U.S. glyphosate verdict puts agriculture on trial

Courts are increasingly being used as a tool by a variety of anti-commercial agriculture organizations to improve their public profile and drive fundraising. Such seems to be the case with a US$289-million award to California groundskeeper DeWayne Johnson in a recent U.S. decision involving glyphosate.

Juries understandably can have difficulty sorting fact from fiction, science from dogma.

This particular jury was tasked with deciding whether Johnson’s terminal, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma developed as a result of his use of Roundup (which contains glyphosate) for two years. Key to the outcome, and what made it different from other challenges related to the safety of glyphosate, is that lawyers presented scientific arguments about Monsanto’s corporate support of its product and the business processes behind it.

Compared to the plight of a dying father of three, no corporate position about a herbicide will strike emotional chords, let alone a position involving a chemical that has long been embattled in the court of public opinion.

Science was on trial when the jury in the Johnson case awarded $289 million, saying the company failed to disclose the hazards of Roundup.

Over its 40-year history the herbicide has been the target of many groups, many of them with intent to eliminate advanced biological science in agriculture and food production and end larger-scale commercial agriculture.

Despite a constant barrage of lawsuits, protests and public relations attacks, glyphosate remains one of the most popular and safe herbicides on the planet, registered in about 130 countries and subjected to the greatest public scientific scrutiny of any crop product in history.

Despite the science behind it, competing interests have fanned the flames of consumer doubt and soured the public well of social license.

Selective reporting has convinced many lay audiences and potential juries that glyphosate is dangerous to human health.

Last year’s American National Institutes of Agricultural Health Study looked at 55,000 farmers and pesticide applicators in the United States. More than 80 percent had used glyphosate for many years. No link to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was found.

No lay jury could pick through all the science and choose which concepts were more right than others. However, it might be able to look upon the preponderance and quality of evidence supporting glyphosate and develop a conclusion that something this well studied is likely safe.

That’s not what the Johnson case was about.

Now a variety of groups are jumping on this refueled anti-science bandwagon.

For example, they are releasing analysis of glyphosate presence in oat products at less than 1/60 the levels that are allowable in food and claiming these present a risk to consumers. They are using the Johnson decision as ammunition.

More lawsuits have been filed about glyphosate and more scare tactics will result.

In the process, these lawsuits will threaten agriculture and food systems and place a financial chill over biological research and development in the sector.

Agriculture and science will not be getting a fair trial any time soon.

Karen Briere, Bruce Dyck, Barb Glen, Brian MacLeod and Michael Raine collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.

Comments

  • richard

    Interesting now that Bayer has nixed the troll room at Monsanto, that the sudden hush of mercenary bravado and vitriole on these and other pages has been replaced by journalists and academics both of whom have drank the Kool aid for forty years…. and both of whom find themselves trying to defend status quo ignorance with half truths and victimization. The “fair trial” is exactly what the perpetrator is receiving…..and is living proof that humans will always do the right thing…. but only after all other possibilities have been exhausted.

    • Solar Surfing

      It is absurd to suggest any corporation would pay a single penny to trolls two full years after the GMO safety debate became settled science. They won the battle and what you have seen since then is science respecting commenters like me who are fed up with seeing our hard working farmers insulted as they put in 14 hour days to feed us. https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2016/05/gmo-safety-debate-is-over/ It is this fact that encourages the army of Russian trolls to work harder than ever to spread discord. They are extremely active on Youtube, just look at the RT channel to see the next major Russian attack on the US that will be banned from social media.

      • ROBIN

        Are you aware that the Alliance For Science has been financed with over 10 million dollars from the Gates Foundation for the purpose of finding more effective propaganda to push the biotech agenda?

        • Solar Surfing

          Yes, I’m proud of that Seattle resident’s efforts that have saved millions of lives and will save millions more. And thank you for using MS software that supports the effort when you buy it. Oops, I see this thread is now infected by the Turd Miner troll’s 15 sock puppet accounts, This will be my last comment here, …

      • richard

        …..”after the GMO debate became a settled science” ??? “settled science” is an oxymoron and flies in the face of those seeking truth (real science). To think you have some superior knowledge on the fate of GM technology, is false…..It fails on so many levels, but the biggest one is that it costs too much and returns too little.

  • ed

    The courts are a new kind of Go Fund Me service,…….Oh, Ok! Now we are throwing the courts under the bus. These companies and their followers will go to great lengths defending the profiteering of putting poison on you baby’s breakfast cereal. Wow!

    • AgSciGuy

      I don’t see were application to breakfast food on the label. The ppb residues are harmless. If you enjoy scaring yourself, try a horror movie.
      Actually, a real horror movie would be needing to rely on organic farming to provide all our food and fiber needs.

      • Goldfinger

        There is no safe dose of glyposate. It has been found to cause breast cancer cell growth at part per TRILLION concentrations. 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.

        • AgSciGuy

          There is a safe dose!! The “magic-molecule” theory of toxicology is a sign if ignorance.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Please tell us why you think these facts are a sign of ignorance. Glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor that works at the cellular level. It has no safe dose. Only acute toxins have a safe dose and often those toxins build up in the body over time and create damage. Glyphosate a chronic toxin and it circulates in the human biology for about 30 days.

      • ed

        … When the world is producing 10 times more calories annually in the form of grains than the human population of the earth could eat in a year, at three squares a day for every man, women and child, it is easy to understand how organic farming can easily provide safe food as opposed to. Is it as profitable for the people that believe in pyramid power???… No!

  • Hi OPE,

    Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.

    I live on an acreage in rural Saskatchewan. I rent some of my land to a farmer who farmed canola last year, some kind of wheat this year. All my neighbours farm.

    I play hockey with farmers, I’m on the local volunteer fire department with farmers and I’m a first responder, too.

    My community would be accurately described as a “farming community.”

    Glyphosate is in use all around me, by all these friends, neighbours and acquaintances.

    If glyphosate DOES cause cancer, should’t these people, and possibly even me, be the ones most affected?

    It’s only my anecdotal evidence, but I can assure you I see no cancer epidemic among the people in MY farming community.

    Is it possible glyphosate IS safe to use when used as directed?

    Cheers,
    Paul – WP web editor

    • Sheryl McCumsey

      Interesting. I hear different from many farmers.

      • Solar Surfing

        Your anecdotal claim is trumped by this farmer who works on this unbiased site and moderates the thread. As well as this massive long term study of 54,251 US farmers who have the same cancer rates as the general public while working with glyphosate daily: https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/doi/10.1093/jnci/djx233/4590280
        You can’t touch this…….

        • Cletus DeBunkerman

          That was a cohort study. Cohorts are poor to midrange at best. They also need to be replicated before they are considered good science. About a third of the study participants could not be found to take the telephone surveys that the studies used for data. What happened to the health of all those people?

          Monsanto toxicologist, Donna Farmer said this about this study in internal Monsanto correspondence. “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

          Dr. Chadi Nabhan is an oncologist who serves as medical director of Cardinal Health and has 17 years of clinical practice and academic research focused on lymphomas says, “There are so many flaws in this study that it’s impossible to draw any conclusions,” he said. He shrugged off the updated analysis is “an updated analysis of an already flawed study.”

          This study is not a reliable indicator of glyphosate safety.

      • ed

        Yes, there actually is an epidemic. Science is better than anecdotal evidence unless it is lies being pushed out as science, which because of the love of money factor, is pretty much where we are solidly at more of the time than not.

  • RobertWager

    Health Canada review of glyphosate

    The overall finding from the re-examination of glyphosate is highlighted as follows:

    Glyphosate is not genotoxic and is unlikely to pose a human cancer risk.

    Dietary (food and drinking water) exposure associated with the use
    of glyphosate is not expected to pose a risk of concern to human health.

    Occupational and residential risks associated with the use of
    glyphosate are not of concern, provided that updated label instructions
    are followed.

    The environmental assessment concluded that spray buffer zones are
    necessary to mitigate potential risks to non-target species (for example, vegetation near treated areas, aquatic invertebrates and fish) from spray drift.

    When used according to revised label directions, glyphosate
    products are not expected to pose risks of concern to the environment.

    All registered glyphosate uses have value for weed control in agriculture and non-agricultural land management.

    All comments received during the consultation process were
    taken into consideration. These comments and new data/information
    resulted in only minor revisions to the proposed regulatory decision
    described in PRVD2015-01. Therefore, the PMRA is granting
    continued registration of products containing glyphosate with
    requirements of additional label updates to further protect human health
    and the environment.

    To comply with this decision, the required
    label changes must be implemented on all product labels sold by
    registrants no later than 24 months after the publication date of
    Re-evaluation Decision RVD2017-01, Glyphosate.

    https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/consumer-product-safety/reports-publications/pesticides-pest-management/decisions-updates/registration-decision/2017/glyphosate-rvd-2017-01.html#a1

    • S.G.

      See, the thing about Health Canada is that they go by what the industry is claiming and telling them. Reviewing something means nothing. They do not do their own independent studies ever.

      • Solar Surfing

        Reviewing something can mean quite a lot. Our Canadian friends were smart enough to review the fraud Seralini’s studies and reject them.

