Repetition can often make it true — and forget about the science

Insight can arrive at the strangest times. I learned that in December of 2015 when I was working on a story about snow and the notion that Canada’s Inuit have dozens of words for snow.

As part of the piece, I interviewed Graham Nesbitt, who worked at an Inuit cultural centre in Iqaluit.

He said there probably aren’t 50 words for snow in Inuktitut, but that truth is irrelevant.

“It almost doesn’t matter anymore. People believe there are. So, there are.”

Nesbitt’s comment reminded me of something that Joe Schwarcz told me in 2013. Schwarcz is director of the Office of Science and Society at McGill University and the author of several best-selling books on science.

Schwarcz and I talked about using pesticides on lawns, public parks and gardens.

“In the public eye, things become true by repetition,” he said. “(If) you repeat the idea that pesticides are killing our children often enough, then people, of course, start to get anxious.”

Their two comments help me understand, somewhat, the ferocious debate in Europe over the safety of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and the most popular herbicide in the world.

In March of 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the World Health Organization, classified the herbicide as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

Many toxicologists condemned the decision as absurd and biased. Regulatory bodies around the globe, including the European Chemicals Agency and the European Food Safety Authority, have studied the herbicide and concluded it’s not a cancer risk.

Some experts have alleged fraud – that IARC scientists ignored or manipulated data showing that glyphosate is safe.

A Reuters’ story in October gave credence to those suspicions. Journalists at Reuters reviewed a draft version of the IARC decision and found that panel scientists made “significant changes” from the draft to the published report.

Reuters identified multiple mentions in the draft report of studies that concluded glyphosate does not cause cancer. In the final report, those findings were deleted or replaced with conclusions that glyphosate might cause or does cause cancer.

The news of scientific prejudice, on top of the body of evidence showing the herbicide is safe, should have ended the political rancor over glyphosate in Europe.

It didn’t.

A few days after the Reuters’ story the European Parliament voted, 355 to 204, to ban the use of glyphosate by 2022.

However, that’s not the final word on the matter

The European Commission, the executive branch of the EU, has proposed to extend the herbicide’s registration for five more years.

The European madness makes more sense if Schwarcz and Nesbitt are correct. That is, if you say something enough times it becomes gospel.

Thanks to wondrous platforms like Twitter and Facebook it’s now possible to say “glyphosate probably causes cancer” fifty million times in a month.

In response to such viral misinformation, Canada’s ag leaders usually respond with: we need to talk more about the science of agriculture.

One problem. That does little to nothing.

“It only took me 12 years, of really working hard to share science and give people facts, to realize that it wasn’t working,” said Kevin Folta, professor and chair of the University of Florida horticultural sciences department and a science communicator who talks about genetically modified foods and modern agriculture.

Another familiar response is that Europe is different. That sort of anti-pesticide campaign and political interference can’t happen here.

Not true.

Most entomologists and bee experts say neonicotinoids, a class of insecticides, play a small role in bee colony losses in Canada. The analogy I’ve heard is it’s like a boat with 20 holes in the bottom, with neonics representing one hole.

Patch that hole and you still have 19 holes.

In the face of that expert opinion, the Ontario government introduced regulations in 2015 to restrict the use of neonic seed treatments on corn and soybeans.

The province of Ontario was pressured into the decision because the phrase “bee killing pesticides” was repeated in the traditional media and on social media millions of times.

After enough repetition, it eventually became the so-called “truth”.

If repetition of misinformation can sway politicians and the public, Canadian farmers must depend on scientists at regulatory bodies, like the Pest Management Regulatory Agency.

If the PMRA sticks to the science and resists the madness of crowds, it will continue to permit the use of glyphosate in Canada.

But if Europe does ban glyphosate all bets are off the table.

Because the anti-agriculture crowd will unveil a new slogan that will be repeated a billion times on the Internet: “Europe banned glyphosate, so it must be bad.”

Contact robert.arnason@producer.com

About the author

Comments

  • richard

    …..and meanwhile back in Winnipeg the anti journalism crowd is yet again revealing its bias as it vainly attempts to proclaim the “facts”?….The “anti agriculture crowd” is in fact the pro food crowd sir, the ones who actually give a damn, the ones who have yet had it adequately explained to them how rationalizing increasingly levels of agritoxins in the foodstream somehow represents progress??? The simple fact that the half litre and acre of glyphosate in 1977 now requires two to three litres and acre to get the job done…. and in fact on sixty million acres and thirteen weed species (USDA) , it doesn’t work at all….. And if its so wonderful why is it desperately trying to attach itself to yet another obsolete poster boy for corporate hubris…dicamba. The fact that you have abandoned your critical faculties is hardly a surprise…. The fact that industrial agriculture doesn’t have a sniff on how to replace its inevitable demise…. is symbolic of an agriculture completely bereft of the creative fire of innovation…. Is anyone really surprised the public is now defining the future for them?…..Try to remember, the consumer is king…..not WP infomercials spitting dementia inducing platitudes…..

    • Happy Farmer

      Wrong “fact” regarding 1/2 to 2 or 3 litres today. Sorry about that. But if you don’t use it you really don’t know wether it’s true or not.
      I will concede that the consumer is king. But only so far as to what they purchase. This article clearly shows how easily the consumer( of which you are), is mislead by words.(true or otherwise). Consumers have very little knowledge about how food is produced and how much it costs to produce. Apparently there are more people willing to spread “words” nowadays than there are to “put boots to the ground”.

      • richard

        Sorry but my neighbors refer to this fact with regularity….Perhaps you might consider that we don’t go from half a liter to absolute resistance in one season….? The fact that they spray glyphosate two to five times a year including dessication of ALL crops now, is symptomatic of a generation of growers who have completely lost touch with cultural practices to control anything….. Knowledge now moves at the speed of light and that beam of light is burning holes in the backside of an agriculture built on abuse……….

        • Eric Bjerregaard

          … All? Are not desiccated with glyphosate.

          • richard

            ten out of ten on the southern prairies…. try to name one that isn’t? Still wondering about consumer blowback?

          • Happy Farmer

            Correct.

          • richard

            ….of course you agree with him but neither of you have named a crop that is not now abused by glyphosate at harvest. ???

          • Chris

            Malt barley, peas, canola, soybeans, lentils, chickpeas. Enough for you? I am a farmer and in no way endorse Monsanto, but all your statements are false except that the consumer is king. Next time before making up allegations do some research first.

          • richard

            Sorry pal my research has been in front of me for the past forty years….and peas, lentils, barley and chickpeas and now canola, have been desecrated routinely…..better check with your district agrologist …

          • Chris

            … The crops I listed cannot be desiccated with glyphosate as it would cause the pods to pop open resulting in massive crop losses. There are restrictions against desiccating malt barley.

          • Chris

            … The crops I have listed cannot be desiccated with glyphosate because the pods will pop open or shatter causing massive crop loss. In the case of malt barley, glyphosate is not permitted.

          • Damo

            Don’t know a single farmer that uses glyphosate for dessication on any crop. And I know hundreds of farmers. Not happening in my area.

          • richard

            Great, keep it up….but glyphosate use has increased exponentially globally in the past ten years and that includes dessication… that is why its being phased out in Europe….Perhaps you should send them a text…..

          • FarmersSon63

            Why would anyone pay to dry down a crop (desiccate) when mother nature does it for free?

          • richard

            …..funny, I ask the same question myself….can you spell addiction?

          • FarmersSon63

            Corn, soybeans, alfalfa, wheat, oats, …..want me to continue?
            I have been farming 3,000 acres for 30 years and still have not sprayed any herbicide on any crop as a desiccant.
            You city people need to get out and visit a farm for the first time in your life.

          • richard

            Yeah sadly your farm is not the center of the universe….. out here where this magazine is published all of your favorite crops have routinely been abused by dessication for thirty years…..not to mention peas, lentils, flax, durum, barley, sunflowers and canola……Its funny how all the defenders of status quo myths don’t use the stuff…..but USDA statistics speak to a six thousand fold increase of glyphosate since 1990 on corn, soybeans and wheat alone to the point that three hundred million pounds are being unleashed on the biosphere annually….Its an addictive drug which elicits denial and projection from abusers and corporate heelers…..but its on its way out…., the walls of Jericho are comin down.

