Study finds no firm glyphosate-cancer link

A long-term study of pesticide applicators in the United States has found that glyphosate exposure is not associated with cancer.

The Agricultural Health Study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, looked at the cancer incidence in 54,251 farmers and ag workers in Iowa and North Carolina.

Of that group, 44,932 had used glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and the most popular week killer in the world.

“Glyphosate was not statistically significantly associated with cancer at any site,” the scientists behind the study said in the abstract of the journal article.

However, the abstract also said there were marginally higher rates of one type of cancer.

“Among applicators in the highest exposure quartile, there was an increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) compared with never users … though this association was not statistically significant.”

The Agricultural Health Study is a collaborative effort between scientists at the U.S National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

It began in 1993 and is a study with approximately 90,000 participants. Mostly farmers and their spouses in Iowa and North Carolina, along with commercial pesticide applicators in Iowa. The purpose is to evaluate agricultural exposures that may be connected to cancer and other health outcomes.

The scientists in the AHS have observed associations with specific pesticides and certain cancers. For instance diazinon has been associated with lung cancer and leukemia.

The AHS is highly regarded in the scientific community, as one the best long term studies on the health impacts of pesticides.

A representative of Monsanto, which manufactures Roundup, said the Agricultural Health Study is powerful evidence that glyphosate is safe.

“This is the largest study of agricultural workers in history, over the longest period of time,” Scott Partridge, Monsanto vice-president of strategy, told Reuters. “It definitively demonstrates in a real-world environment that glyphosate doesn’t cause cancer.”

The herbicide’s link to cancer has been debated since March 2015, when the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a unit of the World Health Organization, classified the herbicide as probably carcinogenic to humans.

Many toxicologists condemned the IARC finding as invalid and biased, claiming IARC scientists ignored science demonstrating that glyphosate is safe. Regulatory bodies around the globe, including Health Canada and the European Food Safety Authority, have studied the herbicide and concluded it’s not a cancer risk.

Despite the body of evidence supporting its safety, European politicians are locked in a vicious fight over the herbicide.

The European Commission has proposed to renew glyphosate’s license for five years, but today representatives of EU member states rejected the proposal or abstained from the vote.

The EU will continue to seek an alternate solution before Dec. 15, when regulatory approval for glyphosate expires in Europe.

Contact robert.arnason@producer.com

About the author

Robert Arnason's recent articles

Comments

  • Tangerine 1956

    I’d be curious who the head of The Agricultural Health Study is. Donald Trump has placed CEOs of the companies being studied as head of many departments. I don’t trust this study at all. Monsanto CEOs are already embedded in our government.

    • GinRummys

      The second sentence of the article is literally a hyperlink to the actual study and the authors are listed prominently.

    • FarmersSon63

      Every administration since glyphosate was approved in the 1970’s have all agreed that glyphosate is safe.
      Let’s hear you spin that now.

      • Peaceful Warrior

        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.

        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.

        The cancers related to transgenic organisms and glyphosate mainly increase cancers that were far rarer. Cancer of thyroid, pancreas, liver, bladder, stomach, and esophagus are all up since the introduction of transgenics and rise in glyphosate application by 17 fold.

        Table 3. Pearson’s coefficients between disease and glyphosate applications (N=21
        encompassing 1990-2010), except autism (N=16; autism data only available for 1995-2010).
        Disease Coefficient, R R 2 × 100 Probability, p
        Thyroid cancer (incidence) 0.988 97.6 =7.6E-9
        Liver cancer (incidence) 0.960 92.1 =4.6E-8
        Bladder cancer (deaths) 0.981 96.2 =4.7E-9
        Pancreatic cancer (incidence) 0.918 84.2 =4.6E-7
        Kidney cancer (incidence) 0.973 94.8 =2.0E-8
        Table 4. Pearson’s coefficients between disease and the percentage of US corn and soy crops
        that are GE (N=15 encompassing 1996-2010; GE crops were first planted in 1995).
        Disease Coefficient, R R 2 × 100 Probability, p
        Thyroid cancer (incidence) 0.938 87.9 =2.2E-5
        Liver cancer (incidence) 0.911 82.9 =5.4E-5
        Bladder cancer (incidence) 0.945 89.3 =7.1E-6
        Pancreatic cancer (incidence) 0.841 70.7 =4.0E-4
        Kidney cancer (incidence) 0.940 88.4 =2.0E-5
        Myeloid leukaemia (deaths) 0.889 79.0 =5.4E-5
        Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America

        ISSN 1177-4258

        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.

        • ed

          Yep!

      • ed

        I think you rested your own case there. Every single one. Paid opinion. Got ta love it!

      • ed

        They took alot of under the table bribe money snd plus all those administrations were loaded with Monsanto employees of the past in what some refer to as the Monsanto revolving door strategy.

        • FarmersSon63

          Consider this for a moment.
          Maybe the whole world is not one big conspiracy.
          Did I blow your mind?

          • Harold

            Maybe Ed isn’t talking about the whole world but is focused only on a object. Perhaps the object is Monsanto. Wouldn’t that more than obvious fact just blow your mind and your comment. Because you don’t see a conspiracy, it doesn’t mean that there are none. Do jails not hold those who have conspired? How many in jail have conspired? Do you want to call those who are now in jail a theory? Is it your theory that there wont be more who conspire? Those who conspire, are they so rare in numbers because you think so? Perhaps you should argue with Webster’s dictionary and then look up and tell us what you see. The ones who rob your home are the ones who have conspired to do it. What is a conspiracy – and when is it no longer a theory? Before, during, or after? Is during and after too late for discovery? The board room is the conspiracy- the thought, and the during – is the action of that thought, and getting caught is the consequence. Do those who conspire tell everybody or are they guarded in secrecy and non-disclosure? Perhaps you think that if there were a conspiracy that it would be obvious and you would be the first one to know. Do you think that conspirators are that stupid or do you think that they are smarter and more clever than you? We do know that the stupid and inexperienced ones are the first caught and the others take a lot longer to catch. Some people are so hung up on the word conspiracy that they cannot see one even if it is slapping them in the face. Secrecy and non-disclosure exist for a reason and the reason is abhorrent and not an honorable one and that is where you find those who conspire. The EPA is secrecy and non-disclosure -so say all who try to get information from them. Is a government organization to be fully open and fully transparent? .Is Monsanto expected to be the same? Why aren’t they? Is it because they hold the truth or is it that they hold a lie? Should a reasonable man eat a trade secret in faith, or eat a full disclosure with knowledge? Which one is called the risk taker or fool and which one is called the wise? Who is telling us that we ought to dummy up; the wise or the conspirator?

      • Harold

        I can agree that you are correct? Now, is there anyone else that you can point me to who is also ultimately just as smart? Nobody? A planet full – but nobody? Is my body designed to obey the highest plateau of administration then? Are the makers of glyphosate in the business of disproving glyphosate and that is how glyphosate was invented? No room for human error then? I agree that I cannot spin your assertion but please proceed to spin my questions and see if you can out champion the champions who have preceded you. Moreover, without glyphosate, my questions wouldn’t exist. Does that tell you anything? Nothing? Without the existence of glyphosate, are you now going to spin and talk about table salt like the others? The spin to table salt to sell glyphosate tells me something; what does it tell you? I’ll await your spin. Do you notice that if I reject glyphosate, that automatically at the same nanosecond I have no further questions and that salt was never the question? Who then has the onus and the responsibility to answer all questions in openness and transparency? is it me? I’ll tell you this, if you wish for me to spin things at your beckon call, I will, and you will have just shot yourself in the foot. Did you think that one through? Does a car dealer ever do this to their customers? When you are trying to sell your glyphosate BS you should also be aware of who it is that you are. Glyphosate is proven safe indeed, but non-consumption guarantees it. Do you see that you are in-between a rock and a hard place and insulting or egging people is not the escape? If all consumers rejected glyphosate just because they don’t want any questions or any proof from any talking heads, do you think that any brains of any administration would matter? Like it or not, you always have the onus, the consumer never does but always holds the power of their own money. If I play the Glyphosate record backwards, the farmers work becomes a little harder and Monsanto looses his profits and he collapses. If I play the glyphosate record forward, Monsanto gains in profit and the work of farmers is lessened and the consumer is stupid if they don’t eat it at the prescribed safe levels. There you have it; spun backwards and then forwards. Eating glyphosate ensures less labor and profit. No conflict of interests here, is there? Just pure science.

    • Jason

      Im not really sure you thought that one through so well. Glyphosate is generic now. Most of it comes from China. So it seems like Trump would be tearing it down, not supporting it.

    • Harold

      Perhaps you should also examine the Clinton era and the Monsanto protection Act and the Bush administration and Obama administration. Do you think that the problems all started with Trump? If there is to be someone to dissolve the controversy created in the past, it will be a new leader or the next one. What are you expecting of a man who has only been in power for one year; a whole legacy of four or eight years overnight? It is the results – not the man; the results are labeled and then attached to the man – and not the other way around. Can you think of a reason why certain government agencies and certain government corporations and most politicians are angry with Trump? Is it because Trump is sticking his nose into their business? What does a house cleaner do and why are the owners of that house angry? Is he going into rooms that he is forbidden to clean? That would make the home owner angry, wouldn’t it? What’s a President to do? If Trump by his background can change everything for the better, what would it make all of the past seated Academic administrations look like? The past and present administrations have an vested interest in making sure that Trump does not succeed and that includes some of his own party members. Do they wish to been seen by the whole world and their own citizens as past seated robots and clowns?
      If history has ever taught us anything, it has taught us that any man who is of freedom for the people, that person thereafter is denied their freedom and even their own life. Lincoln, JFK, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and the list goes on. Predating them all was the story of Jesus Christ. Many people believe that the strongest power is a display of the light when in fact it is the display of darkness. The United States has not seen such an internal, public, and media war, as is on display today, and all because of one elected man; an outsider like us, looking in. I am not a supporter of Trump – I am a Canadian – but that doesn’t mean that I haven’t observed what is going on in that Country, or the results. What I see is a long time cover up vs exposure. In Canada we have no cover-ups and nothing to expose to the people and therefore a Media calmness and the wisdom of Trudeau will set us free, and the cow jumped over the moon and the dish ran away with the spoon. I wonder what Trump could do for Canada if he were our leader; destroy it? Would he say and do Canada First instead of USA first and would we call that protectionism and despise it, or would the USA despise it? Would he clean up all of our government houses? Who would prevent it? We do have a thing here that is illusion media but it is called National news and Local news and trusted news instead. 10 minutes of news and 45 minutes of weather, entertainment and sports, and 10 minutes is all that is going on in Canada, our government and the world. Nothing about Trudeau daily or hourly because you have to actually be doing something concrete in your own country or in the world to get noticed. He only receives honorable mention such as his nice hair, youthful looks, unusual socks, memorized speech, and holidays disguised as work, and one hours attendance with a five minute memorized speech, disguised as work and effort. Trudeau may be titled and dressed like a Bus driver but by action he is only a back seat passenger in every bus that he boards. Trudeau’s drama teaching days and snow boarding days, and world traveling holidaying on daddy’s money playboy days was not a waste of Trudeau’s time, under the present day circumstances, they have been a waste of our four years time. Incidentally, when Earnest Manning spoke in the Alberta Legislature, even the puppets across the floor nodded in agreement, and I have never forgotten that. I haven’t seen the same intelligence or leadership since. On the other hand, Trudeau and Morneau struggle with simple yes or no questions. Today it is Canada wide mediocracy at its best and every four years provides more, regardless of the color of the Hat.

      • Sherean Malagueno

        I literally sighed after reading your posts.Beautiful. Absolutely beautiful.Thank you for taking your valuable time to state the obvious which is not so obvious now is it?

      • FarmersSon63

        Here is every word of the “Monsanto Protection Act” or better known by non-wacko activists as the Farmer Assurance Provision.
        “In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary’s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act”
        Tell us what you disagree with.

        • Harold

          What you don’t know is that you are only showing me one page of many documents and you think that one page is self-explanatory. I have seen the documents that you have not provided and that was a long time ago. Old news. Furthermore dictionary words are not the same as Law dictionary words. Moreover the simple words – and, for, of, or, in, to, shall, may, and etc , can change the meaning of your interpretations. Would you catch the difference between the constitution of Canada and the constitution for Canada? Would you catch the difference between – may at any time and shall at any time? Do you know the difference? Would you catch what – farmer and corporation or company – in a sentence means? If you think all three are equal – you are wrong. I’ll tell you what I disagree with. explaining law to someone who has no background in Law as if I need to prove something. I’ll tell you what- you read it yourself as a defendant and tell me the twists and turns that you don’t like. If you don’t find any – then you are incapable of understanding it. Sound unreasonable? A defendant can be at any time – Monsanto or Monsanto can be the plaintive. Do you think the argument stays the same? You see this every day in court between a lawyer and prosecutor both with a background in law and not between a lawyer and his client. The prosecutor and the lawyer are pointing at the same law. Do you know when to say that a portion of this document is irrelevant in deciding a case when your standing up in court? Do you hear any objections there? Do you think that everything written applies to every case? Ah, your missing documents. Do you know when a Superior Law makes a Code, Act, or Regulation – no cause and effect – removing that evidence?
          Moving along, a long time ago I got tired of a Judge – who was a friend of mine – always kicking my ass. Also at the same time, I got tired of a Law professor – who was also a friend of mind – who was also kicking my ass. What do you think they were telling me? They were saying – educate yourself – so I did – And now I know why they were kicking my ass; they didn’t communicate well with donkeys.

          • FarmersSon63

            It was part of the FY2013 Agriculture Appropriations bill in the House of Representatives. What I showed above is 100% of the text about the Plant Protection Act. 100% of the “Monsanto Protection Act”

        • Erin Anderson

          Next thing Monsanto is going to tell us is that drinking 8 ounces of Roundup everyday is actually good for our heath. I’m waiting for them to release that study next.

          • FarmersSon63

            LOL, Pure comedy.
            City people keep getting dumber every day.

          • Erin Anderson

            When are they going to release a “study” that proves drinking Roundup Poison everyday is good for our health? Monsanto has come this far to make a profit, soon they will take the next step and tell us we should drink it everyday for optimal health. …

          • FarmersSon63

            Roundup was never intended to be drank.
            Are you really that stupid?
            You will never be exposed to Glyphosate at levels greater than 4 ppm.
            How about a challenge?
            I will consume what is normally applied of glyphosate per acre if you consume what is normally applied of manure on organic crops per acre.
            Are you ready to put your money nwhere your mouth is?
            I will consume 32 fluid ounces of glyphosate if you consume 6 tons of manure. When you consume 1% of the manure, I will consume 1% of the glyphosate.
            Name the time and place, I’m all in.

          • SUNNY

            Four parts per million is heavy exposure for glyphosate which has been found to cause breast cancer cell growth at part per trillion concentrations. See: http://www*greenmedinfo*com/blog/breaking-glyphosate-roundup-carcinogenic-parts-trillion-range

            No only that, glyphosate and the co-formulants that are needed to make glyphosate work contain heavy metals.

            “Glyphosate-based herbicides contain toxic heavy metals such as arsenic, lead, chromium and nickel, a new study has found. These are not declared and are normally banned due to their toxicity. They are also known to be endocrine (hormone) disruptors.

