face of every toxicology report ever.

  • Dr

    It is truly my belief that the main problem is marketing and reporting of the facts in today’s work. Think about it, big Ag and the media on behalf of them have perpetuated the myth that the only way to do anything is with economy of scale. This works in a way to concentrate wealth at the top. In university in the 90’s it was drummed into us to double the size of our farms every five years(what a ridiculous concept) that was the first year that the agriculture building at U ofS was open and it cost tax payers $90 000 000. This was after 15 years of $2 /bu wheat. It came to me that there are 2 ways to learn. What you do want and what you don’t want. And yet the experts and pundits said “do this” .

    Big Ag the media and hence government has perpetuated the myth that small farmers cannot feed the world. We need 80bu/acre canola and 120bu/ac wheat. Funny how that plays into the hands of the big grain corps and chemical cos. That is a myth, over 60% of the worlds 7.5billion people ARE fed by small subsistence farms so even with a few improvements to farming practices ,storage and distribution we would be able to feed our people, and not drive down the price of commodities in the western world.

    My next point is about economies of scale. 4 % of a lot is a lot . 1.3 % of a lot is still slot. The point is this stuff is getting everywhere. Mothers breastmilk, human tissue,drinking water etc etc. There are many pesticides being used this is only one. See the advertisements embedded in this article. Anyway, I digress. The walmartization of society is doing this and it is all for low cost and convenience. Farmers don’t have the time to manage and wait for the appropriate time to apply cultural practices. I agree with Neil that used responsibly chemicals could be helpful however it is the unknowns that the consumer is no longer willing to take “hook line and sinker” people/consumers won’t gamble with their health anymore. So once they know that cereals are being dessicated (harvest aided ) with roundup and once the see the cloud of drift behind a sprayer going 15 mph they are choosing time tested food that is grown without Big Ags generosity. ( toungue and cheek). Take this analogy, if there is a pig barn with 10 000 pigs in it and there is a fire how many pigs do you think will burn? If there are 50 producers with 200 pigs on separate farms how many pigs will burn. Economy of scale can work against us also. When there is a problem it is a big problem.
    The main problem though is that it takes money out of communities and perpetuates people driving their friends out of business , not great for a sense of community.
    The genies are out of the bottle and we can’t put them back in but we can stop feeding the genies until they are obese and all powerful.
    When it comes to money and convenience I would have to quote an old saying , common sense…it’s not that common

  • SUNNY

    A recent peer reviewed study published on the Nature website shows that Roundup causes fatty liver disease at concentrations over 430,000 times lower than what is allowed in the food supply.

    Glyphosate is a potent endocrine disruptor that has no safe dose. It causes DNA breaks and irreversible cellular death. It mimics glycine in the body. It causes rapid aging, multiple diseases, and early death.

    • Stephen Daniels

      I get my liver disease from whiskey you are saying it’s worse if the rye is sprayed with roundup?

      • patzagame

        basically if your drinking rye whiskey.

        • Stephen Daniels

          Oh well pretty sure there is something in the diet pepsi mix that’s gonna kill me too.

      • Harold

        Try drinking roundup and leave the whiskey on the shelf. At least you will save your liver.

    • Peter Olins

      Sunny,
      Sounds like you didn’t actually read the paper. Livers were not analyzed for fatty liver disease.

      • Sparkle Plenty

        The study was posted on the Nature website and it has been peer reviewed. I’ll pay attention to the scientists and ignore the spin from people who are listed as go to PR assets on the industry astroturf site GMO Answers that is run by the Ketchum PR firm.

        • Verna Lang

          Science Direct is an open source journal published by Nature. It is not the journal Nature. Saying that Science Direct is the same as Nature is like saying your Ford Fiesta is the same as Ford’s GT supercar. Same manufacturer, much different performance.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            I said the study was published on the Nature website. Nature is the most prestigious scientific journal on the planet and they do not publish bad science on their website.

            Do you have specific issues with the study you would like to raise?

          • Verna Lang

            Correction. I typed Science Direct and it should be Scientific Reports. Look at the 2-year impact factor for Nature: 38.138. Scientific Reports: 5.228, the lowest ranking of all the journals published by Nature and the only one not to include the Nature name. Scientists put far more trust into the other 17 journals published by Nature than they do Scientific Reports.
            The specific issues with the study are many. The samples were saved from the infamous 2012 Seralini rat study that was roundly criticized for multiple errors and omissions. No mention of fatty liver disease was made in that 2012 paper. They cited another Seralini paper from 2015 that also used the same saved liver samples. Again fatty liver disease escaped their notice. They used 10 control and 10 treated female rats. The rats had been euthanized at different ages and in diverse states of health from tumour loads. Not exactly a large and uniform sample. The treated rats did not have their water intake measured so we have no idea what dose of roundup they ingested. The authors even mentioned the small sample size as a problem. They didn’t even cite a paper listing the biomarkers that typify non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, or mention whether the biomarkers were in common use for diagnosis.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Great spin, but I’ll pay attention to the peer reviewed science posted on Nature and ignore the spin.

