Vet refutes theory on danger of glyphosate

A University of Saskatchewan toxicologist says it’s not likely that glyphosate residue in livestock feed is causing animals to become sick.

Dr. Barry Blakley said suggestions from Dr. Ted Dupmeier, a large animal veterinarian, that sick animals get better when feed containing glyphosate is removed, and molasses is fed to improve gut microbes, aren’t supported by current scientific literature.

Dupmeier said recently that some tested feed registered residue levels of about 500 parts per billion, or .5 parts per million.

But Blakley said according to an American expert the ‘no effect’ level in livestock would be two million ppb, or 2,000 ppm.

“When you spray it on the field, (the rate) is about 150 ppm, so obviously if you spray it under normal conditions you should never run into the no effect level.”

Related story:

He said other studies have suggested the maximum residue levels on hay and dry grass should be 500 ppm and on oat straw, 100 ppm, which are well below the 2,000 ppm threshold, he said.

Blakley said there is no doubt that any feed can be contaminated with glyphosate. People have been using it for years and feeding their cattle with sprayed feed for years.

He also disputed Dupmeier’s claim that glyphosate could be disrupting the gut microbes in animals, causing illness.

“I haven’t seen any controlled studies where they’ve put animals on oats straw or whatever that’s treated with Roundup and another that’s not treated with Roundup and then cultured the bugs to see what the differences are,” he said. “Glyphosate is an amino acid derivative and I can’t believe it’s going to disrupt too many gut micro flora.”

Monsanto worked with Dupmeier on a case involving flax straw, in which the veterinarian claimed calves ate some of their flax bedding and were poisoned.

An analysis of the straw, reviewed by the Animal Poison Control Centre in the U.S., did find glyphosate but at very low levels.

“It was below the level of concern,” said Dr. Tina Wismer, medical director of the centre in information provided by Monsanto.

She compared it to the amount of cyanide in an apple; it exists but is of no concern.

The Pest Management Regulatory Agency doesn’t set safe consumption levels for animals as it does for humans.

About the author

Comments

  • old grouchy

    Oh boy – – – just because it hasn’t been proven that it can’t happen doesn’t mean that it can’t. Sorry Dr Vet – – – I’ve been handed a few too many reports of animals with impaired guts for me to not think that there would be no causuality there. Proven no – – – but prudence suggests that if there are these symptoms then I remove ANYTHING that has ANY hint of possible issues.
    As someone whom I met quite a few years ago did – – – he offered the bureaucrats that deemed the spray for trees to be safe salads to eat whereupon he had sprayed same herbicide (I believe that’s what it was). Funny they thought that the moose or deer that he would have possible eaten wouldn’t be effected by this spray – – – yet they thought they would be – – – interesting trail of logic for sure!

    • ed

      Yes, this guy is more than a bit out to lunch.

  • Dayton

    He said she said

    • Happy Farmer

      So how do we ever determine what or who is right?

      • Harold

        Evidence and manifestations are not a “who”. Stop listening to the “who” and examine the facts for yourself. You can listen to the who’s explain an apple to you for all of your life or you can eat one for yourself to figure out what is right. The “who” are only useful in pointing to what you need to study for yourself. Furthermore, if you cannot locate the roots of your own knowledge to confirm and verify, then you are under the control and in servitude to a source that has been hidden from you. This is why the “whos” are grievous; they point to the knowledge that you are lacking. If you are floating, it is only because you have chosen to.

        • richard

          “A bird doesn’t fly because it has wings… its has wings because it flies” (Ayn Rand)

          • Happy Farmer

            A bird flies because it was created to do so. (Genesis 1:21)

          • richard

            I think youre both right…. Whether youre a creationist or an evolutionist…. the bird was given the bare essentials to become a flyer….But it was not without will power and persistence that it learned to excel. Watch the seagulls and the eagles, they never stop practising…. others like ostriches and kiwis learned not to fly…. For me in agriculture I can make things happen, I can watch things happen….. or I can wonder what happened? I choose the first because it grants me the power to exert my will over those who only pretend to have my best interests at heart….Truth is self evident, it does not require inducements. Modern agriculture is built on inducement….. lock ,stock and barrel…. thanx for your inputs.