            The toxic heavy metals were found at levels well above those permitted in drinking water. They were detected in 22 pesticides, including 11 glyphosate-based ones.”
            http://gmwatch*org/en/news/latest-news/18061-glyphosate-herbicides-contain-toxic-heavy-metals-including-arsenic

          • Erin Anderson

            I would not suggest you consume any glyphosate because it causes cancer but Monsanto would like for us all to believe that it’s good for our health. …

          • FarmersSon63

            Every regulatory agency in the world has concluded that gltphosate is not a cancer risk at real world exposures.

      • ed

        Very Good. A+ Grade

  • Denise

    Too bad we can’t trust the results of these kinds of studies “looked at”in the United States.
    http://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/17965-eu-governments-reject-commission-push-forglyphosate

    • GinRummys

      Because we can trust a site called “gmwatch”?
      Why not post links from naturalnews next?

    • RobertWager

      Seriously? Now the National Cancer Institute is a shill? Wow.

      • ed

        Yes, that has been well known.

        • ed

          Can you reply to yourself. Guess you can. This is a cool discussion

      • Sherean Malagueno

        Would the cancer institute thrive without cancer?I think not.

        • ed

          They would find a way to make some more.

    • Monkeeworks

      I am sure if the studies went the other way gmwatch would be all over it exaulting the magnificent “US” study. They have shown facts and you have shown conjecture.

    • James J Fraunberger

      So true. Its time these studies are revealed for what they are. Totally false and biased.

    • FarmersSon63

      “This work was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics (Z01CP010119), National Institute of Environmental Health Science (NIEHS; Z01ES0490300), the Iowa Cancer Registry (HHSN261201300020I), and Iowa’s Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center (P30CA086862), as well as the NIEHS-funded Environmental Health Sciences Research Center at the University of Iowa”
      Tell us who you do not trust.

  • Dennis Shipman

    Study funded by Monsanto.

  • Michael Anheluk

    Its sad when media hypes that glyphosate causes cancer just because the WHO says so. WHO was sued and it was revealed that WHO scientists came that determination by analyzing only published data. Most of the data with glyphosate is unpublished. Every modern country in the world for the past 50 years has analyzed data and approved glyphosate as non-carcinogenic. Yet media frenzies often drive policy when real data is ignored.

    • Peaceful Warrior

      Actually it was the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that found glyphosate causes cancer. 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?

      • Harold

        “Foremost” – and yet they have no cure or prevention. What do they know that truly matters? When they can reverse the process of cancer and eliminate cancer altogether and all of your organs remain in tact, then they will truly know something that matters. Until then, all of the science so far is junk. It is very easy to say what you are saying if the bar is placed two inches off of the ground. “Foremost” means nothing other than ones best planetary guess. The “foremost” have been trying to beat cancer since the forties. That is almost 80 years of “foremost” and countless trillions in profit. I would claim that junk science is something that doesn’t work. Are you claiming that something is working? Show me a “foremost” who can cure the toughest cases of cancer. You know – the ones that the Doctors walk away from. In the 50’s they were using Radiation, Chemo, and Surgery. Explain the advancement of the “foremost”. Perhaps you can give one of your studies from the “foremost” to the patient that is dying of cancer. In the grave – they will have plenty of time to read it. If they don’t know the cause of cancer then they do not know the prevention. The “foremost” are saying what about Glyphosate? Eat it?

      • KT

        Sadly, it is hard to trust even peer-reviewed studies these days. Reviewers are not compensated and there is incentive to do a thorough job. Plus, a friend or rival may end up as a reviewer and provide a biased review. This new study in question was technically peer-reviewed, but I am suspicious of how quickly that was done.

  • KT

    Actual scientist here! I checked all of the funding sources, all are reputable in the scientific community. Grant merit is determined by other scientists, not gov’t officials. Gov’t only decides how much money in total is available to distribute. Be more concerned about how quickly this study was published: submitted Aug 22 and accepted Oct 6 – that is too fast! The authors must know people at the journal who rushed it through.

    • RobertWager

      This study was “done” almost four years ago and sat and sat and sat

      • KT

        The study may have been “done” and sitting around, but it may not have been properly critiqued by scientific peers during the publication process. They’re not going to let people critique the study outside of the publication process (that can lead to ideas being stolen). So in less than 2 months, we’re supposed to believe that it was thoroughly vetted, reviewed, and critiqued by peers then edited to satisfy the reviewers? That is just not feasible. I doubt this study was properly reviewed by the publication.

    • Benjamin Edge

      The study was completed in 2013 and not published until 2017. Hardly a rush job.

      • ed

        Probably waited for the best use of there false findings.

    • Viva La Evolucion

      I will give this study the benefit of the doubt and agree that there is no firm glyphosate/cancer link, even though Glyphosate was recently reclassified as a probable carcinogen. But, there is without a doubt a strong link to glyphosate exposure and reduced sperm count. You can easily search the ScienceDirect site for Roundup and Sperm and find numerous studies, which all show that glyphosate exposure significantly reduces the sperm count of the test subjects. California’s Prop 65 is intended to warn people that product contain chemicals known to cause cancer and/or cause reproductive harm. Since Glyphosate exposure without a doubt reduces sperm count then I would consider that causing reproductive harm, so I think it is unnecessary to remove the Prop 65 warning from products containing Glyphosate.

  • Mid West

    Utterly offensive ‘science’. For starters, EVERYONE in Iowa and North Carolina have been exposed! A weak study on limited subjects. Just more industry sponsored alternative reality. Some real science: https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/2016/glyphosate_IARC2016.php

  • GreenSenior

    2 Qs: Who paid for the study? And did they use data from Monsanto? (After all, this has happened before; The European Food Safety Institute, for example.) The last report I read on cancer rates in Canada showed that one in 2 of us will be diagnosed in our lifetimes. So where do you suppose it IS coming from? I remember research studies from DECADES ago linking NHL (non-Hodgkins lymphoma) with pesticides. Perhaps Mr. Arnason, you could, for your readers, track down the answers I (& others on this page) are asking, please?

  • Chris

    This will bring the science deniers out.

  • Chris

    Watch the science deniers come out.

  • James J Fraunberger

    Oh Yes, this is a real non biased study. Run in the US by an EPA backed organization. I believe this 100%. How absurd to even suggest that a 20 year study done by applicators who wear protective clothing and respirators did not contract cancer. This is the most ludicrous study run by big Ag and backed by Monsanto. The reason Roundup is banned in the EU is because they actually care about their citizens more then big Corporations and can not be “paid off” to publish false reports. Hopefully, the future of Monsanto will be determined by the non corrupt sector and they will go belly up.

  • Chris_82

    Watch the science deniers come out.

  • bufford54

    Past farmer and Roundup applicator here, cancer free and still kicking 42 years later. Grain and Canola dust are a far greater risk, in my opinion.

    • ed

      You are one of the lucky ones for sure.

      • FarmersSon63

        Not according to science. It is the norm.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    And all those people are irrelevantly dead now. Have been for many moons. Seems that the folks who run the place were born long after WW@. Thus your comment is as poorly thought out as usual.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    The IARC Classification has be refuted by many and arrived at fraudulently.

    • Cletus DeBunkerman

      Total nonsense.

      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?

      • Eric Bjerregaard

        … you really ought to change your copy/paste answers when IARC has been caught red handed.

        • E. Sandwich

          Caught red handed using only peer reviewed published science to make their decisions. Everyone who values their health should be glad that the IARC has high standards so they are not using cooked industry junk science to make their decisions.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            … IARC has been exposed as a fraud. https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/glyphosate-causes-cancer-science-says-no/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork Click on the links to the study that was ignored. Even though the results were known. Then look up all the articles about how Portier was guilty of collusion.

          • GOOSE

            I’ll pay attention to the IARC which is the foremost cancer research agency on the planet and ignore the spin by the anonymous skeptical raptor.

          • Harold

            Perhaps you can consider the following statements.
            If I refuse glyphosate altogether, I don’t have to give a damn about peer reviews, published science, the value of my health, high standards, junk science, good science, IARC, glyphosate is safe dot BS dot com, pissing contests, or any of the like; Is this such an unbearable loss to me? If the consumer wants power, they already have it and should just use it and stop waiting for permission to come to them from some talking head. Glyphosate is a weed killer and not a food, and if it is in my food it doesn’t become a food no matter the level. Of course we all know this so does anyone need a science degree to figure that one out? There is only one reason to eat and that is nutrition and nutrition replenishes what the body has lost by the body’s activities. The body signals when you need nutrition and that is thirst, hunger, or sickness. The body does not cry out for a low dose of weed killer. We all know this so does anyone need a science degree to figure that one out? Glyphosate is claimed to be proven safe within the parameters of the body’s realm of forgiveness, (as if they would know such a thing) by many talking and impressive heads, but Glyphosate is guaranteed safe if not consuming it at all – is also a fact – and that fact requires no support because those people with the benefit of a formal education don’t need it.. Apparently there are two facts, so why does the industry fret when someone chooses a fact. Is it because one fact comes with a profit and the other fact does not? They seem to think that added to my daily business and routine, is the business of ensuring their profits. I just can’t find their contract that they think that I have signed. It is not anti-science as they claim – it is absence of a contract and I have no duty to perform for them or their science. If they were conniving and dishonorable and secretive and conspirators they could bypass my watch by hiding glyphosate in my food and drinks. Oh, they’ve been doing it for years already. How was anyone to tell the Doctor? Of course Glyphosate is safe if you don’t consume it and the Doctor has always believed that you haven’t – so what testing does he or she do or preform? Proven safe? Not yet. Without total glyphosate consumption knowledge, what the patient is telling the Doctor – is junk. Monsanto has done well for himself.

          • Denise

            Very well explained, Harold.

          • Harold

            The charter of rights guarantees everyone security of person. The security is determined by the person and not industry nor government. If all Canadians knew this – the issues of proper labelling would be long behind us along with your concerns. All you have to do is believe- not know- that glyphosate is a threat to your security and then say so. If the majority just believe – not know- (notice this – not know) that glyphosate is a threat to their security and say so – glyphosate use is unlawful. This is why the chem industry takes pleasure in insulting your intelligence relentlessly creating the appearance of public stupidity. Your rights collectively in mass, can kick there butts right out of Canada and this is why they heavily monitor us and feed us with BS. You are on to their BS. Canadians in mass do not know their rights so they struggle with the industry. The politician can say something – but Canadians don’t know if it interferers with there rights or freedoms or not – so therefore they can never umpire the game – only spectate. If the commenters here knew their rights it would clean up the comments and their tune and demanding nature. We scour a bunch of science but we never scour our rights and freedoms. I don’t say this to tear anyone down – I say this to show you or others where they can strengthen themselves up. Imagine a politician saying something – and then you/crowd reading him your/their rights. It doesn’t happen does it? I do know by comments if a person knows their rights or do not. Read them please. Imagine where we could go from there. Deeper. As always, thanks for your comment.

          • Denise

            Canadians are pretty naive ,in general, about our provincial and federal governments We believed our governments are looking out for our best interests. Sometimes they are, but when it comes to agriculture, they are not.
            Our farmers are trusted to provide us with safe food.
            They want to do that with pride. They have trusted the government scientists and agriculture departments to conscientiously investigate and provide them with the best scientific research and findings for farming.
            However, governments have been pretty stupid and irresponsible. They naively believed they could trust agrochem/biotech industries doing their own testing of products, then all they had to do was rubberstamp them.
            Farmers and governments have been duped by the agrochemical and biotechindustries(Monsanto,Dow,Crop Life, Syngenta and their ilk) for decades.
            Roundup was a great relief for farmers looking for an easy fix for weed control, so they quickly jumped on that gift horse and rode away. However, they never stopped to look that gift horse in the mouth and find out it’s teeth were rotten to it’s roots.

    • Viva La Evolucion

      I will play devil’s advocate and agree with you that Glyphosate exposure does not increase one’s risk of getting cancer in the slightest. But, Glyphosate exposure without a doubt causes decrease in sperm count. Please search the ScienceDirect site for Roundup and Sperm and you can read study after study which have all come to the same conclusion, that glyphosate exposure significantly reduces the sperm count of the test subjects. Since the science clearly shows that Glyphosate exposure reduces sperm count, do you think it is appropriate to keep the Prop 65 warning on Glyphosate, considering that the warning is also intended to warn people if a product contains chemicals than can cause reproductive harm?

  • RobertWager

    Have at er. its all there. Please come back if you find something you disagree with.

  • Cletus DeBunkerman

    Read what Monsanto toxicologist Donna Farmer has to say about this study.

    “Many groups have been highly critical of the study as being a flawed study, in fact some have gone so far as to call it junk science. It is small in scope and the retrospective questioneer on pesticide usage and self reported diagnoses also from the questioneer is thought to be unreliable”

    https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Monsanto-communications-re-concerns-over-Hardell-research.pdf

    • FarmersSon63

      That is why regulatory agencies also looked at over 1,000 studies to come to their final conclusion that glyphosate is safe.

      • E. Sandwich

        … Please tell us what happened to the health of the over 30% of study subjects that they were unable to contact for their followup telephone surveys.

      • Erin Anderson

        Is there also a study that recommends drinking Roundup poison everyday because it’s healthy? I bet there is.

  • ed

    Monsanto’s own studies, and backed by years of independent studies on the precursor to Roundup, Monsanto’s very own “Agent Orange” that was used for years in the Vietnam War to deforest the jungles that were later ignited to drive out enemy fighters, showed clearly that these products cause cancer. Now they are asking us not to trust them????? Rich stuff…..

    • FarmersSon63

      Monsanto never invented nor ever held a patent on “Agent Orange”.
      Every regulatory agency in the world has determind that glyphosate is safe.
      Use some common sense.

      • ed

        They did produce it in hugh amounts for the US Military and it was the precusor to Roundup, so what you said does, as well as doesn’t really matter I suppose. It is basically water under the bridge. They did learn from that lack of oversight when they decided not to get Agent Orange patended however and tighten up every aspect of security on that product.

        • FarmersSon63

          They made it to the Military’s exact specs…..as did several companies.
          It was not a precursor to Roundup. Your blood is more similar to Roundup than Agent Orange was.
          2,4,5-T (component in Agent Orange) was originally patented by Ethyl Corp in 1952, not Monsanto.

          • ed

            Especially if you have blood cancer.

    • Eric Bjerregaard

      Not a precursor. An entirely different chemical.

      • ed

        No, that was on roundup. It is like you say not likely the only chemical that they have ever dealt with. Some say that some of their earlier versions of agent orange were a bit different, like comparing Coke and Pepsi. Maybe l, right!

      • ed

        Actually very similar and they have always admitted that.

        • Eric Bjerregaard

          Not even close. Now again, post proof for that nonsense.

          • ed

            The courts are now finding out that Monsanto’s own scientist are not agreeing with your views. Now can the courts still be bought off yet again with well presented lies. We will see. Stay tuned.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            No crooked lawyers have made claims. as you know. but lied about.