          • Jason

            Correct me if I am wrong… but wasn’t it just explained to you that it WAS NOT posted on “Nature”?

          • Sparkle Plenty

            It is peer reviewed and posted on the Nature website.

          • Jason

            Try again.

          • Sparkle Plenty
          • Jason

            Says right on the publication “Scientific Reports”. You were given the explanation of the difference between that and the Journal “Nature”. So, why do you try to obfuscate?

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Yes, it was posted on the Nature website.

            Every word I wrote was true.

            Do you have some specific issues with the science or is your journal straw-man it?

          • Jason

            I understand what you’re trying to do. By stating “it’s on the Nature” website, you give the impression it was published in a respected journal, which, as you know, is not true. Clearly this is meant to obfuscate. Otherwise you’d just plainly state the publication that the study was published in.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Sorry, but you have no idea about me or my motivations. …

          • Jason

            You are right. I am only judging your actions. Those are plain to see.

          • Stephen Daniels

            In the case of Nature peer reviewed means reviewed by people with less knowledge of science than the author.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            It was peer reviewed by peer scientists. Your point is?

          • Verna Lang

            And I have seen comments from peer scientists who did peer review on papers submitted to Scientific Reports. They recommended a number of revisions that should be done before publication of the study. They then saw the completely untouched paper published in the next issue. They no longer do peer review for Scientific Reports since the editors do not pay any attention to the actual reviews submitted by peers.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Do you have a citation? Nature does not publish bad science on their web site.

          • Damo

            In this case, they did just that.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            So you say …

          • Verna Lang

            They do in Scientific Reports. Just Google “Crap, Courtesy of a Major Scientific Publisher.” The comments complete the picture.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            It is telling to me that the only people who are attempting to use the journal staw-man while ignoring the data in the study, like you are doing here, have a connection to the biotech chemical industry agenda.

          • Verna Lang

            You request issues with a study, and then dismiss all concerns raised as “biotech chemical industry agenda” spin without any attempt at defense of the study, beyond your insistence that Scientific Reports = Nature. You might as well just hold up a sign: “I’ve got nothing.”

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Yes. You gave me the industry spin. Fact is that the Seralini was only criticized by people who are supporting the biotech chemical industry agenda. Other scientists support the study. Seralini was peer reviewed multiple times and remains available for citation in the literature today.

            I’ll pay attention to the peer reviewed science posted on Nature and ignore the spin…

          • Hi Sparkle,

            I happened to be poking around the Nature website this morning and found this regarding Seralini’s paper linking GM corn and tumours in rats:

            “Environmental Sciences Europe (ESEU) decided to re-publish the paper to give the scientific community guaranteed long-term access to the data in the retracted paper, editor-in-chief Henner Hollert told Nature. “We were Springer Publishing’s first open access journal on the environment, and are a platform for discussion on science and regulation at a European and regional level.” ESEU conducted no scientific peer review, he adds, “because this had already been conducted by Food and Chemical Toxicology, and had concluded there had been no fraud nor misrepresentation.” The role of the three reviewers hired by ESEU was to check that there had been no change in the scientific content of the paper, Hollert adds.

            The publication of the new version of the paper gives critics no reason to change their mind, says food-allergy researcher Richard Goodman of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and biotechnology editor at FCT. “To my knowledge, no-one has demonstrated that a two-year feeding study of Sprague Dawley rats has uncovered any hazard that actually poses a risk to human or farm-animal health,” he says, referring to the breed of rodents used in the study.”

            The link to the full article is here: http://www.nature.com/news/paper-claiming-gm-link-with-tumours-republished-1.15463

            Cheers,
            Paul – WP web editor

          • anthony samsel

            Richard Goodman is obviously ignorant of Monsanto’s own work in 1981 using Sprague Dawley rats in a two-year feeding study that demonstrated numerous tumorigenic growth. I extracted the data from that study and published it last year. I recently revisited Monsanto’s data from that study and found that only the glyphosate treated animals got LYMPHOMA in 14 different tissues. The control animals did not have any lymphomas….. Goodman needs to confess his industry ties to Monsanto….