        • ROBIN

          All that shows is how captured and corrupted our institutions have become as they support the industry agenda and ignore science that has been peer reviewed multiple times and is available for citation in the scientific literature today.

          Seralini has won two defamation lawsuits from people who have defamed him …

        • S.G.

          Except that, Seralini’s studies are NOT fraudulent so Health Canada is wrong again.

          • Solar Surfing
          • ROBIN

            The Alliance for Science is financed by more than 10 million dollars from the Gates Foundation for the purpose of coming up with better propaganda to support the biotech chemical industry agenda. The Gates Foundation held 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock as well.

          • Solar Surfing

            Thank you for reminding readers of the generosity of the worlds foremost philanthropist. And thank you for supporting his work financially by using MS software.

          • Rob Bright

            “Alliance for Agrochemical Corporations” would be a much more accurate and honest name for them…

        • Sheryl McCumsey

          There are plenty of Canadians who do not reject the 750 studies illustrating harm with this technology. As far as Health Canada goes-I have a letter that says sodium cyanide is harmless to wildlife while this is exactly what farmers use to kill wolves. Nothing like contradicting yourself. That kind of thing is the tip of the iceberg. OH-and “conditional registrations” are interesting-in those cases Health Canada did not even expect science to be submitted lol! I doubt the moderator will post this but there you go.

    • ed

      If it is that healthy, maybe it should be added to our bottled water and breakfast cereal, baby formula and the like to enhance those products health benifits even more. Can ‘t hurt, right.

      • Solar Surfing

        Can’t hurt, or help when not used to kill weeds.

        • ed

          Have you seen the interview where the Monsanto representative said, “glyphosate is so safe that you can drink it”. The interviewer said to him……”We have some here, we can get you a glass full if you wish”, to which the rep. said, “no I don’t want to actually drink It, what do you think,….I’m stupid”. “But you said”, went on the interviewer, at which point the Monsanto rep. promptly called off the interview and walked out. Wow…not to polished at that task.

          • Hi Ed,

            I’ve heard this story told many, many times.

            A person’s unwillingness to drink something is hardly “proof” it’s dangerous, or even harmful.

            Check out the #IfItsSafeThenDrinkIt hashtag on Twitter for hundreds of examples – vinegar, mouthwash, dish soap, maple syrup, laxative, etc.

            A story from Forbes provides a little more info about the “If it’s safe then drink it” video:

            https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2015/03/27/no-its-not-safe-to-drink-weed-killer-on-camera-but-who-cares/

            My 2¢ worth…

            Cheers,
            Paul – WP web editor

          • Duncan DeBunkerman

            My browser blocks the video and says the link is not secure. Doesn’t really matter because the piece is industry spin. Not something I would believe with out having it double sourced from legitimate sites.

          • ed

            But the Monsanto guy lead with, “it is so safe that you can drink it” before he refused and said, “of course I am not going to drink it, do you think I’m stupid”. Hmm…

          • Solar Surfing

            Correct, and he was ambushed during a faked interview that was supposed to be about golden rice benefits. Clearly the major offenders in the video were the malicious activists. The Farmer’s Daughter site also exposed the whole ‘dare to drink it’ as a childish prank regardless of the substance in question: https://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2015/03/throwback-to-childhood-if-glyphosate-is-so-safe-then-why-dont-you-drink-it.html

          • ed

            He offered to drink it, and he did not drink it. That is a childish prank as you implied, yes.

          • Solar Surfing

            [Not true]. Watch the video. He did not “offer to drink it”, he said it is safe enough to drink in an interview that was supposed to be about golden rice, which is not glyphosate tolerant. This was a setup. He was given no chance to prove that fact because the glass was instantly whipped out from under the table by the activist impostor. It was not poured or mixed in his presence. The fact that we can drink it is about the field strength mix of a very modest 10 dry ounces mixed in 500 gallons of water for an full acre treatment. All suicide attempts using field strength glyphosate have failed. 3 out of 4 attempts using concentrate fail as well. Table salt is 43% more toxic to humans than glyphosate. Imagine 10 ounces of salt in 500 gallons of water – few people could even taste that. Caffeine is 200 times more toxic to humans. We know pure caffeine powder has been purchased by mail order and those kids died, that was in the news this year. But one cup of coffee is no more toxic to humans than one cup of field strength glyphosate.

          • ed

            Safe enough to drink, but unwilling to prove it. There is science for you. He probably does drink the far more dangerous coffee everyday however. Hmm!

          • Solar Surfing

            If you have to see a guy drinking it that video link was posted here. But this is a childish conversation and premise which I also proved with my citation from Farmers Daughter.

          • Solar Surfing

            Watch the video. He did not “offer to drink it”, he said it is safe enough to drink in an interview that was supposed to be about golden rice, which is not glyphosate tolerant. This was a setup. He was given no chance to prove that fact because the glass was instantly whipped out from under the table by the activist impostor. It was not poured or mixed in his presence. The fact that we can drink it is about the field strength mix of a very modest 10 dry ounces mixed in 500 gallons of water for an full acre treatment. All suicide attempts using field strength glyphosate have failed. 3 out of 4 attempts using concentrate fail as well. Table salt is 43% more toxic to humans than glyphosate. Imagine 10 ounces of salt in 500 gallons of water – few people could even taste that. Caffeine is 200 times more toxic to humans. We know pure caffeine powder has been purchased by mail order and those kids died, that was in the news this year. But one cup of coffee is no more toxic to humans than one cup of field strength glyphosate.

          • Solar Surfing

            I just double checked 8 different Youtube videos of the same ambush interview. They are all edited to exclude the physical act of the interviewer pulling a clear water glass filled with a completely clear liquid out from under the table. The Producer moderator tried to add a statement in brackets that my comment was not true that he was actually handed a glass of an unknown liquid but I saw it happen in several of these videos several years ago before they were edited. THAT was the reason he walked off. Probably due to a legal action, all the videos were forced to edit that glass out. This one goes completely black one second before the jerk pulled out the glass: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXbaE0zE-hk

          • Solar Surfing

            The fact that we can drink it is about the field strength mix of a very modest 10 dry ounces mixed in 500 gallons of water for an full acre treatment. All suicide attempts using field strength glyphosate have failed. 3 out of 4 attempts using concentrate fail as well. Table salt is 43% more toxic to humans than glyphosate. Imagine 10 ounces of salt in 500 gallons of water – few people could even taste that. Caffeine is 200 times more toxic to humans. We know pure caffeine powder has been purchased by mail order and those kids died, that was in the news this year. But one cup of coffee is no more toxic to humans than one cup of field strength glyphosate.

          • Rob Bright

            When they claim it is safe to drink, it is highly suspicious when the claimant refuses to put his money where his mouth is, and then makes the comment: “I’m not an idiot!”

          • Solar Surfing

            Who was polished? What he thought was a legit interview turned out to be an activist ambush. He was handed an UNKNOWN LIQUID not poured in his presence. NOT walking off would be the blunder. Here a guy drinks a glass of Roundup live on camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8sgEhpHM4k

          • ed

            Yes, you should never drink or eat something if you do not know what is in it or how it was produced. Letting someone tell you what it, how it was handled or that it is safe thru dialogue or labelling simply is not good enough. We need to respect everyone’s right to walk away or question, correct? Is this what you are saying? It appears to be what you are saying.

  • Solar Surfing

    Only a coincidence. And Bayer gets no immunity from lawsuits.

    • ed

      Actually they are very immune to lawsuits. They have lots of money and will run you out of yours unless you have more than they do. That lends an almost bullet proof immunity to lawsuits. That is just the way the law works 99.9% of the time. It doesn’t matter who’s right. Everyone knows that. Money talks!

      • Solar Surfing

        No absolutely not. Just think about what you are saying here – if Bayer had immunity and since Monsanto no longer exists, how is it that 4000 shyster lawyer cases are lined up for a day in court? [You are] not even aware of the huge financial judgment against Bayer in that California court last month. What do you have to say for yourself in light or the gigantic ruling against Bayer that just happened in a system you claim completely protects Bayer from litigation??????????

        • richard

          How about…..”what goes around comes around” or…..thats “poetic justice” or…..”what tangled web we weave…..” or….”hoisted on their own petard” or “I guess thats the beginning of the end for Bayer”. ??????????

          • Solar Surfing

            How about…. behaving like an adult and admitting you were wrong? You skipped that part and went directly to trite sayings.

          • richard

            What did they think they were buying into….. the local church bake sale? When two deeply compromised entities climb into bed together, one of them is going to get……”punctured”? Perhaps they Should have “looked the gift horse in the mouth” first?

          • Solar Surfing

            And when Ted Miner cooks up 15+ sock puppet accounts, an extreme abuse of Disqus, and the thread moderator lets him hijack the thread, no civil factual dialog of any kind can be offered to Producer thread readers. … I now defeat you with your kryptonite, the single most powerful debate ending GMO safety citation of all time – full global consensus on GMO safety: http://www.siquierotransgenicos.cl/2015/06/13/more-than-240-organizations-and-scientific-institutions-support-the-safety-of-gm-crops/

          • Solar,

            I consider only the comment itself, not the author of it.