  • John Eberley

    “No Firm Link”, are you kidding me? THAT MEANS THERE IS A LINK! If there is any kind of link at all – firm, soft, doesn’t matter. We are talking about the food supply, things we ingest, not a polish that is used on our shoes. Human safety first, and the onus should be on the corporation to prove (through independent research) there is absolutely NO RISK – PRIOR to it being allowed for use. That would be the proper level of science and governance, anything less is reckless marketing.

    • FarmersSon63


      Even water has risk.

      • ed

        Yes, especially if you mix it with roundup.

        • FarmersSon63

          Share one confirmed illness or death from consuming minute glyphosate residues on foods in it’s 40+ year history.
          There have been ZERO!

          • ed

            Actually there are hudreds of thousands if illness and death. Good try with your propaganda however. And it works right, because they still sell it, right! Like fentynal. No harm done, right. Buyer beware and what not, right. Right!

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Got any proof? Causative mechanism?

          • ed

            Google should again keep you busy for a while on that one. It is a bit like those murals that have the hidden picture in them. Takes awhile to get. Some never do.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Aah, so you made claims you have no proof for. No surprise there. …

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            So, no surprise here. As there is no causative mechanism even proposed, much less proven. I’ll pass on researching your … claim.

      • bsroon

        Are you ACTUALLY comparing the two? REALLY? How freaking brainwashed does one need to be to pretend that a product DESIGNED TO BE A POISON is the equivalent to the 70% of YOUR BODY that is literally keeping you alive right now?

        • ed

          Exactly. Pretty bad eh! The BS reasoning never fails to amaze.

      • Trader Ted

        We filter ours and it seems to work. Never used roundup, except it was used to add fertilizer.

    • ed

      Good point. They do not want to put no guarantees on there do they.

    • touria55

      Thank you… not to mention the havoc to the enviroment , bees and other species.

      • Trader Ted

        I’m more concerned with Anhydrous Ammonia. It was invented by someone that invented or created chemical warfare. And, it kills anything it touches. Especially, the ground we have to grow our crops in. It maybe a cheap fertilizer, but not worth the risk to families, especially the farm families, is it? And, why don’t they build the plants and holding tanks within the larger cities, if it’s so safe? I won’t buy a house in any town that has one, beyond the house we have now. Been trying to sell and move out of poison area. Without bees, we will starve. That is the best way to tell them. If, anyone will just listen, ya know?

        • Mid West

          If it is not grown organically it is not food, for dogs or humans. Monsanto is the single most evil thing in existence. …

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            The millions of baby boomers who grew up eating food not grown organically is clear evidence that you have no clue.

          • Denise

            Poisoned one ppm at a time.
            You know as well as anybody else that the list of digestive disorders, childhood ADD, allergies and cancers ( esp. non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma) have skyrocketed since RoundUp has been sprewed on the land and crops.
            Da’Nile is in Egypt.

          • richard

            No da nile flows through St. Louis and Basel…..before it spills into the Ocean of Willful Ignorance…..

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Glyphosate is not “spewed” it is sprayed on the weeds. And there is no causative mechanism for glyphosate to have caused any of the issues you mention.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            And correlation is still not causation. Also, we don’t spew. we spray carefully.

          • Harold

            There are many hospitals that are devoted solely to sick children because of the many and conveniently you have not taken that into account. Have they discovered all of the causes of the children’s many sicknesses whereby glyphosate can be safely ruled out? Roundup comes with it a warning to keep children and pets safely off of the freshly sprayed areas for 24 hrs and now the same product is found in their foods. The medical community has not discovered the causes of the children’s many sicknesses; they have only discovered the treatments. Eliminating the cause – is the elimination of the sickness; the drug is only a treatment in lacking of a known cause. Simply put, if tobacco is a cause, the cure is its elimination and the body heals itself; a drug is never a cure nor is it prevention. Is there a drug that allows you to continue to smoke? The stupidity of drugs, surgery, and the like is the continuance of the cause. Drugs are allowances for the many causes of sickness yet undiscovered. That being said, unlike you, I am a baby boomer and I grew up on “organic” because GMO did not exist. GMO entered into the market place at the end of generation X which ended in 1984. (1965 – 1984) The baby boomers were 1946 to 1964. … I find it hilarious when I hear people describe Organic as though it recently arrived in 1982 from some other planet. The organic natural state plant is the foundation that makes all that is GMO possible. GMO is the new man made altered state of the original organic natural state. Those who ate the original natural state (which is now called organic) were not sickened by it and they do not need to choose GMO products as an alternative. As a baby boomer, I don’t recite this history from books – I lived it.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            As a baby boomer, I have lived and actually been awake. thus I am aware that you are making wild speculative claims. You most likely did not grow up on organic. there was no such thing. especially for older boomers. … BTW the REI is 12 hours, not 24. https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/reregistration/fs_PC-417300_1-Sep-93.pdf

          • Harold

            Did you expect to see a sign that said organic when all was organic? Perhaps you are having difficulty with the word Organic and Genetically modified organism. Both organic and modified are organic. There is a commerce definition and there is a science definition. The commerce definition is for trade. One definition comes from a science book and the other definition comes from a law book. I know which book you are looking in; try the science book.

          • Mid West

            … the shortened lifespan today…and the fact that this generation is fully stupid support me 100%.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            We are not stupid. that is why we know that correlation is not causation and that glyphosate is not a carcinogen. Try reading the recent study of 54,000 farmers.

          • richard

            The same character who a month ago was totally clueless about the ritual abuse of glyphosate as a dessicant of everything….. calling someone else clueless???? Is that both feet in there?

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            No, I have been aware of the limited use of glyphosate for dessication and perennial weed control in colder climates for about 5 years. …

        • ed

          You do gave to produce NH3 to get all other forms of N. It is all coming out of the air that we breath which is fairily important to mammal survival, ahead of food. It is quite safe. A bit like water, you can’t live without it, but you can drown in it. The people working with it, do have to keep their wits about them. There are many things that are dangerous. Electricity, gasoline, propane, tylenol, your cars coolant fan, etc., etc. Nobody’s talking about getting rid of those hazards that apply to almost all. It is some what relative to………If people would pay more for food you could get rid of a few of them, but that may not be practical in our modern era world today.

  • FarmersSon63

    Take a moment to read:
    “This work was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Institute of Environmental Health Science, the Iowa Cancer Registry, and Iowa’s Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center, as well as the NIEHS-funded Environmental Health Sciences Research Center at the University of Iowa.
    Who in their right mind could claim bias?

    • Sherean Malagueno

      Curious,How much does the cancer industry make in a year?As in who benefits and who does not?Simplification of many questions and problems answers your question right there.Do not over complicate matters with useless fillers.The cancer institutions likened to a parasitic organisim will fail to exist without a host.Just follow the crumbs

      • FarmersSon63

        Everything in life is one big conspiracy to you?

        When confronted by overwhelming scientific evidence you … always play the conspiracy card.
        It gets old.

        • Denise

          “Believe the science” is old ,too. There was a time when you could believe in the science, until some US governments, in the past few decades, caved in to corporate interests and allowed corps, like Monsanto and their ilk to do their own “scientific studies”. No conflict of interest there, right?
          Very cunning on both sides. Revolving door politicians/industry win,win situation.. Only the average joes and the environment lose. So who cares?

          • FarmersSon63

            You seem to believe there is no actual science confirming no links to cancer.
            http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3109/10408444.2014.1003423
            and
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230099913715
            and
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653507013616
            and
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230011001516
            The science is overwhelming.
            Everything in life you do not agree with is not a conspiracy.

          • razorjack

            The studies you linked to support what Denise has posted. The internal Monsanto documents that were exposed by lawsuit disclosure even talks about how this junk science is created.

            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.

            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.

            The cancers related to transgenic organisms and glyphosate mainly increase cancers that were far rarer. Cancer of thyroid, pancreas, liver, bladder, stomach, and esophagus are all up since the introduction of transgenics and rise in glyphosate application by 17 fold.

            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.

          • A Sad Little Man

            Monsanto’s own scientists told them Roundup/glyphosate caused cancer over 35 years ago.

            You have already posted this on this thread when wearing your Peaceful Warrior outfit.

            It is still wrong, no matter who says it. This is just the ignorant ramblings of Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff. Even the anti-GM loons think they are too loony for words. But you happily parrot their nonsense in all of your outfits.

          • razorjack

            No i only have this profile …

          • A Sad Little Man

            Anyone who reads this thread can see this is not true. You and Peaceful Warrior posted the exact same content.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            Multiple people often post the same content, why are you so afraid of the truth?

          • Harold

            You cant stand peoples freedom of choice and despise that they have it; I get it, and to that there are no shortages, and your disrespect well heard. Everyone that is not in line with you has made the wrong choice. I’m sure that this will be noted at your funeral when the day comes. Here lays a man who knew all of the right choices inherently. I hope the grave yard can contain all of your glory.
            “Anyone” you say? Was there ever an occasion where it was everyone but you? Pray not – wouldn’t you say!! Alone? not with everyone or the majority? pray not!! When you arrive at that occasion of being the only one, I will sit up and notice because you know something that no one else knows and that is where the cutting edge is. In the mean time – are you a better parrot that anyone else? More red feathers than green ones is more authority for the parrot? If I want to know what the industry is saying I know that you will parrot it to me and nothing of which you have been alone in. A parrot cannot speak it.
            A good lie is packed full of truth and you say the “thread” is not true. Interesting. If you cannot find truth there – I’m I to trust your judgement of a lie? I am not that naïve. For all that you hold that is truth there is another truth that changes the direction. The new direction calls the old direction a lie. You have lived this many times. If you wish to change a direction try putting truth on top of truth. What you are doing is in vain and self-serving and just like it is parroted by the industry. .

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            knock off with the repetitive copy and paste nonsense …

          • Wally

            Facts are often repeated and the truth never changes. Do you have any specific issues with these facts?

          • razorjack

            These are facts. You may think facts are nonsense, but I think you have problems when people post the truth.

          • Denise

            And the studies were done by none other than Monsanto, Syngenta,Cheminova,Nufarm,Feinchemie Schwebda,etc.
            No biased results here, move along!

          • FarmersSon63

            At least you are consistent…..always 100% wrong.
            NONE of these studies or the other available several thousand peer reviewed studies were done by any chemical company.
            Admit it, you have already made up your mind and no amount of science will change it.

          • Steve Snider

            Today Law firms are now Lottery firms and we
            are paying for it.

          • FarmersSon63

            If you don’t believe, it take it up with the California EPA.

          • FarmersSon63

            I challenge you Denise.
            Lets debate with peer reviewed science that backs our point of view. And I agree, any study done by or funded by a chemical does not count.
            I will start.
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512006813
            Your turn.

          • Denise

            Sorry, I don’t get paid to comment, like some of the people do on these websites. Look it up yourself.

          • Harold

            You don’t have to debate your opinion. smart choice – and no need to be sorry. What you’ve been invited to is nothing more than a pissing contest. Someone who truly knows something is not up for any debate. They see your truth and know it and to that they add more truth thus changing the direction. What destroys the EPA is their truth complied with more added truth; not a stupid debate. Imagine the debate: resolve that EPA is lying or is telling the truth. What will you use other than their truth? Does the EPA have lie sheets that are handed out? Repeat the same debate with the next chosen agency. The same?
            That is the insanity. Simply, you don’t debate day and night unless you are in a room with no windows. the Knowledgeable give them their watches or guide them to the door.The knowledgeable do not debate night and day. You are on the right track when saying “look it up yourself”.
            Anyone who cannot agree to your truth first, thereafter has only a lie to offer.

          • ed

            Peer revised or reviewed. Same thing. More bag carriers for chem company profit centres. Wow!

        • Harold

          … She did not say “everything” – you did – and then went on to show that the opposite of “everything” is “nothing”. Your position is now “nothing” and her position is “everything” – a word that she did not say. No conspiracy (“nothing”) because of “everything”. I guess you believed that you have proven something with that little “nothing” burger. Incidentally, the bi-polar use the same tactic to gain their ALL or NOTHING approach to life. “Something” is cast to either – the all – or the nothing. They cannot accept “something” and the “other thing” side by side. I noticed that she said “something” but you had to have it “everything” or “nothing” to enable your response. A conspiracy card? Really? I hadn’t heard of that one before. I wonder if it is used in court? Your Honor she is pulling the “conspiracy card”. It is exhibit “A” and with it is exhibit “B” The Race card. Your right, everything is old in Court but this one is defiantly a new one. Did you think that your invention of a “Conspiracy card” was actually proving something? You placed “conspiracy card” in the same row as” overwhelming scientific evidence ” Is there “overwhelming scientific evidence” that a conspiracy does not exist? Does that come with drugs and a case of beer? To the sober of mind, they know that – Science proves science; Science does not prove disclosure or non disclosure. Non-disclosure proves uninformed acceptance and choice – period – and proves a conspiracy. The science is not unlawful: non-disclosure is. Anyone who has not provided you with a full disclosure that allows you to make an informed choice or an informed acceptance has broken the Law and has conspired to break the law. Do you know what a conspiracy is? Does a conspiracy have something to do with science or does it have something to do with non disclosure and jail? Perhaps you thought science proved disclosure or non disclosure and science proves what people are saying in secret behind closed doors. Perhaps you thought overwhelming scientific evidence is proof of full disclosure. What do rejected FOIR demands and other closed doors tell you; the toilet is occupied?

          • FarmersSon63

            You could write five pages of instructions on how to snap your fingers.

          • Harold

            You are incorrect. I would demonstrate – “how to snap your fingers” – because it is a proven and reliable method of teaching but dependant upon the scope and focus I would write five pages and even more on why a person – cannot snap their fingers. Rest assured that I would not be handing that written paper to you because I would be seeking a much higher level of critical analysis and evaluation than what you can provide. Thanks for your concern.

        • Erin Anderson

          It’s a fact that Monsanto is poisoning humanity.

          • ed

            Yes. And profiting greatly while doing it. That is a human trait that expresses itself very much when you tag on with these types of outfits. Unless you are working for them in an undercover mode, which apparently there is more of all the time, in an attempt to get the intel out.

          • FarmersSon63

            Name one person who has been confirmed to have become ill or died from consuming legal residues of glyphosate on foods.

          • Erin Anderson

            So you’re saying that putting Roundup Poison in our food is good for us? …

          • FarmersSon63

            It causes zero harm when consumed at levels lower than 4 ppm (MAX exposure levels).
            Quit being such a Drama Queen over nothing.

          • SUNNY

            Nonsense. Glyphosate has been found to cause breast cancer cell growth at part per TRILLION concentrations.

          • FarmersSon63

            Then why doesn’t every individual in the US have cancer[?] …

          • Erin Anderson

            Speaking out about Monsanto poisoning our food supply isn’t being a “Drama Queen”, it’s exposing corruption. People are waking up to what Monsanto is doing to our food. Monsanto is being exposed …

          • FarmersSon63

            There have been exactly ZERO confirmed illnesses or deaths from consuming legal residues on foods in it’s 4-+ year history.

