Glyphosate presence in honey raises concerns

Public pressure forced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to test for chemical residues, but testing is not done in Canada

For years, environmentalists have said insecticides must be banned to protect bees.

Now, some of those same environmental groups are saying that glyphosate must be banned to protect consumers from tainted honey.

Last fall, the U.S. Organic Consumers Association and Beyond Pesticides filed a lawsuit against Sue Bee Honey of Sioux City, Iowa, because its honey tested positive for traces of glyphosate. The lawsuit said Sue Bee’s labelling, advertising its honey as “Pure” and “Natural,” is false and misleading.

Paul Gregory, a beekeeper from Fisher Branch, Man., said glyphosate and the lawsuit were hot topics in Texas this January at the North American Beekeeping conference.

“Something like 80 percent of American honey tested had levels of glyphosate.”

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, may have contaminated the honey because bees forage on corn and soybeans. Those crops are sprayed with the herbicide during the growing season.

A report by U.S. Right to Know, a proponent of labelling genetically modified food, said U.S. Food and Drug Administration scientists tested American honey in the last year and found glyphosate levels of 20 to 100 parts per billion and higher.

Samples of Sue Bee honey had glyphosate residues of 41 p.p.b. The European Union has a tolerance level of 50 p.p.b. in honey.

The levels are worrisome because glyphosate has been highly controversial since March of 2015, when the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the World Health Organization, said the herbicide is probably carcinogenic to humans.

Many scientists, including prominent toxicologists, condemned IARC, saying the science behind its decision was flawed, but the classification of “probably carcinogenic” changed the conversation about glyphosate.

Public pressure in the U.S. forced the FDA to test food for glyphosate residues. The agency had not previously tested for the herbicide.

Gregory raised the glyphosate issue at the Manitoba Beekeepers’ Association convention, held late February in Winnipeg.

If consumers think honey is contaminated with pesticides it could damage the entire industry be-cause honey has a reputation as a pure food, he said.

Canada’s honey industry is aware of the lawsuit and the concerns about glyphosate residue in the U.S., said Rod Scarlett, Canadian Honey Council executive director.

However, prairie bees live in an environment with more wild land and less cropland than American honeybees.

“For the most part, I don’t expect that we would have as much of an issue up here,” he said. “Our habitat is quite a bit different. Even in intensive farming areas there are still areas that are natural.”

The amount of glyphosate in Canadian honey might be ex-tremely low but it’s impossible to know unless testing is done.

“It would be nice to keep ahead of that (public backlash) and do a national survey and find out how much glyphosate is in honey,” Gregory said.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has been testing foods, grains and oilseeds for glyphosate residues since 2015. The agency said, in 2016, that it would publish results of the testing in April of 2017.

It’s unclear if the CFIA has been testing honey for glyphosate but the controversy over residues may persist, regardless of the evidence.

“If an environmental group decides to latch on (to this) it could create problems,” Scarlett said.

“Whether or not honey is the issue, or it becomes a different commodity, that’s up in the air.”

About the author


  • Don ferguson

    The dumb ass that wrote this column starts out by calling glyphosate an insecticide which it is no! It is a herbicide and not harmful to bees or people. How does this crap get past editorial staff in a farm newspaper?

    • Hi Don,

      Thanks for taking the time to write and share your thoughts.

      The first line of the story says, “For years, environmentalists have said insecticides must be banned to protect bees.”

      The next says some of those same environmentalists now want glyphosate banned.

      In my humble opinion this is not calling glyphosate an insecticide.

      Having said that, newspapers make mistakes all the time, the WP included.

      We aim to be the best source of agricultural news in Canada.

      If, on occasion, we fall short of that lofty goal, you can bet we’re going to try harder the following week. Our credibility with our readership is of paramount importance to us.

      And credibility means owning our mistakes, correcting them if necessary, and constantly striving to improve.

      Our readers deserve nothing less.

      Paul – WP web editor

      • Don ferguson

        How about starting the second sentence with”now they are coming after glyghosate, which is a herbicide and not known to cause insect mortality” .I have been spraying glyphosate for 30 years on fields with thriving commercial bee colonies. The bees and I are doing fine. The hives have produced tasty honey every year.So I have done much more research than most of your “scientists”. Most of the “anti-everythings” are against pipelines,GMOs,vaccinations and everything else that has reduced disease,made our populations some of the healthiest in the world,put our families to work and given us the longest life expectancy in the civilized world. I think our farm publications need to be very carefully feeding this leftist rhetoric

        • Don ferguson

          In the same way that we are carefull to call suicide bombers radical Muslims we should call people pushing agendas that are counter to accepted scientific fact “radical environmentalists” at the very least. Farmers and to a lesser degree companies the promote the responsible development of insecticides, herbicides, and other pesticides are the true environmentalists

          • Rob Bright

            The key phrase here is “responsible development.” I don’t believe for one second (given all the pesticides that were once approved and are now banned) that the developers of these chemical inputs have done so responsibly.