            If the comment doesn’t violate any of the WP’s rules (foul language, insults, potential libel, etc.) I post it.

            How would you suggest I improve upon this system? Deciding which comments should be posted, and which should not, based upon the names of their authors seems like a huge step in the wrong direction to me.

            It’s always my hope that thoughtful and knowledgeable readers will choose to share their thoughts and wisdom within this forum. This is obviously not always the case.

            But my personal agreement/disagreement with anyone’s opinion is never used as the basis for my decision to post/not post.

            Cheers,
            Paul – WP web editor

          • Solar Surfing

            Paul – thank you for the reply but you are making a huge blunder by ignoring the big picture. The fact the Ted Miner infection exists and is here severely disrupting your thread should be very obvious. I have been defending the integrity of our hard working farmers and peer reviewed science for over 6 years and have seen this issue go unchecked in many hundreds of GMO related threads. You have several highly educated sincere honest regulars who visit your site frequently who will all agree with me that this infection DOES EXIST and is easily spotted by three clues – locked comment history, no profile statement and a TRULY OUTRAGEOUS VIRTUALLY IMPLAUSIBLE comment to upvote ratio. This troll is deeply obsessed with upvoting its own comments. This troll is hated internationally, until recently there was a tracking site for it in Australia. The GLP, PBS and Mother Jones are three of the many sites which have banned the Ted Miner troll. It uses IP spoofing and has to be identified by the 3 clues I listed. Google it to see lots of examples or just watch your threads. Depending on how your Disqus is set up this attack usually evolves into massive flagging of any comments the troll does not like, it can get many comments removed by flagging them 15 times, this can even result in automatic banning of civil commenters due to flag abuse by this notorious troll. Please look for the pattern and you will see the abuse unfold in each of your GMO related threads unless you take action.

          • Thanks for that information.

            I see plenty of flagging of completely innocuous comments, but as far as I’m aware our Disqus set-up will NOT automatically remove anything no matter what arbitrary threshold is crossed.

            Obviously my preference is to foster discussion here that is constructive, civil and ultimately enlightening, as opposed to just a mud-slinging match, which seems to be more often the case.

            At the same time, I’m hopeful that the real farmers and ag professionals here are able to see that there IS a group of people out there that will work tirelessly to force their agenda, whether it has scientific merit or not.

            This group may be small, but they are real, and it’s my personal opinion that farmers and others actually involved in agriculture ignore/dismiss them at their peril.

            Looked upon in this light, it’s my hope that even wildly-inaccurate, yet passionately-held, beliefs can be somewhat informative.

            Cheers,
            Paul – WP web editor

          • obfuscate99

            Hello Paul,

            Unfortunately, what Solar is writing is very likely true. The various accounts have grown over the years, but they all share some vary distinctive phrasing, tone, and of course, the propensity to all appear on a given thread to both upvote their own comments, but also down vote any position that counters to their own.

            The label of Ted was applied to them, as one of the earliest, and only identifiable individual accounts belonged to an individual named Ted (I won’t post the full account openly, so as to avoid any issues relating to doxxing).

            I should note that, to date, there is not enough evidence to state that the individual behind all these accounts is actually named Ted, but I have run several stylometric analyses on the accounts back in 2017 (as such they do not include accounts that were created after this), and the unique phrasing found in these accounts, is both consistent (including grammitical errors), and also so unique that the only uses of them indexed by the major search engines are from these accounts, or individuals pointing out the similarities to others.

            The evidence is sufficient for these accounts to be the writings of a single individual, or a group of individuals using a shared script.

            About 3-5 years ago, a group of individuals did set up a honey pot to identify this type of account, and the results forwarded to Kevin Folta. He has indicated that he has the information but has not shared any of it, so I cannot couch for the validity of them.

            As a note, these analyses were performed using open source (JGAAP, and Stylo R) as well as proprietary software used under license from my institution (normally used to detect plagarism in undergraduate assignments…and unfortunately graduate student theses at times). The really unfortunate part is that, as I am not tenured, revealing any specific personal details is not a good plan given the degree of harassment faced by.others.

            About the only thing that you can do is ensure that you or another mod/staff member either ensure that posts cannot be sent to moderation based on the number of down votes and/or flags, as well as being ready to check any post that does get flagged.

            You’ll see that they will almost invariably be in support of GE safety and the toxicity studies done to date, and will coincidentally have the same group of posters down voting and/or flagging the comments.

            This post is mainly for information purposes. If you wish to remove it, I will take no offense, but if you could indicate that it has been read, I’d appreciate it.

          • richard

            Paul I am sure this is not lost on you, but it seems that your thread is the only one that maintains a certain level of decorum, kudos to you!….. …

          • richard

            Who in the world is Ted Miner? Is it anyone who does not view the world through the lens of reductionist science? If yes then the planet is in good hands. I’ll take the side of the generalist over the specialist any day….. After all in evolution “specialization leads to extinction” (R Buckminster Fuller)

          • Rob Bright

            Pro-agrochemical/ biotech industry spokespeople will use any and every excuse they can think up to discredit any comment and commenter that questions the integrity and efficacy of GE technology. That is their job. It’s quite blatant, and shamelessly obvious. (Industry clearly needs to do a better job of recruitment…)

          • richard

            Well put…. but how do you recruit for a sector built on false truths? Thirty percent of the worlds food wasted and another thirty percent to feed meat addiction is a disingenuous premise for more of the same “feed the planet” nonsense. What we are doing is defacing the planet based on a science completely devoid of the ability to self critique, while condemning anyone who dare question the sanctity of reductionist illogic and hides behind the conspiracy card anytime the heat gets too intense?

          • richard

            Sorry don’t even know who ted miner is….. and I guess your global consensus doesn’t recognize Europe as part of civilization? The reason GMO fails is not because of safety but because it is built on the sophistry of feeding the planet, when in fact global industrial agriculture requires five hundred billion dollars USD of life support annually (CATO Institute, Washington DC 2017) to mitigate overproduction and depressed commodity prices. Agribiz hubris….now thats kryptonite.

        • ed

          Let me know when the payment gets completed on that one. A couple more of them and there will be no Bayer. Hope Monsanto got paid. Oh, and by the Way, I am not sure that Bayer has 4000 shuster lawyers. It may be considerably less than that.

          • Solar Surfing

            I said shyster lawer CASES. They advertised on late night TV the way you sell vacuum cleaners. This will be appealed into oblivion. The next case just started in Missouri, a farming state. Don’t expect the same outcome as that liberal California jury made.

          • ROBIN

            It is interesting to note that the so liberal California jury was like better educated and equip to understand the scientific evidence than the judge was. Six of the jurors had science degrees; eight of the jurors had graduate degrees, two jurors had Ph.D.s. One juror was a genetic engineer who had already had an intimate knowledge of the mechanism of action of glyphosate resistance in genetically engineered plants. With such an attentive and intelligent jury, it cannot be said that their verdict was ‘obviously and clearly wrong.

          • Solar Surfing

            … I’m saying exactly that and it seems I was correct. Plus you have no citation for the claimed education levels of the jurors, it is unlikely.
            Like I have said many times, science truth always wins in the end. “Bayer AG won a tentative ruling slashing the lion’s share of a $289 million verdict in the first trial over claims that Roundup weed killer causes cancer and a judge is considering a new trial on whether the company is at fault for an ex-school groundskeeper’s illness.
            A San Francisco state judge indicated ahead of an oral hearing on the company’s challenge to the August verdict that she’s inclined to set aside $250 million in punitive damages against Monsanto, which Bayer acquired this year. The ruling could shift momentum in the company’s favor as it defends against thousands of U.S. lawsuits.
            Superior Court Judge Suzanne Ramos Bolanos said that even if she doesn’t vacate the punishment damages, she “would grant a new trial on grounds of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the award for punitive damages.” She also questioned whether the evidence introduced at trial supports the jury’s conclusion that Bayer was liable for plaintiff Lee Johnson’s non-Hodgkin lymphoma based on his exposure to the key ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate.
            If the company can persuade the judge to erase or slash the nine-figure verdict — the first case to go to a jury among 8,700 people in the U.S. who blame the popular herbicide for their cancer — legal experts say some plaintiffs may be less eager to pursue their claims.”
            From Bloomberg news, also reproduced by the GLP. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/10/11/glyphosate-cancer-case-appeal-judge-inclined-to-set-aside-250-million-of-damages-order-new-trial/

          • Byron Smith

            The GLP is not considered a reliable source for balanced accurate information. You can read the trial documents that have been posted on line that show Robin’s claims about the educational level of the jury is accurate and factual.

          • Solar Surfing

            The GLP earns a *highly reliable* rating from this site: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/genetic-literacy-project/

        • ed

          Rare, but justice as you say “can” happen.

  • Solar Surfing

    False. Science proves that glyphosate does not and can not bio-accumulate, therefore there can be no cumulative result. We piss it out as fast as we take it in, like excess salts. What farmer’s money? If anything it is ORGANIC FARMER funded efforts that caused these lawsuits. The organic foods cartel disinformation campaign is 30 years old, their fear mongering labeling campaigns were a face plant fail and the outcome of these lawsuits will vindicate GMO science forever, guaranteed. Science truth always wins in the end. http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Markets/The-organic-food-industry-has-been-engaged-in-a-multi-decade-public-disinformation-campaign-claims-report?utm_source=copyright&utm_medium=OnSite&utm_campaign=copyright

    • Goldfinger

      Not true.