        • Happy Farmer

          Please explain – “Perhaps you might consider that we don’t go from half a liter to absolute resistance in one season”. There is no science to back this statement.

          I am very aware of all aspects of my farm with relation to the past and present. So while you may be somewhat correct with knowledge moving at the speed of light, you will still get run over if you (stubbornly) sit on the tracks.

          • richard

            How do you know there is no science to back my statement when you don’t even understand what I said? Its not that complicated, its simple weed ecology….When a half litre starts finding resistance producers do not stop using glyphosate, they use more….and so on until no amount works anymore……that is the evolution of herbicide resistance…ergo thirteen weed species on sixty million acres (USDA) and rising…..every day of every month of every year….

          • Happy Farmer

            Simply put Richard, chemical resistances don’t occur in ONE season. Chemical resistancies can occur when 1 chemical is used repeatedly with no other chemical in between. But the number of repeated applications to get a resistance is 3-5 years.
            Most farmers are very aware of this and have quite a complex strategy in place to combat potential resistance issues. (Even if you don’t like the strategy).
            Even tillage can create resistancies when it is done incorrectly.

          • richard

            Do you feel better now that you just repeated what I stated at the onset…. I have no idea why you guys take everything personally…..I have no idea what you do on your farm, of course there are wise farmers out there…. I am only here to tell you why glyphosate is on its way out…..and its not the activism Arnason sneers at in his article….its the “inactivism” of entire caste of users, abusers and promoters who have a vested interest in upholding necessary illusions of technology as progress….The mindless repetition he projects on activists is in fact the mindless hyperbole of technology incapable of standing on its own without it. And I’m sorry that aint science no matter what the puppet masters say.

          • Happy Farmer

            We are continually telling you why we take it personally, apparently you don’t get it so there is not much point in explaining it to you.

            You claim mindless repetition. I guess you are just repeating what was in the article now!

            As a concerned farmer I am trying my best to check all the links provided by those against and for (products) glyphosate and gmos. I am becoming more convinced it is the “get rid of at any cost” side that is using repetition without proper science.
            Question – If i am wrong, will i be willing to admit it? (or will you?). Or will each of us move from stubbornness to obstinance?(refusing to change even though evidence clearly shows otherwise).

          • FarmersSon63

            Glyphosate is not on the way out. It is still the number one used herbicide in every country it is sold.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Wrong, when there is resistance we change or add chemistries or use mechanical controls.

          • richard

            Which of course is why theres thirteen weed species on sixty million acres where youre too late, the weeds are spreading glyphosate tolerance to the entire planet. So much for your wishful thinking…. …

          • Damo

            Glyphosate resistance does not move from species to species.

            Might want to go back to your bio books and learn about mutations first, then come back and we can go from there.

          • Damo

            More glyphosate does not stop glyphosate resistance. Change herbicides. If you don’t, you are wasting your money.

          • richard

            I have zero idea what you are talking about….. glyphosate resistant weeds spread their resistant seeds……that’s how evolution works ok? And I don’t use glyphosate so I don’t have to change anything but the oil in my tractor.

          • FarmersSon63

            Then you do not farm.

          • richard

            I am not addicted to glyphosate therefore I do not farm? or You do not believe in evolution therefore I do not farm? Should I feed you some more rope?

          • FarmersSon63

            When resistance develops, farmers use different herbicides…
            As was first proven in the 1960’s with Atrazine.
            You should be more concerned if no resistance occurs, proving extreme toxicity.

    • ed

      Right on point.

    • Eric Bjerregaard

      … The label rates are still the same.

      • richard

        …..and your point is?

        • Eric Bjerregaard

          Scroll back up to your erroneous comment where you claimed we use more.

          • richard

            I guess you erroneously assume that where you live is the center of the universe…..Out here, where this magazine originates, where resistance is running rampant, more is used….its just a fact……And furthermore globally glyphosate (ab)use has increased exponentially in the past ten years…..it has become an addictive drug….. which is why federal governments are applying tough love to its victims.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            You are wrong. Farmers are better educated than you and realize that using more is a waste. Try to learn from them.

          • richard

            …..and one of the symptoms of addiction is denial…..try a basic web search for yourself on global use of glyphosate over the past twenty years…..oops!

          • FarmersSon63

            If a product does not work anymore, you don’t use it.
            Using more does not change this. If the plant is resistant, it will be resistant to rates 10X the max allowed on the label.

            This is a very simple concept you are having a difficult time understanding.

          • richard

            No if it is herbicide “tolerant” there is no point using it anymore…..if it is “resistant” the herbicide still has limited effect, therefore more chemical may prevent it from going to seed… Do you guys seriously believe that weeds go from herbicide vulnerable to herbicide tolerant in one season…..? Can you spell blinded by addiction?

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    And because the wacktivists know this. They continue to lie and make claims that have been debunked for years. serralini’s fraud is still being used from time to time. The people who do this often know better. The truth has been posited to them over and over again. The complete lack of integrity they exhibit must be countered by equally or even greater determination and constantly.

    • richard

      The fact is sir, reactionaries cant handle the “truth”…. Mr. Aransons article is surrounded brightly colored moving bullets desperately trying to seduce the fearful and the proud into buying the dream….. Truth in science doesn’t require propaganda to reveal itself…..it is self evident……. Do you hear anyone defending forty year old computer technology or forty year old automobiles…..or forty year old cell phones???……Glyphosate, dicamba, malathion, lindane, paraquat, DDT, mercury, atrazine…..are relics…..anachronisms…..Don’t ya think its time we really outta …..move out of the dark?

      • Eric Bjerregaard

        Your comment is hard to follow. Most of those chemicals still have useful purposes. They are not relics.

        • richard

          Yeah I know some people still think smoking is sexy??? Theyre all forty year systemic relics of a failed reductionist approach to agriculture….intelligent people don’t want residues in their food….that’s the zeitgeist. Follow that and you are destined to win. Your welcome!

    • Peter Olins

      What I find troubling is that, according to some research, people with strong views often become even more polarized when presented with data that contradicts their beliefs.

      • Happy Farmer

        Great comment Peter. I will try to take it to heart.

      • Eric Bjerregaard

        Yep, and we have quite a few examples right here. Although the number is exaggerated by all ted’s sock puppets.

      • Harold

        How does that trouble you? Do you have strong views and a polarized belief that murder is wrong? Will data prove otherwise? Are you aware that some published studies are for the cunning and reason of gaining the tools for disassociating one’s conscience to finding the truth?
        Nonetheless, people do not become more polarized when presented with data that contradicts their beliefs; they become more defensive of their lies and false egos.

  • bufford54

    Believing in a falsehood is one thing, when governments start demanding money over it, it then becomes theft by proclamation. Carbon taxing is the next Liberal hoax to be perpretrated on the Canadian tax payers.

    • Savvy?

      When citizens become responsible enough to live in a manner that isn’t destroying the planet, then the government won’t need to get involved.

  • Denise

    “Oh what a tangled web we weave…when first we practice to deceive.”- Walter Scott
    Truer words were never spoken. How dangerous the convoluted webs agrichemical and biotech corporations weave in order to greedily harvest profits ahead of the well being and survival of people and our precious environment.
    Consumers must be educated and very careful when buying food for your families. Protect your families from agrichemical spray drift and pesticide contaminated food.
    We are in the age of survival of the most informed.
    beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2017/11/growth-genetic-engineering-agriculture-led-skyrocketing-rates-glyphosate-bodies/

  • RobertWager
    • Happy Farmer

      Very revealing. Thanks for the link.

    • Duncan DeBunkerman

      The IARC only uses peer reviewed studies. There are many industry sympathizers who would like them to lower their scientific standards and look at non-published non-peer reviewed studies. Many of these studies are of lesser quality and many have been manipulated by industry to support their junk pseudo-science agenda. The IARC did the right thing by upholding their strict quality requirements for the studies they consider.