          • Harold

            I disagree; I am not right; the bird is right – and I am just a mere observer. There is an impossible – making all things possible – and the possible is the only thing that we can observe. What you or I believe in matters not. A belief does not make anything possible – the impossible does. You can call the Impossible what you want – but it matters not to the impossible. For example, the bird is not reliant upon the word bird to exist. It can be called anything and it still matters not. The word is only our agreed upon reference to an object.
            When you walk, are you engaged in practicing? When you run are you practicing or do you receive health from these activities? Do children need to be told that running is healthy or do they receive the benefit in spite of themselves. How do you explain your in-voluntary hand movements when you speak. Did you learn them? If so, who taught you when to precisely move your hands, arms, eyes, head, shoulders. or posture while you speak?. Can you stop any of those unmindful involuntary movements at minds will? Try it. When others are displaying their unmindful involuntary hand movements and such, are you not being offered clarity to what is being spoken? Are mere words ever enough? That being said, what will we pretend that we know about the bird.
            Your power of “will” comes to you by your knowledge and has nothing to do with anyone else’s “heart”. You are not a puppet. A wrong heart is exposed by your knowledge and then you have will. If you do not have the knowledge you can be grateful – because your will – will allow the wrong heart to take you there. Haven’t you always learned your deepest truth in this way; in contrast? All good comes from bad being there first. Those wishing to do good find within them a need to find the bad and then do something about it – It is not enough to just stand there and point at it. Without the wrong hearted, there is no will to do good.

          • Harold

            The bird makes Genesis correct; not the other way around.

          • Happy Farmer

            However- the bird was still clearly created to fly. Further study of the (link) and surrounding words I posted show that good existed before bad.

            If you don’t believe that, that is your choice. In that, you are right, all of us have free minds and are free to choose. Choose carefully, before it is to late.

          • Harold

            I seems that your – choice warning – was to towards a nothing. Do you have an object to present or should I fear some ghost?
            further, what a bird does is obvious and was not in dispute as to warrant your clarification. Have you assumed that I am blind?
            To be clear, I don’t believe it – I know it – therefore I do not have a choice. To believe – offers choice;- to know – offers none. There are some things that I am left to believe and therefore I have choice, and there are other things that I am left to know and have no choice. I am no different than you other than our differences between beliefs and knowledge.
            As long as our beliefs are not to bring harm to each other we can live side by side in harmony.
            I am very aware in depth of the entire book of Geneses so your link to a tid-bit has not enlightened me. Most Christians cannot wrap their minds around the entire book so they choose and display tid bits instead and believe that they are the enlightened ones – yet they have fear at every corner. If you believe that you know more than tid-bits and understand the book of genesis belter than I, tell me why there were two creations mentioned. If you cant figure that one out – I will tell you why but only after you have exhausted all of your resources. Most bible thumpers with their red faces and sweat of passion and yelling, don’t know that there were two creations mentioned and neither can they explain it when asked. I have been in those empty halls of preaching. There is a lot of belief happening there in their absence of knowledge.
            Lets hear your explanation with one understanding first. If you cannot show the existence of something real – then god didn’t create it – your imagination or preaching did. In other words, the universe says – god created it. Genesis says – in the beginning. The universe is not saying when that beginning exactly was keeping it impossible. Somewhere in that impossible is something making it possible. What we call it is god or spirit of god. you’re choice. Is this what genesis is really saying or have you not looked up from your book yet. How can you be reading the “living word” if you don’t look up and see the word living right in front of you. Now explain satin and bad and the garden and the trees and the fruits. I have no interest in your belief. tell me what you know and bring life to it. Don’t quote the scripture: I know them. When you point at something real – the scripture will come to my mind automatically.

          • Harold

            Ayn Rand is a good observer, but what does the bird know?
            Can we have some fun; a human doesn’t fly because we have wings… we have aircraft because it flies. The same thing that flies the little bird (spirit) is the same thing that flies the aircraft. (spirit/pilot) When the spirits are gone, both are on the ground.
            Thanks for your comment.

        • Happy Farmer

          Examining for one self is the “what”. Every “what” is written by a “Who”.
          “What” I hear you say is that if I examine evidence for myself, and come to a conclusion, I am therefore “right”. This is a good theory if I want to be a recluse.
          So using your theory- I see no reason why Glyphosate should not be used in farming.
          So, I ask you and others again- How do we ever arrive at a consensus or decision when our conclusions are so different. How do we find common ground that works for all?

          • Harold

            A blue print – the written – is not of itself a manufactured product. The product when manufactured becomes the “what”. The “what” prior to manufacturing is only a piece of paper and ink. You cant drive a car that is paper and ink. Are you still trying to figure out how to start the engine of your car? The written or oral word (who) cannot force your hand to the ignition switch. (the what) The “what” you have to do for yourself. Have you ever uttered “what the Hell”. Have you considered its meaning. After you have done the “what” for yourself once, then the “who” are not necessary. Did the “who” ever turn the key of your ignition switch or was it you? Is this a theory; when will it not be a theory? Do you have a theory on when this will not be a theory? Do you have a theory about supper? There are places where the word theory is inserted and where the word does not belong. This all too simple, but I heavily rely upon your ability to expand upon this to create a deeper meaning. If you can’t or won’t – so be it.
            “This is a good theory if I want to be a recluse”. Do you have more than one person living inside of you? Multiple personalities is considered to be a mental disorder. If you are speaking about the “devil” on one shoulder and the “angel” on the other in your mind, this is normal, and they are the guides of your conscience.
            Moving forward, if you see no reason why glyphosate should not be used in farming – then go ahead and use it. Is there someone preventing you? If no one wants to buy your product you can still continue using it. Who is stopping you other than you? What consensus or decision are you looking for other than your own? When you are providing goods to the public you develop yourself in the Market that provides you with the best profit returns. That is your consensus and conclusions.. A “common ground that works for all” is an ideology of la la land. If you follow that ideology you will remain idle. Did you think that you live in a world where McDonalds can make a burger that is suitable to all? No – that is where Wendy’s and the others, and even the vegetation shops, take up the slack – in their consensus. It is called the Market place and referred to as commerce. Incidentally, is Wendy’s and McDonald’s firing “cannon balls” at each other? I wonder why it is so attractive within the agro-industry when they do it? Do you think that it has something to with transparency?