          • Harold

            Name one cell in the human body that abides by the laws of the chemical Industry or the government. Name one human who knows exactly how much glyphosate that they have consumed or are consuming on a daily bases. Name one person who can give that data of the consumption to their doctor for examination. Name one human who can avoid glyphosate consumption altogether. It is easy to claim that glyphosate is safe when no one knows that they are consuming it or are being examined for the consumption of glyphosate. What Data would the patient provide? How does the Medical community trace the untraceable or eliminate what cannot be limited. The chemical industry is certainly in a nice little haven when they utter the word safe. In this regard, you cannot even confirm for yourself that no one has ever died from consuming Glyphosate because your claim is absent of Data and neither can you provide to your doctor the levels of glyphosate residues that you have consumed either today or in your lifetime. What Data will you give the Doctor; the writings of the chemical Corp and the data of their lab controlled experiments? At least a Lab Rat, if it were possible, could speak of exactly how much Glyphosate it had consumed and then express its discomfort – unlike the human being. Lab rats don’t speak and this is why they “know” how much glyphosate they are consuming and for we humans who do speak it is hidden from us and we do not. Glyphosate is a weed killer and it will kill edible weeds as well and it was intended that it would not be found in our food supply; the “safe level” BS was the industry’s cover up and Damage control. The Industry did respond to the Glyphosate found in foods until the product was found in the foods and drinks that the public were consuming. If you believe that there exists a safe level of consumption, where was it documented 40 or 25 years ago? It was known to Monsanto 30 years ago of the serious health concerns of glyphosate, but then it wasn’t intended to be found in the food supply to cause any problems. Do you expect the Industry to come clean and accept a billion dollar hit? In your dreams perhaps.

          • FarmersSon63
  • FarmersSon63

    Read!!!!!
    This work was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics (Z01CP010119), National Institute of Environmental Health Science (NIEHS; Z01ES0490300), the Iowa Cancer Registry (HHSN261201300020I), and Iowa’s Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center (P30CA086862), as well as the NIEHS-funded Environmental Health Sciences Research Center at the University of Iowa

    • ed

      Most of these cancer agencies are another front for the industries that are killing us. Kind or the Ronald McDonald/fast food heart desease poster boy for cancer sort of thing. They are simply bag carriers for the slow death/hard to put your finger on definative evidence, if you throw out enough “kill deere” bs confusing facts, chemical profit centres. If you broke it right down they are worse than your common two bit street drug dealer. Most of the research that they do is related to manipulating facts, the consumers mind, price resistance points and how to raise those, and effectiveness of the chemistry, no matter how dangerous it is to human health. Safety levels can be elevated in the consumers mind much cheaper with propoganda than actually doing it. To compete with the other dealers of such products, the stuff has to work at what ever make it the most profitable, full stop. It is a business, right.

    • jang1108

      I wonder how much Monsanto has contributed, directly or indirectly, to these organizations?

      • FarmersSon63

        I wonder why you have not educated yourself on this subject.

        • Harold

          I’m wondering why you didn’t provide an answer if you are the educated on the subject. If you need an answer from jang1108, try asking yourself the very same question. If you had the answer, ask yourself why you didn’t provide one. Your comment suggests that you are privy to the information that jang1108 is lacking.
          Did it ever occur to you that the person is merely seeking an answer to a question and that you in your judgements were entirely of zero help? I wonder what one helping another looks like when compared to I don’t give a damn. Is there a concrete difference?

          • FarmersSon63

            The Agricultural Health Study is funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in collaboration with the US EPA and NIOSH.
            You … cannot understand science.
            Everything you do not believe in is explained by some wacko conspiracy theory?

  • Ron Fuller
  • Ron Fuller

    A recent hour long interview with Dr. Thierry Vrain… https://youtu.be/YuYZxUxYZoQ

  • ed

    Good stuff.

  • U.S. taxpayers paid for this study. Why is that so difficult for people to figure out?

    “I remember research studies from DECADES ago linking NHL (non-Hodgkins lymphoma) with pesticides.”

    “Pesticides” is a very broad term, and many that were in use decades ago have been replaced by safer/more effective alternatives.

    • Sherean Malagueno

      Banned pesticides and herbicides are still alive and well in the environment.Many banned products are just arranged in such a way by their maker to appear as a different product.Be interesting to see the makings of Dicamba.

      • ed

        Yes, that is another extremely dangerous bit of chemistry.

    • ed

      Safer. Hmmm! That is a relative term but telling…

  • SFactor

    So because this is from a producer, bet dollars to donuts it’s not unbiased. Test people for Glyhosate residue, from hair urine or blood samples, Fool! Test umbilical cords of newborn babies, and tell me it hasn’t passed from mother to newborn! How much did Monsanto pay you to write this???

    • FarmersSon63

      You have to admit….
      40 yuears of extensive use and still not even one confirmed illness or death from consuming it’s minute residues on foods is simply amazing…..wouldn’t you agree?

      • SFactor

        No.

  • FarmersSon63

    So a chemical can have cancer in it?

    • ed

      If there is enough of it in your veins I guess you could phrase it that way.

  • Viva La Evolucion

    By supporting the Ethanol mandate, Trump is also supporting the use of Glyphosate, since the majority of the ethanol produced in the United States is made out of Roundup Ready corn feedstock. I will give this study the benefit of the doubt and agree that there is no firm glyphosate / cancer link, but there is without a doubt a strong Glyphosate / sperm count reduction link. You can search the ScienceDirect site for Roundup and Sperm and read study after study which all show that Glyphosate exposure causes reduced sperm count in the test subjects. If exposure to a product reduces one’s sperm count then I consider that reproductive harm. Since the California Prop 65 warning is also intended to warn people of products containing chemicals that can cause reproductive harm, I think the warning should remain law despite the supposed not firm glyphosate cancer link found in this particular study.

    • FarmersSon63

      At real world exposures, there is no risk.
      Feel better now?

  • FarmersSon63

    Dicamba has been used by farmers for 50 years.
    When do you think it’s “markings” will rise from the abyss and kill all of us?

    • Sherean Malagueno
      • bsroon

        Lol – i’m in love, but don’t tell my wife, lol. GREAT responses. Irrefutable. Some of these idiots pretend that products DESIGNED TO BE POISONOUS are as safe as anything. It is pretty frustrating that they are so brain washed or brain dead that many actually believe this garbage.
        Unfortunately, most don’t look at biochemistry either on the plant level or the human system. Thus they don’t realize that whenever they use a biocide – they GUARANTEE that their crops WILL have health problems which are likely to result in weaknesses opening them up to pest infestation – and that will then mandate their using some other damb poison to kill that off – further damaging the soil probiotics, harming the plants, air, water, them….

        Just amazing that logic is so lacking…

        Then you realize that there were millions of $$$ (the only thing big ag type “farmers” care about) in losses from di-camba drift AND THEY STILL PRETEND IT IS SAFE when it kills dang near anything other than the GMO products (a whole extra level of stupid) then you have to wonder when they are going to start even thinking… Obviously if it’s wiping out crops and adjacent plants IT IS NOT SAFE, NOT CONTAINED, AND DEFINITELY TOXIC – but nope. Live in denial.

      • Eric Bjerregaard

        And herbicides are known to save us way more than cost us. that is why farmers use them.

    • Sherean Malagueno

      So the new and “improved” Dicamba release date was this spring.As to your sarcasm relating to your own timeline?Who knows?Do I really care about yours?No.Do I care about mine and my own?Does it even necessitate a response to you?Not really.When you can’t keep your choices to use toxic chemicals in your own pants it becomes offensive and wrong.Simple as that.I couldn’t give a rats ass what you put on your food or your land if it actually stayed there and didn’t contaminate others food and water supply.But guess what?It does.Your choices have now taken away mine.Thats the problem.If I ran over you with my truck because of undo diligence and speed factors which were all in my control at the time of impact,I can be held accountable and charged with vehicular manslaughter.Why should it be any different if your toxic overspray ends up on my organic grapes?And you can save your speech about the lack of harm that Neuro toxins impose on mammals BS.Our beneficial gut bacteria anyone?Minor detail.Or the microbial communities in the soil which plants are dependant on for nutrient uptake,are systemically destroyed.Alkalines building up in cultivated soils turning arable land into wastelands.Non of this food for thought?No pun intended.Like I stated,if you kept it in your own pants?*Gallic shrug* But that’s not whats happening now is it?

    • ed

      It has always been killing us, now it will just do it faster.

  • Denise

    Here’s a reliable and respected source (JAMA) for Farmersson63 to chew on.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trying-to-get-pregnant-science-suggests-eat-organic_us_5a0e3622e4b0e30a95850584

  • Harold

    I am honored that you would even take your time to reads it and to respond. Both reading and responding you did not owe to me – so I am honored.
    Further to this I would say – You live it – so you knew it.- I live it – so I knew it – to me your sigh was your acknowledgment that you were not alone. Shining the light on the obvious only makes me the candle holder. More further, I enjoy turning time into value – so it wasn’t a taking of “valuable time” as you say, it was creating a value with my time; henceforth you said “beautiful” indicating value.
    You didn’t say it my way – but you have lived it that way. When some says to you “taking your valuable time” – change it for them.- your are creating value with your time. We only have so much time to create values in life – don’t we?
    Thanks for your comment.

  • Karen Cawley Keever

    Science is not what it used to be. Who paid for this?

  • bsroon

    You could make qualifications until next Sunday…. No firm link, on snowy days, with left-handed rabbits mating with …….

    There are better studies showing multiple problems with glyphosate. You … act like “OOOH! – We’ve denied a link to cancer so EVERYTHING about Roundup is allright”. Bullhonkey.

    How about it’s being a mutagen. It GUARANTEEING that any roundup crop has poor nutrition. How about how it’s fake “inert” ingredients are ALSO toxic – like the polyethoxylated tallowamine POE-15 that is apoptic to human cells (kills ’em deader than …) in as little as one and three parts per million. And BOTH of those levels (two different tests) are at lower levels than are allowed into our food supply with the current excessive amounts of gly contamination set by the (dishonest industry shills) EPA…Well we won’t even discuss the xenoestrogen effects it has on beings…

    The metabolites are ALSO toxic. You want to pretend that cancer is the ONLY issue? How stupid of Moronsanto and it’s clones. Go chug a pint and get back to me.

  • FC

    Glycine replaced by glyphosate interrupting the shikimate pathway….firm link….look it up with the works of Dr. Stephanie Seneff.

  • FC

    Glycine replaced by glyphosate in the shikimate pathway….look it up…along with the works of Dr. Stephanie Seneff. This study is a straw-man in regard to exposure/cancer correlation, without looking at the mechanisms and pathways.

  • Catherine Ernst

    And exactly WHO PAID FOR THE STUDY?

  • Hunter Linville

    Who funded this study?

  • Kandi King

    I guess Agent Orange didnt kill my Viet nam veteran either..????

    • obfuscate99

      You do know that glyphosate and agent orange are completely different from a chemical perspective, right?

      Glyphosate interferes with 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate (EPSP) synthase, which is an essential component of the shikimate acid pathway, while both of the herbicides in Agent Orange (2,4-D and 2,4,5-T) are both auxin analogues.

      None of the herbicides were cause of the health effects seen in humans, blame for that lies in the production method that the military required companies to follow to produce the 2,4,5-T, thus resulting in the production of the dioxin 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD).

      • Harold

        You have the military completely backwards. The military hire contractors and corporations to come up with a solution to a problem suffered in their war time efforts. Private corporations create the product (deforestation) and Private sub-trades create the delivery system and thereafter the military approves it based upon the ease of its implementation in the pursuit of a desired outcome. The product and delivery is a joint effort between the private Chemical Corporation and the related private sub-trades. The military is of the executive branch of government and they are not the private industry such as is Monsanto and neither are they a sub-trade. In other words, the military does not tell Monsanto or the sub trades what to do, Monsanto and the sub-trades tell the military what can be done to help in their war time efforts. The Military do not tell the manufactures of bullets how to create bullets or gunpowder or the gun. The military only fires the weapon at the enemy if the military approves the weapon. Like the gun, Agent Orange was a weapon and the chemicals and the delivery were decided by Monsanto and the sub-trades and all the government (military) did was to approve it. Einstein created the atomic bomb and the sub-trades created the delivery system and all the Military did was to approve it and to drop it from a military aircraft. Who understood exactly what they were doing to do and the consequences?
        That being said, what exactly do we know that truly matters about the causes related to human health issues when if fact we have not obliterated sickness but instead have developed new sicknesses for all we think that we know. The causes of cancer are still unknown and somehow in this generation with all of our facts and figures we are the Cancer experts. The only safe thing to eat is nutrition and Glyphosate does not fall under the category of nutritional value; what happens if I am a weed and not the safe blade of grass that the Industry says that I am? Why should my body be the bio filter for the profits of chemical industry? Do I inherently owe them something?

        • obfuscate99

          And once again, you are wrong.

          Acting under the power of the War Powers Act (1941), and the Defense Production Act (1950), Monsanto along with 8 other companies was required to use a protocol supplied solely at the discretion of the US military. None of the companies were granted any leeway in this regard, and this remained the case until well into the war effort, with the military having full control on production, and use of the chemical. Dow was the first to realize that the process mandated by the military resulted in the production of dioxins, specifically 2,4,5-T.

          Perhaps you should do some additional research, as your knowledge of history, and US laws is quite flawed, to say nothing of your mistakes relating to biochemistry.

          Your body already filters out toxins all the time…they’re naturally present in quite literally every food that we eat. Everything from phytoalexins, alkaloids, formaldehyde, cyanide, saponins…on and on the list goes.

          It’s the dose that makes the poison, and that’s the reason why the ADIs for these compounds are all based on the No Observed Adverse Effect Limit (NOAEL), and the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Limit (LOAEL). These are both derived experimentally based on both acute and chronic toxicity studies.

          From the looks of things, you’ve spent a bit too much time at the University of Google. Considering my doctorate was focused on mol bio, biochemistry, and genomics, I’m very familiar with the underlying data, including the toxicity of glyphosate.

          The smart thing to do would be to pick up some textbooks and take some time to familiarize yourself with the available data…considering how quickly you jumped onto conspiracies, I’m not optimistic that will be the case.

          • Harold

            I don’t view insults and introjections as being a manifestation of knowledge, wisdom, and intellect but perhaps that’s just me. You pull up two Acts and you think that you have everything figured out; good for you, your research is done. These are your words so I’ll use them: where does “protocol” come from and its origin? What and who are the origins of both ACTs? What is “military discretion” and who and what decides it? A written contract does not give anyone a “grant” so your term is wrong. What is the proper word? Do you believe that all of this transpired paperless and without contract? Contracted, does the receiver of goods not control the producer by demand? I don’t need an answer to any of these questions. My understanding of the Laws of the USA are flawed; good work! I love a good hit and run statement. U of A – not google. USA law: what “law” empowers the USA to exist? (also the root of the Military) Can you answer that? Hint: you are not looking for what is called a law; un-flaw me. Further, seeing that you have a doctorate in your hand, could you point to the conspiracies that I jumped to? I just can’t see one. What I like to say in personality to those that give me the attitude of “I’m not that optimistic that will be the case” goes something like – just who the hell do you think you are? (I smile when I say it ) I do very well eye to eye thank you very much. Your little biology lesson was in fact very little and rudimentary and surprisingly you think that you have explained something. I started my “little” biology lesson in 1982 and my real discussions are done face to face and hand to hand and not text to text. Using phytoalexins, alkaloids, formaldehyde, cyanide, saponins, somehow dignifies the use of glyphosate and that is the profundity of a doctorate in biology? Sounds to me more like a white paper speech written by undersecretaries. I have nothing to prove to you text to text – just an opinion to consider and this is not a forum of any real examination or did you think that it was?

