Glyphosate on feed affects livestock: vet

A veterinarian in Shaunavon, Sask., believes feed with glyphosate residue adversely affects cattle health

SWIFT CURRENT, Sask. — A Saskatchewan veterinarian blames glyphosate in feed for livestock health concerns he has encountered but Monsanto disputes that claim, saying studies show gut microbes aren’t adversely affected by the chemical.

Dr. Ted Dupmeier, who operates his own practice at Shaunavon, told about 50 people at a recent event he called an awareness seminar that he began investigating after being unable to diagnose problems in a dairy herd in which cows were inexplicably dying. He said after removing feed that had been sprayed with glyphosate the problems were resolved.

“The other thing that really started to make me think about it as a veterinarian is, boy, I see a lot of clostridial problems,” he said in an interview. “When we have glyphosate in there, we’ll see the clostridial bugs go up even in vaccinated herds.”

Related story:

He believes the problem is that glyphosate acts as an antibiotic, for which it is patented, and kills off good bacteria in the gut.

He presented two examples of problems in well-managed beef herds.

In a herd of 250, the producer reported navel infections, stillborns, weak calves and skeletal problems. The herd was eating Roundup Ready corn that had been sprayed twice.

Dupmeier said necropsies found fat, large livers that were mottled and friable, or like sawdust inside.

ADVERTISMENT

The lab found no disease or mycotoxins in the animals but did find glyphosate at 448 parts per billion in the corn.

Removing the feed, then feeding molasses to kickstart the rumen, resulted in healthy surviving calves.

In another case he discussed involving a herd of 350 cows, calves on a commercial creep ration were affected by coccidia.

Four calves died and treatment wasn’t working, Dupmeier said.

Glyphosate levels in the feed were measured at 548 ppb, he said.

After removing the creep ration and administering a multiple B vitamin and iron, the calves improved within three days and went to pasture after five days.

Academics have also raised concern about the effects of glyphosate on gut microbes for poultry, cattle and swine.

ADVERTISMENT

Monsanto, which developed glyphosate, disputes several 2013 studies regarding each of these species.

In a publication regarding genetically modified organisms and animal agriculture, Monsanto’s food safety scientific affairs lead John Vicini said studies have shown no microbial disruption in animals overall.

One study in sheep, for example, in which the animals were fed diets representing the highest glypho-sate residue in grass three to eight days after application, found no effect on rumen function, he said.

Monsanto spokesperson Trish Jordan said there is no scientific basis to blame glyphosate residue on animal feed for losses.

“Commercial livestock populations are the largest consumers of GE crops and globally billions of animals have been eating GE feed for almost two decades,” she said.

Dupmeier said he has no problems with the use of glyphosate, or with Monsanto, but he thinks more research is needed into how long animals can safely eat a certain amount.

He said the problem isn’t widespread because there is a tremendous difference in susceptibility. He finds young animals, swine and sheep most affected.

ADVERTISMENT

“There are many factors here. That’s why I’m saying this is an awareness meeting.”

  • Ena Valikov

    Commercial livestock consumers being the largest consumers of GMO is not a scientific argument against glyphosate affecting microbes adversely, and no one in their right mind would believe someone employed by Monsanto who has no clinical experience with animals opinion anyways. 3-6 day long studies ..don’t disprove glyphosate’s effects on this herd…only blinded clinical trials can, and Monsanto’s job as everyone knows by now is to deny damage due to glyphosate, deny liability until they are sued. In the meantime, any rational livestock owner should ask themselves: what does this animal expert have to gain by raising awareness of damaging health effects of glyphosate….just his own income, by preventing disease he is depriving livestock owners of his own services and fees. And Monsanto’s representatives by comparison, their own jobs and… 30-40 years of profit…billions of dollars ( just like tobacco), until their guilt is proven in a court of law beyond a shadow of any doubt. .

    • Sheryl McCumsey

      There are studies that show pathogenic bacteria are more resistant to this herbicide and normal flora more sensitive- so there is already evidence of this and so much more including the “monsanto papers.”

      • Ena Valikov

        Absolutely! We have studies from Germany that show clostridial overgrowth in cattle by Dr. Krueger

        • Eric Bjerregaard
          • Ena Valikov

            Thanks for making my point for me. Genetic Literacy was revealed in court documents (lawsuit by lymphoma victim farmers) as no surprise, a Monsanto Front-Group, run by an abhorrent man, Jon Entine – who hasn’t achieved even an undergraduate science diploma. http://progressive.org/magazine/how-the-biotech-industry-cultivates-positive-media/

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            … That was nothing more than unproven accusations. You have no point. Never do.. It is pretty pathetic that your response to a refutation of your lousy source is nothing but an ad hom against Entine, backed by nothing more than an editorial. Had anything in that article been true. Eng could have sued for libel and won.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            You made no point. You posted an accusatory editorial and neither you nor the editorial has any proof to it. Also none nof the articles I cited was written by Entine. They allow guest columns. I have even seen some by discredited and fired exReuters writer cary gillam.

          • Denise

            Your sources are biased and dishonest.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Says the [person] that posted 100% refuted junk from wacktivists.