        • anthony samsel

          Don, I too used Roundup Weathermaster for years around the farm, but not anymore. I also used Imidacloprid on potted flowering crops until I lost seven hives in the 1990s…. Neonics and glyphosate are synergistic ..

          • FarmersSon63

            Pure Comedy!!!

        • Kathleen

          If you check with local health statistics across Canada, regions where intensive farming is located, that normally use glyphosate, are now cancer hotspots. Its a very sad reality and one that many farm families are now facing; mine inclusive. I’ve had 2 farmer uncles pass from cancer that was avoidable. Not one family in my region can say that they haven’t had at least one family member be affected by cancer. Unfortunately where I live is a cancer hotspot and we have intensive farming all around that has used glyphosate since it came out.
          I was also in the lab when it was discovered that glyphosate doesn’t just disappear when it touches the soil but does actually have residual effect. That was one of many lies that the producers of glyphosate spread; thankfully that information is out but unfortunately it has fallen on many deaf ears.

          • neil

            I appreciate your comments about cancer and intensive farming. I am sure we have all been affected by cancer whether rural or urban people. But we need to to be aware of the difference between correlation and causation. I haven’t checked local health statistics but assuming that is correct that glyphosate use correlates with cancer rates in farming areas, but it may or may not be the cause. It could be one or many other pesticides we use, it could be we don’t wear enough safety equipment when we use them, it could be the diesel fumes we expose ourselves to when operating machinery, it could be our general lack of regular doctor visits or lack of local health care expertise on cancer in rural areas, etc. My point is good health research needs to distinguish between correlation and causation and so far the majority of the public medical researchers have not found that causation yet. I’m not saying you are wrong with the assumption that glyphosate is the problem. I’m just saying there are many other possibilities in our farming lifestyle.

    • anthony samsel

      Don, glyphosate disrupts proteins in all life as it integrates and becomes part of them changing shape, structure and function…… I have found glyphosate in the bodies of honeybees from hives suspected of CCD. I tested both sacrificed live and dead bees. Glyphosate also affects the digestive enzymes of bees and animals inhibiting the functionality.. Monsanto is lying about glyphosate …. Glyphosate is also causal in cancer as it forms nitrosamine carcinogens in vivo ..

      • RobertWager

        Please give a citation that supports that falsehood. Without the specific enzyme pathway (not found in animals) the compound is not incorporated at all into proteins.

        • razorjack

          Falsehood? Please explain.

      • D.WAdair

        I would say Canada honey would be equal to the USA, we use a lot of round up. Have to use more Maple sugar products.

        • Rob Bright

          Indeed! Citisen activist-journalist, Tony Mitra has analysed the data (obtained via Freedom of Information Act) on glyphosate contamination in Canadian foods and found that, for many foods, Canada’s glyphosate contamination is in fact much higher than the US.

    • April Guertin

      Don, please don’t blindly believe Monsanto’s claims that glyphosate is not harmful to humans (or bees for that matter). Glyphosate does kill bacteria….both good and bad. You me, and the honey bees need bacteria in our guts to be healthy. Disease is on the rise, soil health is on the decline. I personally believe big company profits are being put ahead of human health. One day children in schools will be taught about the evils of Monsanto and they wonder how the decision makers of our generation could let this happen…. Just my humble opinion.

    • flatcoatfriend

      So Don, would you be willing to take a sip of herbicide if they’re “not harmful to people?”?

      • neil

        To ingest something can certainly be harmful to people but to dilute it in water and spray on weeds and crops may or may not be harmful to people. Its the rate of exposure that determines the potential danger to a human, just like alcohol, illegal drugs, cancer drugs, etc.

        • razorjack

          Glyphosate has been found to cause fatty liver disease at concentrations that are over 430,000 times lower than the levels allowed in the food supply. This is from a recent peer reviewed study published on the Nature website.