  • Sandra

    Most likely paid by Monsanto

  • FarmersSon63

    Glyphosate has a 40+ year 100% safety record to consumers.
    Guess how many people drowned in water last year.

    • ed

      Roundup does kill slower than drowning for sure, unless you drown in Roundup. Come to think of it, now that there is detectable roundup in all air, soil and water around the planet, I guess these people that you talk about drowning last year did most likely all drowned in Roundup!

  • Denise

    REALLY? Wow, such a big long term study,too! Now go wash your sticky fat fingers off with some adjuvant/glyphosate solution,Monsanto boys and girls.
    Monsanto weed killer is killing humans- America’s lawyer
    gmwatch.org

  • Erin Anderson

    So they’re saying that it’s safe for people to consume that poison chemical? Do they think we’re stupid enough to believe that lie?

  • Erin Anderson

    The next major study will conclude that actually drink Roundup is good for your health and they’ll recommend that everyone drink 8oz of Roundup everyday for optimal health. Just wait, that will be the next thing they tell us.

  • anthony samsel

    The study is rubbish. Cohort studies often belong in the trash as they are often based on questionnaires of poor design. Most of the cancers found by Monsanto in the animals were RARE types. A cohort study is not desirable for use with RARE diseases. The LATENCY period for this cohort was 4-5 years 1993-1997
    Disadvantages of Prospective Cohort Studies
    You have to follow large numbers of subjects for a long time.
    They are not good for rare diseases.
    They are not good for diseases with a long latency.
    Differential loss to follow up can introduce bias. A very significant portion of study members were eliminated skewing the numbers.

    Last week the IARC position on Glyphosate and cancer was viciously attacked by members of the US Congress Science, Space, Technology (SST) at a committee hearing. The chairman of the committee, along with an EPA representative and industry operatives gave delusional commentary against the IARC in preparation for the Trump administration to defund the agency and suspend all of its activities.

    Dr. Robert Tarone, gave false information to the committee during this hearing. Referring to Monsantos 1983 Glyphosate study in mice, he stated that they found ONE haemangio tumor in the low dose group. ONE haemangio tumor in the mid dose group and none in the high dose group.

    This statement to the Congressional SST committee is blatantly false.

    I have posted links to ResearchGate for the Haemangio-endothelioma data from that study. This is a nice companion to the Lymphoma data I posted after my appearance and testimony at the California OEHHA hearing against Monsanto in June of 2017. I identified Lymphoma tumors in 14 tissues. The lymphoma tumor type was found only in female rats and not the control animals of the Monsanto rat study of 1981.

    Remember, that the EPA toxicologist William Dykstra found kidney tumors in that same mouse study problematic and raised the issue definitively: “Review of the mouse oncogenicity study indicates that glyphosate is oncogenic, producing renal tubule adenomas, a rare tumor, in a dose-related manner.” These incidences of kidney tumors in mice exposed to glyphosate were significant to raise flags and they do have the potential to be harmful to other organs and tissues. Well I now raise the issue of Haemangio-endotheliomas. In fact nine of them. ~ Number nine – John Lennon

    The EPA, IARC, European agency, Tarone, Portier and others all missed the significance of these data. If the kidney cancer data was significant to raise warning flags and rightly classify it a probable carcinogen, than certainly these statistically significant tumors will too.

    These data show that Glyphosate and not Roundup cause these cancers. IMHO, these tumors may have more specifically been caused by the N-nitrosamines of glyphosate, but glyphosate is certainly at the root of progression.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323106222_Malignant_Haemangio-endotheliomas_found_in_mice_administered_glyphosate

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316831330_Glyphosate_Malignant_Lymphomas_in_female_rats_administered_glyphosate_in_the_diet_Extracted_data_1981

  • FarmersSon63

    It is against the law to use a pesticide differently that what is indicated on the label. Pound for pound, you would die from table salt before eating glyphosate.

    • Erin Anderson

      The glyphosate poisoning in our food supply is a slow kill for humanity. It’s a method of population control over time.

      • FarmersSon63

        There is absolutely ZERO peer reviewed scientific proof confirming your guess.

  • HankHH

    No mention of illnesses other than cancer, curiously…

  • Nightbird2

    Round up = Agent Orange Enough said.

    • Denise

      It is heartbreaking to hear about the rural families who have been touched by cancer,especially when it is the young people.

    • obfuscate99

      …except being completely different from a base chemical perspective, mode of action (glyphosate works by inhibiting 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate (EPSP) synthase activity, whereas the herbicides in Agent Orange are auxin analogues), manufacturing method, and both chronic and acute toxicity.

      Aside from being herbicides, they really don’t share much. Additionally, the toxicity of Agent Orange, it wasn’t the active compounds themselves (2,4-D, and 2,4,5-T) that was the cause of the deleterious effects seen in humans. The process by which the military required companies to produce the 2,4,5-T was known to produce dangerouls levels of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD).

  • Nightbird2

    Don’t forget birth defects. That’s a special one.

  • It is not very often that we are allowed to view the entire decomposition process from start to finish,but this appears to be the end product. Either that,or the horse is out again,DAMMIT!!! You don’t for a minute expect a person with more intelligence than a government worker to believe this horse… ??? A study brought to you by the same people that denied Agent Orange existed,then patented it and changed the name???? Just because big tobacco has died,is no reason to carry your trash somewhere else to drop it.

  • A. Vaccaro

    The first and MOST important question is: How much funding did the various organizations receive to fund their study from Monsanto?

  • obfuscate99

    So noting but conspiratorial babbling I see.

    The facts are very simple here, and if you had taken the time to look into the background information, you may have had a chance to learn something. For instance, all of the companies (The Dow Chemical Company, Monsanto Company, Hercules Inc., Diamond, Shamrock Chemicals Company, Uniroyal Inc., Thompson Chemical, and T-H Agriculture and Nutrition Company) that were ordered to manufacture the chemical already had a business relationship with the military, some limited to procurement agreements, others as part of a more involved manufacturing process, including the synthesis of a host of chemicals..

    As a result of this, backed by the authority granted them under the War Powers Act, and the Defense Production Act, the military was able to compel all of these companies to contribute to the war effort. This is a historical fact, and if you had bothered to look it up. Agent Orange was never produced for anyone outside of the military. In fact, all aspects of the synthesis, mixing, transport, and use of Agent Orange was completely controlled by the military, and at no point was Agent Orange released for use outside of the military..

    I never used the word grant, I used granted, which works perfectly in the context for which it was used.

    Quite frankly, I don’t care if you choose to live in ignorance, but everything that I wrote is factually correct. One part about science that I do love is that, what you think is utterly meaningless, it’s all about the data. In the case of the phytotoxins that I listed, each and every one of them are both naturally occurring, and are pretty well ubiquitous across the crops that we cultivate. Additionally, the relevant metrics associated with both those toxins, as well as glyphosate is more a melding of chemistry and biology (toxicology), and in this case both acute and chronic toxicity levels have been established…which is why we can assign an ADI to each of them, glyphosate included (For review see Stephenson et al., 2016; Rietjens et al., 2005; Essers et al., 1998).

    I can very easily believe that your biology education started in 1982…since it’s woefully out of date.

    Now, the decision about you choosing to remain ignorant, or actually taking some time to learn about the historical and scientific concepts involved here, is all in your hand. As I mentioned earlier, the data is all there.

    • Harold

      Clearly you can’t point to a conspiracy, and you think I was babbling? My questions pointed to a domain and clear to me is you have no knowledge of the backgrounds that would even support your own opinion. Absent of fact, you hadn’t noticed that I said – “started” in 1982 – and not ended, but a deeper thought would provoked an illustration that Google didn’t exist then; no “university of Google”, but the world did have scientists. It is often that I have to point out the obvious and ordinary to the academics whose minds are wrapped around their own lapel pins. Here is another one of your academia Biggies: You said “granted” and I said “grant” so what do you think I was saying? You have to be in a position to “grant” before something is “granted”. You have to have something to TRY before there can be a TRIAL. Are these big issues for you? Because you could not answer my question it is obvious that you would stand ignorantly on the word “granted”. I agree: your use of the word granted was in context. In comparison, do you think that you can get a government Grant without a contract to sign? What is “grant” and what is “granted”. It seems to me that forensics is not your forte. The basics of biology created my curiosity and study has been ongoing ever since. I knew exactly what you were saying and although my study’s (science) have not been exactly the same, they are interconnected like all sciences are; ignorance is to deny it. In contrast, it doesn’t take a Doctorate to know that when a plane falls from the sky – that there has been a failure. In comparison, you are only a small fraction of that investigation and are not unique. Furthermore, when war kills innocent people, those who are responsible are charged with war crimes. The Acts that you waved in my face legalize the war effort making the USA not liable (law abiding) and Monsanto not an accessory to the fact of genocide. Every measure in those Acts clears both parties from any liability or wrongdoing. Party to, the United States is a corporation and is cleared of any wrongdoing when doing the will of the people and this is why all Acts go through three levels of government before they become Law. Americans elect their Senators and Representatives – Members of Congress, and they represent the people when they vote to enact a Law. You will have to connect the dots yourself because I cannot provide you with the related International Laws because the documents are many; Documents are not like your story books. I suppose you also think that the Monsanto Protection ACT wasn’t orchestrated by Monsanto. I’m sure that you think the War ACT’s didn’t guarantee Monsanto a legislated profit. This is not a conspiracy, it is ordinary, and it happens in front of your face Canada wide. It is a no brainer that the ACT’s were between the Government and Monsanto and no one else. Did you think that you were onto something big? I do know who lacks in the knowledge of Law and History and I know who are the masters of headlines are and who the masters of study are. The only time that I will take your advice seriously is the day that I wish to become just like you and I don’t see that day happening in this lifetime. I might however take more seriously the gentleman and a Peer standing ahead of you at the front of the line. We will just agree to disagree.

  • obfuscate99

    So both government, scientific, and legal conspiracies now. My, my, you really have gone in into the Machiavellian BS.

    Let’s have some fun here. Starting with grant and granted. In this instance, the order issues under the War Powers Act and the Defense Procurement Act, it was the government that did in fact “grant” the companies the opportunity to manufacture the 2,4,5-T. It wasn’t an option for them to say no, and in a similar sense, they were granted no leeway or deviation from the protocols dictated by the military.

    Oh, and you’d be completely wrong in regards to my knowledge of forensic science, I’ve worked on several projects working to integrate next generation sequencing technology into the standard pipeline. As opposed to the standard CODIS STR panels, the use of platforms such as the Illumina HiSeq (MiSeq), PacBio Sequel, or the IonTorrent Proton allow for the detection an single nucleotide polymorphisms in addition to the standard STR size variability.

    Additionally, this work has enabled the addition of biogeographical and phenotypic markers, which provide far more information, and much greater degree of certainty when working to identify an individual or multiple individuals.

    If you like, I can also go into similar work that was done combining Fourier Transform Near-Infrared (FTNIR) and multivariate analysis in order to assist in the identification of individuals based on molecular patterns from a variety of tissue (hair being the most common).

    So let’s see, you’re still wrong about the companies (Just in case you forget: the Dow Chemical Company, Monsanto Company, Hercules Inc., Diamond,
    Shamrock Chemicals Company, Uniroyal Inc., Thompson Chemical, and T-H
    Agriculture and Nutrition Company) involved in the production of Agent Orange, they were not both legally required to manufacture both 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T using a protocol that was provided by the US military, and no alterations were permitted. In other words, they were granted no leeway in regards to the techniques that were used as part of the synthesis, mixing, transport, or use of the products.

    Here’s the thing, the data is the only thing that matters. I’ve provided ample evidence backing each and every point I’ve made, while you toss out wild speculation that is fully predicated on a vast global conspiracy.

    You are not one of my peers. That group is limited to other scientists engaged in primary research. If we want to get even more granular, my peers are scientists working withing the auspice of biochemistry, molecular biology, and genomics.

    You don’t factor into any of those, and simply being older or other method of “standing ahead of” me, does not grant you any kind of credit with me. Once again, the data is what matters, and unless you’ve got an h-index > 30 you have no meaningful insight on any topic my research involves.

    • Harold

      You haven’t proven a damn thing and neither have I and I’m not interested in playing your game. You know and I know that proof comes with far more that what can be provided here in this forum so don’t think you are fooling me or yourself. I mentioned International law and that is all. I have not provided any proof because I would have to bring forth to this forum – Accords, Treaty, Conventions, Canon law, Letters Patent, so forth and more. These are not conspiracies. If there is a conspiracy I will say that there is one in no uncertain terms and it will not be left up to your imagination. When I mention International law and you have knowledge of these, then you can consider them. If you do not have the knowledge of them, then you do not have the ability to consider them and we cannot speak the language. For example, if you don’t know what a Letters Patent is or its power: here in Canada in 1947 the Letter Patent authorized the Governor General to the position Commander-in-Chief of Canada on behalf of the Queen. That letter holds power no matter who sits in that chair; The Governor General is the head of our military. Is this a conspiracy as you would think or is it a fact of law as I would think? I don’t give a damn if you go look for it or not; you’re not going to use it for anything anyway. The difference is – I know it is there and you do not and for this you’ll call it a conspiracy. I mentioned legislative procedure and I haven’t proven a thing nor will I; you either know the procedure to consider it, or you do not. You either understand what Washington DC is and what it represents and its power source or you do not. You either understand enactments or you do not. You either understand contractual laws or you don’t. I have not pointed to anything hidden from anybody or the public’s view other that perhaps hidden to you, for obvious reasons, and you call it a conspiracy. I am not playing your game. My reference to forensics was a tongue in cheek “wise crack” so your self- serving spiel was all in vain. When I said, like I did – “the only time that I will take your ADVICE…” and then you turn it around to mean something completely different, it forms assumptions about how well someone is at their job. In this case I said that if I were to take ADVICE – it wouldn’t be from you – but from another one of your peers standing in front of you at the head of the line. Can you characterize what this line represents? I know that I have no trouble doing it! I’m not sure how you can possibly even think that I was trying to earn any credits from you. Bulletin: Facts, Data, Evidence, speak for themselves – they don’t speak for YOU. Anyone can lie with Fact, Data, and Evidence and a Bible in their hands but at the end of the day the only thing that matters is results -and they matter. No one should be seeking credit from you or me and I hate to burst your bubble.
      “……..does not grant you any kind of credit with me”. Really? When I want credit for glyphosate I’ll drink it and you’ll be a “nobody” again. Do you think that I don’t recognize salesmen when I see one?
      We will just have to agree to disagree.

      • obfuscate99

        So still doubling down on nonsense, but you are right that the data is all that matters, and the facts haven’t changed. Monsanto and all the other companies involved were legally required to produce agent orange in accordance with the protocol provided by the military.

        Your innane babbling does nothing to alter the facts that were provided. Once again, the data is all that matters.

        I have quite a few individuals who very much seek credit from me. They’re called my peers, my grad students, and to a lesser extent, the undergrads who are enrolled at my institution.