          • Denise

            The Monsanto Papers might set you back on your heels a bit.
            usrtk.org/pesticides/mdl-monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-case-key-documents-analysis/

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            More refuted junk from a wacktivist site. First off those ccusations contain no proof of any safety issue having to do with glyphosate. Second accusations made by the usrtk are pretty much worthless. Kinda like the plaintiff’s attorneys in those cases.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            More accusatory nonsense from a wacktivist site. Those accusations are not relevant to the safety of using glyphosate. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/update-after-quick-review-medical-school-says-no-evidence-monsanto-ghostwrote

          • Jeff Broomfield

            The Monsanto Papers are court documents, many directly from Monsanto employees, and they paint a picture of a deceitful company that will stop at nothing to ensure the continued sale of their product. They cover the truth & work to discredit anyone who speaks the truth. I wonder where we might find a good example of that? Anyways, Monsanto has been banned from the EU legislature and Europe is set to vote to ban Glyphosate over concerns that it causes cancer. Here’s the thing… if you pay people enough money they will say whatever you want. People are waking up. The truth is coming to light.

          • Denise
        • FarmersSon63

          From Your Study:
          “During the last 10-15 years, an increase of Clostridium botulinum
          associated diseases in cattle has been observed in Germany. The reason for this development is currently unknown.”

          • patzagame

            from her study… A reduction of LAB in the GIT microbiota by ingestion of strong biocides like glyphosate could be an explanation for the observed increase in levels of C. botulinum associated diseases

          • FarmersSon63

            Glyphosate is applied at 32 fluid ounces per acre.
            This results in @ 4 ppm hitting the plant. It then degrades rapidly. If consuming full concentrate straight from the jug doesn’t do what you claim, how could consuming residues less than 1 ppBILLION do anything. …

          • Wally

            A recent peer review scientific study posted on the Nature website shows that Roundup causes fatty liver disease at concentrations over 430,000 times lower than the contamination allowed in the food supply…
            https://www.nature.com/articles/srep39328

    • Eric Bjerregaard

      “”Pathological?”” Are describing your attacks on researchers? Funny how neither you nor this vet can point to a feasible causative mechanism. Even more surprising is that with all the vitriol and hatred spewn by folks like you an these other commenters. No one has any proof. Just wild claims and lots of hate. The next generation of GE crops being developed and soon to be released not only be successful. They will greatly shrink the numbers of folks gullible enough to be influenced by folks like you.

      • Ena Valikov

        I am a medical researcher, woo peddler, and it is only in your toxic carcinogen bubble that “researchers” who pass on Monsanto’s ghost written pablum are considered researchers. Monsanto Let Nothing Go Trolls revealed in court proceedings are in fact abjectly science illiterate, just like you are. You have no graduate science diploma. None. And the rest, who actually do, are so mediocre that they chose to become nothing more than Corporate opportunists– who sold science down the river for a few thousands dollars and a couple of free trips. They aren’t researchers- they are mercenary carcinogen merchants.

        • Eric Bjerregaard

          Gee, a fancy shill gambit. This one may be the longest evidence free shill gambit I have ever seen. BBbbuuut ena, are you contending that the entire WHO and FAO are “mercenaries? The entire EPA? All those other regulatory bodies that have said not a probable carcinogen? What about the thousands and thousands of farmers Who use glyphosate and GE crops and have seen no problems? Are you smarter and more knowledgeable than all those folks? I kinda doubt it. Most smart folks don’t use fancy shill gambits. http://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf

        • By your own admission you are a clinician not a researcher:
          http://disq.us/p/1n699n1

      • Because they’ll die?

      • Geoff Pritchard

        I agree —– I thought only human doctors got the MDeity degree but I guess some vets get a VMDeity by which they can speak about science but not have scientific data or evidence supporting their claims. Maybe that’s why they only PRACTICE medicine.

      • Jeff Broomfield

        I think you may be right about shrinking the number of folks because some of these pesticides are designed to sterilize the population and shrink the number of folks on the planet. Great job helping to support that cause.

        • Eric Bjerregaard

          Sterilize the population??? …

          • Jeff Broomfield

            Sterilization is one of the effects of Atrazine, which is the most common pesticide found in drinking water in North America. The same company that makes Atrazine also makes a fertility drug which just reverses the effects or Atrazine. Search studies “Demasculinization and feminization of male gonads by atrazine”. This is a review of the science performed by 22 different scientists showing consistent results across different species. In males it causes reduced sperm counts & in women it causes breast cancer. There’s also science that shows sperm counts have plummeted by over 60%.

  • Poisons are toxic and causes diseases. That was discussed at UCSD last Tuesday.
    UCSDFoodExpo . Dr. Lustig believes that 75% of Human Health Care Costs are due to metabolic diseases. I believe that most of these are caused by the poisons: glyphosate, 2,4-D, Bt-toxin, & fluorosilicic acid. Another poisons has been added called dicamba. Of course heavy metals also cause problems.

    • Geoff Pritchard

      You can “believe” anything you want but without evidence (and not speculative anecdotal evidence but scientific evidence) you have nothing. We’re starting to rely on too many data miners like Stephanie Seneff who find associations in time but prove no causal nature. Example – increase in glyphosate use and increased number of autism cases. There has also been an increase in organic food consumption during that same period yet she’s not promoting eating organic as the cause of autism ……

      • richard

        Yeah the good doctor is undoubtedly trying to sabotage his career by telling his clients what they don’t wanna hear? Glyphosate is a patented systemic, persistent antibiotic…….and intelligent people don’t want it in their food……at any level……And there is no amount of whining from addicts, eggheads, and corporate heelers that is going to change that fact. Glyphosate is a victim of nothing more than its own hubris……its finished…. get used to it, because the contagion called ignorance is on its way out……

        • FarmersSon63

          It is applied at 32 fluid ounces PER ACRE.
          AND it is less toxic than table salt at full concentration.