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Yes. This supports my claims that is is only those who are associated with the biotech chemical industry agenda that are attempting to run down this study. Goodman was a former Monsanto employee who was appointed to a new editorial position at the journal that published the study first. After he was appointed the study was retracted for being inconclusive, and that is not listed as a reason to retract studies. This looks more like an industry hit piece than a legitimate reporting as it ignored the connection between Goodman, Monsanto, and the journal.

            You can read a chronology of the events surrounding the retraction and republishing of this respected study here: http://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/scientific-publication-peril-seralini-affair

            It is also important to note that Seralini has won two defamation lawsuits against industry aligned scientists

          • The story on the Nature website linked above goes on to say:

            “Séralini claims that Goodman, who worked for Monsanto for seven years, was pulled from the FCT post-publication review committee after the research team complained about potential conflicts of interest. Goodman acknowledges that he withdrew from the committee at Séralini’s request, because “this was the only way that Séralini would produce the data the committee needed to evaluate the paper”. But, he adds, “I had no part in FCT’s decision to retract the paper, and I do not see why my wealth of experience and information is considered a conflict of interest rather than useful.”

            David Spiegelhalter, a statistician at the University of Cambridge, UK, says: “The article still does not appear to have had proper statistical refereeing, and the methods and reporting are obscure. The claimed effects show no dose-response, and so the conclusions rest entirely on a comparison with ten control rats of each sex. This is inadequate.””

            Cheers,
            Paul – WP web editor

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Goodman did not leave the journal until the study was retracted and his job was done there. Maybe there are those who believe in the Easter bunny too, but the “coincidences” raise flags that are hard to ignore specifically when the paper was retracted for a reason not recognized as valid by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

            “Following the retraction, hundreds of scientists and others wrote
            comments and letters or signed petitions in protest against the
            irrational and unprecedented retraction. [14] Many scientists committed to a pledge of boycott against publishing their work in the journals of the publisher, Elsevier.” http://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/scientific-publication-peril-seralini-affair

          • I’m definitely no expert, but there seems to be agreement that the Nature site/journal are highly respected here.

            When Nature publishes stuff such as that quoted above and the closing bit below, it certainly doesn’t make Seralini’s study look good:

            “David Spiegelhalter, a statistician at the University of Cambridge, UK, says: “The article still does not appear to have had proper statistical refereeing, and the methods and reporting are obscure. The claimed effects show no dose-response, and so the conclusions rest entirely on a comparison with ten control rats of each sex. This is inadequate.”

            Spiegelhalter also says: “The study needs replicating by a truly independent laboratory using appropriate sample sizes. I agree with the authors that this whole area would benefit from greater transparency of data and improved experimental and statistical methods.””

            Cheers,
            Paul – WP web ed

          • Sparkle Plenty

            The industry has resorted to the very unusual and obviously expensive lengths to suppress this import science. Many people have learned to pay more attention to the science they try and suppress than the science they tout in their press releases. Monsanto has shown that they are very adept at corrupting our public institutions in support of their agenda. Until there is a solid scientific consensus among independent scientists showing differently I’ll pay attention to this important science and ignore the spin by the industry echo chamber and those supporting the industry agenda.

          • Verna Lang

            IARC looked at the 2012 results from Seralini and dismissed them as follows:
            “The Working Group concluded that this
            study conducted on a glyphosate-based formulation
            was inadequate for evaluation because
            the number of animals per group was small, the
            histopathological description of tumours was
            poor, and incidences of tumours for individual
            animals were not provided.”
            Isn’t IARC the only agency to conclude that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen? So even those scientists saw the obvious flaws in what you think of as important science.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            The Seralini study was a toxicology study. They were not looking for tumors or cancer. They only reported them because they showed up. The industry seems to focus on the tumors because it distracts attention away from the toxicology finds they want to suppress.

          • Verna Lang

            They were not looking for tumours or cancer? They used Sprague-Dawley rats. Those things pop out tumours at about 75% by the end of their lives even if they were hand fed manna from heaven by angels. Any skimming let alone reading of the literature at the time Seralini was putting this study together should have told him he needed a much higher number of rats to take into account the background rate of tumours to do proper statistical analysis. Doesn’t matter whether it is toxicology or carcinogenicity, the criticism is still valid and the primary reason to discard this paper as inadequate.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            Sprague-Dawley are commonly use in scientific studies. Monsanto used the same rats in many of their studies including long term 2 year studies. They are the same rats that were used in the Hammond study which was a 90 study that Monsanto used as the lynch pin study to get GMOs approved with out any safety testing. This is also the study that provided the methodology for the Seralini study you are trying to spin away.