        As for you, well guess what? You really should be looking to learn. When it comes to both theoretical and applied scientific research, I am far more qualified than you.

        Right from your first reply, you have been woefully wrong, but, rather than taking the opportunity to learn, you chose to double down on a position that’s directly contradictory to the facts involved in this topic.

        The data is all that matters, and it does not support your position in the slightest.

        Finally, your statement regarding me being a salesman is just another error on your part…you seem to make a lot of those.

        The only positions that I’ve held have been accademic ones with a focus on primary research, teaching, and administrative duties (50/30/20 split, respectively, with the exception of when I’m on a sabbatical).

        But please do continue to spout nonsense and ignore the data that you claim to value.

        • Denise

          … Come out and see the damage done by excessive use of glyphosate and it’s adjuvants on our environment.
          I don’t care why or how Monsanto and their ilk
          produced Agent Orange, at the behest of the US government for the war in Vietnam. Let the historians sort that out. It was evil and made it possible for what followed. The rise of Monsatan and their ilk.
          I care that Monsanto and their ilk found a way to profit from this toxic formulation,with just a tweak here and a tweak there. They manipulated their sciencific studies to get the outcomes needed to meet their desired objectives.
          They got and still get the green light to poison everything and everybody thanks to the influences of “special interst groups” heavily lobbying government agencies.
          Their products have caused so much damage, death, and sickness to agricultural areas, adjacent environments and people around the world.
          You can spout all the “scientific knowledge”you have have collected over your career. Sounds good, but the fact remains it is disgraceful and immoral what these corps get away with.

          • obfuscate99

            Well considering that I am very much up to date on the research surrounding glyphosate, and I can tell that you have no clue about the studies that have been done over the years. It’s not just Monsanto performing these, you and your ilk tend to forget about the sheer number of toxicity and/or carcinogenicity studies that have been done over the past few decades.

            You don’t like Monsanto? How about:

            – Cheminova, 1993
            – Feinchemie Schwebda, 1996
            – Excel, 1997
            – Arysta Life Sciences 1997
            – Chruscielska et al. 2000
            – Syngenta, 2001
            – Nufarm, 2008

            Hey, look at that! Multiple properly designed studies that all show no causative effect at the ADI levels. In keeping with this the studies also were quite comparable in the NOAEL and LOAEL observations.

            Your decision to completely ignore the empirical data, and instead rely on an emotional appeal regarding the ills of the Big Bad Monsanto, just means that your opinion on this matter is utterly irrelevant, and unsubstantiated based on the literature to date.

            Fortunately, you don’t get a seat at the table in regards to this, or any other scientific endeavor. I do, since I’ve actually put in the work to become educated and experienced in my field. Studies, such as the one this article is about, have once again shown that your side loves to insinuate all kinds of health scares, but when examined, your entire position is little more than smoke and mirrors.

            Come back when one of your hero researchers manages to perform a properly designed OECD 453 study…or even 451 or 452 would represent a major step up from the mangled mess that has come out of the anti-GMO, anti-Monsanto crowd.

          • Denise

            Gee ,I wonder why several European countries are getting rid of it? Who uses it according to ADI levels?

          • obfuscate99

            …that would be the majority of the operators and consumers. Depending on the chemical involved, the ADIs can directly factor into the MRL, or can be independent of it. Regardless, the ADI is set according to the NOAEL and LOAEL and there is a considerable safety margin factored into these.

            Once again, you choose to go with fear as opposed to empirical data. Any insight into why your side of the issue has continually failed to perform OECD-compliant testing?

            Oh wait! I already know why. It’s because those tests have been conducted by groups from industry, government, and academia, and we already know what the results are. The only way that your side can gain traction with the public is by ensuring that the power of analysis is so pathetic that they can torture the data until it says what they want.

          • Denise

            If all the testing “done by industry”( of course, not biased in the least! ), “academia”( generous grants and subsidies from biotec/chem industry donors) and “government” ( who will admit if it is too costly to do the testing, just rely on industries’ test findings) is so reliable and trusted then why is this happening?
            Many countries are finding ways to slip out of the clutches of Big Agro-chemical corps strangle- hold by banning the use of glyphosate-based pesticides, as soon as they can.
            Many farmers will admit they have been relying on chemicals too much and are now faced with problems associated with poor soil quality.

          • obfuscate99

            If that’s the case, you should be able to point out valid flaws in the data that’s been generated. It’s fine for you to scream about the evils of corporations, but the data is what matters. I provided a small sampling of the toxicity and carcinogenicity studies that have been completed, and the question is simple.

            Where is the error in their methodologies, data, or analysis?

            If you bothered to read the background material, you would have seen that Cheminova (1993), Feinchemie Schwebda (1996), Arysta Life Sciences (1997), Syngenta (2001), and Nufarm (2008), were all rated with a Klimisch score of 1, indicating that the methodologies and analysis are completely in keeping with standard GLP, and that the results are fully reliable without restriction.

            It’s so odd that there seems to be a complete dearth of similarly rigorous studies from your side of the fence. I wonder why that’s the case?

            As for your anecdotal comment regarding soil fertility, the yield increases that have been enabled through targeted nutrient application along with genetic and agronomic factors have enabled overall yields to steadily increase.

            For example, average corn yields in the US back in 1966 was 73.1 BU/Acre. By 1990, this value was 118.5 BU/Acre, and in 2017 it was 176.6 BU/Acre. Soy follows a similar trend, in 1966 the yield was 25.4 BU/Acre, 1990 it was 34.1 BU/Acre, and in 2017 yields were 49.1 BU/Acre.

            Overall the trend lines still have a slope that is indicative of increased yields, and soil management is very much a part of this.

            Care to try again?

          • richard

            Thirteen weed species on sixty million acres…..resistant glyphosate (USDA)…..Out where the rubber hits the road, the ideology of reductionist science hits the brick wall of natural law…..which is why highly educated individuals habitually find themselves in knee jerk defence of indefensible dogma… No point calling this a conspiracy when ignorance and incompetence will suffice….

          • obfuscate99

            And this is why it’s a good thing that new varieties are entering the market with multiple herbicide resistances. This will allow farmers to be more able to switch the herbicides that are used in their IPM.

            And look at that, an appeal to nature as a basis for your argument. Fortunately scientists have been breaking down that wall for millennia now. As we work towards understanding our universe, we have gained the ability to move past such an anachronistic concept as natural law.

            Guess what? Scientists like myself will continue to break down those walls, now and in the future.

          • richard

            Sorry pal, contrary to reductionist hubris, natural law is incontrovertible…….which is why applied science is terminally frustrated by itself and its own willful ignorance otherwise know as complicity….BSE, BST, CJD, CWD, weed, pest and ,antibiotic resistance are all living examples of academic and corporate defiance of natural law. DDT, lindane, malathion, ractopamine, zilmax, neonics and glyphosate have all etched their insidious legacy into the minds of educated consumers, who have reached consensus on no xenobiotic substances in their food at any level regardless of what lab coats and corporate heelers say…..Your cognitive dissonance is simply a function of being disconnected from the zeitgeist….. and all the self righteous indignation and academic elitism is unlikely to browbeat increasingly enlightened citizens to see it your way…. The anachronism sir, is an increasingly toxic, neo feudal, massively subsidized, industrial agriculture that is neither logical or sustainable…..ergo your need to obfuscate….

          • obfuscate99

            So instead of offering any kind of experimental evidence, you chose to double down on a merely emotional appeal to nature.

            Guess what? That doesn’t work in scientific circles.

            Either back up your conjecture with experiment evidence showing how, at biologically relevant lev levels your opinion and those of the anti-GMO crowd deserve any consideration when the data shows that your genetic doomsday has not, and by all current measure, will not arrive.

          • Peter Harris

            So what have you bought to the table in way of scientific evidence?

          • Denise

            Well said, Richard. When arrogance and delusional ideas wield more influence than reliable and significant results ,arrived at by using unbiased and disciplined scientific methods, you can see how we got here.
            Corps/industry have been able to subterfuge science for decades now because of lax oversight, lobbying, and the formation of “Citizens United” in the USA.
            Now we are faced with believers in a faith instead of having the best information available to us and the truth to work with.

          • Denise

            QUALITY trumps quantity ,especially when it comes to food for people and animals. This is what matters most.
            You can buy “cheap large amounts of crappy food to eat but look at the side-effects. Lots of fat and unhealthy people swaddling around. Thirty or forty years ago fat people were a rare sight to see.
            There are tons of cheap ,highly processed “foods on the shelves and animal feed ” filled with pesticide -tainted GMO corn meal and GMO soy. The evidence is all around us as to the consequences of eating poor quality ‘high yielding” food crops.
            Overweight and sick people overdosing on drugs to try and feel better ,when most of the time it’s the food they are putting in their mouths and their children’s mouths.
            You seem to be missing the main point.
            You can have the highest yielding crops ever seen in the world ,but what good is it ,if it is lacking the necessary nutrients to sustain the general population’s good health?
            And oh yes ,the environment is paying dearly for this biotech/chemical corporate model of agriculture.
            The times are changing ,though. It is often forced by Mother Nature signalling that she’s had enough.
            ie. Superweeds and disappearing bees, butterflies ,aquatic life birds etc.
            All the signs are there! Time for change.

          • obfuscate99

            Ah, but the quality is on the pro-GMO side of the debate. This is why whenever anyone brings up Seralini, Samsel, Seneff, or Infascelli, my side can eviscerate their arguments just based on their experimental design and analysis of the results.

            Did you miss the earlier comment about your side being lacking when it comes to studies with an appropriate power of analysis?

            Well, good thing that the meta analyses comparing the nutritional content of conventional vs GMO vs organic have indicated that there is no significant difference in the nutritional content. What was also shown was the the majority of what differences did crop us was that environmental (both biotic and abiotic) factors contribute far more than the cultivation method (Pellegrino et al., 2018; Venneria et al., 2008).

            In fact, even in the limited studies that have found differences (Barański et al., 2014), even the authors acknowledge that having a small increase in antioxidant levels is not expected to be biologically relvant…now the mycotoxin that’s found to a much larger degree in organic produce, that is something that can cause a dose response if the levels are high enough.

            Additionally, you are again relying on anecdotal evidence as opposed to experimental results. When you state “The evidence is all around up…”, but utterly fail to produce any empirical evidence showing causal relationship between GMOs and any health issue at or below ADI levels.

            Your ilk cried wolf too often, and the longer we go without your side showing a direct causal relationship at or below the ADIs, the easier it is for scientists like myself to point out just how unhinged your have become.

            It is time for chance, and fortunately, the pro GMO side is gaining support. Multiple countries in Asia and Africa are wither already growing GMOs, or are working through the regulatory steps to begin cultivating them.

          • Denise

            Corruption (bribes/lobbying) within governments makes it possible. Multinational agrochemical corps can find ways and means to infiltrate countries and spread their toxic seeds and pesticides, across the land. Make serfs out of the farmers. Many commit suicide after going bankrupt.
            The only hope I see coming is from the farmers and consumers,themselves, rejecting these corps’ GE concoctions.
            The friendly faces and extended helping hands of the agrichemical corps are bloodsuckers ,in diguise, and we all know what bloodsuckers do to their victims if you can’t detach them.

          • obfuscate99

            I’m not seeing you address any of the data generated by the studies Denise, why is that?

            In science, it’s the data you must address if you disagree with a finding, and countering that data must be done through either a critique of the methods (as has been done repeatedly to debunk much of the trash generated by Seralini, Samsel, Seneff, or Infascelli, or through the production of new experimental data (once again did you see how just the OECD 453 testing was done by multiple groups).

            Crying conspiracy does not earn you any points, and will simply result is a patronizing pat on the head, while we go back to our labs and keep researching.

            Now that it’s become quite obvious that you are unable to counter the data, your opinion can be utterly ignored, and just your replies here can be used as evidence to back up this conclusion.

          • Denise

            I’d say look them up yourself , but you, already know about them. For the readers of these comments I will get back to you with some respected sources without hidden agendas ,shortly.

          • obfuscate99

            Oh this should be good. Remember to ensure that they are in compliance with GLP and the OECD guidelines, otherwise it’s going to be a very quick shutdown for you. Also look at the power of analysis for the study, this is a big one that trips up your side over and over.

          • Denise

            Actually there are scientists ,from the EPA and Health Canada ,who have worked on the front lines of reviewing studies and the approval process of industry studies. These scientists have revealed the truth about what goes on behind the closed doors ,in these institutions and the secrets that are kept from the public.
            Quote from EPA scientist Adrian Gross: “his colleagues ,long ago, gave up actively reviewing industry studies. They go straight to company’s summary and lift it word for word.”
            “USDA downplayed it’s own scientist’s research on the ill-effects of Monsanto herbicide.”
            To really understand how the EPA approves industrial poisons ,like Roundup and the new combos of stronger concoctions, to be sold to the unsuspecting public and farmers a good read is:
            Poison Spring: The Secret History of Pollution and the EPA. author: Evaggetos Vallianatos from the EPA.
            To hear the truth about the damaging effects on people and other creatures’ health from GMOs, glyphosate and its surfactants (Roundup) go to youtube.com
            “Yes! GMOs Are Definitely Toxic” presentation by: Canadian “scientist” Dr. Thiery Vrain
            Ron Fuller told you that already.
            Vandana Shiva discusses the high rates of “Farmer Suidices” in India when they sold their souls to the devil, Monsatin. Even their own government misled them. That’s an easy one to look up.
            Peaceful Warrior gave you some excellent sources to follow ,too.

          • obfuscate99

            So no experimental data showing a causative link I see. Instead you choose to present yet another conspiracy laden diatribe.

            How odd that the data from India clearly shows that the peak level of farmer suicides occurred before the introduction of GMO.

            That’s write a powerful effect. Being able to affect the world before it’s even used…or more likely your once again not showing a causal link.

            And you pointing out PW’s post is utterly hilarious, and shows that both you and he have no clue how data analysis is performed. The study he cites does not show a dose response, and the findings that he claims that are made are the opposite of what the authors concluded, but also flies in the face of the data generated in the study.

            Once again, why is it that your side can’t perform an OECD-compliant study?

            Oh right, because they need for the power of analysis to be so bad that they can try to pass off natural variation as a treatment effect.

            Care to try again?

          • Denise

            So you are a scientist? Hmmm……

          • obfuscate99

            Yes, my Ph.D. and research area of focus is molecular biology, biochemistry, and comparative genomics. As part of previous projects, I have also been part of a study to assay the in vivo toxicity of polyphenols, in addition to pre-clinical screening for drug candidates at various public universities. I have never been employed by any biotech company, and the genetic engineering aspects of my research program are limited to model systems, or transient expression systems.

            Most recently, the focus of my lab is to examine how the domestication process is associated with both sequence level changes and epigenetic changes (cytosine methylation, histone acetylation and methylation) to the genomes of affected species.

            This background is also the reason why I don’t just think, but know that the data does not support your position. From an experimental design aspect, your side is plagued by insufficient sample populations, resulting in a power of analysis that is insufficient to distinguish between natural variation, and treatment effects. Additionally, the research often cited by your ilk fail to meet even basic data analysis metrics.