          Glyphosate is one of the least toxic pesticides used in the world.
          Wouldn’t it make more sense to target the several hundred other pesticides that have been proven to be more toxic?

          • Happy Farmer

            It does when you are open minded.

          • richard

            … table salt does not block the shikimate metabolic pathway as glyphosate does in plants and bacteria…..There are currently nine major gastrointestinal degenerative diseases in humans with no known cure…..Seventy percent of the DNA in your body is not your own….. and ninety percent of your immune system is in your gut….. Those of us who have not yet abandoned our critical faculties willfully avoid antibiotics in our lifestyle where possible… and thus pay for our own well being by paying the real price for real food….. and those who wish to uphold the cheap food mythology will continue to sing from the hymn book of agri biz mythologies,,,,, including the old table salt song…..

          • patzagame

            300 million lbs of glyphosate used annually in the U.S. Its in our air,water,soil,food,urine. Name one other pesticide found in the same contamination levels.

          • FarmersSon63

            Name one individual that has been confirmed to have become ill or died from consuming glyphosate residues over it’s 40+ year history.
            There are ZERO.

            Every regulatory agency in the world has concluded that glyphosate does not pose a health risk at real world exposures.
            It is less toxic than table salt.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            You should take a trip to Argentina and talk to the families of those who were killed by glyphosate poisoning there. These facts show that your claim is false.

            Regulatory agencies are not science organizations. Take the FDA as an example. They allowed Monsanto to hide their own science that shows glyphosate causes cancer as a trade secret just before they approved it over the objections of their own staff toxicologists and told the world it was safe.

            Tables salt is acutely toxic but people ingest it over a lifetime without any health problems and they would die without it. Glyphosate is a chronically toxic from the smallest dose up but it slowly degrades your body at the cellular level until the weakest system breaks down and the system dies.

            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.

          • FarmersSon63

            There has never been even one confirmed illness, let alone death.
            Prove your claims. Name and lab data confirming the cause.
            I double dog dare ya, Ted.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            First off, I am not Ted.

            Anyone can google glyphosate deaths in Argentina and bring up all the proof they need. …

          • FarmersSon63

            Waiting for the persons name and copy of lab results that verified it.

          • patzagame

            … Every regulatory agency in the world is a false statement,but if you industry parrots keep repeating that, the uninformed will believe it. … How many food crops were sprayed with glyphosate before the advent of GE crops in 1996? Sprayed on is not the same as the systemic use of glyphosate on GE tolerant RR crops,which remains in the phood product after harvest. ZERO illness is a disingenuous claim,many people eliminated GMOs from their food and find their health improves. Same as the calves and animals responded to removal of GE feed,that Dr. Ted diagnosed.Don’t believe me ask Dr. Valikov.

          • FarmersSon63

            Nme one regulatory agency in the world that concluded glyphosate is not safe at real world exposures.

            Glyphosate was sprayed on most crop acres prior to 1996.
            You do realize glyphopsate is the number one herbicide used on Non-GMO crop acres in the EU, don’t you?

            There is absolutely ZERO peer reviewed scientific proof thast glyphosate does anything negative you claim.
            I have been feeding GMO’s to my livestock for @ 20 years and they are healthy and sassy.
            Get out of the city for once in your life and see what is going on in the real world.

          • patzagame

            Regulatory agencies are government agencies and therefore are run by rules contrived by politicians who are rarely ever experts in the field. Even if a regulatory agency, or any state, country, etc., were to conclude glyphosate was not safe, ban it, etc. they would be sued by Monsanto for doing so, or sued by the U.S. through the WTO, etc. There are numerous examples of Monsanto suing and examples of he U.S. suing other countries through the WTO on Monsanto’s behalf. https://www.wto.org/…/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds291_e.htm

            Regulatory agencies are therefore concerned with political and economic issues and often not the safety of a product. This is why they often don’t even bother to try to regulate and instead base their decisions on plagiarized nonsense from Monsanto, etc. https://www.nrdc.org/…/expert-opinion-glyphosate…

            WTO | dispute settlement – the disputes – DS291
            WTO | dispute settlement – the disputes – DS
            WTO.ORG

          • Wally

            Regulatory agencies are not scientific organizations. Take the EPA for example, they allowed Monsanto to hide their own studies that showed glyphosate causes cancer just before they approved it over the objections of their own staff toxicologists and told the world it was safe.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            We don’t believe either Ted, Ted, or Ena. Why? Because this is an isolated claim that runs counter to the science and the experience of thousands of farmers with millions of livestock.

          • patzagame

            A reduction of LAB in the GIT microbiota by ingestion of strong biocides like glyphosate could be an explanation for the observed increase in levels of C. botulinum associated diseases

          • FarmersSon63

            … ….absoluyely ZERO scientific evidence this is true.