            Seralini was a toxicology study that was not looking for tumors. The Hammond study was not peer reviewed and suffers from the same alleged flaws as the Seralini study that was retracted, yet Hammond is still used to perpetrate the legal fiction of “substantial equivalence” that has allowed the GMOs to be released without any safety testing..

          • anthony samsel

            Monsanto used Sprague-Dawley rats in their 2-year studies with Glyphosate too. …

          • Verna Lang

            Did you take note of the number of rats used per group by Seralini and by Monsanto? 20 by Seralini and 50 by Monsanto (Hammond). The main criticism was always too few Sprague Dawley rats.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            The only people who are complaining about the umber of rats are the same people who are desperate to spin away the study.

          • Verna Lang

            The only people complaining about the number of rats just happen to be those that are aware that the standard recommendation for long term studies with SD rats is currently 65/sex/group. That recommendation was part of a draft report from OECD published in April 2010.
            “For strains with poor survival such as Sprague Dawley rats, higher numbers of animals per group may be needed in order to maximise the duration of treatment (typically at least 65/sex/group).”
            Perhaps Seralini should have researched the proper protocols for his animal experiment before he even started it. Winging it tends to attract criticism in the scientific community.

          • SageThinker

            Interesting. I feel like i could spend a month and begin to understand what happened here. But this insistence on a “dose response” is complete nonsense. The same reason was given in the terrible 1991 EPA memo. Correlation of glyphosate to tumors versus control were dropped because there wasn’t a perfect linear relationship. That’s a non-reason. It’s totally bad toxicology.

          • Aaron Aveiro

            Turnips or potato??????

          • Harold

            Is it your view that peers are property motivated? If so, what motivations do they have? Further you must be aware that peer reviews lead to approvals and approvals lead to the market place and that there have been many subsequent recalls due to unforeseen events. What were the motivations of these peer groups? To hang onto Peer reviews is to be a servant to the few.
            Do you have an account for all those who submitted their scientific data or just the selected peers of note.

          • Denise

            You must be thinking of Monsanto playbook as your reference? How do you think they arrive at “recognized as safe levels ‘ in the amounts of pesticides allowed to be sprayed on the crops and in insecticide- coated seeds?

          • JoeFarmer

            What a fine expression of complete and utter ignorance …

          • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

            FYI: Nature is the most prestigious of all peer reviewed journals it has an average impact factor of 35.62-42.351 and ranks as the top peer reviewed journal year after year since its inception in 1869.

            “Its contributors include Charles Darwin, Ernest Rutherford, and Stephen Hawking, and it has published many of the most important discoveries in the history of science, including articles on the structure of DNA, the discovery of the neutron, the first cloning of a mammal, and the human genome.”

            http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=14&article=1010&context=libreports&type=additional

            https://www.nature.com/nature/about/
            http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo20298849.html https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/65e12eff02bc8ca37b92aa300611812d25ffafa184dcb3248a2d2b814421fb03.jpg

          • Verna Lang

            Let me see if you can follow an analogy. Ford makes a low-cost, low performance Fiesta. They also make a limited number of $400,000 GT supercars that more than hold their own with Lamborghinis. Just because the manufacturers name, Ford, is on both vehicles, doesn’t mean a Fiesta is the same as the supercar. Nature Publishing Group publishes Scientific Reports. Scientific Reports is the Ford Fiesta of Nature.

          • Jason

            FYI: Nature is the most prestigious of all peer reviewed journals it has an average impact factor of 35.62-42.351 and ranks as the top peer reviewed journal year after year since its inception in 1869.

            All true. But this paper wasn’t published in “Nature”. It was published in “Scientific Reports”. Scientific Reports has an avg impact factor around 5 and an influence score at 1.8… both the lowest of any Nature affiliated journal with the exception of the very specific “Lab Animal”.

            So….. there’s that.

          • Verna Lang

            You asked for specific issues with the study. I gave them to you. Don’t ask if you have no intention of actually looking at the serious issues with the paper.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            You responded with spin. The paper is fine. The only people who have issues with it are connected to the biotech chemical industry agenda.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Duh, I’ll just call logic and evidence “spin” and then ignore it …

        • Damo

          Wow, you are just so used to copy and pasting your talking points, you didn’t even address what he said.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            I saw what he said. It was agenda driven spin. Why do you care so much about what I said to someone else?

  • patzagame

    Ask your doctor what’s right for you? Is that just an U.S.A. commercial?