          • richard

            Ask him about Shiv Chopra and Margaret Hayden getting blackballed at Health Canada over outing Monsanto on corrupt data in BST registration in the nineties…… comical if it were not so pathetic…..

        • Harold

          We have already agreed that everything I’ve said is nonsense and I have considered the source. I don’t expect you to make sense out of something you cannot conceive, save your field of study. You have proven to me what your actual knowledge of the military and law are and I am not fooled. I baited you a few times and had you had knowledge you would have noticed and filled in the blanks. I deliberately put in an incorrect word and you didn’t correct it. You are not the only one who knows how to give tests. Feel free to run my comments past your Legal department if you have one and make sure you bring your own. It is pointless to carry on so we will agree to disagree but my comments stand.

  • obfuscate99

    Why would I bother with that? You are still completely wrong about the historical facts associated with this.

    If anything this just makes pointing out the gaping flaws in your argument all the more amusing. As is the case with everything in my field, the data is all that matters, and in this, you have utterly failed to make any meaningful points. For you, the facts are apparently a very mutable thing, when in this instance they are a simple historical fact. None of your arguments have addressed the base point that was made at the beginning of this thread. Monsanto, and all of the other companies covered by this were obligated to produce the chemicals for the US military, in accordance with protocols and procedures that were dictated by this same military.

    The truth doesn’t have to be a painful thing, but for you I can tell that your perception of reality is distorted enough to make even a simple detail penetrate your preconceived notions.

    • Harold

      You are good at pointing out the facts while ignoring the leading facts. You are good at pointing to history while ignoring prior history and facts. You have no problem pointing to an ACT of law but are unable to point to the rule of law or fundamentals of law or the enactments of law – for which there are many. I am not surprised that my comments are a meaningless distortion to you because what you do not know cannot have any value. I too have had my share of amusements. You have demonstrated that you can read a document and some related history notes and thereafter believe that a single aspect is all encompassing and that is all that you have brought to the table. You can keep repeating yourself but I will always know the difference. There is a piece of history that explains what happens when the government (military) does not create a war time law (ACT) protecting the Chemical corporation; do you know that History? ( I already know the answer) In a slight departure, what happens when the party that you are under contract with deviates from that contract? Is there a legal remedy? Are you the military? The Hi-way Safety ACT – is it strict enough when you deviate from it? Who is the ACT designed to protect and how was it enacted? We will agree to disagree because I would hate to distort you any further with my “preconceived notions”. By the way, truth is not a “painful thing” if you possess it, it is only painful if you dare to express it – and that is also a history lesson and is still true today. I don’t need a lecture from you on what truth may be and I certainly do not recognize you as being the hub of truth, so you can get off the stage and place yourself at the floor level because I am not your audience and neither have I paid you to perform.

      • obfuscate99

        And once again you show your ignorance of this by ignoring the temporal aspects of our system. I even pointed out the minor detail that the Monsanto of today didn’t even exist. Your attempts to dodge around this just show that your interest isn’t rooted in facts, but ideology.

        Guess what, the juricepridence and the empirical data isnehat decides what any given act covers. Initially through legislation and then through interaction and challenges.

        I had to laugh at your final line, becausr of your in the US or Canada you probably have contributed to eithrty research or breeding grants (USDA, CFIA, NIH, FDA, Health Canada, CGI, just.to nalmr a few).

        All that matters is the data, and I can honestly state that I contribute to that with every paper published from my lab.

        What have you done out of curiosity? I mean in terms.of actually contributing to the body of scientific knowledge. Your innane babbling doesnt really contribute to the body of knowledge relating to any.of the scientific aspects of this field, so really what ahve you done.

        I can point to the genome sequences I’ve.sequenced, the varieties of bean, corn, Canola, quinoa, and in about another 6 months some QTL and association mapping with medical cannabis.

        The long and the short of it is that my colleagues can point to concrete gains in both knowledg, and public health. You and others.on your side of the debate…not so much. I see plenty of vitriol, bit very little experimental data.coming from you.

        Oh, and in case you missed this, that data is pretty much all my fellow scientists and I care about.

        Show us the raw data, how you collected it, how you analyzed it, and what your conclusions are.

        For such a simple thing, you keep dropping the ball pretty consistently.

        • Harold

          You have skirted International law, Government, Rule of Law, History, enactments of law, all for the convenience of upholding your opinion regarding the Military. I have no doubt that you value your own opinion and your lapel pin immensely. Now you are focused on your own field of study and for that there are thousands more just like you globally. To believe that you and your colleagues are the hub of all knowledge is not an illusion that I care to enter into. You are not all science – you are only a fraction of science and a narrow scope. Perhaps this has escaped you, but this is not a science journal and I doubt that Obfuscate99 is your given name but you certainly have done what was necessary to obfuscate the matter 99%. Have you heard the wise old saying that facts and Data don’t lie but …….? All of my opinions stand and we will agree to disagree. Can you accept the fact that my opinion was not my enrollment into what you believe is your personal classroom? Can you believe that I may be just a little more selective in my choices? Fact and Data are not your voice, in voice they speak for themselves.

          • obfuscate99

            When in relation to this topic, your opinion is quite irrelevant, as is mine, and the data has spoken in this regard. How odd that the end results don’t support you, and yet this is not your error, it’s the rest of the world that’s wrong.

            An amusing viewpoint to be sure, but of limited impact to the world in general.

            You still are wrong in relation to the obligations forced upon the companies involved in the production of agent orange, and that is a simple matter of history at this point. Simply because you disagree with it, those facts do not change.

            I never claimed to represent all of science, all I have claimed is that I represent far more of it than you.

            Once again, that is a position backed by the available data.

          • Harold

            If the world is you, then I can see your point, but you are not the world and neither did I say that the world is wrong. It seems that any comment that I make is taken out of context to serve your own talking points; to obfuscate is your main purpose and for that I call you a salesman. You are not serving science you are self-serving. Your end results don’t support me and this is hardly any revelation and it is the reason of your narrow field of study. Science simply means – the study of – period. For what you study, a label is placed upon it and the many labels that exist represent the many fractions of the whole. Do you wish to display more ignorance? Science is fueled by curiosity and it is in your personal bias that you claim that I do not possess any study. Nonetheless, when you can map the energy source that gives rise to all that you study – it is then that I will sit up and notice what you have to say about anything in your field of study. Until then, it is exactly what you say- you are limited by all of the facts and data that you possess. I am not hypnotized by your lapel pin or your self-serving claim to fame. Regarding the military, you have not identified anything that supports your opinion other than two enactments of law and a few history notes. Apparently you believe that these represent the “center of the universe” and sole cause and nature, but that is not uncommon in the minds of academia. Laws do not exist because I say they do – they exist because they do – and they have the impact on the world whereas my opinion does not. Perhaps you thought in ignorance that you were telling me something that I didn’t know. Your opinion has no impact on the world as anyone in your field of study can attest to and those on the breaking edge will tell you what the true limitations are; they are current Fact and Data and lack of evidence. The lack of evidence does not mean that there isn’t any, unless you are self-glorified in your own lapel pin. Facts, data, and observation, are relevant to the dissection of a plant but they are not the means by which a plant is given the energy of life. The plant speaks for itself and not for me or you. Unless you are living under a rock in life, fact and data have also been used to facilitate errors and cause human suffrage. The fact and data that we did not have, but now in soberness do have, is the reason that Agent Orange is banned globally and can never be used again. The lacking of fact and data were the reasons that Agent Orange was deployed and the additional fact and data led to its discontinued use. Your reference to “jurisprudence and the empirical data” was quite amusing. The chemical corporations were not charged for war crimes against humanity or accessory’s to the fact because they were OBEYING THE LAW; 100% STRICTLY. Without the Law their actions would have been UNLAWFUL on the international stage as well as the local stage. NO Government can be taken to any Court in the world to be jailed and neither can their own LAW ABIDING. The world only punishes guilty governments by the sanctions placed against the offending government. No, the world is not wrong: just you. I use simple terms to hopefully draw you into the bigger picture but to no avail so therefore I choose to agree to disagree. Perhaps you also think that the Geneva Convention and its global power is some war-time myth but I can’t force you to study and neither willing to be your facilitator. (No, it is not relevant – it is an illustration of the existence of a bigger picture that governs the military as is the Red Cross and so forth) You may call yourself a teacher but you are in truth only a facilitator to those with the ability to teach themselves. If your students suffer it is because you are not a facilitator. If your students have not exceeded past your understanding then you have not opened their minds you have in fact closed it. What can you say that you have done? Have you been the facilitator to those who have become much smarter than you? Can you name one in your field of study? For that I say get off the stage and place you on a level ground. I too am amused by who you think that you are when balanced with what you truly are. I know my limitations and you are not one of them.

          • obfuscate99

            Firstly, there are these things called paragraphs. You might want to look up their use.

            It doesn’t matter how devoted you are to the study of any field, if you lack the base knowledge, which for you involves multiple scientific disciplines, you end up looking like a blind man trying to describe the sky.

            And look at that, none of your wall of text changes any of the facts presented at the beginning of this discussion.

            As for your commentary on my teaching ability, that’s something that I am evaluated for on an annual basis. To date, every single one has been significantly higher than the population mean. How strange, yet again empirical data debunks your argument.

  • obfuscate99

    Missed this one a while back, but at least you’re consistent in being uninformed. If you think that food was all organic for the Baby Boomers, you are even more deluded than I thought. The introduction of synthesized fertilizers into agriculture began as far back at the late 19th century, and by the time that the Baby Boomers arrived on the scene, it was already ubiquitous in agriculture, having seen rapid growth in its use since the development of the Haber and Ostwald processes in the early 20th century.

    In the post-WWII culture, which was very much in the midst of the Green Revolution, this led to rapid yield increases that both farmer and consumers were rightly praising.

    Wow, look at that, another historical detail that you’re ignorant of…go figure.

    Maybe you should take some time to learn about a topic before spouting nonsense. All the points that I have brought up are not secrets, or nefarious plots by lizard men. It’s just agricultural science; something that you know nothing about.

    • Harold

      You have presented a delightful little rant but clearly you do not have a knack for spotting important details. I was speaking of the use of the term “Organic” in its commercial use which had nothing to do with your ranting of early history. GMO Is organic and organic is GMO except when it is described commercially. If you don’t understand the script then get off the stage because your endless holier than thou attitude needs some dire work. “Lizard men”? I’m supposed to take you seriously, and this represents your superior intellect and knowledge? Misinformed, deluded, ignorant, and I’m sure you have many more word’s of a condescending nature in your arsenal. Perhaps you need to spew all of them out to get them out of your system; go ahead I’m listening and I hope that you don’t mind if I chew on a little hot buttered popcorn.

      • obfuscate99

        Really, it’s all organic?

        Well, that’s another error on your part. This time relating back to simple chemistry. Your effort couch your previous statements by choosing to make use of the chemical distinction of organic vs inorganic is exceptionally amusing.

        Why? Many of the inputs that are used as part of agriculture are clearly not organic, even by your own evasive definition. Given the dates I posted, along with the processes involved, your really didn’t spend much time on this one.

        Fortunately, it’s endlessly amusing to watch. How you’ve managed to try and wiggle out of one error by perpetuating yet another is quite the feat, I will give you that. As part of the bigger picture however, you keep getting tripped up whenever you try to use science to defend your position.

        You might want to consider the underlying cause for that.

        • Harold

          Ok teacher (you say that you are one) – define organic to the lowest denominator and explain how GMO is not Organic even to the bacteria etc. used to create it. Is it the “gold fleck” that dismisses everything? Explain to me what was used as a basis to create GMO. Where did they get the original gene to modify? I don’t need these answers but it would be indeed humorous to watch you explain it while trying to hold the integrity of your comment intact. Trying to sell the idea that a natural state is not the root of an altered state is in fact quite amusing to say in the least. Go ahead and obfuscate it. Then perhaps you can explain how Government ACTs, Codes, and Regulations are journals of science or scientific literature because that would also be just as amusing. Then please express how life is given without the combination of organic and the inorganic so that I may become fully amused. You can leave out the part about energy but go ahead and explain it if you must.
          I will take you seriously upon the day that you earn it and you might want to consider the “underlying cause” is not what you perceive it to be. You must be upset that I forget to mention your shiny lapel pin? Yes I see it and it didn’t go unnoticed.

          • obfuscate99

            Inputs, Harold. You’re forgetting about the inputs.

            The source of the gene? It depends on the trait in question. The source can range from within the same species, right up to a fully synthetic construct. The length of the genes can be as small as a few hundred base pairs, right up to artificial genomes for bacterial species, and whole chromosomes for eukaryotic species >200,000bp.

            A construct this long can contain quite a few genes, and due to the artificial nature of their synthesis and development, we are no longer beholden to the 4 deoxyribonucleotides that make up the genomes. Back in 2014, a plasmid was synthesized containing the synthetic nucleotides dSSICSICS and dNaM.

            As for the inorganic becoming organic, there have been monumental discoveries over the last decade. Starting with several possible synthesis pathways for the generation of all 4 ribonucleotides (not ribonucleosides, but the full nucleobase, ribose, and one or more phosphates), all while using a fully inorganic pathway (Powner et al., 2009).

            Also at around this time, the auto polymerization of these ribonucleotides under multiple conditions (Attwater et al., 2010). It’s been known for quite a while that the secondary structure of RNA produce molecules with enzymatic activity (ribozymes), and even the capability of replicating itself (Robertson and Joyce, 2014).

            It’s not yet at the stage where concrete conclusions can be made, but already it has been shown that all of the requires molecules can be synthesized de novo using nothing more than the environmental conditions. Those molecules can polymerize, and can even act to replicate themselves.

            The real kicker? Those ribozymes are affected by selection pressure via natural selection. As is the case for all living species.

            The inorganic on its way to becoming organic, with no additional inputs.

            Now, the question of how the ribozymes developed a membrane is still unknown, but we get closer with every discovery.

          • Harold

            Thank you. For once you are talking in a manner worthy of your education although I could have done without your comment about me forgetting about inputs.
            Natural state provides a cell that is totally functional and the inputs you describe are lab inputs on the way to producing a fully functional protobiont.
            You have described that “the question of how the ribozymes developed a membrane is still unknown” and this is something that you and I can agree upon.
            What that is ordered by an energy source cannot be called an input and the input cause a reaction? The energy source accepts your input or it does not. (Lab) The input ordered by the energy source creates the functional cell. Moreover, the world has a energy that creates the “DNA” and the ”RNA” or “HnRNA” if you will, that makes all that we can possibly see – possible. (a cell/vibratory state/energy) Back to basics, how far can the cell travel away from its host before it is no longer stimulated by the host and it implodes and disintegrates and the elements/water given back to nature? Being your student, perhaps you can remind me where the test took place and what equipment was used and what were the results. This led the way to the broader scope of how humans are interconnected in the same energy force/source and why we feel a loss upon another’s death and the energy loss produce a chemical reaction in the brain. (Study – Sidney Altman and Thomas Cech – in part among many other studies) Moving forward, what creates and what neutralizes the oxidative stress that affects the telomerase enzyme in a way that produces a cancerous state – commonly called in a broader term – inflammation? (I know – comment was scattered to save space) This is another unknown yet there are the many claiming to be the experts on the subject. What methods do you know of that when used it will reduce or eliminate oxidative stress; plants, gut bacteria, water, elements, and what else? Back to the nature of the article, I do not believe that glyphosate is a method and in fact believe it is just another stressor and that is where we part ways. There is not anything that is breathed, absorbed by the skin, or placed into the gut that does not have a measurable effect on the body. The effect can cause either health or sickness. If glyphosate is not consumed then there is nothing related to measure, and therefore I will not be the industries measurement regardless of their facts and data; the human guinea pig or the human long term lab rat. The only one who has something to fear and is naïve – is the lab rat. Pharmaceuticals are a leg of the chemical corporation and along with the many recalls due to their chemicals causing unforeseen patient injury and death, they do well enough to express the legalized human existence as being that of the industries lab rats. No doubt the chemical recalls were first approved with fact and data in hand, and as you say, fact and data were all that mattered; consequences not so much. I am not saying that this is a conspiracy because it is not. It is an ism that is clearly demonstrated that is not behind any closed doors or is made secret. For this we part ways but that does not mean that we have disagreed upon everything. We may have different scopes but they are interrelated and undeserving of dismissal. This time I’ve appreciated your comment and I thank you.