      Monsanto studies show that 30 to 35 % of glyphosate is well retained, the beta half-life of which is 7 to 14 days. That means glyphosate can circulate in your biology for about a month. Of the 30-35% approximately better than 1% bioaccumulates in all tissues highest in the bone and bone marrow. Monsanto found glyphosate caused statistically significant achromatic lesions in bone marrow over the experiments solvent controls …. The balance of the glyphosate is passed in the excreta i.e feces and urine. Some glyphosate does metabolize, 6 metabolites were found as well as 4 additional new synthetic amino acids which can also metabolize. Carcinogenic N-Nitrosoglyphosate was found to increase over glyphosate fed residues, as were others. Bottom line is that the retained glyphosate is also responsible for the destruction of the cells of glands, organs and tissues. Destroy the cells of the glands and organs and it directly affects functionality and this leads to numerous diseases

      The scientific journal Entropy, it was stated: “Contrary to the current widely-held misconception that glyphosate is relatively harmless to humans, the available evidence shows that glyphosate may rather be the most important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases and conditions that have become prevalent in Westernized societies.

      • Solar Surfing

        Completely false and an extreme activist lie … What I asserted is absolutely positively 100% proven peer reviewed fact by studies not made by dishonest activists employed by organic farmer money. You provided no link for your claimed Entropy statement so that never happened. In contrast, I now provide 7,100 peer reviewed GMO safety studies on a single index page: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleListURL&_method=list&_ArticleListID=-1216388386&_st=13&filterType=&searchtype=a&originPage=rslt_list&_origin=&_mlktType=&md5=ecd6efff755b29e00ade55da49342c7f

        • Duncan DeBunkerman

          You link doesn’t go where you say it does.

          • Solar Surfing

            Thank you for the correction. It was close but didn’t have the search word GMO entered. And guess what, they added 1000 more results! Now 8,100

      • Solar Surfing

        Completely false … … What I asserted is absolutely positively 100% proven peer reviewed fact by studies not made by dishonest activists employed by organic farmer money. You provided no link for your claimed Entropy statement so that never happened. In contrast, I now provide 8,100 peer reviewed GMO safety studies on a single index page:
        https://www.sciencedirect.com/search?qs=gmo&show=25&sortBy=relevance

      • obfuscate99

        “Monsanto studies show that 30 to 35 % of glyphosate is well retained…”

        That’s not what the findings were, … In regards to the 14C feeding trial: “Following a single oral dose of 14C-glyphosate, 30 to 36% of the dose was absorbed, less than 0.27% of the dose was eliminated as CO2 /and 97.5%/ of the administered dose was excreted in the urine and feces as the parent compound, glyphosate.”

        Where does this indicate that 30-35% is retained? Considering that 97.5% of the TOTAL DOSE was excreted, …

        Here’s a direct quote from the 1993 R.E.D. Facts publication from the EPA: “3 In one metabolism study with rats, most of the glyphosate administered (97.5 percent) was excreted in urine and feces as the parent compound…”

        Oh, and I’ll just add this in as well, as they also looked at repeat doses to see if the was any bioaccumulation. The findings: “Less than 1.0% of the absorbed dose remained in tissues and organs, primarily in bone tissue. Repeated dosing at 10 mg/kg did not significantly change the metabolism, distribution or
        excretion of glyphosate.”

        Gee, look at that, something that you claim bioaccumulates that doesn’t show any increase after repeat doses. Care to explain how a compound that doesn’t increase in concentration after repeated doses is capable of bioaccumulation? …

        • Cletus DeBunkerman

          What study are you referring too here?

          • obfuscate99

            MRID 40767101, and 40767102

          • E. Sandwich

            You are looking at the wrong studies.

            The study that Goldfinger is referring is not that study. He is talking about the Monsanto trade secret study that has been exposed under FOIA request. It is the Lankas & Hogan study. Here is some data from that study that shows glyphosate causes cancer.

            https://oehha.ca.gov/media/dockets/8594/8767-anthony_samsel/glyphosate_lymphoma_female_rats_1981.pdf

            The EPA allowed Monsanto to hide that study as a trade secret just before the approved glyphosate over the objections of their own staff toxicologists.

          • obfuscate99

            No, that’s the correct study, and it was referenced in both the 1991 and 1993 EPA documents (Original MRID: 00093879). They do not state anything close to what you’re alluding to …. Samsel has been quite dishonest in regards to this, as the quotes that I supplied, are just that, direct quotations from the studies, as well as the EPA filings, and decisions.

            Did you fail to notice that the table you linked to has no data relating to absorption, retention, or bioaccumulation. In fact, based on the data presented in that table, along with the known sample sizes, there’s very little support for any dose effects, as the incidence rates seen in the treatment groups are in keeping with the know information regarding the rat line.

            Oh, and let’s not forget that the original 1981 publication was performed prior to the adoption of the OECD protocols as the international standard, hence the reason why Monsanto repeated the work using the OECD-453 protocol in the 90’s.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            E. Sandwich has posted the facts. … The data is from Monsanto. It is very clear the malignant lymphomas were found only in the treated animals and found in fourteen different types of tissue. The controls animals did not have any.

    • ed

      Actually the organic “movement” is hundreds if not thousands of years older than the first designed chemicals. Truth always wins as you have said.

      • Solar Surfing

        … Everyone reading here knows we are discussing the certified organic crowd. If we are going to cite ancient history, fine, but in that case a GMO is defined as every single breeding activity performed by humans over the same thousands of years. …

  • walleyeman

    since when are 12 jurors, who likely have never heard of glyphosate before getting into the court room more knowledgeable that scientists about its effects.
    The scientists certainly can’t confirm one way or the other.
    But 12 people off the street do?
    It will be appealed.

    • Solar Surfing

      GMO is one of the most heavily studied topics in science. Before the trial began there were already 11,000 peer reviewed GMO safety studies finding no cancer connection. The scientists can absolutely positively confirm that glyphosate is not a cancer causing agent but no one anywhere can ever confirm or deny that Johnson’s specific case was or was not caused by chemicals because cancer is a very dominating randomness factor not predictable by science.

      • Duncan DeBunkerman

        Apparently, you think you know more than Monsanto about glyphosate as a carcinogen.

        Monsanto’s strategies for whitewashing glyphosate have been revealed
        in internal e-mails, presentations and memos. Even worse, these
        “Monsanto Papers” suggest that the company doesn’t even seem to know
        whether Roundup is harmless to people’s health.

        “You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen,” Monsanto
        toxicologist Donna Farmer wrote in one of the emails. “We have not done
        the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.”

        • Solar Surfing

          An alleged email we do not have a link to here. Activists like Ted routinely make up their own official looking documents, then claim they were ‘discovered’ in an archive somewhere. In all cases the sum total of alleged Monsanto memos and internal studies are a tiny fraction compared to the 11,000 peer reviewed verified published non-activist GMO safety studies from hundreds of different sources around the world. My repaired link to 8,183 of those studies on a single index page: https://www.sciencedirect.com/search?qs=gmo&show=25&sortBy=relevance Then there is the matter of the entire worlds sum total of all safety, health and technical organizations that all assert that GMOs are safe and useful: http://www.siquierotransgenicos.cl/2015/06/13/more-than-240-organizations-and-scientific-institutions-support-the-safety-of-gm-crops/ Only the discredited IARC and Russia do not agree. So now all readers here can observe that I have seen Ted’s single un-linked unverified alleged email and raised him by global consensus two times over, with two links of proof that I’m not lying. [drops mike]

          • Byron Smith

            So are you saying that Monsanto toxicologist Donna Farmer doesn’t know what she is talking about when she says that “You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen,” … “We have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.”?

          • Solar Surfing

            What I am saying is she is one person, opposed to 11,000 GMO safety studies and the global consensus of all 284 health and safety organizations that all agree GMO crop science is safe and useful: http://www.siquierotransgenicos.cl/2015/06/13/more-than-240-organizations-and-scientific-institutions-support-the-safety-of-gm-crops/

          • Duncan DeBunkerman

            She may be one person, but she is a person who is a Monsanto toxicologist,and she says that no studies have been done that show glyphosate is not a carcinogen. There is no valid reason why she would lie because the facts she stated actually hurt Monsnato’s case in court. …

  • walleyeman

    Meanwhile thousands will eat out at restaurants today and eat Talipia fish.
    Chances are these fish were produced on a fish farm.
    This is a food i will not eat again after i read about it.
    They feed it animal feces as a food along with other undesirable things.
    I have read that in eating one serving of this fish that it takes 9 months for the body to expell the fishes toxins.
    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/tilapia-fish#section4
    So people what is safe.