      Why would you want to see junk science used to make decisions instead of upholding the quality requirements of the IARC, which is the foremost cancer research agency on the planet?

      • TED

        The IARC only uses peer reviewed studies.

        This is a completely stupid way of proceeding. Surely you look at all the data, unless you have an agenda.

        • Duncan DeBunkerman

          Why would you want to see junk science used to make decisions instead of upholding the quality requirements of the IARC, which is the foremost cancer research agency on the planet?

          • TED

            Why would you want to see junk science used to make decisions instead of
            upholding the quality requirements of the IARC, which is the foremost
            cancer research agency on the planet?

            Are you suggesting the members of the IARC “the foremost cancer research agency on the planted” cannot recognize junk science when they see it? If so, I don’t want them making pronouncements about science.

          • Duncan DeBunkerman

            Yes they can that is why the IARC only uses peer reviewed studies. There are many industry sympathizers who would like them to lower their scientific standards and look at non-published non-peer reviewed studies. Many of these studies are of lesser quality and many have been manipulated by industry to support their junk pseudo-science agenda. The IARC did the right thing by upholding their strict quality requirements for the studies they consider.

          • TED

            Yes they can that is why the IARC only uses peer reviewed studies.

            You are not making sense. If the IARC are, as you claim, “the foremost cancer research agency on the planet”, surely they are in a position to assess data that has not been published in peer reviewed journals.

            If they feel the need to limit themselves to peer reviewed publications only, that must be because they doubt their own expertise.

          • Goldfinger

            Are you saying the IARC should lower their standards and waste the time of scientists to winnow though all the self serving industry junk science to look for some reason to validate a carcinogen so that the Monsanto 4.7 billion dollar glyphosate business can continue to cause sickness and death all over the planet?

          • Savvy?

            “surely they are in a position to assess data ” It sounds like they have. They’ve assessed it to be irrelevant to their conclusion.

          • SageThinker

            True that. The 1980s unpublished Monsanto animal feeding studies do show many signs of probable tumorigenesis by glyphosate and they remain unpublished and unreviewed, not to mention the likely bias in the very execution of the experiments.

            The fox can’t guard the henhouse propery.

            How long until people get that?

  • tomblakeslee

    Glyphosate causes many health problems beyond cancer. The problems develop gradually over time, causing chronic diseases. The initial safety testing that brought approval were limited to 90 days of testing using rats. There is a large body of scientific literature that demonstrates the dangers. Here is a paper with the first page of over 100 studies: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/pdf/Glyphosate_research_papers_compiled_by_Dr_Alex_Vasquez_and_Dr_Eva_Sirinathsinghji.pdf
    Also growth in humans: http://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2017/11/growth-genetic-engineering-agriculture-led-skyrocketing-rates-glyphosate-bodies/

  • Damo

    Wow. The first page of a hundred studies tells us absolutely nothing.

  • Kissing optional

    Oft repeated makes it true
    Note the Monsanto wacktivists claiming that the patents for purpose of the chemical are safe. When, in fact, the very purpose for its use, is why it works, and is therefore, dangerous.
    It is patented as a chelator, it leeches minerals, just as it is intended to do.
    When your body has minerals removed.. it is dangerous to your health.
    It is patented as an antibiotic, when it destroys the bio in your gut ( as it is patented to do) that is dangerous
    I could go on, but we all know that the desire to use it makes the users deaf to this and any other info.

    • Jason

      Do you understand what chelation is?? And do you realize that alcohol is a far, far more powerful antibiotic consumed in vastly larger quantities and yet it’s still considered healthy to have wine in moderation?

      How can it be that glyphosate in the minuscule doses experienced as food residue could be doing all you claim?

      • Kissing optional

        The Answer to how much mineral depletion is safe …?
        What amount of glyphosate is a safe level?
        And, a FYI, alcohol is not patented as an antibiotic, it is classified as a poison.
        The consumption of purple skinned fruits is a source of antioxidants. This fact was used by wine producers to make their claim that wine is a beneficial, when the truth is, grape juice is a much better source.
        As is blueberries, eggplant, haskap etc.
        Please, provide a link that the consumption of glyphosate is safe and at what level.
        I suspect that won’t happen.

        • Jason

          You’re dodging the question. Do you understand what chelation is? I suspect you don’t because you’re going on about mineral depletion.

          And alcohol is not patented as an antibiotic for the same reason glyphosate isn’t. Neither are patented at all. Glyphosate has been off parent for over a decade.

          But you seem to be saying that drinking “poison” in small amounts could be beneficial.

          As for a link to damage levels, my pleasure:
          http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/archive/glyphotech.html#chronic

          • Goldfinger

            Glyphosate has been patented as an antibiotic.

            Glyphosate formulations and their use for the inhibition of 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase

            US 7771736 B2 http://www.google.com/patents/US7771736

          • Harold

            I come up with the safe levels of Glyphosate as being at the level of Zero. Where am I wrong, and being wrong; what will eventually happen to me? I know what will happen to you though. You will have to give your peer reviews to someone else; kinda like a door to door salesmen. Do you have evidence that I will die if I don’t consume glyphosate? Please don’t offer me the same old tired nonsense line that two poisons make it right; you can keep that adventure all to yourself.

          • Kissing optional

            Did glyphosate lose its antibiotic property when it’s patent expired?
            I never claimed to be a wine producer, but if you think poison is good for you, I suggest you shouldn’t drink your roundup, ( their claim of being able to drink it; false)
            Your link ( grants and bursaries to the U of Oregon and the Monsanto laden board of directors of the EPA is hardly credible)) of the massive exposure to glyphosate, especially in rural areas and farm homes, does not claim any level as safe, just levels of saturation.
            Do you understand the problem of mineral depletion in soil and the human ( and all exposed creatures) body?
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4392553/

          • FarmersSon63

            Your study forgot to include this correlation:

            https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/autism_organic_graph.png

          • Kissing optional

            Do you have an actual link?
            It would make this hooky graph able to be put into context

          • Denise

            So eating food causes autism?

          • Jason

            You made the claim that it was somehow bad that it was patented. I told you it was not. Don’t blame me for your errors. If that’s not what you meant, then I suggest saying what you mean.

            And you are still going on about mineral depletion. You realize that chelation does not deplete minerals… right? It more often makes them more available.

          • Kissing optional

            You do realize when the mineral cannot be accessed by the plant because of the bonding (chelation) caused by glyphosate it is ‘gone’
            When it is removed from you body by this chelator action, it is not able to be utilized; ergo, depleted, gone.
            Btw, how much?

        • Peter Olins

          Our diet typically contains thousands of fold excess of divalent minerals relative to glyphosate, so no “depletion”.

          Chelation typically increases the bioavailability of minerals.

          A glass of orange juice has far more chelating activity — do you want to ban OJ?

          Sugar and salt are both effective antimicrobials (at high concentrations) – do you want to ban foods containing lower levels of these, too (e.g. grape juice)?

          • Harold

            I only drink fresh squeezed orange, grape, apple juice etc. The juice in the supermarkets are void of nutrition and are pasteurized and are nothing more than straight sugar. I certainly don’t need a lecture from anyone about banning juice. I already have banned certain supermarket products. You don’t need to arbitrarily ban anything: knowledge works quite well.
            Being used to a dictatorship, I guess the concept escapes you.

        • richard

          They have no idea how much glyphosate intake is safe, it is a function of many factors…..and I can assure you they have no clue how the shikimic pathway in gut bacteria may be affected by repeated exposure to trace levels of a known antibiotic especially when it is now exposing its ugly face in most foods…..

  • Kissing optional

    Four hundred and fifty MILLION 450,000,000 consumers will be gone from the glyphosate addicted N American agribiz grain producers when Europe’s ban is fully in place.
    More countries to follow.