    • Harold

      Yes it is just a USA and Canadian TV Commercial that Big Pharma use to sell their Drugs. You self diagnose at home from the TV and bring the product name to the doctor and he prescribes it or better yet you overlook the doctor and go buy the product yourself. It is a good scam if the public buy’s into it. It is amazing what you can do with paid child and adult actors all of which are business people and not your advocate. There are mega dollars to be made targeting the mildly sick who may otherwise be content to manage or seek other remedies on their own. There are Doctor’s who act as your advocate would and there are other Doctors who do not. It takes me very time to recognize the differences.
      Having said this, I do not understand how your comment relates to Kim’s comment.

  • Harold

    The reasoning held by the majority is the common-place and is the “common sense”. The reasoning not held by the majority in common-place is your sense or the senses of a minority group. Events can cause a flip between minority and majority senses whereby the minority sense becomes the majority and the majority sense becomes the minority or perhaps by event a new sense is added accordingly. The words “Common sense” and uncommon sense express the existence of two facts. Common sense is always common sense and it has by definition no reference to sound or unsound reasoning. You know what they say about common sense; it lacks sound reasoning- is a better response. To respond with “it’s not that common” is ignorance.
    I know what “they” say about “common sense” and “they” are confused.
    What I say about the “common sense” is that it has become distorted and when corrected, the “common sense” changes naturally.
    Be assured that the ones exposing lies, for example, can only be seen as those who are lacking in “common sense”. The great ones throughout history having “no common sense” are the very ones who have changed the “common senses”. In contrast we the “common” have been socially engineered to ignore “uncommon” sense; and we don’t want to be lacking in “common sense” now do we; hell no!!!!!
    “Common sense” is our bane. A state of our own conscience, and the sense of it, will form a “common sense”, but there is a force at work engineering our “Common sense” instead. “Common sense” is the reasoning amongst slaves and peasants of servitude (commoners) and the uncommon sense is the search of resolve and invention. Who is warning the “common sense” not to communicate with the “uncommon sense?” Uncommon sense by definition does not mean un-sound reasoning.
    “Less common sense”/conscience sense, was the beginning of all of the aircraft in the skies today while all “common sense” stood in the way. Now what is the “common sense” about flying? The sense of conscience takes you to where you need to be and the BS at the airport is the engineered “common sense”. A conscience sense would remove most of the BS at the airports but leave only the facts intact.
    Today there is no reason to study if you are of the prescribed common sense given. “Everybody says and that is good enough for me”; how dull.

    • Dr

      It’s just an adage. And it obviously hit a nerve…truth hurts

  • Harold

    Good luck with that if you think that your comment is all one needs to know.

  • tomblakeslee

    The safe limits of glyphosate in food have been raised to higher levels without any testing to find a safe limit. The assumption seems to have been that it is a harmless substance. In teality, there is a large body of scture showing that it is dangerous to health in very small quantities. Here is a summaty”
    http://www.i-sis.org.uk/pdf/Glyphosate_research_papers_compiled_by_Dr_Alex_Vasquez_and_Dr_Eva_Sirinathsinghji.pdf

  • anthony samsel

    I don’t givhe a damn about those liars at Monsanto.. That breast milk study was rigged….The milk of ALL mammals is contaminated with glyphosate. Any breast feeding woman, dairy animal ie cow, sheep, goat whatever has glyphosate in their milk if they are ingesting glyphosate residues in their food…and that is without exception…. Both Monsanto and DUPONT trade secret studies studied this and Monsanto knew back in 1974…

    Glyphosate is a synthetic amino acid and analogue of our canonical amino acid glycine and travels wherever glycine travels as well as integrates with proteins…

    • Peter Olins

      Scientists present data first, and draw conclusions second.

      We’re all waiting with bated breath to see the data. Have you considered spending less time making YouTube videos and more time in the lab?

      • anthony samsel

        Yup, you mean like Monsanto did ? Hiding it all as Trade Secret ? Have the EPA seal it for you so that the studies never see the light of day ? Hey, Peter this is a public forum, not a medical theater >>>> lol Its also the 21st century and I like social media just like Monsanto…. Someone has to stand up to their decades of lies …..

  • Dayton

    Guess Grain Millers had it right all along. They don’t buy milling oats which has been sprayed with Glyphosate for good reason. Everyone else will soon catch up.

    • hyperzombie

      Why would anyone spray glyphosate on Oats, Makes no sense.

      • Stephen Daniels

        Farmers even spay greenfeed oats to kill it and make yellowfeed oats to bale and feed to cows.

        • hyperzombie

          I don’t think they would use glyphosate for this purpose, it takes too long to work. If they need to dry the Oats they would use Diquat, in Canada anyway.

          • Stephen Daniels

            No roundup is used

      • FrenchKissed

        Desiccant. Or rather a safer alternative to a desiccant.