    • Solar Surfing

      … I refuse to believe you have not heard of the gigantic night and day difference between US and Asian grown farmed fish. In all cases 9 months is an absurd un-provable myth for eating any organic matter but theoretically heavy metals could take that long to clear, assuming we are talking about polluted Asian fish ponds. Asia does have food safety certification agencies that reduce your chances of getting tainted fish but I trust US based fish farms and USDA facility inspections far more. Thailand has the cleanest seafoods, farmed or wild, of any Asian importer because food exports are their bread and butter, they can’t afford to mess that up. Our US grown trout, catfish, tilapia, caviar, lobsters and clams are all clean and wholesome, safer than wild caught for numerous reasons, especially when considering parasite infections or red tide toxins. Catfish nuggets(trim pieces) are a real bargain I eat every week, rich tasty protein and beneficial oils for under $3/lb can’t be beat, plus they are incredibly efficient and therefore sustainable with only 1.3 pounds of grains required to produce one pound of fish flesh.

  • Solar Surfing

    That’s the old delayed reaction GMO bogeyman. Yawn…. 100% absolute safety can not and has never been proven for anything we eat or drink. Even the purest water can kill you.

    • ed

      Indeed.

  • AgSciGuy

    Very little portion of glyphosate is used as a desiccant!!!

    • Goldfinger

      Tell us how all that glyphosate contamination in cereal grains and legumes gets there then. The contamination has been well documented. Obviously, glyphosate is widely used to dry down crops a week or two before harvest.

      • AgSciGuy

        Levels are below safe standards that were determined with SCIENCE!!!

        • Wally

          Show us that science. I don’t believe your claim.

          • AgSciGuy

            EPA obviously believed the claim.

          • E. Sandwich

            The EPA is the captured and corrupted institution that allowed Monsanto to hide their own science that shows glyphosate causes cancer just before they approved it over the objections of their own staff toxicologists. Please explain and show us the science the EPA used to set these “safe” contamination limits.

          • richard

            ….And why were those limits raised at least twice over the past ten years?

          • E. Sandwich

            Exactly .. not only that, the limits were raised arbitrarily with no science to support the increase.

          • richard

            Then how is it possible that “safe standards were determined by SCIENCE” ….(AgSciGuy WP/2018) ?

          • obfuscate99

            The OECD-compliant studies. …

            In the case of chronic toxicity, you’ll be looking for OECD-452 or 453 studies, which I have alrady provided previously, but it won’t hurt to do so again.

            In Rats:

            – Feinchemie Schwebda, 1996: Klimisch Rating 1
            – Arysta Life Sciences, 1997: Klimisch Rating 1
            – Syngenta, 2001: Klimisch Rating 1
            – Nufarm, 2009: Klimisch Rating 1

            and Mice:

            – Cheminova 1993: Klimisch Rating 1
            – Arysta Life Sciences 1997 (18 Month): Klimisch Rating 1
            – Feinchemie Schwebda 2001 (18 Month): Klimisch Rating 1

            These finding were used to establish the NOAEL and/or LOAEL.

            Determined by science, …

          • AgSciGuy

            Yes, and the lunar landing was fake!!!

          • SUNNY

            Please post the science that supported the decision to raise the level of glyphosate contamination in foods. Posting it would prove your claims. I don’t think it exists.

          • AgSciGuy

            That data is submitted to the EPA and FDA to review. I don’t have access to it nor will I waste by time doing data searches for [others]…

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            So you can’t support your claims with actual citations.

          • obfuscate99

            Griem et al., (2015, DOI: 10.3109/10408444.2014.1003423) provides the data for a whole host of OECD-452 and 453 compliant studies (rat, mouse, and dog, I think).

          • Wally

            Are you aware that Griem was one of the scientists mentioned in the Monsanto internal documents that said Monsanto used Griem when they wanted a review that supported their agenda?

          • obfuscate99

            Are you aware that unless you can fault the data or analyses used, the source has no bearing on the validity of the results?

            That is one of the reasons why standard protocols exist. If a study is falsified, replication of the results becomes a near impossibility unless the same modifications are made every single time. In the case of the studies listed in Griem et al., (2015), were they all conducted by the same group, or even in the same nation?

            Not at all, as the labs cover countries in North America, Europe and Asia.

            Care to guess who does have issues with data replication?

            The anti-biotech researchers, who I note, have not managed to run a single OECD-452 or 453 compliant study in over twenty years.

            In the case of Seralini et al., (2012), the EU and its member nations commissioned multiple studies to see if there was any truth to the pathologies reported, even though the study was retracted (GRACE, G-TwYST, GMO90Plus).

            Not a single one of these studies, which unlike Seralini, managed to adhere, not only to the OECD guidelines, but also the additional stringency required as part of the EFSA’s revised testing methodology.

            So, can you actually rebut the data, …

          • razorjack

            The study is junk science. The author and the journal look very dodgy these days. Have you anything else beside the junk pseudo-science?

          • obfuscate99

            Do you have any OECD-452 or 453 compliant studies to refute any of the ones listed in Friends et al., (2015)?

            As these don’t exist, and you cannot find any fault in the data or in the analyses …

            It’s so odd that, when I was at the 2017 SOT conference, not a single researcher indicated that there were any issues with the OECD protocols for chronic toxicity, and several talks did delve into their current use.

            Of course that was also where another discussion regarding the society’s stance on GMO safety would be updated.

            Did you read the updated stance?

            Funny how yet another group of scientists go with the data, and not your … worldview.

          • obfuscate99

            Note: Friends et al., (2015) should be Griem et al. (2015).

          • Duncan DeBunkerman

            What makes you think that anyone would want to waste their time even reading Monsanto’s ghost written junk science? I’ll pay attention to the legitimate ethical science and ignore the cooked industry pseudo-science, thank you.

          • obfuscate99

            The SOT members, myself included certainly did. As did the EFSA,Health Canada, FDA, USDA, AAAS…actually hundreds of groups. They’ve also been cited by multiple professional organizations, and regulatory agencies.

            You ignore the legitimate science, as that includes the OECD-compliant studies, such as those included in Griem et al., (2015). The simple fact is that you’ve bought into a lie, and don’t have the knowledge or training to distinguish good science from bad.

            You look at the results, and only choose to accept what meshes with your beliefs, and create a grand conspiracy to discount the overwhelming amount of data that shows you are wrong.

            I also note you haven’t brought any issues with the data presented.

            The fact that you can’t find an OECD-compliant study should be a big red flag, but it’s not the data you care about.

          • Byron Smith

            OECD is an international organization that is involved in trade agreements. It is a political body. You keep using that term like a religious symbol while the fact is, we don’t need political organizations making judgements on the quality of science.

          • obfuscate99

            The OECD protocols were developed after repeated analyses by all the major signatory nations. They represent and are composed of an internationally recognized and accepted standard that, based on the current and historical, data have the highest degree of resolution and accuracy that currently exists. Additionally, the protocols are updated as new technology, techniques, and analytics are developed, as has been the case since the standards were first adopted in 1981.

            The input for these tests are the result of the combined experimental results from academia, industry and government labs, and is very much based on the input and experimental results found in the primary literature. In the case of the oral chronic toxicity protocols, the latest revision was in June of this year (2018), tasking into account revisions to Guidance Document 116.

            As a result of the continued generation of data, and constant inquiry, studies that adhere to these standards show extremely high reliability scores, with results that can, and have been repeatedly replicated over the years.

            Even the Klimisch score (a reliability metric used by the EU REACH Regulation, as well as North American, Oceania, and Asian nations), finds that, when the protocols are adhered to, they almost invariably earn a rating of 1, indicating that the data and conclusion derived from a study are highly reliable.

            So can you actually find fault with the protocols, or are you just going to keep banging on the conspiracy drum? …

          • Duncan DeBunkerman

            All the organizations that you cited are regulatory organizations. They are political organizations not science organizations. The AAAS board of directors is dominated by biotech chemical industry aligned scientists. It was that board not the AAAS membership who was not polled before the directors released their press release. Fact is, many regulatory agencies have been captured and corrupted by the industries they are supposed to be regulating. That is why the “allowable” glyphosate limits in the food supply were created without any science to support them. I’ll pay attention to the legitimate ethical science and ignore the cooked industry pseudo-science, thank you.

          • obfuscate99

            The fact is that you’havent provided any OECD-compliant data to support your position, and only provide conspiratorial allegations.

            So long as the data was generated and analyzed, the source is meaningless.

            So ican you offer a rebuttal? Do you have any OECD 452 or 453 studies that share your conclusions?

          • Wally

            I am not going to waste my time rebutting the data for a study that was ghost written by Monsanto and published by another scientist because Monsanto didn’t want to be identified as the study author.

          • obfuscate99

            So you don’t have any compliant data to support your position.

            As to any ghost writing, where is the information provided wrong? All the studies that were examined, back the conclusion ns that glyphosate has no adverse effects at exposure levels at or below the ADI.

          • AgSciGuy

            Actually, Griem et al has a study that found no adverse effect from glyphosate: Critical review in Toxic 45:185-208.

          • obfuscate99

            …I know that.

            It was my point, as it lists multiple OECD-452 and/or 453 studies which found the NOAEL is far higher than the ADI.

            This is the second time you’ve made this error with my posts.

          • richard

            …..Which of course is why maltsters and oat processors will not purchase barley and oats desecrated with glyphosate.