          • patzagame

            Consuming glyphosate residues IN our food has only a 20+ history. Regulatory agencies are not health agencies. …

          • FarmersSon63

            No, it has a 40+ year history.
            A 100% safe history.
            The US EPA has been evaluating the safety of glyphosate non-stop for nearly 50 years.
            Who else has even spent 10% of that time and effort doing so?

          • E. Sandwich

            Really? The EPA approved glyphosate over the objections of their own staff scientists. Apparently they ignored the science and approved it anyway.

          • FarmersSon63


            The Overwhelming majority of EPA scientists agreed that glyphosate is safe.
            I dare you to prove that the majority objected.
            I double dog dare ya.

          • E. Sandwich

            The EPA allowed Monsanto to hide the science that showed glyphosate causes cancer as a trade secret just before they approved glyphosate over the objections of their staff toxicologists.

            Monsanto’s 1981 glyphosate study in rats by Lankas & Hogan shows that Glyphosate causes malignant LYMPHOMA … Glyphosate-induced Malignant Lymphoma particularly in the female rats. These malignant lymphomas were found ONLY in the treated animals and found in fourteen different types of tissue. The controls animals did not have any lymphomas. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/dockets/8594/8767-anthony_samsel/glyphosate_lymphoma_female_rats_1981.pdf

            Monsanto study with 240 rats in their 2-year feeding trial concluded in 1990, which is called “Stout and Ruecker” in the literature. The data from this are revealed in the 1991 EPA memo and in Greim (2015) and clearly show cause for concern which was swept under the rug in the 1991 memo. Three EPA toxicologists also did not concur with the conclusions and did not sign the memo.

          • FarmersSon63

            No, their study confirmed what everyone already knows. 81% of all Sprague-Dawley rats develop tumors, no matter what they consume. The Monsanto study confirmed that glyphopsate did not cause this number to increase.

          • E. Sandwich

            Monsanto as well as many other entities use Sprague-Dawley rats in these longer term two year studies. This rat issue was created to try and suppress the two year Seralini toxacollogy study that had results the industry wanted to suppress. It is a bogus issues as Sprague-Dawley rats are used all the time.

          • FarmersSon63

            Seralini just wanted to get pictures of rats with grotesque tumors for as big of an effect as possible.

          • E. Sandwich

            We are not discussing Searlini’s studies. We a discussing the Monsanto trade secret studies that show glyphosate causes cancer.

          • FarmersSon63

            There was no such thing …

          • E. Sandwich

            Yes there are and I have referred to them by name in this thread. If you have some facts that conflict with the truth I’ve posted please post them here so that we can discuss them. Idle claims are simply idle claims.

          • FarmersSon63

            No, just because you say it exists, does not make it true.
            Prove it.

          • Jeff Broomfield

            Less toxic than table salt… A new study estimates 1.65 million deaths a year are attributable to sodium intake.
            Google “Global Sodium Consumption and Death from Cardiovascular Causes” “New England Journal of Medicine” if you want to see that study.
            Also, the EU has set a time table for their ban of Glyphosate.

          • FarmersSon63

            Sodium is required by the human body.
            Without sodium, we will die.

          • Jeff Broomfield

            You said “AND it (Glyphosate) is less toxic than table salt at full concentration”
            So you are saying that Glyphosate kills less than 1.65 million people a year.
            At least we have control over how much salt we consume.

          • FarmersSon63

            Actually, I am saying….In glyphosates 40+ year history, there has not even been one confirmed illness or death from consuming glyphosate residues on foods.
            A 100% safety record is pretty incredible, wouldn’t you agree?

          • E. Sandwich

            Can you provide some proof? You repeatedly make that claims but you have never posted any proof that it is true.

          • FarmersSon63

            Yes, there is no evidence of a single confirmed instance any where, any time.

          • lovesalbertavotesliberal

            Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. Of 4 farmers I know personally who were diagnosed, 2 are dead. No I will not name them. They have grieving families.

          • FarmersSon63

            But of course you cannot provide any proof that it was caused by anything. You can only prove they were diagnosed with the disease, right?

      • Ena Valikov

        The study demonstrating adverse effects on microbes leading to overgrowth of pathogens are not anecdotal. Apart from that, what’s your graduate science degree in and from which univesity that makes you credible judge of evidence in animal health?… the subject of this piece. At one point celiac disease was just a collection of anecdotes, until studies were done comparing gastroinestinal histopathology of human cohorts eating wheat with those who weren’t. Have you a controlled blinded long term clinical trial you can post comparing cattle micorbiome on high glyphosate diet with non-glyphosate, organic diet?

        • Eric Bjerregaard

          Thousands of farmers and extension agents disagree with your claim. I trust them.

          • ed

            More extension sales agents. They really are operating in a total void of good solid information. It only takes a bit more work to reasearch that stuff, but farmers are a bit like parrots when it comes to info. They go to hear what is being said, they don’t look for any independent information outside of their own industry for any kind of cross check. That is a big problem.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            … Extension agents work for land grant universities. If they recommend a specific company’s products. they get in trouble. We do not parrot. We try small areas to see if the crop or technique is good for local circumstances. We double check everything we can. “outside of own industry?” … What are we supposed to do? Check with mascara companies? NFL teams? …

      • Mark Costello

        So Geoff……… with so much riding on the outcome, what say we try without roundup for a couple of growing seasons and see if autism cools off? Or just show an un-biased long-term study on glyphosate? With such a complex set of data, there is a lot we could miss, but we do know that the health of Americans is suffering. Cancer, autoimmunity, autism, severe allergies, diabetes, these are all increasing with the increased use of Roundup.