          Multiomics reveal non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in rats following chronic exposure to an ultra-low dose of Roundup herbicide

          • Jason

            Odd that the authors admit that when corrected for small sample size, virtually all of the biomarkers are removed, yet they go ahead with their conclusions anyway.

            You’d have thought Seralini would have learned his lesson about his data not supporting his conclusions. I guess when the organic industry pays for results, they’re gonna get them no matter what!

          • razorjack

            The study was peer reviewed and Nature published it on their website. Nature is the most prestigious scientific journal on the planet and they don’t publish junk science on their website.

            Doesn’t it seem odd to you that the only people who are questioning this science are the agenda driven industry minions who are charged with spinning it away.

          • Jason

            Doesn’t it seem odd to you that the only people who are questioning this science are the agenda driven industry minions who are charged with spinning it away.

            Oh? So, the authors of this study a charged with spinning it away? Because that’s who, in the paper itself, stated that when correcting for small sample size, virtually all of their evidence disappeared. Seems odd that they still barreled ahead with their conclusions…doesn’t it? Almost like they had a predetmined conclusion that they were determined to reach.

            But then…I guess Seralini alphas a bit of a track record for that.

  • Dr

    Wow! And this is some kind of revelation? Glyphosate in the honey? Of course there is. We went from 10 gal jugs to 50 gal barrels to 80 gal drums to 250 gal totes in a matter of 15 years. This is another case of the bathtub effect just as in the case of global warming and greenhouse gasses. Humans , given the technology to do so, WILL , overuse and misuse that technology on a massive scale to make more money at the expense of the environment. A horse named greed! Why doesn’t the ccga come out with a video called Licenced to Contaminate?

  • anthony samsel

    I found glyphosate in the bodies of both live and dead bees of hives suspected of colony collapse disorder using HPLC-MSMS. Next to the contaminated honey, the bee bread had the highest levels. Glyphosate integrates with proteins and destroy’s the bees biology. Glyphosate is also found in milk, meat, eggs and other animal products. It is a synthetic amino acid that does not belong in any biology. Glyphosate must be banned….

    • Denise

      Thank you for your comments Anthony. I hope you continue to share your knowledge with us on this web site.

    • richard

      Its banning itself…..Everyone knows glyphosate is finished (15 weed species on sixty million acres….resistant) USDA……Its still riding the tobacco train to Absurdistan….same engineers, no brakemen, but its done….. The frightening thing is that its apologists and heelers have no answers except more of the same…..use two litres when three wont do…..

      • Puhi Adams

        Donʻt worry. Here in Hawaiʻi, Monsanto is testing all kinds of new herbicides to replace glyphosate; right next to our elementary schools of course. They always seem to find a field right next to an elementary school.

    • FarmersSon63

      Everything you tested had a higher level of arsenic in it.
      Arsenic is more than 1,000 times more toxic.

  • bufford54

    Never in the history of man have so few been so concerned for the safety of so many. One has to wonder if all this concern is for personal beliefs, or financial gain?

    • anthony samsel

      Actually, I think that was Noah >>>>>>

    • Harold

      Throughout history it has always been the few, or the one, who have always been correct, but ignored the most. (there are many numbered) Throughout history, it has been the few, or the one, who has been accepted by the many, that have created the most harm. (there are many numbered) The most harm has always been associated with financial gain and its power over the people. Glyphosate is for financial gain, and was not created because nature needed grooming. Consider the actions of Monsanto/Bayer’s and their power over the people, caused by their great wealth. The ones in History who were ignored the most, owned the very least by their design, and had no regard for their own personal gains. One whom is disparate to hold onto their great wealth, is not concerned about a damn honey bee, and due to this, those within the poorer public can only be the guardians of nature. It is normal that warnings and truth come from other than the provider of harm. This is not a belief; this is, and are the facts.

  • Dr

    Glyphosate was in fact first registered as an antibiotic. It was found after to be a systemic, nonselective herbicide. Talk about playing with fire.

    • Rob Bright

      Indeed! And, in fact, before it was patented as an antibiotic, it was patented as a chelator and used primarily to clean out industrial boilers and pipes. (I wonder how many essential minerals it binds to and makes biologically unavailable to living organisms — including humans?)