          • richard

            Did I say desecrate? I really meant dessicate…. sorry, my Freudian slip.

          • Denise

            The EPA has lost it’s credibility and can’t be trusted to make impartial decisions on these important matters.
            Unfortunately, we are living in an era of corporate controlled governments
            Corporations matter more than people, nowadays.
            EPA is tainted by political interference and powerful interests.
            Drink the kool-aid if you like it but don’t be suprised when other people say “No thanks”.
            It is a matter of survival of the fittest” and best informed ” as to who will survive this assault on our food supply and the environment.
            More and more people are starting to see the light. More consumers are demanding chemical-free and healthy food. Equally important ,more people want a toxin- free environment for their families to grow up in.
            The increase in many childhood diseases and children born with birth defects is too hard to ignore, anymore.

          • AgSciGuy

            Here is one to get you started: Evaluatingthe carcinogenic potential of glyphosate . . . Greim,H, etal. 2015. Crit rev Toxic 45:185-208. its ieven online free at http://www.tandfonline.com

          • obfuscate99

            Sorry, the system won’t let me edit the previous post.

            As a FYI, Griem et al., (2015) is not a study, it’s a review article. It’s a small distinction.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Greim is the scientist Monsanto employees named in their internal correspondence. They said that Greim was a scientist that they have used to create studies that support their agenda. Greim review is junk science created from cherry picked studies.

        • Rob Bright

          You mean the safe standards that the EPA keep raising every time weed resistance and adaptation to glyphosate becomes problematic…?

    • Jay Stuckey

      AgSciGuy – And where did you pull that assertion from?
      I see it every year all around me.

      • AgSciGuy

        Sounds like a real scientific study. How much of the glyphosate actually is translocated into the grain?

        • Byron Smith

          The contamination is high enough that it has become a serious health threat.

        • Rob Bright

          About as scientific as the editor’s (admittedly, anecdotal) comment above, eh?

  • AgSciGuy

    The environmental-fear industry puts their profits and fame ahead of what is best for children and society.

    • richard

      you mean like cancer and autism…..and bafflegab from vested interests?

      • AgSciGuy

        Cite the studies showing connections between glyphosate and autism or cancer.

        • richard

          Cite the studies saying they don’t.

  • ed

    And now the scientific community is proving that it is killing bees. That is a big concern as pollinators actually are what keeps life on the planet going. Not real good!

  • Denise

    Here’s the true account about Seralini’s work and how Monsanto attempted to smear his reputation. and find flaws in his studies. It didn’t work.
    mp3one.bid/watch?v=GqKXk07Delw

    • Denise,

      Your link doesn’t work.

      Cheers,
      Paul – WP web editor

      • Denise

        I tried to fix it but it was too late.
        Google: “Summary GMO Studies By 25 Year Expert Researcher”
        Thanks for letting me know.

        • Solar Surfing

          Oh you mean the Youtube quack! Well first of all, the number 25 has virtually no weight, dozens if not hundreds of career scientists pass the 25 year mark and don’t use that as a basis for a Youtube click bait video title. Here is a comment made about his quackery recently in the video’s comment thread: “Krimsky violates the Seralini Rule! “In the second part of his paper Krimsky focuses on the poorly regarded work of Pusztai and of Seralini, carefully omitting some of the more damning details about their work.
          Pusztai was asked to evaluate some experimental genetically modified potatoes, and reported that they damaged the stomach lining of rats. After an investigation by his employer, the Rowett Institute, found that his data did not support his conclusions, he was fired. However, Krimsky does not note what Chassy and Tribe have pointed out: the potatoes Pusztai used were an experimental and unapproved variety, and that the rats were fed uncooked potatoes, which are always harmful to rats. Moreover, two expert panels concluded that no scientific conclusions could be drawn from his work. Pusztai has become an anti-GMO activist, travelling the world giving scary talks, but has not carried out any further science.
          Professor Giles-Eric Seralini has published a number of papers critical of GMOs, and their confusing style and lack of rigor have been criticized long before his rat tumor paper. However, when Seralini published his 2012 paper, scientists immediately began criticizing its small sample size, lack of double blinding, animal mistreatment, and unsupported conclusions: Sprague-Dawley rats develop tumors anyway, which is why they are suitable for 90 day experiments but not 2-year experiments.
          Krimsky notes that Seralini revealed his association with CRIIGEN, a French anti-GMO organization he headed, but did not mention that Seralini’s work was sponsored by Carrefour grocery chain and the Auchan retail group who wanted to promote their new line of organic (non-GMO) products.” https://foodscienceinstitute.com/2015/08/27/krimskys-illusory-consensus-is-itself-illusory/

          • obfuscate99

            Seralini’s study can be used as an example of how not to design an experiment. He claimed to be basing it on the OECD-453 protocol, but then decided to not bother with the parallel carcinogenicity portion of the study.

            This was a huge red flag, as the OECD-453 protocol clearly states that:

            “It should be noted that this number is lower than in the chronic toxicity study TG 452. The interpretation of the data from the reduced number of animals per group in the chronic toxicity phase of this combined study will however be supported by the data from the larger number of animals in the carcinogenicity phase of the study”

            Right from the start, he should have known that his sample population wasn’t large enough to differentiate treatment effects from background noise.

          • Solar Surfing

            It’s even simpler than that – his entire operation is funded 100% by organic farmers. His entire ‘lab’ is a fraud.

          • obfuscate99

            Try not to use that as a reason. At least not immediately. If you keep the reasons for why his studies are garbage focused on the experimental design and analyses, that’s very much a statement sole based on empirical values, and is much more difficult to discredit, as opposed to a subjective accusation that, based on a relationship between any organization or individuals.

            Notice how the Ted patrol can only fall back on these types of tactics, as they don’t have a leg to stand on in regards to the actual methods used.

            For Seralini et al., (2012), his power of analysis was utterly insufficient to differentiate between treatment effects and background noise.

            For Mesnage et al., (2017), they only used an even smaller sub population, didn’t bother with over half of the normal diagnostic techniques used, and of course, neglected to mention that none of the purported conditions were noticed in the 2012 study.

            Focus on the methods that they use. The really amusing part is that, they continue to make the same basic errors, mainly relating to power of analysis. That’s something that you screw up once, and then fix your mistake, and never do it again.

            Seralini and his bunch continually screw things up. At this stage, and given the long history of these kinds of errors, it’s no longer looking like an innocent error.

    • Solar Surfing

      And here is the ENTIRE WORLD’S OPINION THAT GMOS ARE SAFE AND USEFUL (intrinsically rejecting the Seralini quack’s research funded by organic farmers) as endorsed by virtually every major health, safety and technical agency on the planet, minus Russia and the IARC. 284 [two hundred and eighty four] agencies on one page, hyperlinked for your convenience: http://www.siquierotransgenicos.cl/2015/06/13/more-than-240-organizations-and-scientific-institutions-support-the-safety-of-gm-crops/ Yes this is the mother of all GMO safety citations, the global consensus. You can’t touch this.

  • Solar Surfing

    Your first two sentences were correct, The rest was childish garbage. Monsanto no longer exists and its Roundup patent expired way back in 2000, There are 63 brands of glyphosate herbicides sold in the US, over 700 globally. The Monsanto name is only on three of those brands, China sell the most glyphosate.

    • ed

      Yes, Monsanto way very clever when the generics came in. They endeavored to completely saturate the generic market so that they had all the generic sales and profits from their Chinese company partners, all the while throwing everything into touting the advantages of all the high end Monsanto roundup products. Net result…Monsanto got virtually all the glyphosate sales no matter be it low cost, mid grade or fully warranted high end product. Cool, clever, caniving and profitable. It is not well known, but standard practice for the big boys.

      • Solar Surfing

        … un-provable conspiracy theory. Here is a scan of an open catalog listing 63 brands and manufacturers of glyphosate herbicide in the US: http://www.simsfarm.com/images/E0162301/GlyphosateProductComparisons.pdf Inspection will reveal I was correct, only 3 were brands of the former Monsanto. China sells the most glyphosate by far. Note the generic brands make little money because they are so much cheaper. You can go to the nearest Walmart right now and see brand name Roundup for $13/gallon with sprayer wand vs. generic for only $3.99/gallon with trigger sprayer. I have used two gallons of that discount stuff in the last 4 years and it works. …

  • Solar Surfing

    Based on what exactly? Kidneys are expressly designed by evolution to do one thing well – pass out excess water and salts. Nothing about glyphosate compromises that function. Again ed upvoted his own comment, a very lame practice, and 12 of his remaining upvotes are from a single Disqus abuser or cheater, whichever description you deem fits better.

  • Solar Surfing

    “25 year Expert Researcher” is a meaningless phrase, Did you really think you could type that without including a link and have it hold weight??
    Tell us which of these scathing debunkings of Seralini are secretly owned puppets of your boogey man Monsanto which no longer exists by the way:
    https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-seralini-gmo-study-retraction-and-response-to-critics/
    https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/seralini-gmo-article-vindicated-by-courts-absolutely-not/
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/09/25/scientists-smell-a-rat-in-fraudulent-genetic-engineering-study/#2b1ca4d51ff1

  • walleyeman

    a 12 person jury, who had likely never heard of glyphosate before this court are now smarter than scientists.
    I personally know a person who works as a scientist for the government and he told me there is no evidence that glyphosate is harmful or cancer causing.