  • Yes Maam

    Even if Europe does not ban glyphosate, I have news for you. We will STILL keep repeating that glyphosate herbicides ( and many chemicals used in GMO chemical farming) are harmful, because the science backs us up. Here is just one: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep39328
    that shows that Roundup CAUSES liver damage and disease ( NAFLD) at ultra low levels. 1 out of 10 Americans now has liver disease. Eight year olds are getting the disease, not because they drink alcohol, but because glyphosate herbicides are in almost all their foods. This is an epidemic that has skyrocketed over just the past 20 years- the same time that Roundup has been used directly on GMO crops and as a dessicant.
    So it is not seen as true just because it is repeated, it is repeated because it is true. The real problem is that the people who make money from it supposedly not being true have convinced far to many normally intelligent people that it is safe. We are sorry that usually what it takes for people to believe us that it is true that glyphosate herbicides are harmful is to have a sick (mental or physical illness) family member, to try going all organic for 2-3 weeks, and see how they feel. We just wish it did not have to come to that.

    • Peter Olins

      You are mistaken, and I encourage you to read the paper that you cited. The authors did not perform tissue pathology analysis or detect liver disease!

      Their conclusion from “multiomics” analysis was a speculation. The authors did not explain how their samples were selected or whether their tests were consistent from sample to sample. One of the big problems with “omics” analysis is that if you analyze thousands of data points, you are almost guaranteed to find spurious associations. The non-technical term is “fishing expedition”. I rate this paper a “D”.

  • Bill Monroe

    Is glyphosate harmful to humans?

    Glyphosate is perhaps the most intensely scrutinized agricultural chemical. Textbooks have been out for over a decade which detail the biochemical studies performed on glyphosate. Even before the advent of HT crops, glyphosate was studied for its ecological impacts and potential toxicity. Since the patent on glyphosate expired 15 years ago, researchers worldwide have the ability to study it and publish results – but even before then, studies by independent groups were common.
    Below are links to reviews of the available literature on glyphosate. These articles reference hundreds of studies from the past few decades.

    “After almost forty years of commercial use, and multiple regulatory approvals including toxicology evaluations, literature reviews, and numerous human health risk assessments, the clear and consistent conclusions are that glyphosate is of low toxicological concern, and no concerns exist with respect to glyphosate use and cancer in humans.” (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/10408444.2014.1003423)

    “Our review found no evidence of a consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between any disease and exposure to glyphosate.” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21798302)

    “Our review found no consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between total cancer (in adults or children) or any site-specific cancer and exposure to glyphosate.” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22683395)

    “These data demonstrated extremely low human exposures as a result of normal application practices… the available literature shows no solid evidence linking glyphosate exposure to adverse developmental or reproductive effects at environmentally realistic exposure concentrations.” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22202229)

    “An extensive scientific literature indicates that glyphosate is specifically not genotoxic, is not a carcinogen or a teratogen, nor has any specific adverse health effect ever been demonstrated to have been caused by exposure to or low-level consumption of glyphosate.” (http://academicsreview.org/2014/04/debunking-pseudo-science-lab-testing-health-risk-claims-about-glyphosate-roundup/)

    “It was concluded that, under present and expected conditions of use, Roundup herbicide does not pose a health risk to humans.” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10854122)

    Note that all of these studies refer specifically to exposure among humans. Others seem to completely ignore the resplendence of data available for human toxicity, instead pointing to cell culture studies. No toxicological agency worldwide considers in vitro studies sufficient for classifying human toxicity.

    In general, talking about the toxicity of pesticides to consumers is a red herring. Regulatory agencies (eg. FDA, EFSA, Health Canada) control the levels of pesticide residue on produce. The FDA, for example, requires pesticide residues to be at least 100x lower than the lowest dose known to cause harm. No consumer has ever fallen ill from ingesting pesticide residues.

    • Duncan DeBunkerman

      Monsanto’s own scientists told them Roundup/glyphosate caused cancer over 35 years ago. Instead of disclosing that fact, they colluded with the EPA who approved glyphosate over the objections of their own staff scientists and called the science “inconvenient” and hid the science away from other scientists, the courts, and the people as a trade secret while at the same time telling us it was safe.

      Both the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Health Organization have declared glyphosate to be a probable human carcinogen.

      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.

      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.

      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.

    • patzagame

      “No consumer has ever fallen ill from ingesting pesticide residues” Tobacco science…Repeat,repeat repeat..bunch of industry parrots!

      • RobertWager

        The real science

        “There is no validated evidence that GM crops have greater adverse impact on health and
        the environment than any other technology used in plant breeding…There is compelling evidence that
        GM crops can contribute to sustainable development goals with benefits to farmers, consumers, the
        environment and the economy… It is vital that sustainable agricultural production and food security
        harnesses the potential of biotechnology in all its facets.”

        http://www.easac.eu/home/reports-and-statements/detail-view/article/planting-the.html

        • Harold

          What did Einstein call real science? Remind me.

        • patzagame

          Tell me,Robbie, WHO is doing the follow up post consumer health studies? Validated evidence based on what? What agencies are even attempting to monitor unlabeled GE food products on the consumer. Until our sold out regulators actually give a damn about consumers health,nothing,nada,not even one hoodwinked regulator will open their eyes. And you will continue to be an industry parrot,shame on you.

    • Goldfinger

      Your links don’t work.

  • RobertWager
    • Duncan DeBunkerman

      Let’s look at what the IARC has to say about this.

      IARC rejects false claims in Reuters article (“In glyphosate review, WHO cancer agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings”).
      http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/IARC_Response_Reuters_October2017.pdf

      • RobertWager

        Perhaps you can explain citing Seralini et al seven times?

        • Duncan DeBunkerman

          Seralini is a good study. It was peer reviewed multiple times it was republished and remains available for citation in the scientific literature today. The only people who have problems with Seralini are Monsanto who went so far as to pay off the editor of a journal to get the study retracted because of the seriously troubling toxacollogy finding in the Seralini study.

          The IARC only uses peer reviewed studies. Why would you want to see junk science used to make decisions instead of upholding the quality requirements of the IARC, which is the foremost cancer research agency on the planet?

          • TED

            Seralini’s lumpy rat study is junk science. They lied in the Introduction about other research, they lied in the methods about what they did, they lied about what the results meant. And it appears from their later papers that male rats became female if that helped to stack the data.

            There were insufficient control rats for the numbers of treatments. The statistics were deliberately opaque to hide the fact that there was no significant differences between the treatments.

            They lied about the fact 80% of SD rats get cancer over 2 years naturally.

          • Duncan DeBunkerman

            The study was retracted by an editor that was paid off by Monsanto for reasons that recognized as not valid by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The study was peer reviewed multiple times and republished and remains available for citation in the scientific literature today. Read a full chronology of the issues surrounding this sleazy attempt to suppress this import science here: http://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/scientific-publication-peril-seralini-affair

          • TED

            The study was retracted by an editor that was paid off by Monsanto

            The retraction decision was made before Goldman joined the board.

            for reasons that recognized as not valid by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

            This is untrue. The paper was retracted because the conclusions were not supported by the data. This fits neatly under the first reason why editors should consider a retraction https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines_0.pdf

            The study was peer reviewed multiple times and republished and remains
            available for citation in the scientific literature today.

            The study was not peer reviewed in the normal sense several times. The review for Environmental Sciences Europe was described by the editor as: “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.” This is not peer review.

            So far all you have been able to contribute is conspiracy theories shown to be wrong.

          • Goldfinger

            The science is sound. It’s been peer reviewed multiple times and remains in the literature available for citation today. Seralini won two defamation lawsuits against industry aligned scientists who made the same kind of false claims you are making here.

            The conspiracy theory is the one being promulgated by people who want to see the Serallini toxacollogy results suppressed.

          • patzagame

            Don’t you just love the fact that the “Monsanto Papers” revealed the orchestrated attack on Prof.Seralini? and now its the attack on the IARC,same game plan,same players. Repeat,repeat.repeat,except these are truths!

  • Denise

    It sickens the soil as well as people.
    sustainablepulse.com/2017/10/07/cornell-university-research-shows-glyphosate-damages-soil-friendly-bacteria/#.Wfs_PRSwkYU

    • FarmersSon63

      The conclusion statement from your study states:
      “A comprehensive understanding of the responses of the entire
      rhizospheric microbiome is required to assess fully the non-targeted
      metabolic effects of glyphosate on crop-beneficial microbial
      communities.”
      Pretty scary conclusion, huh?