      • Harold

        Thanks for your comment. Anyone pursuing this science or this topic seriously can find this information. The advantage is in the knowing and not in the disadvantage of popular opinion fence-sitting. It’s liberating.
        Regarding humans; many face their Doctors today suffering from a minor to a major symptom indicating that some cause is present in the body. If you eliminate the cause, the body refreshes its self. The body healthy or not, is always in repair mode continuously and enhanced when the body’s eco-system is disrupted, (like the earth does) and can only be stopped by ones death. Cut your hand and see if you can stop the healing process. Are you doing the healing or is something you can’t control doing that, and how does it know exactly how to do that, and when will it stop doing that? Upon location refreshment or upon a Doctor’s say so? We are truly more of what a Doctor (band-aid) is not.
        We have all cut ourselves, but lack full awareness of ourselves when we arrive at the Doctor’s office, and therefore believing that he is the healer and the saver of lives. Is he/she? Please bear with me on the following:
        Dis-at-ease:(disease) pain. Location: hand. Title: hand injury. Cause: sharp object. Treatment: object removal and tissue alignment and applied protection from future activity re-injury. Medication: Body is self-medicated, or the body is herb/aspirin deficient? (your choice – one is food, but both have chemical properties = *why big Pharma wants marijuana oil (food) kept from public control -illegal)
        The previous preamble was said because cancer is similar. Cancer and other dis-at-eases, (disease) is a symptom (body unease) until the cause (dis-abler) is eliminated. Popular opinion say’s that we are born with cancer cells which is absolute nonsense. The cause (?) to the cell and the effect, (cancer) is identical thought the body, and the name is only location specific. There are NOT many types’ of cancers: this is total BS; there are only many locations for the cause (?) to take effect upon a cell. (the cells in your brain are the same as the cells in your foot and everywhere else) In the diagnosis of cancer, there is first a description of the un-ease, followed by the location; brain – and the cells indicate properties, and those properties have been named cancer. Location of cells in this case is brain cancer. Transmission can be found, but the cause of the location disruption is unknown- Treatment; Chemo, Radiation, and Surgery: the same treatment as 1945. Trillions of dollars have been spent on equipment and equipment technology in order to locate the various locations more quickly in order that they may begin treatment earlier. The cause of the cell problem is not yet identifiable. (more than 70 years) A run for the cause fund raiser is an absolute hoax, but it attracts our most caring, most honest, and intelligent, with a desire in their hearts to do good for others, and they also represent the best people in our society, but are deceived by the cancer industry, but it is the industries shame, and not the runners.
        Does glyphosate cause cancer? Just who in the hell can tell a doctor that they are consuming it? You are bringing a symptom to him for which he will treat with another chemical while you continuously consume the product that you have at home, that is hidden from you and your Doctor. You become a chronic sufferer. This is why cancer after successful treatment always returns. (fear and lifestyle diet changes often prevent a cell damage return) Even if the chemical is identified, what product at home will you throw out? Government condoned company secrecy has kept you from identifying it in your home. Will a lab test everything that you are eating, breathing, or placing upon your skin, to help identify this chemical? ( A handy platform for where the industries and their minions gleefully love to claim that there is no proof of harm and show up to pee on concerns) Roundup is more than one chemical. Does each chemical have a sign that says glyphosate on it when searching the body? Glyphosate does not belong in the human body in any way shape or form and at any level, and it does in nature the same in the human body. Consumption is the failure of the corporation to contain and control or neutralize the chemical. The Industries “so called” safe levels rely upon the human condition to neutralize their product along with every other “safe level” chemical. What is the “safe level” of a carrot pulled from your garden? Is a industry chemical a food?
        Finally, consider this stupidity; Cell properties of cancer, location in the lungs is called lung cancer. chemical cause: inhaling Cigarette chemicals. Treat with Chemo, Radiation, or Surgery. Pharmaceutical chemical drug for recovery. Successful but cancer has returned. Treatment: Radiation, Chemo, or Surgery. This cancer is a chemical cause (wasn’t born with a cancer cell) and if the chemicals were eliminated, the body would heal its self. You would quit “smoking” or “glyphosating” for example, if it were known you were doing it.

  • Heavy DZ

    You better make sure it is really bad, i am a farmer and i will be using it first time ever on my land for reasons of survival. To farm without it, would be to pre-work the land with a cultivator which destroys the soil structure (erosion), and it uses 4 times the diesel in my tractor pulling that load, which means four times the pollution (and four times the cost in fuel). Also it takes four times as long to get the crop in. As a small farmer you have maybe 3-4 weeks in spring to get it in properly. There are not enough farmers left to farm the land we have without it. a lot of land will go idle and the cost of food will increase because production is going to be cut substantially.