    • obfuscate99

      That’s what will come up in the appeals. During civil trials involving personal injury, the plaintiff tends to fare far better if they try to make an emotional appeal to the jury, as opposed to one based on clinical facts.

      When the plaintiff’s legal representation made it a point to exclude potential jurors who had formal educations in science or medicine, it became pretty clear that this would be the strategy they would be using.

      During the appeals, there is no jury, and the 3 panel (or full circuit), judges are far less likely to accept an emotional argument, and will be asking far more questions relating to the data supporting both sides.

  • richard

    ……or the fraud Monsantos studies and reject RBGh in Canada…..

  • Solar Surfing

    Within a couple years this whole thing will blow over as science truth always wins in the end. It will be appealed into oblivion and the facts will be respected, full global consensus that GMO crop science is safe: http://www.siquierotransgenicos.cl/2015/06/13/more-than-240-organizations-and-scientific-institutions-support-the-safety-of-gm-crops/

  • obfuscate99

    Actually, Seralini did enough to discredit his stud all on his own. His claim that it was based on the OECD-453 design is not reflected in the methodology that was used for the retracted 2012 study.

    The key element was the failure to follow the directions relating to the size of the sample population for treatment and control groups.

    OECD-453 is a combined carcinogenicity and chronic toxicity study, and both parts must be performed in order for the chronic toxicity data to be analyzed.

    This is clearly stated in paragraph 19 of the protocol where it states that, in regards to the number of animals used in the chronic toxicity portion of the study:

    “It should be noted that this number is lower than in the chronic toxicity study TG 452. The interpretation of the data from the reduced number of animals per group in the chronic toxicity phase of this combined study will however be supported by the data from the larger number of animals in the carcinogenicity phase of the study.”

    In addition to this basic element, Seralini also ignored the additional requirements for sufficient power of analysis outlined in Guidance Document 116. Once again, this was explicitly stated in paragraph 19:

    “Further information on statistical design of the study and choice of dose levels to maximise statistical power is provided in Guidance Document No. 116 (7).”

    Seralini did not perform the carcinogenicity phase, and flipped between stating that he wasn’t performing a carcinogenicity study, while also stating that he lacked the resources to perform such a study.

    These excuses are quite moronic, as there is already a standalone protocol for determining chronic toxicity, OECD-452.

    Rather than adhere to the gold standards, and general GLP, he produced a worthless study, that groups like the EFSA, FDA, Health Canada, even the IARC indicated that it was not usable.

    If the study can be eviscerated solely based on the methods used, that’s not dirty tactics.

    When it comes to dirty tactics, that’s so on Seralini’s head:

    1. Holding a press conference prior to publication where you make the reporters agree to not discuss the study with other scientists, thus ensuring that the scientifically illiterate masses will latch onto it as some kind of mythical aegis.

    2. Publishing photos that are purported to show the treatment effects in the study…but don’t include the control groups…who had the same pathologies, as do 80% of SD rats after 18 months.

    3. Having the retracted study republished without having it go through a new round of peer-review.

    Oh, and of course there was the whole detail that he’s been a consultant for Sevene Pharma for years, particularly as it relates to their, I kid you not, homeopathic detox for glyphosate (Digeodren).

    He’s a fine upstanding addition to the anti-GMO debate…actually I mean this seriously. His continual failure to follow even rudimentary GLP has been quite helpful to show just how poorly the studies cited by you and your ilk are.

  • obfuscate99

    Actually, Seralini did enough to discredit his study all on his own. His claim that it was based on the OECD-453 design is not reflected in the methodology that was used for the retracted 2012 study.

    The key element was the failure to follow the directions relating to the size of the sample population for treatment and control groups.

    OECD-453 is a combined carcinogenicity and chronic toxicity study, and both parts must be performed in order for the chronic toxicity data to be analyzed.

    This is clearly stated in paragraph 19 of the protocol where it states that, in regards to the number of animals used in the chronic toxicity portion of the study:

    “It should be noted that this number is lower than in the chronic toxicity study TG 452. The interpretation of the data from the reduced number of animals per group in the chronic toxicity phase of this combined study will however be supported by the data from the larger number of animals in the carcinogenicity phase of the study.”

    In addition to this basic element, Seralini also ignored the additional requirements for sufficient power of analysis outlined in Guidance Document 116. Once again, this was explicitly stated in paragraph 19:

    “Further information on statistical design of the study and choice of dose levels to maximise statistical power is provided in Guidance Document No. 116…”

    Seralini did not perform the carcinogenicity phase, and his excuse that he lacked the resources, or that he wasn’t performing a carcinogenicity study are utterly moronic, as there is already a standalone protocol for determining chronic toxicity, OECD-452…which again, would have required far larger treatment and control groups.

    Based on Guidance Document 116, when using Sprague-Dawley rats in a two year study, about 65 rats per gender per treatment should have been used.

    Rather than adhere to the gold standards, and general GLP, he produced a worthless study, that groups like the EFSA, FDA, Health Canada, even the IARC indicated that it was not usable due to the abysmal design and analysis.

    If the study can be eviscerated solely based on the methods used, that’s not dirty tactics.

    When it comes to dirty tactics, that’s so on Seralini’s head:

    1. Holding a press conference prior to publication where you make the reporters agree to not discuss the study with other scientists, thus ensuring that the scientifically illiterate masses will latch onto it as some kind of mythical aegis.

    2. Publishing photos that are purported to show the treatment effects in the study…but don’t include the control groups…who had the same pathologies, as do 80% of SD rats after 18 months (and why using Winstar Han rats would be a better model).

    3. Having the retracted study republished without having it go through a new round of peer-review.

    Oh, and of course there was the whole detail that he’s been a consultant for Sevene Pharma for years, particularly as it relates to their, I kid you not, homeopathic detox for glyphosate (Digeodren).

    Contrary to the anti-GMO playbook, his findings have been utterly debunked. While the design defficiencies…and a simple power of analysis calculation are more than enough justification to dimiss it as bunk, the EU and EFSA did in fact look into this.

    Three projects we’re commissioned to see if there was any merit to Seralini’s findings, GRACE, G-TwYST, and GMO90Plus.

    GRACE wrapped up in 2016, and both the other two finished earlier in 2018.

    …and not a single one of Seralini’s findings were observed.

  • AgSciGuy

    So obviously consuming even a single molecule of a substance that is toxic at an extremely high dose is extraordinarily dangerous. I’ll ponder that the next time I drink coffee or beer.

    • Rob Bright

      Any reasonable person with a basic understanding of toxicology knows that it is chronic toxicity we should be concerned with when discussing agrochemicals — not accute toxicity. It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that if an agrochemical were accutely toxic it would not be used to grow food. It is the long term exposure to small doses over a long period of time that people are concerned about. Why do you continue to obfuscate and misdirect people with your spurious arguments over accute toxicity?

  • AgSciGuy

    It is actually interesting that people have been unsuccessful in attempting suicide by drinking glyphosate and atrazine.
    They would have a better success rate using ethanol or caffeine.

  • Hi Byron,

    I generally remove most references to “Ted Miner” in the posts made on the WP site, and I have only limited knowledge about who “he” is supposed to be.

    If you have a specific instance where you feel a post is potentially libelous I would appreciate you sharing it with me.

    If you don’t feel comfortable doing that in this forum you can reach me via email at paul.yanko@producer.com

    Of course I am aware of the efforts put forth by people/groups on BOTH sides of various issues to skew opinion in their favour.

    As I stated in the rules you reference above, I concern myself mostly with the content of the comments, not the authors of them.

    Furthermore, I conduct little to no research into the IP addresses of those who post here, though that information is available to me. I have many other responsibilities here at the WP, and I do not have the luxury of putting much effort into researching who may have more than one account.

    Instead I rely on simply moderating each and every comment that comes in – if the comment meets the fairly low thresholds the WP has set forth for language, potential libel and general civility, I approve it.

    Perhaps it’s worth noting that I DO allow some leeway on these rules when it comes to posters who engage “passionately” with others. I generally allow those posters to “give” as much as they “get,” within reason of course. Though on occasion I may allow things to get a little carried away – and that’s my mistake alone.

    Please feel free to point out any specific instances where you feel I’ve NOT been equitable in my application of our rules.

    Cheers,
    Paul – WP web editor

    • Cletus DeBunkerman

      I am really surprised that you don’t see the accusations made against Ted Miner and other posters potentially libelous. There is no proof offered to support these claims, yet you allow this kind of defamation to be published here. I had admired the way you try to keep thing on a respectful basis here, but now it looks like you are showing your bias.

    • E. Sandwich

      Paul, the hypocrisy you have shown here is disappointing on so many levels. I thought you were better than that.

  • Cletus DeBunkerman

    Moderator.Please advise why you removed this truthful post.

    • Cletus,

      I simply hit “delete” on that post because I have a busy morning and that same copied and pasted comment has been posted, even here, hundreds of times.

      Please bring something new to the debate.