  • old grouchy

    I’ve been pondering this story over the last days and I’ve come up with some more problems in the thinking displayed by the words of Dr. Barry Blakley.
    One of the required courses, perhaps its even in the B.Sc level but for sure in the advanced degree section, is a course in statistics. Its funny because even after taking
    this course, and maybe its even more than one, researchers just don’t seem to get statistics. Statistics when used very carefully make it quite clear that there is ‘no such thing as zero nor 100%’. Yes, there is no such thing!!
    What does that mean – – – you ask?
    Well – – – what it means is that it is possible to say that a certain level of contaminant doesn’t effect a cross section of a populace it CAN’T say that any level of contaminant will ‘never’ effect ‘any’ member of a populace. As rats are very commonly used in such experimentations what we really are finding out is what ‘rats’ are susceptible to – – – NOT humans. Then we have the issue even with human susceptibility – – – there are differences between male and female (don’t tell that to some people but its true and for gosh we’re really not sure how that changes things when you genetic variations between xx and xy populations and there are some!), there are differences given metabolism and . . . . (deliberate spacing to emphasize the length of the list!)
    Its often possible to look at the raw data from a given experiment or group of experiments and find radically different conclusions because different foci are used. Given all this its little wonder that the general populace just doesn’t trust most of the phds that are proving x product is safe. Maybe its time for those researchers to actually think their way through a rigorous course in statistics and the philosophy of statistics – – – what say ye?

  • richard

    Good points!…..Ya know I used to think you were just old and grouchy…..now I think youre smart and grouchy…? Further to your points, the reductionist approach used in science in this case reduces the discussion to relative acute toxicity….ergo the LD50 (lethal dose of anything to fifty percent of the test rats). This becomes the base line benchmark for acceptable limits to use of any registered pesticide/pharmaceutical. Its perfectly acceptable except…..it ignores the potential for creeping chronic toxicity….. all of which are a function of use/abuse of the product…..persisistance of toxicity, degree of consumption of the affected foods, synergistic effects of the product in the environment and as you correctly identified….variance of genetic sensitivity. Its not until human interaction with the product, over time, can reveal the REAL outcome of the products licensing. And adhering to a process that essentially believes that you can comprehend the contents of a room, by examining it through the keyhole…..is way out of touch with the times…….

    • old grouchy

      Thank you kind sir! (wacky beeg (sic) grin!)
      I re-read the article again looking at the calculations. The safe level of glyphosate in straw is 2 parts in a 1000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Its written as 2000 parts per million but it means the same thing.)
      This means that there can be 2 g of glyphosate in 1 kg of straw – – – I wouldn’t let something like this onto the yard – – – – that straw wouldn’t even make compost – – – there’s not a self respecting organism that would ‘want’ to imbibe such stuff.
      One question – – – has there ever been any studies re: persistence in biologic organisms of glyphosate?
      Mayhap that is the issue – – – the ‘half-life’ (if that term is used in this case) is long (ie the chemical is NOT immediately excreted) that could be part of the issue with this substance (glyphosate).

      • richard

        …. yet again your brilliance shines through…..After industry conveniently lobbied the EPA for higher acceptable glyphosate tolerances in food and feed 2013…..they also conveniently deflected the conversation to acute toxicity (cancer risk) from the chronic toxicity (disruption of the microbiome) If the masters of spin can deflect attention from tobacco/cancer for fifty years…..you know the same blueprint is in place for roundup…..We currently have nine chronic degenerative diseases of the human microbiome… all commensurate with the advent of antibiotics including glyphosate…. that’s the bullseye…..that’s the Achilles heel of mythmakers inc.

      • Harold

        If more people were to examine in depth such as you have done, the conversations would be at a higher level, and then lead to yet another higher level of communication. It would be remarkable if what you were saying were everybody’s starting point. The information was always there, as you know, not hidden, just there we few looking for it. Most seem to be wishing only to be “told about it” and they leave the examination to someone else. Rather than examine it, they cry out – “prove it”. What you have written I don’t need to prove to you and because I have knowledge, you needn’t prove anything to me. Its a good starting point.

explore

Stories from our other publications