        • hyperzombie

          What I am trying to say is that Oats is not worth much money per acre, and it is one of the earliest maturing crops around. What would the point be? It would be better to use a pre/postemergence application in the spring to get the volunteer oats and weeds in one pass. Just my opinion..I hate Oats, it should be banned.

          • Happy Farmer

            Hyper, interesting take on oats. Most years I net just as much on oats as canola, and I don’t desiccate it for harvest.

          • hyperzombie

            I don’t desiccate it for harvest.

            Well that was my point, makes no sense for oats. I can see using it on wheat.

            Most years I net just as much on oats as canola

            Good, I know that some people are great oats farmers and they do well. I am not one of them.

            My quick Oats story. First (and only) time growing oats. Spent tons of time prepping for the oats crop, asked around got advice, fertilized and planted. Everything looked great after a few weeks, Then bad weather came and my pride and joy Oats looked terrible. Farmers from 5000 bc would have laughed at my pitiful crop. So I baled it and sold it. Most likely almost broke even on it.
            That is not the part that pissed me off about oats, the next year. I had Oats everywhere, growing in my truck bed, in the ditches, down the creek, around my outbuildings, in the eavestroughs, in the pasture runs, it was mocking me…So that is why I hate Oats.

      • Tony Mitra has received and compiled the data on glyphosate levels in Canadian’s food from the Canadian govt. The blanket spraying to artificially dry crops with roundup “desiccation” is banned in many progressive countries.
        Our grains and beans have by far the highest levels of glyphosate contamination worldwide. Overview compiled here: http://www.tonu.org/category/journalism/
        #NotRoundupReady :'(

        • hyperzombie

          What is a progressive country? France? UK? China? Cuba? What? They all use glyphosate.

          Your link contains no evidence that we have the highest levels of glyphosate. I would think that European crops would be higher because they use it far more often than North American farmers do.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Yeah, except that those countries are regressive.

    • Peter Olins

      Glyphosate residues in barley are of concern to brewers, since they can inhibit the germination process required for making malt.

      • Peaceful Warrior

        Major breweries are finding Roundup/glyphosate contamination so high in malted barley that it is interfering with the fermentation process in beer.

        “Dr. Don Huber, professor emeritus of plant pathology at Purdue University, told Health Impact News that beer brewers, in general, are struggling with impurities caused by glyphosate. He said:

        A few years ago, when one of my colleagues wanted to get
        more Abraxis test strips for testing materials for glyphosate residue,
        he was told that they had a 3-month backlog. He asked, what was causing
        this? He was told that every load of malt barley coming out of North
        Dakota has to be tested because the glyphosate levels were so high that
        it kills the yeast in the brew mix.

        The majority of malts used in beer are derived from barley, a crop in
        the U.S. that is heavily sprayed with glyphosate. Farmers grow barley
        in colder climates, and sometimes, in order to avoid a late season snow,
        they will harvest their crop early.

        Farmers do so by “desiccating” wheat and barley with glyphosate to
        wilt and dry the crop, taking a “cut in yield and quality” instead of
        risking the loss of an entire yield, explains Huber. But what they don’t
        realize is how severely they’re contaminating the ingredients.

        “Glyphosate is a systemic chemical — it is highly water soluble — it
        moves to the growth points of plants. When you put it out at the late
        stage of growth, 2 to 3 weeks before harvest, the only place that
        glyphosate can go into the seed.”

        As this leads to greater contamination in the food supply, the EPA
        increases herbicide tolerance levels on crops to protect the
        agricultural industry while covering up potential harm to public health
        or the environment.”
        http://www.newstarget.com/2016-04-13-glyphosate-will-stay-in-your-system-german-research-found-99-of-their-population-have-toxic-chemical-levels-in-their-bodies.html

        • JoeFarmer

          Is this the same Don Huber that trumpeted discovering a mystery organism caused by glyphosate, but 7 years later still can’t tell anyone what it is?

          • E. Sandwich

            It is no mystery it is a folded protein like a prion.

            Prions are the cause of serious neurological diseases like cruchfield jacob in humans, mad cow disease in cattle, and chronic wasting disease in deer and other ruminants.

          • JoeFarmer

            Sure, Ted. Why hasn’t Huber provided this mystery organism to the scientific community for examination? Because he’s making it up.

          • richard

            You must be referring to the organisms called pithium, clubroot, blackleg, sclerotinia, …… all riding the glyphosate “disorient express” to “absurdistan”……comical if it weren’t so pathetic.

          • Goldfinger

            Why are you calling E. Sandwich TED?

            Monsanto’s own study data shows that glyphosate causes folded proteins. Are you disputing the Monsanto data too.