        • Eric Bjerregaard

          And correlation is still not causation. Organic food consumption and cell phone use also correlate.

  • Rob Bright

    It should be obvious to anyone by now that any study done by, funded by, or orchestrated by any of the big 6 agrochemical/ biotech corporations is not worth the paper its printed on. Monsanto is the worst violator of scientific procedures, conducting methodologically flawed studies to arrive at the conclusions most profitable for them. They manipulate data, lie, doctor studies, ghost write articles for corrupt academics who collude with them, and constantly deny what they’ve known for over 30 years: glyphosate causes cancer in animals and humans, and contributes to a slew of health problems.

    Our captured regulators (those government agencies mandated to protect human health and the environment) are useless puppets controlled by industry. They do nothing of benefit and are grossly incompetent when it comes to standing up to and forcing industry to comply with proper safety protocols and scientific rigor.

  • The cows are not the only ones who are #NotRoundupReady. I was running out of food that didn’t tear up my gut. Removing the synthetic chemicals and accompanying GMOs reversed 20 years of progressive “food” related pain and suffering in only 4 days! That was 5 years ago with barely a sniffle or an ache as long as I steer clear of these artificial food practices. How many suffer due to “policy”?

  • Sheryl McCumsey

    Do we really expect Monsanto will have issues with their own product? We keep hearing that this is not impacting human health- but currently we have huge numbers of folks with gut diseases in Canada AND the “monsanto papers” expose this company and its harm to thousands suffering from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Then we have the fact that this isn’t working anymore- di-camba is causing yet more issues. Other nations are looking to agro-ecology and leaving this system of farming behind.

  • Denise

    Because hogs and poultry are rushed off to the slaughterhouse so quickly the evidence of glyphosate damage in these animals’ guts can be easily hidden. Affects us though because we eat their flesh!
    There are experiments showing the damage caused to pigs’ guts from glyphosate tainted feed. Raw, red and irritated guts of pigs fed on GM feed desiccated with Roundup vs healthy normal pink flesh of pigs’guts fed organically grown feed.
    With longer living animals, like dairy cattle and people, the adverse effects of eating glyphosate- tainted food becomes evident slowly over time. Sows are dying prematurely and miscarrying alot. Birthing problems.
    It’s good to hear a vet finally speak out. They must get so depressed seeing all the carnage. Poor animals suffering and dying,without a voice, while the lies and denials continue from from those who put profit ahead of everything and anybody else.

    • Sheryl McCumsey
      • Eric Bjerregaard

        My field is just fine. The cover crops are growing well and so are the late summer/fall crops. Same with my neighbors. Same with my friends back home in Michigan.

    • Eric Bjerregaard

      And because you posted no proof. I am quite sure you have none.

      • Denise

        How’s this?
        sustainablepulse.com/2013/06/11/evidence-of-gmo-harm-in-pig-study/
        Judy Carman, PHD : Study links severe pig stomach inflammation and enlarged utri to GMO feed.

        • Eric Bjerregaard

          It stinks and has been debunked by many. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/once-more-bad-science-in-the-service-of-anti-gmo-activism/ and http://www.biotech-now.org/food-and-agriculture/2013/06/more-junk-science-is-the-carman-pig-study-seralini-2-0 Not only has the work ben n shown to be nonsense y smart folks. In the 4 plus years since this happened. actual farmers are reporting no problems due to feeding GE feeds.

          • Denise

            Would you prefer some studies on rats, instead?
            http://www.gmoevidence.com/location/animal-evidence/

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            I would prefer something realistic anf not just junk from in vitro “”studies”” that were designed to kill cells and allow the wacko pretending to do studies to make wild claims. Post the individual study or studies. I don’t click on wacko sites like gmoevidence.

          • FarmersSon63

            http://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf?ua=1
            Every regulatory agency in the world has concluded that nglyphosate is safe at real world exposure levels.

          • Denise

            How much is safe at “real world” exposure levels?

          • FarmersSon63

            Glyphosate is applied at 32 fluid ounces PER ACRE.
            The residues are thus less than 4 ppm, then degrade very rapidly in non-toxic elements.
            In comparison, glyphosate at full concentration, pound for pound, is less toxic than table salt.
            Now are you beginning to understand why there has not been even one confirmed illness or death from consuming it’s minute residues on foods over 40 years of extensive use?

          • Denise
          • FarmersSon63

            This is excellent news.
            Exposure levels are still thousands and thousands of times below a danger level.
            This trend could continue for hundreds of years without any real life danger.
            Glyphosate is less toxic than table salt.

          • Denise

            Not excellent news for Monsanto,as the lawsuits against them and their wonderful product RoundUp are piling up, especially in fruit growing areas of Southern California. THis is just the tip of the iceberg unless they can get the US government to stop people from suing Monsanto for damages, health costs and deaths arising from exposure to this cancer- causing product.

          • FarmersSon63

            There will never be any proven damages.
            Every regulatory agency in the world has concluded that glyphosate is safe at real world exposures.
            Yet glyphosate is still the most used herbicide in the world.
            All your neighbors are buying it at WalMart and spraying it all around you.