    You cannot farm 5000 acres without it, farms had to grow to offset crop prices lack of increasing over the decades, you would go broke in one year from all the people and equipment needed not to use it. Farming in western Canada may have a margin 1-3% return. i am ready to sell out move to central america and put up my feet and let somebody else deal with nonsense. There is no evidence whatsoever it is harmful to people, we aren’t plant’s, only plant’s have the cell structure to be affected.
    Also my neighbors are in their 80’s with no sigh of any effect from this, and they literally have been bathing in it since the eighties. If it is so bad why are the farmers not having an epidemic?
    The stupidity of some people with no understanding of basic biology is astounding. Go spend and extra $2 on a product that is gluten free, demonizing all farmers who farm wheat by a people who have been eating it since the dawn of time all of a sudden it is poison. Glyphosate was invented in the 50’s and still no hard proof.

    I hate Monsanto policies on seed and chemical, i have been hanging on without them until now, but the price of crops has not moved in decades we have no choice, can you live on your paycheck if it was still at the same rate as it was in the 1970’s, right!, we have no choice. what are the alternatives? were waiting.

    • Kristine Kowalchuk

      As a consumer, I empathize with you. I’m grateful that you have resisted Monsanto’s products, and I also recognize that most consumers have little understanding about our food system and are concerned only with sticker price. However, there are some consumers who care about food security, the quality of their food, and supporting farmers, and who recognize that current food prices are artificially low. We have a broken system. A farm should not be 5000 acres, period. We need more farmers who can make a living off of farming a small or medium-sized farm, because that is what we need for food security and environmental health. Small organic farms are, it seems, the ones staying afloat right now; see Jean-Martin Fortier also has a very good website.

      • Kathleen

        Decreased farmers (bigger farms) leads to decreased tax dollars for the RMs and decreased tax dollars for the schools, and decreased population base for the local businesses. We need, as Kristine says, to have more farmers…not fewer.

        • Heavy DZ

          Something we farmers have been concerned about for years. Corporate farms come into the area pay ridiculous prices for land that we cannot compete with, and then run up millions in debt, then go under, leaving big parcels for the institutions to sell, and they don’t sell by piece but hope another big outfit comes in and carries on.

        • neil

          Although I am concerned about rural depopulation as you are, larger farms don’t decrease tax dollars for RMs as they still pay the land taxes that are due no matter how much land you own. I do agree that decreased population does hurt local businesses. This is not a new phenomenon as increasing farm size, decreasing farm numbers and the resulting rural depopulation has been ocurring since the end of World War II and accelerating ever since. I am not a large farmer.

      • Heavy DZ

        5000 is becoming the norm, farms are getting into the 20,000 plus now, and no way can you keep it simple with only a 4 week window to get the crop in. If organic was so profitable, a lot of guys would gladly give up the tread mill they are on. Economics on either side is very tight, also where you are is relevant, since a lot of the railroads have been destroyed in Sask, so trucking your product plays a huge role on what you grow when you are small (makes no sense to grow something that has to be shipped to the next province, fuel would destroy your profits). There are a lot people who do not understand when it comes to why farmers do what they do. if we all went organic the price would collapse just like what Saudi did to oil.

    • Kathleen

      Considering organic farmers are doing fine without glyphosate, and globally I might add (including right here on the home front as well), and making good profits (many South American countries are doing amazing things with it), and improving their soil environment (improved soil leads to increased plant productivity), you need to look into management practices other than some old antiquated ones that are fed to you by the chemical industry. I really do urge you to look indepthly into organic/sustainable production practices – there is a great deal of information now available. Demand at the grocery store cannot presently be met so I urge you to think otherwise on use of the chemical. I have been dealing in soil and plant science for many decades.

      • Heavy DZ

        Organic farmers cannot produce the amount of food that is demanded. it would be nice, but the fact is it cost’s a lot to grow organic (a lot of fuel and machinery wear) and at a reduced yield per acre. Also organic dirties a field with weeds and is very hard on the soil from the intense cultivation, not earth friendly. Some do well but not every area is the same, farms different from one to the other only 100 miles apart. Some of them quit since the price does not reflect the cost of production, also the paper work is so intense that it is not worth it to some. Farmers can only use what make sense, they do not put anything on unless it pencils out. The fact is people want cheap food and not good food.