  • Peter Olins

    Hi Kim,
    Where can we read more about the “cell damage” that you refer to?

    • There are so many independent studies, I compiled them here:
      http://kimhunter.ca/gmo
      One of many – > Study: “Since we found genotoxic effects after short exposure to concentrations that correspond to a 450-fold dilution of spraying used in agriculture, our findings indicate that inhalation may cause DNA damage in exposed individuals.”
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22331240
      and – “EPA’s new standards, the amount of allowable glyphosate in oilseed crops such as flax, soybeans and canola will be increased from 20 parts per million (ppm) to 40 ppm, which GM Watch acknowledged is over 100,000 times the amount needed to induce breast cancer cells. Additionally, the EPA is increasing limits on allowable glyphosate in food crops from 200 ppm to 6,000 ppm. ” https://www.rt.com/usa/monsanto-glyphosate-roundup-epa-483/

      • Eric Bjerregaard

        in vitro studies are unreliable when trying to speculate on real life exposure.

  • Peter Olins

    “Breastmilk”? Really? Please show us the data.

    • ed

      Yes, breast milk is loaded with it. It is the very reason that they had to ban DDT. Commonly known facts.

      • Jason

        If they are “Commonly known facts” then surely there would be some evidence they are true… right?
        And I’m not sure you really understand why DDT was banned.

    • Aaron Aveiro

      Stop Peter you and everyone else knows they have been finding Glyphosate in tests for over 5 years now…

      • Peter Olins

        Nope, Aaron. All the published studies I have seen failed to detect any glyphosate in milk. Do have any rationale for doubting these results?

        For the record, since glyphosate is highly water-soluble, it would not surprise me in the least for traces to be detected one day—if sufficiently sensitive assays were developed. As with all substances, the mere presence of a molecule has little meaning: what matters is the degree of toxicity and the actual level.

    • “…The glyphosate testing (1) commissioned by Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse also analyzed 35 urine samples and 21 drinking water samples from across the US and found levels in urine that were over 10 times higher than those found in a similar survey done in the EU by Friends of the Earth Europe in 2013.
      The initial testing that has been completed at Microbe Inotech Labs, St. Louis, Missouri, is not meant to be a full scientific study. Instead it was set up to inspire and initiate full peer-reviewed scientific studies on glyphosate, by regulatory bodies and independent scientists worldwide….”
      and
      “…Another study found that glyphosate accumulated in bones. Considering
      the strong chelating ability of glyphosate for calcium, accumulation in
      bones is not surprising. Other results showed that glyphosate is
      detectable in intestine, liver, muscle, spleen and kidney tissue (5)…”

      • Eric Bjerregaard

        Moms across america and sustainable pulse. Hahahahahaha, no thanks. I’ll bet on WSU and the Germans.

  • anthony samsel

    Verna, Glyphosate forms PEPTOIDS .. Read my fifth paper on Glyphosate… Glyphosate pathways to modern diseases V: Amino acid analogue of glycine in diverse proteins… More on this subject is contained in paper VI just published, not up yet…

    • Verna Lang

      This is the closest thing I have found for biosynthesis of peptoids. An E. coli cell-free translation system was used with genetically coded
      mRNA and artificial tRNAs charged with peptoid monomers
      Note the use of artificial tRNAs. I wonder why they had to use artificial tRNAs?

      • Peter Olins

        The Schultz group engineers novel “proteins” by converting the normal termination codon to be read by a tRNA with a synthetic amino acid. This, theoretically, permits the design of new therapeutic proteins that would be impossible using tradition genetic engineering. Cool concept.

  • anthony samsel

    Glyphosate integrates, chemically bonding with proteins…So, removing proteins removes glyphosate … Glyphosate is secreted by the cell and is found integrated with and as part of the collagens, elastin, fibronectin, laminin and even keratin ….

    Glyphosate that has integrated with proteins must be released from the protein in water-based solutions prior to analysis by de-naturing and also acidolysis. I have used 24-hour acidolysis extractions to free glyphosate from the collagens i.e. bone and other tissues…

    Glyphosate becomes part of many proteins and it is secreted with the proteins which include enzymes… They are also inhibited by glyphosate integration.. If glyphosate is not separated from the protein prior to analysis, you will not detect it ……

    Glyphosate travels everywhere that glycine travels, as it is an amino acid and analogue. It is a pernicious and relatively small molecule ..

  • anthony samsel

    Thats just it Verna…they removed the fats and proteins. Glyphosate bonds with the proteins and must be freed from the protein substrates… Use of acidulated methanol should be avoided as glyphosate reacts with acidulated methanol so that can also limit recoveries …. Glyphosate is an amino acid. Proline like glyphosate is a secondary amine ……..