  • Duncan DeBunkerman

    This is a political act that has nothing to do with science.

    • RobertWager

      Follow the links in the letters and see the real science.

      • Eric Bjerregaard

        Hahahahahaha, like that is ever going to happen. The anti- truth commenters here are exactly what the article is referring to.

    • RobertWager

      Here is some more science

      Environ Pollut. 2017 Oct 27;233:364-376. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.10.016. [Epub ahead of print]
      Glyphosate has limited short-term effects on commensal bacterial community composition in the gut environment due to sufficient aromatic amino acid levels.
      Nielsen LN1, Roager HM1, Casas ME2, Frandsen HL1, Gosewinkel U2, Bester K2, Licht TR1, Hendriksen NB2, Bahl MI3.
      Author information
      Abstract
      Recently, concerns have been raised that residues of glyphosate-based herbicides may interfere with the homeostasis of the intestinal bacterial community and thereby affect the health of humans or animals. The biochemical pathway for aromatic amino acid synthesis (Shikimate pathway), which is specifically inhibited by glyphosate, is shared by plants and numerous bacterial species. Several in vitro studies have shown that various groups of intestinal bacteria may be differently affected by glyphosate. Here, we present results from an animal exposure trial combining deep 16S rRNA gene sequencing of the bacterial community with liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC-MS) based metabolic profiling of aromatic amino acids and their downstream metabolites. We found that glyphosate as well as the commercial formulation Glyfonova®450 PLUS administered at up to fifty times the established European Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI = 0.5 mg/kg body weight) had very limited effects on bacterial community composition in Sprague Dawley rats during a two-week exposure trial. The effect of glyphosate on prototrophic bacterial growth was highly dependent on the availability of aromatic amino acids, suggesting that the observed limited effect on bacterial composition was due to the presence of sufficient amounts of aromatic amino acids in the intestinal environment. A strong correlation was observed between intestinal concentrations of glyphosate and intestinal pH, which may partly be explained by an observed reduction in acetic acid produced by the gut bacteria. We conclude that sufficient intestinal levels of aromatic amino acids provided by the diet alleviates the need for bacterial synthesis of aromatic amino acids and thus prevents an antimicrobial effect of glyphosate in vivo. It is however possible that the situation is different in cases of human malnutrition or in production animals.

      • Duncan DeBunkerman

        I’ll pay attention to the Monsanto trade secret studies that show glyphosate causes cancer. After all they are the people who have done the most studies of the pesticide that they patented and told us was safe. There are other independent study that show serious issues with this 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. If you want to present cherry picked studies I can do the same.

      • SageThinker

        Two weeks is NOT SUFFICIENT for any conclusion regarding gut bacteria, Robert. You know that, don’t you? It’s far from long enough to tell much. If you think this “proves” no effect on gut microbiota then you’re showing your bias.

  • patzagame

    So who ever uses Kate Kelland Reuters article against the IARC,can just hang it up! However the best part about this article is the fact that industry has repeated its lies over and over,until the uninformed populace actually believe glyphosate/Roundup herbicides are benign.EX…Glyphosate is safer than table salt,Roundup wouldn’t cause weed resistance,Roundup doesn’t harm butterflies,Roundup is so safe you can drink it,Roundup doesn’t harm soil microbes,Roundup doesn’t cause NHL…bla bla bla

    • SageThinker

      Yes, Kelland’s article is a piece of placement by the PR troops.

      • Harold

        The PR troops do know how to conflate a non-issue, and turn it into an issue for debate; confounding the public is their specialty. At the end of the day the outcome is the same; a non issue.
        The article is written as if the truth were in his own safe place for safe keeping, whereas outside of his chosen realm – truth does not exist; it is the fundamental of a socialized industry lie. Moreover, he speaks in his article as many do, in the trappings of scientism – and not of science.
        It is ordinary, and a non-issue, that often repeated terms become a focal point for those of a lesser understanding, it’s also true that a fact, or truth, never needs repeating; only lies do. A repeated lie is a weapon of defence. The PR troop sure know how to stir up the public but they never present any facts other than the same old party line rhetoric.

  • Sheryl McCumsey

    This sounds just like a tobacco lobbyist. Bravo. It is getting more difficult to use this propaganda due to “science” – but if it isn’t industry’s science – industry and their lobbyists call it junk. Meanwhile as the general public sees more and more chronic diseases associated with them – they change their diet and voila- health ensues. You cannot brainwash people who feel good lol! Europe may very well turn away from this as other nations have done, the Monsanto papers will reveal the lies we have been literally fed and the public will never forget it!

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    “failed?” Another lie folks like you repeat. People are eating an doing very well on the food we grow. Thus the farmers have not failed.

    • richard

      Which of course is why you don’t cut it with educated consumers and now governments,,, they don’t want your glyphosate residues in their food, at any level…… contamination in food is a symbol of cultural entropy….

      • Eric Bjerregaard

        Nonsense. It is a group of loud pressure groups who are trying to counter the simple fact that the technology is safe. 11 Gov’ts in Africa are moving towards approving their own crops. India and Bangladesh are considering the approval of more GE crops. Glyphosate will not be banned for more than a short time as farmers will rebel angainst the nonsense spewn by folks like you.

    • SageThinker

      Yeah, reductionist models are often weak and insufficient, and yet they’re used when convenient to get chemicals approved. That’s for real.

      • Eric Bjerregaard

        Nothing reductionist about the abundance of food grown cost effectively by modern farmers who ignore you.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    Most is done in Northern areas or one with wetter harvest seasons. These are the factors. Not the species. http://texaswheat.org/glyphosate-treated-wheat-claims-vs-facts.html And due to the dryer climate in the southern plains. Your claim is a bit imaginative, at best.

  • SageThinker

    The Reuters article referred to was by Kate Kelland who seems to have serious issues of bias and COI with regard to this topic and this field. Don’t believe the hype.

    And the industry has wages a heavy propaganda campaign for decades regarding glyphosate, and had a finger on the scale all the time regarding the science. Bias is rife.

  • Savvy?

    What’s so bad about wanting food to be grown naturally? Nothing. It’s completely reasonable to want plants grown in accordance with nature and not in spite of it. Pesticides and herbicides created in a factory should never have been used in the first place.

  • Verna Lang

    Yes, the links do work. Hint: Remove brackets that are being included with the highlighted link for some unknown reason. …

  • SageThinker

    … It’s reductionist science that calls it safe with the thumb of industry on the scale.

    • Eric Bjerregaard

      The safety record is impeccable and you have zippo for proof that industry has a thumb on the scale. Your analysis is a reductionist shill gambit.

  • Goldfinger

    It is interesting that certain posters always find issues with any studies that don’t support the agenda they are promoting. This is a great example. Nature is the most prestigious science journal on the planet and they featured this study on their website. So who should I believe, the well known industry PR asset, or Nature the most prestigious scientific journal on the planet?

    • No , certain posters find issues with bad papers. Experiments that are designed , executed ad described with the the only purpose. And the purpose is not to share new knowledge with other scientists but to confuse the public. And for your information Scientific reports are not Nature:). Impact factor of Nature is around 40, that of Scietific reports is around 4.

      • Goldfinger

        That may be true but they also never accept any science that conflicts with the industry agenda.

        This is a great example. Nature is the most prestigious science journal
        on the planet and they featured this study on their website. So who
        should I believe, the well known industry PR asset, or Nature the most
        prestigious scientific journal on the planet?

        • Just read the paper and make your own opinion:)

        • Alokin

          Unfortunately, the article was not peer reviewed and published in Nature, it was published in Scientific Reports, which has had a rather checkered past. http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/06/15/more-on-scientific-reports-and-on-faked-papers

          Why do you have to misrepresent the truth to support your claims?

          • Peaceful Warrior

            I read it on the Nature website.