    • Horses suddenly have all kinds of issues that changing feeds can sometimes (but not always) reverse. I saw one horse almost die before an unusual veterinarian saved him with acupuncture. Later, healthy horses suddenly lost weight. They ate well, but no matter what they were fed they never gained it back. Two were old (over 20), but at the time they showed symptoms my Vet had a 7 yo AQHA mare with the same symptoms. They sent her to Texas A&M, but nothing helped and she was put down for it. All 3 were on the same grain, but on 2 different ranches. Now we have all kinds of genetic? issues in horses requiring them to be 5 panel tested. The mutations are not recent, so why are so many more horses now being affected?

      • Eric Bjerregaard

        … Got any proof for those claims?

        • 39 years of raising Thoroughbreds, part of that time with 70 horses on the ranch and about 20 foaled a year.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            That is an anecdotal lie that flies in the face of many studies and the safety record. And your acupuncture claim is another joke.

    • FarmersSon63

      Every regulatory agency in the world has concluded that minute glyphosate residues on food and feed are not dangerous.

      • Denise

        Nothing hits a home run like a strong sweeping statement. Right?
        Regulatory agencies do not get reliable data when it is provided to them by the likes of Monsanto et al.. The proverbial foxes are guarding the henhouses!
        It’s amazing that corps,seeking maximum profits, are taken at their word when they present their “scientific findings!!” The whole system is corrupt. Nobody can trust the institutions that where put in place to protect citizens,anymore.
        Maybe it’s always been that way, but it is worse now because people and our environment are suffering so extensively..
        This a war between corporate power and the people, but the bodies can’t be counted up as easily. People are starting to see what is happening though, as family members, neighbours and friends are getting sick and dying earlier than the old generation.

        • FarmersSon63

          Denise, Denise, Denise.
          The EPA designs the safety studies, tells companies exactly how the studies must be done and for how long…..just like the requirements for the pharmaceutical industry.
          The good news?
          Thousands of peer reviewed studies done over the last 40 years all confirm the original findings….Glyphosate is safe at real world exposure levels. 40 years of consumer consumption of these minute residues on foods and still not even one confirmed illness or death.

          The EPA deserves a pat on the back for a job well done in their original safety evaluations.

          • Denise

            … The secret is out. Nobody believes that story, anymore. The reputation of the EPA is on the rocks. Remember the the revolvlng door between government and industry? Now it’s Scott Pruitt’s turn to take the helm at the EPA. Sooo long environment!
            The rest of the world is moving on but the USA’s corps still wants to play risky dangerous games which will utlimately end badly for everybody.

          • FarmersSon63

            Again, the EPA deserves a pat on the back for a job well done.
            They said glyphosate was safe 40 years ago.
            After 40 years of consumption, still not even one confirmed illness or death. They were right on with their assessments.

            A 100% safety achievement is pretty incredible, wouldn’t you agree?

          • Denise

            I bet the EPA would announce that “the world is flat” if industry pressured them to say so. The industry leaders ( Rowland, Pruitt) chosen to head the EPA and to halt any attempts to do proper research on the effects of glyphosate and its adjuvants on living beings and the environment is beyond shameful. Proper ,long term and unbiased research should have been conducted decades ago. We wouldn’t have to waste our time with my opinion vs your opinion. The truth would be out there in plain view for everybody to see.
            Instead, we have to witness this slow motion disaster unfolding. Just what the biotec and agrichemical industry wanted.
            But the truth is out there. It won’t be long now! Just too bad so much damage has been done to harvest ill-gotten profits.

  • Dayton

    There’s a reason Grain Millers won’t buy dessicated Oats for your porridge. The last thing they want is a lawsuit and recall.

  • Judith Samson-French

    Great article, highlights the need for more research into the effects of repeated chemical treatments in crops intended for animal consumption.

    • Happy Farmer

      Yep. We could all use some good research. Much better than all the personal opinions expressed in public forums.

    • FarmersSon63

      We need more than these 8,916 studies?
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/search?qs=glyphosate&authors=&pub=&volume=&issue=&page=&origin=home&zone=qSearch
      Quit pretending that glyphosate has not been adequately tested for safety.

      • richard

        which of course is why its on its way out…. …

        • FarmersSon63

          How do you explain it’s increase in sales all 40 years it has been on the market? Or that it is the number one selling herbicide in every country in the world?
          Sure sounds like it is on the way out, huh?

          • richard

            Thirteen weed species on sixty million acres…. resistant… and growing every hour of every minute of every day…Its finished pal….as are the monothematic rants of its corporate heelers… The sad part is not that its addicts are not aware that its all over…. but that they don’t have a sniff on what theyre gonna do next. ???

          • FarmersSon63

            Atrazine resistance was confirmed in the 1960’s, yet it is still a top 5 used herbicide.
            … city people are simply clueless.
            Over 97% of all US farm acres use pesticides, and have for 50 years.

          • richard

            Nonsense, atrazine was banned in Europe for good reasons…..The fact that it persists in N.A is nothing more than a function of government by lobby……Seventy percent of pharmaceuticals on planet earth are consumed in N.A too…. do ya think there might be a connection…..??? As stated glyphosate is finished, the age of the indiscriminate nozzlehead is dead…. but hey if its your tune, keep on playing…..the musicians on the Titanic did.