  • Jason

    Could you explain how this will “damage soil”? In our Indiana soils, it’s been used repeatedly for a couple decades yet the soils are more productive than ever.
    And are you aware that many minerals NEED chelation in order to be useable by plants? Iron (that you listed) is a perfect example. Chelation is a process often used to make fertilizers and mineral supplements.

    • Bruce

      The soil on my farm is productive as it ever was. It is organic now. Even before the land was organic it was never sprayed with glyphosate. Or had any fertilizers applied.

      • Jason

        I’ve no doubt that’s true. I’m not speaking about organic farming.

  • Jason

    Could you provide any evidence for your many claims here? Seems as if you’re making things up.

  • Jason

    Lazy farming? Sounds like the comment of someone who’s never done it. And do you have any evidence of the claim that organic farming produces “far safer food”? That is not the conclusion that I have seen drawn by the bulk of reviews on this topic.

  • Sparkle Plenty
    • Jason

      And?

  • hyperzombie

    No nations ban glyphosate.

  • Aaron Aveiro

    Can anyone explain to me why….
    I must be scientificly literate…
    Produce peer reviewed studies…
    Have to have a smart phone to find out WHERE my food came from and not what’s in it….
    Have to constantly wonder if there is a toxic substance in my food
    Have to have some sort of scientific degree to comment intelligently
    Ad nauseum…..

    Just because I don’t want poison in my food. I have yet to ask one person….
    Would you like some poison in your food????
    Everyone says the same thing I do….no…

    So the debate is slightly obtuse with all the industry shills & members of the MPM touting the intellectual superiority to the intellectual peasants and how did peasants should just shut up because no matter how many lies we get caught in our message is the same….they are good for you so just shut up and eat your chemicals. …
    Yeah….. …

    • hyperzombie

      “Have to constantly wonder if there is a toxic substance in my food”,

      No need to wonder, all food contains toxins. That is how mother nature rolls, deal with it.

    • Denise

      The world is full of corporate con artists. There have always been con artists but now they have become giant organizations ,with seemingly unlimited power ( the corporate voter in”Citizens United” passed into law, in the USA, was the beginning of the end for the average voter). They have infiltrated and influenced our governments’ decision- making to such a large degree that every person is on their own in protecting his/her families. Americans are the sickest, most drug dependent culture in the world.
      You can’t afford to be naive. Educate yourself or you and your family members could end up sick from the foods you “assumed” were safe to consume.
      The drug companies are licking their lips, pushing into line, to prescribe you their latest and greatest snake oil.
      http://www.gmwatch.org/videos/corporations-videos/17551-monster-by-abby-martin

    • Biron_1

      If you believe food is toxic then you are free to produce your own or purchase food from sources that meet your requirements as Kosher and Halal consumers do. Nobody forces you to purchase nor consume their products.

      You have no right to impose superfluous standards on those of us who are satisfied with the current production and reporting.

    • patzagame

      From the zombieman,lol….”No need to wonder, all food contains toxins. That is how mother nature rolls, deal with it.” No worries,the bio-tech companies just add more. (y)

  • anthony samsel

    The 1981 study was fine, the low doses demonstrated response, but the EPA and Monsanto ignored what was happening. All Monsanto wanted was a return on their product development investment.

    With glyphosate, its not about acute toxicity, nor chronic toxicity. It is about glyphosate integration with proteins because it is a synthetic amino acid and it disrupts of biology.

    Glyphosate’s integration with structural proteins causes changes in the shape and folding altering functionality… This is the problem with glyphosate. Glyphosate is integrated like glycine on an as needed basis during protein secretion by the cells… Most glycine in your diet is excreted just like its analog glyphosate…but, what integrates with the proteins is problematic…

    I have now found glyphosate secreted by the cells and integrated with keratin in the hooves of horses. The structural protein is defective due to glyphosate integration and causing structural problems and collapsing hooves unable to properly support the animals… A paper will follow these investigations.

    These horses are eating a glyphosate contaminated feed diet. The glyphosate is in their bloodstream, urine, manure and the keratin of their hooves. In fact glyphosate can be found in all of their tissues, just like the 1981 Lankas & Hogan study or any of the Monsanto and DUPONT studies utilizing 14C radio-labeled glyphosate … Its no coincidence that glyphosate becomes part of the proteins and destroys the integrity of the animals hooves and other tissues ……..

  • Stephen Daniels

    Just google yellow feed oats and see it is reccommended for that neighbours have done it.

    • hyperzombie

      Yes and you are correct. Hmm, learn something new everyday. thanks.