          • Alokin

            For the rest of you who may not know, Nature website is not the same as Nature the journal and Scientific Reports’ standards are not nearly as high.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            Nature is the most prestigious scientific journal on the planet. I truth that they only publish quality science on their website. People often want to talk about the journal when they can not refute the science.

          • The Nature Publishing Group publishes Nature magazine for actual science and it also publishes Scientific Reports for reports on emerging hypotheses.

            It takes a special kind of stupid to confuse the two.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            There is no confusion. Nature published the study on their website. That is good enough for me and most people. Industry PR assets will always try and spin the study away.

          • Alokin

            Of course it is good enough for you, that is the point, anything that supports your narrative, no matter how credible it is or is not, is good enough for you.

          • Harold

            When you say “high” on what two poles are you balancing the bar? Is it your mind and theirs or just two poles of finely decorated say so?

          • Alokin

            Pick any credible journal ranking system you want. For instance, http://www.scimagojr.com/index.php H Index: Nature 1011 vs Scientific Reports 104

          • Harold

            Are any of these deities and can you assure me that these humans cannot make mistakes or be manipulated? When you are messing around with what you don’t completely understand, you only have a temporary, and that is where the science always sits. There have been accredited products recalled due to the temporary. Pharmaceuticals are also a bio Industry where products are routinely recalled due to the temporary, which is failure; the body didn’t obey it. History has many tried and failed experiments. So – on what two poles are you balancing the bar? It should be uncertainty and evidence. Your journals are a temporary to the contrary evidence lacking; they are not a conclusion that you can hang your hat upon. I will say this again, this is not your science or my science – it is science period. When you are led to pick and choose, you are not engaged in any science. You have provided me with choices to pick between , and at the risk of you not understanding me, which Report will the apple tree choose or which one will the environment obey? My bar is held much higher than yours so you can imagine the standard it takes to jump over it. Am I reasonable? absolutely not, and neither is nature. Nature upsets me too.

    • No, certain posters find issues with bad papers. Experiments that are designed, executed ad described with the the only purpose. And the purpose is not to share new knowledge with other scientists but to confuse the public. And for your information Scientific reports are not Nature. Impact factor of Nature is around 40, that of Scientific reports is around 4.

  • Verna Lang

    Maybe Seralini should sue IARC too. Just not for an accusation of deliberate fraud, which is what the defamation suits were all about. After all, IARC took a look at his rat study and rejected it as being deficient for use in their glyphosate monograph. And IARC was not above rewriting some cited author’s conclusions where it suited their agenda. But then again, caveat Seralini. Proving incompetence is a much easier defence in a lawsuit.

  • richard

    Yeah I know we thought once that smoking on commercial airlines was safe…… and in the car with the kids??? Glyphosate is going down in the same desperate slipstream as tobacco….get used to it….find another channel to play. It will liberate you.

  • Harold

    There is only “bad” if you have an alternative and desire to capture the entire market place to make a profit from it; “natural” stands in the way – making “natural” artificially “bad”, but for whom? To ensure profit, one only has to gain the power to control the consumer. It is the consumers money in direct sales, including our money in tax dollar handouts and favorable legislation, in which they receive all of their power. The controversy, secrecy, lobbying, character assaults, virtue signaling, and anti-science nonsense, is a result of their many attempts to retain and assure their future profits and power, and for that they fight tooth and nail. In essence, we are paying them our money to fight against us. What corporation will vote away a billion dollars in profits or any of their power; Monsanto? The consumer, who is also the voter, can upon their will – destroy the corporate – simply by the redirection of their money; therefore, the Corporate employ any means that are necessary to control the voter with bypassing them and lobbying the government, and the other aspect – the control of consumers thoughts – through their many cleverly crafted public “information” pipelines. The consumer then becomes “sandwiched” by the corporate; those who are not within the “sandwich” are character assassinated. More to this, there is not my science or your science or their science or another’s science; there is only science – period, and true science is open to ALL, and begs to be challenged at all times. On the other hand, scientism is the political and corporate rhetoric used in their bid to close the doors of science and are the words of manipulating the public into favoring corporate profits. It is the consumer and voter who decides by the power of their own money, and there is an ongoing political and corporate agenda in place to keep those consumers and taxpayer captured.

  • Harold

    Is your politician now your mother? Are we electing parents? Is there a possibility that “Mommy government” has created the very problems that now exist? When I meet with elected officials, I only see another mere mortal man or mere mortal woman who is not anymore competent in life than I am. Do you claim that an election offers them additional brain cells over and above what you have? Perhaps you haven’t noticed that the prior “Mommy’s” have legislated away from you any responsibility that you can take upon yourself and it is now in “mommy’s” safe keeping. So tell me, how do you live in a responsible manner when government is in control of every aspect of your life? Government servitude; is that it? In our current “nanny state”, mislabelled freedom, the people recognize their lost power and give every matter over to the ill-gotten power of the State to handle. Obviously waiting upon elections have never worked so how do we gain our power back; do you know how?
    In the mean time, if the planet is in fact being destroyed, haven’t you noticed that it was “mommy” who had been in charge all along?

    • Savvy?

      Governments exist to protect us. In that sense, they are like elected parents. So yes. They are our “mommy.” But we get to choose a new one if we don’t like what they are (or aren’t) doing.

      “When I meet with elected officials, I only see another mere mortal man or mere mortal woman who is not anymore competent in life than I am.” True. They are no more powerful or intelligent than the average citizen.

      “In the mean time, if the planet is in fact being destroyed, haven’t you noticed that it was “mommy” who had been in charge all along?” So you feel that officials are “not anymore competent in life than I am.” but you also feel that they are responsible for the state of the planet? Which one is it?

      • Harold

        Politicians are public servants – not mommy. Lets get that straight. An elected official is more powerful that I am but not wiser. Lets get that straight. Elected officials create the Laws that are in force and in that regard they should be heavily scrutinized and not given a free hand over and above our calling; lets get that straight. Governments exist to protect property, human health, and the public’s commerce. Lets get that straight. What we are seeing in existence today is decades of the governments/politicians failures in those duties in all regards and the public have allowed the government a free hand in a blind trust. Given to public acceptance the government routinely is keeping us blinded. Today, citizens who have found within them an ounce of courage are unveiling the government and the Corporations who are controlling them. Furthermore, identify an aspect of your life that is not government controlled and when you determine that, ask yourself if it was the “wise” who took your freedoms away. You are wise enough to accomplish much more, but what entity holds you back the most? The entity of wise? There is a reason why the Law is called an ass. It is because the offending Law was not fully generated or created by our public’s calling.
        Regarding your question: Simply, you cannot destroy the planet or Canada for that matter unless you were provided with the tools to do it.
        If you found any truth in what I have written, you have found it in the background of your knowledge; this is not the forum to increase it.

        • Savvy?

          “Politicians are public servants – not mommy” I am not under the impression that politicians gave birth to me. I was making an analogy. A responsible parent protects her/his child. A responsible official protects her/his citizens. I meant nothing more or less.

          “An elected official is more powerful that I am but not wiser” True, but any power they posses is granted to them by voters and can be taken away from them by those same voters. They aren’t inherently more powerful. In fact, it could be argued that the voters are at least as powerful since they granted the power to the elected official.

          “Governments exist to protect property, human health, and the public’s commerce.” 100% agreement here. That’s why I agree with government regulation when it is likely to protect property, health, and/or commerce.

          “What we are seeing in existence today is decades of the governments/politicians failures in those duties in all regards and the public have allowed the government a free hand in a blind trust” You really think they have failed “in all regards?” They’ve done nothing right in your eyes? Even if you are generally displeased with the current political landscape, don’t you think you’re exaggerating?

          “you cannot destroy the planet or Canada for that matter unless you were provided with the tools to do it.” I agree that as individuals we lack the tools to destroy the planet. But as a population, we can certainly cause the planet to alter in such a way that it becomes inhospitable to humans. We can certainly shoot ourselves in our collective foot and bleed to death as a species. Humans eliminating themselves from the planet is certainly a type of destruction even if the planet remains and ultimately recovers.