          • patzagame

            Nahhh…they just combined it with other crap like 2,4D and dicamba. Made new and improved GE food crops now on the market with our sold out EPAs’ approval. Business as usual.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    I see the comments are infested by a few shill gambit users and some wild speculation. This vet’s claims fly in the face of the UC Davis study, The U of Perugia study and many others. The fact that thousands of other vets an farmers continue to use GE derived feeds with no issues also points to this guy’s claims as being bunk.

    • Ena Valikov

      The UC Davis study on billions of chickens by Monsanto shill Alison never examined glyphosate’s inhibition of commensal bacteria. Her job was to write a decoy PR piece that only science illiterates call a “study” http://beachvetlbc.blogspot.com/2014/10/gmo-junk-science-meets-junk-journalism.html It isn’t a shill gambit. It is calling a spade a spade– …

      • Eric Bjerregaard

        And the less than honest one cites herself as a source. Pathetic. Calling the UC Davis researcher a shill is clearly a shill gambit. There was more than chickens used. Dairy and many others were included. Caught you in a lie Eh?

        • Debbie Owen

          So you can’t dispute anything in her source, no surprise there. It was mostly broiler chickens used, but the dairy cattle and others were also killed far before their full life expectancy. That means as far as showing safety goes, Alison’s “study” is worthless.

  • HSVcoalition 4Democracy

    The only hate and vitriol in the discussion of effects of GMO crops comes from the MonsantoZombies. I guess they’re afraid their paycheck will be docked if they don’t get enough attention.

    • Ena Valikov

      They are afraid the truth will get out about the toxic crap they call ” innovation ” & “crop protection” & the embarrassing garbage they call “science”.

      • Eric Bjerregaard

        Yet farmers still buy the products. Are you contending that they are stupid?

        • richard

          brainwashed, addicted, monothematic, misled, willfully ignorant, boringly repetitive, an endangered species…..yes!…but not stupid…..never!

      • FarmersSon63

        Can you give us one confirmed case where someone got ill or died from consuming minute pesticide residues on foods in their 80 year history?
        Of course you can’t.

  • Heather Bacon

    Is this article old? The owner of the Shaunavon Vet Clinic is Ken Cadieux. Just looked up Ted Dupmeier and he was the vet in Wymark. Looks like he retired in 2012. Kind of makes me question the reliability of this article.

    • hyperzombie

      You should question ever article.

    • Clark Brenzil, PAg.

      I also searched & it appears as though he is now a representative for a company call Penergenic that sells holistic crop and livestock management products.

      • richard

        and your point is??? Because if you are trying to impugn the doctors integrity you are really revealing your own lack of it… I was present at the seminar and it was clear from all the ranchers involved that there was consensus on both the issue and the actions taken…

        • Clark Brenzil, PAg.

          People reading can take from it what they want. If you feel that what I have provided reflects negatively on the Dr’s reputation then that is your prerogative. It just gives perspective that he is not a practicing vet any longer.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    Nope to both of those alleged sources. The Danish one has been debunked many time and is anecdotal as well as dishonest. If there was any truth to it. The anecdote would have been replicated as a study. That this wasn’t done by serralini or one of the other wacktivists is an admission that it can’t be done. Further if there was any truth to this. The experience would have been shared by many farmers by now. That is an old report. Your other link gives an error message.

    • Denise

      You can still google the source, if you desire.
      I guess the EU must be full of wacktivists too since they are getting rid of glyphosate as soon as possilbe.
      Isn’t it amazing how well corporate storytelling and lobbying government agencies for favors work in North America?
      -Even if it’s to the deteriment of our families, animals and the environment.

      • FarmersSon63

        Every regulatory agency in the EU has concluded glyphosate is safe.
        They will not be getting rid of glyphosate.
        Why do you have a problem agreeing with science?

        • StopGMO

          “Every regulatory agency in the EU” does not conclude this. …

          • FarmersSon63

            Yes they do.
            The ESFA, the Germans, Spain….everybody.

          • StopGMO

            No they do not.

  • E. Sandwich

    Excellent comment!

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    Lying about many other pesticides and sodium is not relevant to this article.

    • Jeff Broomfield

      The “safer than table salt” metaphor has been used to defend pesticides in this thread & is one of the many hypnotic phrases pesticide sales reps use to brainwash people into believing it’s safe. As for the salt study…
      Google “Global Sodium Consumption and Death from Cardiovascular Causes” “New England Journal of Medicine” if you want to see that study.
      If you know anything about these pesticides then you should know both sides of the science regardless of which side you “believe”. And if you knew the science you would know what I say is true to that science.

      • You anti-biotech types have no concept of a hierarchy of evidence. That is a weak correlation study which bases its results on the idea that salt lowers blood pressure which is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Yes salt restriction may lower blood pressure slightly, but this is of no benefit to cardiovascular disease. Actually salt restriction might be bad for people with cardiovascular disease.

        For evidence that is at the top of the hierarchy of evidence Google: “Reduced dietary salt for the prevention of cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials”

  • Denise

    I remember the first time I heard farmers were using Roundup as a desiccant on crops before harvest, even non-GMO crops like wheat, I couldn’t believe what I was hearing and I couldn’t believe they were allowed to do that.
    http://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/17941-glyphosate-exposure-trends-demand-a-public-health-driven-response

    • FarmersSon63

      Why would anyone pay to use a desiccant when mother nature will dry down the grain herself for free?
      You do realize that less than 2% of cropland receives a desiccant application per year, don’t you?