  • richard

    Thank you for being here and offering us your infinite insight….. it is most relevant in helping people understand how intellectual arrogance at high levels results in defective thinking and action …. The low brow bravado and browbeating of anyone who dares question the sanctity of reductionist science is worthy of psychology case study in narcissism…..Sorry, I never mentioned the anti GMO crowd….that is your unique obsession, nor did I double down on anything… also your cliché…..There’s no conjecture sir around salmonella tainted eggs in the UK during the 1980s as a result of feeding poultry excrement to hens, feeding sheep spinal tissue to sheep and scrapie…..feeding bovine spinal tissue to bovines and BSE… feeding BSE tainted meat to humans and CJD…. mastitis and bovine burnout from BST…all approved by the self same reductionist hubris you hide behind at science world…..and later eradicated by public outcry…. the, self same citizens you talk down to…. DDT, malathion, PCBs, dioxins. lindane, ractopamine, zilmax, ritual abuse of antibiotics in battery animal, neonics and finally glyphosate…. all approved through the hubris of reductionist science… and all either globally banned or about to be….all as a result of hitting the brick wall of natural law… the immutable matrix of evolution that rules everything you hold in contempt as you engage your troops in this absurd little war on nature…..a war you can never win….Its like trying to herd cats…..Please….get a helmet!

    • obfuscate99

      And once again, not even an attempt to counter the relevant data for the topic at hand, and instead a token shotgun approach towards the topic. You might be interested to read some of the contemporary research that actually was performed and published in relation to the topics you mentioned, as in almost every case, the research did identify these risks. Where the breakdown occurred was in the implementation.

      Take antibiotic antibiotic resistance: that’s what happens when the public demand that they be given unfettered access to them, both in human medicine, but also in agriculture. Over and over again, the public willfully ignores the science when it isn’t convenient, but is quick to cast blame when things go wrong.

      The UK salmonella epidemic: How odd, the epidemeology studies both at the time, and over the bast 30 years, seem to link it far more to the presence of the PT4 serotype, which was notoriously asymptomatic in many hens (Cowden et al., 1989; Angulo and Swerdlow 1999; Baumler et al.2000). How odd that you didn’t make any reference to this as part of your screed.

      Fortunately, this why we do publish our research. The public may dismiss it, but we do not.

      Given the overall metrics, I’m not worried, and based on the backlash that your side has generated in recent years, leading to multiple nations moving forward with the integration of biotechnology into their own agricultural sectors, when the constant bleating and fearmongering failed to materialize.

      Working from a position backed by the empirical data is always a pleasant experience. You should try it some time.

      • richard

        The topic at hand sir is the longest running PR disaster in human history and the abject failure of regulatory agencies using reductionist science to both rationalize and defend the ongoing litany of train wrecks generated by its own hubris…. It may surprise you but I will take you at your word about published warnings being ignored but if this is so, you have only reinforced my position the entire registry and regulation of agritoxins is sorely defective. Your condescension and contempt toward the citizens who underwrite your paycheck is symptomatic of a cult of aging white males who are increasingly finding themselves obsolete in a world that views all things with a much more systems based worldview…. The fact that status quo ignorance has led us to an agriculture that is a half a trillion dollar USD annual subsidy orgy is living proof that your desperate clinging to science as religion is an abject failure in the face of real world economics and ecological debasement….In fact, the prevailing delusion of 2050 feed the planet mythology is doing the exact opposite….desecrating the native agriculture in the developing world with first world commodity dumpling thus undermining local food production…..That’s my empirical data sir….. perhaps you might get you head out of your petri dish and study something other than yourself…..

        • obfuscate99

          And I can still just point to the empirical data surrounding this and state with confidence that methodologies and results are completely in keeping with the data to date.

          As for your comments on agricultural methods…yeah I’m just going to point to the yield gain and once again conclude that you’re living in a fantasy world where data only counts if it supports your position. It’s always amusing to see individuals go down this route, as the reversion to earlier methods is predicated on having a demographic shift back to late 19th or early 20th century levels. Good luck finding enough volunteers to pull that off.

          In the meantime, I’ll keep my focus on more effective methods to improve yields and overall nutrition.

          Oh, and your example of empirical data shows that you have no concept of it, since you seem to be conflating it with more emotional drivel.

          That’s actually a very good point to mention. Scientists are comparatively easy to convince of something, just show us the data. Show us how you gathered it, how you analyzed it, and how it supports your position.

          It’s so odd that you never seem to be able to do this, and instead fall back on emotional appeals as opposed to ones based on empirical data.

          Also I did have to laugh, as studying myself is quite literally one of the few things that I do not generally involve myself with. I’m far too involved with the comparative genomics work to focus on one individual.

          • richard

            Funny, for someone with no vanity you sure spend a lot of time posting of your statistical conquests and patronizing ad hominems…..And it still hasn’t crossed your radar that I never go for the lame bait…..However I am thankful for your presence here…..its a bit like shooting fish in a barrel….Its always easy to spot a specialist trapped in his turtle shell by his flight from complexity and his need to denigrate others opinions…. Your denial of the power of evolution in natural law is typical of the ivory tower hubris that drives ego based agriculture….You keep harkening back to yield increases as you metric for your personal success but you are totally oblivious to the fact that yield increases are not feeding eight hundred million undernourished citizens of the planet…. only feeding the cheap bad food paradigm in western cultures and the concomitant obesity, type 2 diabetes, nine degenerative digestive disorders etc. of normalizing bad health and better living through denial…. Evidently it is lost on you that five hundred billion USD annually in global as subsidies is the consequence of yield ideology run amuck…..Kill the subsidies and the entire technics of modern agriculture collapses like a cheap house of cards…..The voodoo economics of your peculiar theology is why agriculture habitually finds itself with its head stuck firmly up its ass, and is the sole reason why agribiz is incapable of having an adult conversation with its largest benefactor….the taxpayer…Its too bad your empirical observations are limited to your petri dish and your cubicle or some of this would not be lost on you…

          • obfuscate99

            So once again no causati8ve links, and only your desire to see the evil corporate presence smashed?

            To date you havnen’t been able to produce a causative link, which might work with a scientifically illiterate public, but utterly fails when it comes under the gaze of actual scientists.

            It really is quite simple, show evidence of a causative link between the bevy of conditions you link with GMOs and modern biotech, and the observed instance of those conditions. For literally decades now, this has been the simple bar for you and your ilk to meet, and yet, nothing has resulted.

            To be sure your side has shown no issues with using studies that fail to meet OECD or GLP guidelines, but even then you’ve failed to produce any causative data.

            That should be your concern, and the fact that it isn’t speaks volumes about the strength of your position. In any other field, the anti-biotech side would be chomping at the bit to present their data…but your side has not.

            Perhaps you should consider the reasons for that?

          • richard

            Nope, no evil corporates, no anti biotech, that’s all your little obsession….but I think we both know someone who is working for them???? I appreciate your time here….you clarified three key things for me….1/ There is no accountability or teeth in the registration or regulation of agri toxins 2/ That objective science is an oxymoron and conflict of interest runs institutionally rampant 3/ In the marketplace of public opinion regulatory bodies are held in low esteem, ….In spite of all your proclamations and visceral anger….the public just aint buyin it…. It kinda reminds me of the old adage that theres nothing more pathetic than a man who having come by his ignorance the hard way….holds in utter contempt those who came by theirs without any effort…. and he’s no better off for it…. The ongoing growth in environmentalism and the hundred billion dollar trade USD in organic food will continue to frustrate those in subjective science as they rail against the evils of rationality and the marketplace…..

          • Denise

            Legitimate researchers and scientists have no problem revealing their true identities and allowing others to read their comments and research findings.

          • richard

            Correct….Those who can….do….Those who cant….obfuscate. Your input is always welcome!….cheers Denise

          • obfuscate99

            And again, no causative association anywhere in your babbling. Why is that always the case with you Luddites?

            Oh, right! There’s no evidence of any causation at the ADI levels.

            You really need to think outside your own backyard…of course I can see why you wouldn’t want to. You and your ilk have cried wolf far too often, and now biotech is expanding into regions that historically have had no interest or intention of entering into this aspect of the marketplace. Asia, Africa, South America, even the bastion of the EU is showing cracks as the predicted doomsday never arrives.

            It’s rather odd how you measure success with regards to organic farming. After decades on th market, and immense marketing initiatives, organic sales remain a tiny fraction of the overall market. I always have to laugh when the OCA touts their vast growth…but those percentages are only so large because the overall market share is minuscule. As a result hearing a 10% market share increase would be amazing if organic represented 50% of the market, but when you’re hovering in the single digits even after decades, well it’s not quite as impressive.

            Regardless of the metric you use, acres planted, overall yield, market share; the story is the same. It’s a small fraction of the total industry and market.

            It’s always so much fun dealing with the scientifically illiterate public. What is really amusing is that, every year, more GE varieties enter into the market, and from the current submissions for the 2018-2019 growing season, you poor dullards are going to have another bad year.

            Conversely, GE technology has see rapid adoption, to such an extent that the engineered varieties hold the overwhelming majority of planted acres.

            Having a seat at the table when it comes to contributing to the body of knowledge is wonderful experience…and it’s also one that you will never have. You can continue to tilt at windmills, but you’re already far too late.

          • richard

            Sooo…. the GM heeler in the lab cloak of “science” has revealed himself……quelle surprise!……and after all the forgoing mini lectures on scientific integrity and technocratic vigilance….And of course now the dam opens on the scientifically illiterate and the luddites…. how cliché. And those big mean organic farmers stealing market share from forces of absolute truth?? The fear, loathing, and envy is sooo played sir….and really speaks to your insecurity…. Its funny how with all your success at GM world that you find time to come over here and slum it with the luddites…..I might suggest you take a serious look at the Worldwatch file I pulled just for you….. It will give you some insight on how the whole universe of GM is based on taxpayer largesse through subsidy addiction…..and why it too will hit the brick wall of natural law through the intrepid forces of entropy….. Good luck pushing rope…..and don’t forget to keep obfuscating?

          • obfuscate99

            Still no data showing a causative association at expected exposure levels?

            How off that you’ve never once been able to point to the research showing this.

            …oh wait! It doesn’t exist, so you truly are tilting at windmills.

            I’m not here for you, or Denise, or Harold. Individual such as yourself, you’ve already reached a conclusion, and even when the monumental idiocy of that conclusion is pointed out, cognitive dissonance allows you to keep believing in big bad conspiracy.

            Now, the other readers who decide to read the comments. Those who haven’t made a decision and are genuinely curious and wanting to learn; those are the reason why I post.

            You, you’re a lost cause, and little more than a source of amusement, but the citations and data that I have provided is there for anyone who desires it.

            Absolute truth? What a childish concept. Absolute truth requires perfect understanding of a given topic…and you’ve abundantly shown that you certainly don’t qualify.

          • Denise

            The organic market is growing very quickly! Your faith in the GMO/pesticide industry will be tested!
            Blind faith is dangerous to your health.
            These industry con men watch the shifting sands of consumerism and markets,very closely. What they preach can be altered, at any time, to keep their bottom lines fat.
            If you want to lead the parade, with such assuredness, you better keep checking behind ,every now and then, to make sure these shape shifters are still there,marching to the same tune.

          • richard

            a little food for the informationally challenged….www.worldwatch.org/agricultural-subsidies-remain-staple-industrial-world-0

  • obfuscate99

    And there’s the problem with your side. I am not basing my statements on faith, it’s based on the empirical data obtained through repeated experimentation. Did you miss the OECD 453

    studies that I posted a while back?

    With one exception, they were fully compliant with experimental design and analysis. The anit-GMO crowd hasn’t managed to do this even once. In fact, when we look at the researchers who claimed to have followed the protocols, their own materials and methods show this to be false. Insufficient sample size, non-standard techniques or methods used, insufficient power of analysis, and most amusingly, given how your side repeatedly cries collusion, massive conflicts of interests.

    Faith doesn’t factor into the decision. It’s all based on the data.

    • Denise

      I’d gladly read your paper but ,apparently, you don’t want anyone to follow your comments, for some reason. All I find is the “Deal With It” sign. Hmmm…?

      • obfuscate99

        Oh no, no, no … . Those aren’t my papers in the slightest. The actual ownership depends on the individual policies of the journals, along with the original authors.

        Here they are, and all of them are in this thread, and were provided in a direct reply to you.

        – Cheminova, 1993
        – Feinchemie Schwebda, 1996
        – Excel, 1997
        – Arysta Life Sciences 1997
        – Chruscielska et al. 2000
        – Syngenta, 2001
        – Nufarm, 2008

        … It was almost two weeks ago now…and in all that time, not a single rebuttal to any of these.

        How strange. It’s almost like your beliefs have no empirical backing …

        Now back to those studies. In every case except for Excel (1997) these studies were performed according to OECD 453, and all of those have a Klimisch rating of 1 for reliability.

        Do yo want to have some fun? Take a look at the experimental design used in these studies, and then compare it to the BS that Seralini tried to pull back in 2012.

        Why is it that I can cite multiple studies to support my position that follow the established toxicology protocols, yet the anti-GMO crowd always manages to screw this up?

        Have another chronic feeding study, (Zeljenková et al., 2016).

        And another one from the same group, which served as an initial observation for the natural population variance, (Zeljenková et al., 2014).

        Once again, it’s just so odd that when the scientists use an appropriate sample size and the correct analytical techniques, over and over again, there’s no significant between treatment and control groups, no dose response detected, and where calculated, the NOAEL and LOAEL findings are all in keeping with the literature.

        Please keep spewing the usual conspiratorial nonsense. I’ll just be over here with the mountain of supporting data for my position.

        By any chance did you attend the Society of Toxicology Conference last year? No? Aww I guess that’s why you missed their revised statement for GMO safety.

        The key conclusion: “Collectively,
        data to date have identified no evidence of adverse health or
        nutritional effects from commercially available GE crops or from the
        foods obtained from them.” (SOT Council, 2017)

explore

Stories from our other publications