          • Harold

            Calling the government a surrogate mother as an analogy is a total misrepresentation. They are not. I don’t know where you have gained you thoughts of government but they have greatly done you a disservice. Do you understand a simple contract? A person comes to you with a document and the document has on it a series of tasks that they are willing to offer. When you agree – you sign that document, and you then pay them money to perform those tasks; they are your paid servants. When you do not pay or obstruct the obligations set forth in that contract you are taken to Court where you are ordered to remove the obstruction and/or pay what was written on the contract, or you face Jail time. What did you think your Taxes are – and what happens when you avoid paying them? You are paying to accounts receivable of the corporation that you are in contract with. The government routinely, sometimes daily, offers more services to place upon the original contract for which there is an obligation for your action, and with that, you pay them more money – if you accept. If you accept, the new service is added to the contract and then receives full cause and effect and becomes enforceable. Canada is corporate Canada and it is with that corporation that you are contracted with. Land Canada – is you. The Provinces are corporate provinces and where you live you are contracted with the corresponding corporation. Land province – is you. Your Cities, Towns and Villages are also corporations where you are also under contract. City/Town/Village Land – is you. Do you wonder why your LAND address is important on documents. You- the land – pay your money to each corporation (servant) under your contract. The contract has a clause that opens up that contract every four years where the public can renegotiate each service provided. If the public provides nothing – there is nothing to add or subtract. The politician is only a replacement for a retired staff member of the corporation. It is the same as McDonald’s exchanging one staff member for another. At any time where the corporation breaks the rules of the contract, the corporation can be taken to Court to correct the wrong. Blind trust is when you allow the government to place anything at will on that contract and without a thought you just accept it blindfolded and thereafter do the action required of you in that motion – and also pay for it. Corruption and fraud is when the government ignores the rules of the contract and adds to the contract without your full knowledge and consent and that which is added demands an action from you and also your payment.(more money) The updated contract and rules of the contract are the Canadian Charter 1982. Your rules which are added to the original contract that are there to protect you, are in the first document of the contract entitled: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If you are in a contract and you don’t take the time to read it – you can make up all sorts of fictitious thoughts. Finally take you and divide you into 35 million pieces and that is who the public are; and why a majority is needed to resemble one person- you. This is also why corrupt social engineering goes through great lengths to keep us all separated and divided as to not create that one person- you. Was this confusing? No – the government or the politician are NOT your mommy in any way, shape, form, or analogy.
            Do I think that I am exaggerating? No, I think that you are exaggerating. Do I think that “they” have failed in all regards? No, I know that they have failed in all regards; are you ignoring what is happening around you with happy, happy thoughts?
            Propaganda always tastes so good when going down, but there is always the tell-tale lingering belly ache. Most do what authority tells them to do and they take the “tums” – and feeling much better – they avoid examining the corrupted food and consume the “good flavor” again. By the way, the best flavor for a belly ache is to say that taxpayers are responsible for all of our woes; the government will never disagree with you and will come running to your aid; Its all about the money. Do you have enough? The more that you do for yourself – the less money they take – and the more that you will have in your pockets to spend. Without government, who gives you the authority to open up a business? YOU DO. With government, who gives you the authority to open up as business? THEY DO. Do you get it? Which one do you want to pay for and jump through hoops for? Is government over-reaching? What does less government mean?
            To stay on topic, if any of what I have written is true, does it ever need to be repeated? Only the lies will need repeating.

          • Savvy?

            So the government is a corporation that exists to protect us. And you obviously feel that they aren’t doing that. Okay. Why does that make my analogy wrong? I don’t see that anything you’ve said contradicts what I’ve suggested. In my previous post, I explained my analogy to mean: “A responsible parent protects her/his child. A responsible official protects her/his citizens. I meant nothing more or less.” You obviously think that the government is being irresponsible, but that doesn’t change the fact that what I said makes sense. You’re trying to create a disagreement where one doesn’t actually exist.

            Originally, I said “When citizens become responsible enough to live in a manner that isn’t destroying the planet, then the government won’t need to get involved.” You obviously feel that the government should do what we choose to pay them to do and leave us alone when it comes to everything else. But if their job is, in your words, “to protect property, human health, and the public’s commerce,” then aren’t they performing their duties when they attempt to protect us from potential carcinogens like glyphosate?

          • Harold

            This forum is not the place to fill in any background knowledge. You either have it or you don’t and I rely heavily upon the possibility that you do. In some cases the back ground knowledge is years of study, evidence, trial and error, and encompass many books. It is not possible to transform this into a single paragraph and expect to be understood. One paragraph can only be understood by those of the same experience. For example, I can say just the word Land to a Lawyer and he knows exactly what I am saying. When I say the word Land to you It has a totally different meaning. In Court your term “land” is meaningless by the words that follow it and the Lawyers term “land” is meaningful by the words that follow it. Outside of the court, your term “Land” is meaningful and the Lawyers term is not. For this reason you hire a Lawyer. I cannot give you the law books definition, case law, Code, international covenants , and international treaty to every word that I express. You already have the definition or you do not. I placed you on your porch at home with a contractor entering onto your property approaching you with a contract. That contract has no cause or effect or force until to agree to it and then sign it. You are the Land and he has entered upon it. The contractor is obligated to be your mother if you are in need of one – and that is his service – and you accept that service. The contractor is not protecting you, you are protecting yourself and the contractor is now placed in servitude for which you pay him your money; your servant. That servant is expected to leave all other matters alone and untouched. This has nothing to do with the contractor protecting you, this has everything to do with you protecting yourself. The contractor is a corporation. You are the land. When you hire a contractor to fix your roof, he is not protecting you, you are protecting yourself and the contractor is in servitude and you pay him your money. The politician is called a public servant for a concrete reason and not an imaginary one of a dismissive meaning. I placed you in the simple – to explain the complex. The complex is not complex if you understand the simple. What seems to be complex is only the multiples of the simple. You either have a background to understand this or you do not. If you cannot connect Land and Corporation, your disagreement is not with me and I am not creating something that does not exist. When I say that the government is there to protect – the meaning is totally different than when you say the exact same words; the background is the difference in meanings. It is not surprising to me that we can say the exact same words and yet disagree. It is therefore not surprising that you have not seen a contradiction. The government has never protected us from anything. The people make all of the discoveries and the government is in tow. You either have the background to understand this or you do not. A simple contract is a start. You’ve been warned about fine print. Is the act of reading the fine print an act of them protecting you or an act of you protecting yourself. Who gave you the warning? The government or those contracting with them? Again, I cannot give you the background; you either have it or you don’t. The same can be said of me. If I have not suffered the same as you in my background I will not understand your simple paragraph. I either have it or I don’t, and my not having it is not your creation of something that does not exist; it is my creation of something that doesn’t exist. The creation of something that does not exist is done in the absence of contradiction.