        • Kristine Kowalchuk

          That is not a fact. Some people maybe aren’t paying attention, but others want good food. I willingly pay more for it. Your statement that “organic dirties a field with weeds” is puzzling and I would suggest you read up on permaculture. It’s your choice how you farm, but organic farming is the only economical one in the long run.

          • RobertWager

            Every time researchers look for nutritional differences between conventional and organic they cannot find any significant differences. further those that think organic is produced without pesticides are being myth-led big time. Happy to give references to support these statements if you ask.

          • razorjack

            Please do provide references.

          • StopGMO
          • Harold

            Your statements are only supported when consumers risk buying their product from the Supermarkets. Some know their farmer, and know their local green house operator, and know their own garden, and are not “myth-led big time”. There are higher levels of pesticides found on conventional produce than what are allowed on organic produce. Switching to Higher levels of pesticides is not a valid reason to choose conventional over “organic”. Flavor alone is a reason to choose organic and I cook and bake my own food and I am the only reference and experience that I need.
            For clarification of your opening sentence; was it every time that every researcher that there exists looked for nutritional differences between conventional and organic and they could not find any significant differences? Is that what you were saying and therefore implying that a contrary version is not also research driven: is that it, or were you saying “hand picked”? Is it those damn dope smoking hippies again? Nonetheless, what insignificant differences did they find? You did not indicate that there were no differences; (zero) only insignificant ones. Whose “yardstick” was used to determine insignificance? Is it the same one that invites drug recalls; the company “yardstick”? With all things set aside, there is something that I will never again honor; company secrecy when their product is intended to be eaten, applied to the skin, or released into the air that I will breathe. For example, KFC has been off the menu for about 20 years and I will share with anyone my 10 ten herbs and spices because they have a right to know exactly what they are eating if they ask.
            In contrast, the industry that you are backing is secrecy central. Their Scientists/researchers do not own their own work; it is owned by the industry and its release to the public is to the company’s own discretion. Their secret lobbying and positioning in government public policy making and undisclosed involvement in the universities, is underhanded and self-serving and the rest is blah blah blah dot com. This is not an illustration of science in action.

          • Yes — and it is the mono-crops that are causing the overtaking of the weeds. Organic farmers use divirse farming methods and don’t seem to have these problems. If people would start eating a varied plant-based diet, maybe we could start growing food for people and not factory farm animals (which are polluting the planet in many ways).

          • Heavy DZ

            False, Organic means no chemicals, How do you kill weeds on a large scale? (thousands upon thousands of acres). I am a farmer how many years, and how many generations have you been at this.

    • razorjack

      Glyphosate was a very minor pesticide until GMOs were introduced without any safety testing in 1996. An 80 year old person has had a lot less lifetime exposure than the young people today who have been consuming this endocrine disruptor for their entire life. Is it any wonder that cancer has now become the number one cause of death by disease in children from age 1 through 14 years of age in the U.S. These are the children who have been consuming this slow kill agent of genocide for their entire lives.

  • GreenSenior

    Thanks to the Western Producer for this cautionary tale. We must not forget that the foremost health authority on Earth, the WHO, has proclaimed that glyphosate probably causes cancer in humans. Please also read “Field of Nightmares. Ottawa continues to embrace the widespread use of Roundup on Canadian farms, by letting corporate seduction trump scientific evidence.”

  • Show Me The Money Honey

    Isn’t that only part of the concern, seems if the honey has glyphosate, then the honey is also coming from GMO’s.

  • John Balatinecz

    Thanks for telling the truth to your readers, Robert! Now if more people will learn what it does to human health (after long term exposure), maybe it will be banned one day! At this point, over 90% of the people don’t even know what GLYPHOSATE is. So we have a ways to go!

  • Ian

    Well put again Anthony, and thank you so much Western Producer. There have been so many unpaid scientific minds spending their own time, and in some cases their own money, to get it out that there is another of the pesticides that industry tells us is safe, that just isn’t!
    It isn’t hard to do your own investigation of the facts, just read and then verify what the source is. If the source is industry, they have reason to want their multi-billion dollar investment to go on ad infinitum.
    There has to be a middle road somewhere, but with the current industries track record of lie after lie(See DDT/PCB for starters) and our own regulators track records, we’re in for a rough ride to find that safe and smart road. Having publications like WP trying to get there is a heckuva great start though.
    As for having used roundup for thirty years and having bees, I wish I knew exactly what label that honey was under, now I’ll be looking at every jar with a real tainted view!!!

  • RobertWager
    Time to stop the fear mongering about this safe compound.


Stories from our other publications