    • hyperzombie

      True it is approved for use in North America, but it is used on very little farmland. It is mostly used in Northern Europe. North America has nice dry Fall seasons for the most part, Europe, not so much.

  • anthony samsel

    The vet is correct in his assumptions that Glyphosate affects the health of cattle. Glyphosate affects the health of all animals including humans. Some of my recent lab work analyzing glyphosate in proteins of pigs, cattle and horses fed a diet contaminated with glyphosate residues, shows glyphosate become part of structural proteins as well as bile and digestive enzymes. I have found by analyzing proteins from animals fed a diet contaminated by glyphosate, that it also becomes part of the proteins in milk, eggs and semen. Glyphosate integrates with and corrupts proteins. Inhibiting human and animal digestive enzymes and is not without consequence as it begins the process of malabsorption which lead to disease cascades and biological dysfunction.. Glyphosate and also Glufosinate must both be banned …

    • Semiahmoo

      Thank you for wading in Dr. Samsel.
      The integrity and credibility of your research is outstanding.
      Dr. Samsel, are you aware of the unique practice of Desiccating non-GMO crops with Glyphosate 3 to 5 days prior to harvest on the Canadian prairies?
      My calculations, using CFIA data, reveals extremely high levels of Glyphosate in non-GMO crops…wheat, oats…grown on the Canadian prairies as a result of this regional practice.
      If you are aware of the application of this chemical burn i would be interested in hearing your thoughts….ross buchanan

      • hyperzombie

        The integrity and credibility of your research is outstanding.

        Really? Have you read the studies?

        Dr. Samsel, are you aware of the unique practice

        It is not unique, Northern Europe uses this method far more than any North American farmers.

    • FarmersSon63

      Over 1 TRILLION feed rations consumed by livestock yet we have never seen even one confirmed illness or death in the real world.
      A 100% perfect safety record over 20 years is truly incredible, wouldn’t you agree?

  • FarmersSon63

    Then prove me wrong…

    • Duncan DeBunkerman

      No. You made a claim. You provide the proof. …

      • FarmersSon63

        LOL, Pure Comedy.

        • Duncan DeBunkerman

          Does that mean you have no proof for your claims?

  • FarmersSon63

    Hundreds of peer reviewed studies have confirmed that glyphosate is not a carcinogen. The real world does not reflect an increase in occurrance.
    You just have a “feeling” it causes cancer, but you just can’t prove it?

  • Duncan DeBunkerman

    … You can parse words all day, but you have not explained why Monsanto’s own studies that were hidden as a trade secret showed that glyphosate causes cancer.

    • FarmersSon63

      You have told me a thousand times you have seen the studies, but now they are hidden from the public?

      • Duncan DeBunkerman

        I have never said that. The studies are still hidden that is why the EPA requires certain things.

        This is the requirement issued with the response to the FOIA request.
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4dce1ec79940b5a1d221f76b8f79ad5a2a014fa0a629922921d500e9bb756cc1.png

        • FarmersSon63


          The letter said you can get the information if you ask for it.
          You just cannot re-publish it.

          • Duncan DeBunkerman

            Yes. All you need to do is make your request under the FOIA. Everyone can see what the requirements I posted say.

          • FarmersSon63

            So nothing was actually hidden like you claimed…

  • Duncan DeBunkerman

    LD 50 is meaningless for glyphosate. It is a measure of acute toxicity. Glyphosate is a chronic toxin that has no safe dose.

    Read about the acts here. http://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/17945

    • Eric Bjerregaard

      … The simple fact that nothing that in vitro nonsense has predicted has ever happened in 40 plus years of use should clue even a dullard like you in.

      • Duncan DeBunkerman

        You response has absolutely no relationship to the fact I have posted here.

  • “Glyphosate degrades digestive systems and ruins health”

    No it does not, but I wouldn’t expect you to understand the difference between a reputable information source and a rubbish one. The fact is Jeff you are so scientifically illiterate that you don’t even understand the hierarchy of evidence. The salt study you posted was a crap correlation study based on survey information and the outdated assumption that lowering sodium intake lowers cardiovascular disease risk because of a lowering of blood pressure. This has been debunked with stronger evidence.

    If you can’t grasp this basic scientific concept then how reliable is any conclusion you draw on glyphosate going to be? Maybe you should leave decisions on glyphosate regulation to regulatory agencies around the world who are well skilled in assessing scientific information, all of whom have determined that minute glyphosate residues on food is unlikely to cause harm.

    “It should be banned. It will be banned. End of story!”

    It may be banned, but the decision will not be a scientific one it will be a political one, if enough people start believing the anti-science activists then politicians just may make the stupid decision to ban glyphosate. Countries that ban glyphosate will suffer huge economical losses from reduced crop yields, the output of greenhouse gasses from farming will dramatically increase and farms will suffer more soil loses through erosion.

    It will be an incredibly sad day if glyphosate gets banned, it will be a victory for the scare tactics of the anti-science activists over scientific progress. Is this the type of world you want to live in? You should be ashamed of yourself.

    • Damo

      Off topic, but I love your blog, please update.

      • Thanks, I got a couple more ideas for articles but been pushed for time.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    State of California and thinks are contradictory terms.