          • Harold

            Assuming that you have read the previous comment, this is yours and our concern. The Contractor who you are in contract with, are the same who set up the Court system and when you appear before them, it is their interpretation of the contract wording – not yours. You have witnessed this time and time again. This is why everyone should heavily scrutinize everything that is added to the contract – beforehand. As you have heard – ignorance of the Law – is no excuse. The placement of this warning is beforehand – not after the Law receives full-force and effect. The reason that a Jury exists is that they are – twelve of you- Land (peers) whereby – the interpretation of the contract wording – is taken out of the hands of the corporation – and given to 12 of you – Land. You personally are the lucky, or unlucky 13th, depending upon their decision. Have you wondered why Latin is still spoken in Court today? Latin – JU means NO – and RY means contract. JURY – 12 of No contract. In the Court only, the Jury are not contracted to the Court (corporation) or to the Land – you – and impartial at the hearing -(no contract) their final interpretation of the wording in the contract – stands. It is called – Law of the Land. Because the Crown Corporation (it is not the Queen – the Corporation of) comes to us from the Sea, and has landed on Canada’s soil (Land) it is called the Law of the Sea; this is who you are in a contract with. The Bar (sand bar) is where Land meets Sea, and those – passing the Bar- (Lawyers) become members of that Sea Corporation. That is who a Lawyer is; a master of the corporations own interpretations of the wording- not an interpreter of yours – Land. The Courts has an invested interest in demanding that you obtain a Lawyer (sea) so that you (Land) will shut up and allow the corporation (sea) to hear only the corporation’s (sea) own interpretations of that (sea) contract. Did you know what the term “Bar” meant? Even If you were to pass the bar at your local pub, you would become an employee of that establishment. It is the same thing. You drink at the bar (land) – not beyond it – where the staff are.(government controlled – sea) Many of our Laws, Acts, Codes, are constructed and added to the contract in a fashion as to prevent the use of a Jury (Land), and this arbitrarily favors the corporation – and not you. The Lawyer, Prosecutor, and Judge, are members of the same corporation, and you – Land – are not: conflict of interests? Did you ever think that you were getting a fair and unbiased impartial hearing with a Lawyer standing beside you? (Jury – Land influence?) Blindly, we have allowed this – and our politicians (law makers) have blindly brought us there. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the contractor has not supplied enough money for a Land Jury to enter into their Court Room at the defendants will. All of this – in its simplicity – could be easily taught in high school but the corporation by it’s own doing has omitted it – and why wouldn’t they. The Crown corporations have been educating our children and look how they have since contracted us to stay away from them. State children; not entirely yours. Did we ask for this, or did corporate crown politicians blindly vote in the house and lead us to this? You do know that all Politicians swear an allegiance to the Crown, and not you – don’t you?
            Only my lies will need repeating.

  • Kissing optional

    Republican climate change denier, Lamar Smith??
    Wow …
    Like Monsanto always said about the politician
    Better to own one than be one.

    • Harold

      When you dismiss the natural changes in climate and accept only the political changes in climate – you are a climate denier as well. Don’t kid yourself.

      • Kissing optional

        When you dismiss the man made contributions of climate change you are a fool.
        When you accept the fact that man made contributions to climate change is driving it into exponentially dangerous levels and promote propaganda to the contrary, you are a vile liar.

        • Harold

          What do you say when someone dismisses the natural causes of climate change? Are there absolutely no natural causes?
          What are the man made contributions balanced against the natural causes precisely and to precisely what level of temperature degree is each responsible. Give me something to accept. Tremendous ice sheets have vanished and then returned in mini ice ages all without the event of man. Are you a climate denier? Ice cores have presented evidence of a past world hotter and greener. Are you a climate denier? There are many factors of climate that you are denying and the denial enables you to dismiss everyone else. The dismissal places you on board with local and world taxation and government control: obviously a condition of man made climate change. Are you gaining all of your information from those who wish to place a tax upon you? It is interesting that you describe a vile liar as one with contrary evidence. Obviously you would have examined the contrary evidence for yourself to make that accusation. What were they saying exactly? Tell me their lies (Propaganda) so that I can understand them too. Propaganda that dismisses government control and government taxation just doesn’t sound like propaganda to me. Do I know the truth by what it costs in tax money to possess it? In that regard, it is certain that you have all the truth that you need.

  • Happy Farmer

    All die, no matter what we eat or how we live. Solution- Look for something Eternal. (John 3:16-21).

    • Harold

      You needed a bible to prove yourself? I’m sure the evidence speaks for it’s self. Be that as it may, I don’t need a bible lesson; unlike most, I have read the entire book in earnest. John and the life of John says a whole lot more than one little scripture. Perhaps you should read it – instead of having the preacher explain it.

  • Jason

    … You are wrong in that the safe level for everything is something above zero, including glyphosate.

    And yes… I have evidence that you will die without glyphosate. Everyone dies.

    • Harold

      I stand by my comment. Did I say “everything” and was I questioning mortality? No – you were. When you stop talking to yourself – I’ll take you more seriously.

  • Kissing optional

    I wonder how the chemical industry trollls will attempt to spin this…
    http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/saskatoon/sask-pesticides-songbirds-1.4396585

  • Denise

    My guess is when the song birds stop singing the truth will be out and silent spring is upon us. Do we have to let it go that far before these guys realize what they have destroyed? Maybe cheap, abundant poisoned crops and profits are more important than saving the songbirds, butterflies and bees.
    news.usask.ca/media-release-pages/2017/u-of-s-research-reveals-controversial-insecticides-are-toxic-to-songbirds.php

  • Kissing optional

    Actually Richard, I think ‘they’ do know that zero intake of their toxin is the safe amount of intake.
    Their problem appears to be the litigant opposition for the toxification of seed in their quest of owning the right to the seed

  • Happy Farmer

    You did not read my response very carefully, or did you read it carelessly and with bias? How do you know If i have read the entire Bible? Is one more (intelligent) when reading is done fully and in earnest?…or.. When interpreting a book- should one read it and interpret it for oneself, or should extensive use of commentaries and people(like preachers) be used?

    If I want a response, will I ask for it?… or just say I don’t need one?

    • Harold

      Yes, I read your comment very carefully and with bias. I am very biased in the opinion that all of us will die. Should I sit on a fence unbiased and ignore this fact? Reading any book or any contract in earnest is grasping every word without exception or fatigue; it means nothing more. Look for something Eternal you say? Eternal is the spirit that doesn’t die and is not of the physical which does. Am I to seek that which I already have? If you want to see the eternal leave all you need to do is to experience a death. Did you think that you were actually telling me something? I am very biased in my opinion that you did not – for the mere fact that you did not. Does eternal express its self just by your mere utterance of the word? Do you have the truth eternal just because you can read the word eternal in the bible and then pass it to others? When people want a response they will ask for it or they will remain silent. This is a very ordinary occurrence, and a ism, and I am biased enough to agree with you. Should I sit on a fence unbiased? Who would wish me to go there? No one is intelligent because they have read a bible. They are intelligent only if the words paint a picture in their minds of that which is already living. If the words do not – then there is nothing to tell. Intelligence is that of that telling. In-tell – is that of what is in you to tell. Intelligence is the telling of. A lack of intelligence is only a lack of the minds pictures to tell of. In-telling can be that of a lie. Intelligence is used for both truth saying and lies. Intelligence is not the same as knowledgeable. If your in telling is of something real than I shall see it on the outside of your body – not from within your body and mind. The word apple forms a picture of an apple in your mind only if you have seen a living apple. If you do not have prior knowledge of the apple the word forms nothing but your emptiness and the description of the wanting that does not exist; a false picture. (fantasy) So what is the interpretation when both are staring at an apple; is there a conflict in truth? Does the mislabelling of the apple change the apples flavour? Those who remind me of scripture are the ones who least understand it. Those who fear the Bias in others – they have nothing to offer – and wish only the simplicity of the un-bias and to gain their control over them. You may have noticed that the John and the Jesus Christ in the bible were very biased. Unbiased – who would they have been? To prevent the crucifixion of Jesus Christ he only needed to become unbiased. Do you know that John eventually suffered the same fate later on in life? He was “murdered” for his biased beliefs while the unbiased watched. Somewhere in the reading of your scripture you seem to find favor in the unbiased. . My bias brings you concern only because placed un-bias I can now seek your truth. Is that how truth works? If you had truth, my bias would be of no concern at all because truth speaks for its self and you are pointing to it is all; a living thing. The Industry is seeking the unbiased and praising the unbiased in a bid to gain their control over them and you are speaking their language and tongue. Those who express industry bias are saved and those who are not industry bias need to become unbiased to be saved by Industry truth for the outcome of industry bias. Is that how truth works? What does your bible say? .

  • alora hughes

    This article is very interesting because once you are aware of how false information spreads, you begin to see it everywhere. On every social media platform there are people who are not educated or trained in a area but feel the need to give others information and advice regarding it. It is very concerning when science no longer matters because your friend or neighbour said something contrary. Science is how society has been able to achieve what it has, but currently more focus is on politics and opinion, not science. For farmers to increase yields and feed the growing population we need to be able to use science and the technology available to us. Politics and opinion are causing mistrust in science and regulation that are put in place to have society best interest. Great article.

explore

Stories from our other publications