      Also, I think I’m feeling grumpy…

      Cheers,
      Paul – WP web editor

      • Rob Bright

        So you’re deleting valid posts now because you are “grumpy” or they’ve been posted already?? I hope you do the same when agrochemical industry spokespeople repeatedly cite the same antiscience, industry propaganda from industry front groups like the Alliance for Science…

        • Rob,

          I think if you look through the posts on this site you will find my moderation to be even-handed.

          Cheers,
          Paul – WP web editor

          • Rob Bright

            For the most part this is true, and I thank you for being somewhat “even-handed” as you say. But when you admit to deleting a post because you are “grumpy” or becauwse it has been posted before, I have to wonder how many more posts are deleted for these reasons. I see blatantly pro-industry comments repeated over and over without this same standard being applied. And I see your comments/ responses that clearly side3 with industry claims (of glyphosate safety, for example.) Would you not be forced to admit that just your pro-industry bias alone would be enough to skew the integrity of these threads?

          • Hi Rob,

            I have my beliefs when it comes to the subjects being debated here. And I don’t TRY to hide that, as you observed in the post you mention.

            What I do TRY to do is to allow anyone to post their thoughts here, whether they happen to jibe with my personal opinions or not.

            I think if you look at the volume of posts here you’ll have no choice but to agree that my personal opinions are obviously NOT skewing the discussions one way or the other.

            And deleting Cletus’ post simply because I was grumpy is not entirely accurate.

            The primary reason I deleted that post is because it was a copy/paste job that I’ve allowed literally hundreds of times before. Maybe I was a little hasty hitting the “delete” button today, but I don’t regret that.

            Saying the same thing over and over and over adds nothing to the debate.

            So, yeah, I was probably feeling a little grumpy at the time for being accused of allowing “sock puppets” to post or for not following my own rules – heck, I’ll be the first to admit I make mistakes here. I’m only human.

            But more often than not I try my best to stay out of these debates altogether – the WP (mostly, if not all, me…) has only 166 comments here since May of 2011. The purpose of this forum is not for Paul to have his say.

            So, do I have a bias? Yep, I do. Do I allow it to affect my “post/delete” decisions here? I would argue that I clearly do not.

            Bias is a much greater problem for those who refuse to see/admit they have one.

            I’ll continue to do my best to moderate this forum to the best of my ability. I’ll continue to allow any and all opinions to be expressed provided this is done so with civility and without personal attack. I’ll look out for potential issues of libel, and continue to delete any post containing foul language without so much as an inkling of a second thought.

            Cheers,
            Paul

          • Rob,

            I have my beliefs when it comes to the subjects being debated here. And I don’t TRY to hide that, as you observed in the post you mention.

            What I do TRY to do is to allow anyone to post their thoughts here, whether they happen to jibe with my personal opinions or not.

            I think if you look at the volume of posts here you’ll have no choice but to agree that my personal opinions are obviously NOT skewing the discussions one way or the other.

            And deleting Cletus’ post simply because I was grumpy is not entirely accurate.

            The primary reason I deleted that post is because it was a copy/paste job that I’ve allowed literally hundreds of times before. Maybe I was a little hasty hitting the “delete” button today, but I don’t regret that.

            Saying the same thing over and over and over adds nothing to the debate.

            So, yeah, I was probably feeling a little grumpy at the time for being accused of allowing “sock puppets” to post or for not following my own rules – heck, I’ll be the first to admit I make mistakes here. I’m only human.

            But more often than not I try my best to stay out of these debates altogether – the WP (mostly, if not all, me…) has only 166 comments here since May of 2011. The purpose of this forum is not for Paul to have his say.

            So, do I have a bias? Yep, I do. Do I allow it to affect my “post/delete” decisions here? I would argue that I clearly do not.

            Bias is a much greater problem for those who refuse to see/admit they have one.

            I’ll continue to do my best to moderate this forum to the best of my ability. I’ll continue to allow any and all opinions to be expressed provided this is done so with civility and without personal attack. I’ll look out for potential issues of libel, and continue to delete any post containing foul language without so much as an inkling of a second thought.

            Cheers,
            Paul

          • Solar Surfing

            False. Moderation is not seeing the forest for all the trees.

      • Cletus DeBunkerman

        The truth doesn’t change. I think it is doing a public service to correct disinformation, even when it is posted over and over again.

      • Solar Surfing

        I warned you about this infection of multiple sock puppet abuse and you ignored the heads up. Now you have to deal with it.

    • Solar Surfing

      … You used no citation links because if you did they would reveal quack fraud sources.

  • Denise

    I don’t doubt that genetic engineering has it’s place in some instances, perhaps. For example; removing a gene recognized for causing interminable harm and suffering. Even then, it is risky business.
    The unintended consequnces of meddling with a gene may not be detected for many generations to come.
    Scientists are people first and can be coerced by corporate industries to forgo the “Precautionary Principle” and jump on the gravy train. Arrogance plays a part. as well. The belief that they should be rewarded for all their years of hard work.
    Perfect example of being lead astray by corporate pressure is revealed by scientist author Caius Rommens in his book “Pandora’s Potatoes”.
    “The Creator of GMO Potatoes Reveals the Dangerous Truth.”
    sustainablepulse.com/20…

    • Denise

      Sorry, the links I tried to use didn’t work.

  • Denise

    This website takes you to the converstion with author of Pandora’s Potatoes- Caius Rommens
    sustainablepulse.com/…/the-creator-of-gmo-potaotes-reveals-the-dangerous-truth

    • obfuscate99

      See my reply to the previous comment.

    • obfuscate99

      Your problem is that none of that plays out in reality (also both your links are 404’s, I searched the site directly to fin the info).

      In the article, he does not support any of his statements with empirical data, and instead just uses all the right buzzwords to rile up the anti-GMO activists.

      Also, as this article was published in 2018, why does he ignore the fact that his 2004 publication was retracted in 2013 due to the fact that he made up the numbers for a good chunk of the study, and the retraction came about at the very same time that he left J R Simplot.

      Gee, I wonder if his issues with JR Simplot and Monsanto might have a different origin than what he presents in the non-peer reviewed book he’s peddling?

      Fortunately, that actually doesn’t enter into the equation when dealing with the science involved in this issue.

      When it comes to sources, I have no interest in books, blogs, of any mass media relating to science, and particular in relation to my own area of expertise.

      Anything produced for the layperson, is going to be flawed from the get go due to the findings being filtered through the author’s perception and biases. I do find it amusing that you decry scientists as being coerced, and then proceed to post and article that is nothing but someone’s opinion…and an unsupported one to boot.

      One advantage of having taken the time to accrue the education, knowledge, and experience needed to contribute directly in primary molecular research is that I can ignore all of the interpretation, and just go right to the raw data, and that is exactly what I’ve been doing in relation to this topic for over a decade now.

      If I come across a study where my analysis differs from theirs, I reach out to the corresponding author, and ask for clarification. 99 times out of 100, their reasoning is sound. For that 1 percent, I being my concerns to the journal editor.

      Before the accusations start, I am not, and never have been employed, or compensated by any biotech company, with the exception of snagging a ball cap, some pens, refrigerator magnets, and note pads from them at various conferences over the years.

      You write about unintended consequences, but that’s why we screen all varieties prior to release, and the molecular characterization of transgenic crops has become part of the overall approval process. As a result, there have been far, far worse outcomes from the development of non-GE varieties, where safety testing is not required. In keeping with the potato, look up the Lenap Potato developed back in the late 60’s. That’s what we call an oops moment.

      The simple fact that GE modification involves a small number of genes, and with modern sequencing technology and bioinformatics, the exact location of these modifications can be ascertained down to the single nucleotide level. Conversely conventiinal varieties of celery, kiwi, rapeseed, tomatoes, melons, cucumbers, grass (not joking about this one, it actually caused the death of several cattle), on and on the list goes, all have had incidents where traditional breeding has caused unforeseen consequences., and where wide crosses can have hundred of unforseen consequences, just due to natural variation and recombination.

      The number of GE varieties with such issues: 0.

      The simple fact is that, there is not a single OECD-compliant study that shows any adverse health effects from glyphosate or GMOs at real world exposure levels. Even an event like the inclusion of Starlink corn into the human food supply couldn’t prove a direct linkage to any adverse effects.

      In terms of testing, do you know why we make use of the international standards for these tests?

      Not only do they represent the most comprehensive and accurate testing methodologies (that are constantly being updated to take into account new techniques and methods), but also because, the very fact that they are standardized makes their manipulation exceedingly difficult, as the results can only be replicated if the same manipulations occur.

      Care to guess which side’s studies have issues with replication?

      Yep, the anti-GMO crowd.

      Give that some thought.

  • SUNNY

    Monsanto hid the science because it shows that glyphosate causes cancer. The EPA found the study to be “inconvenient” and the EPA toxicologists refused to sign off on the approval. These are facts. I’ll pay attention to the documented facts …

    • obfuscate99

      And my peers and I will pay attention to the data from the OECD-compliant studies, which I note, you have not made any attempt to refute. What you believe will not change those results, and unless you can produce actual data to rebut the findings, that’s not going to change at any point int he future.

      … you didn’t even attempt to comment on the 1990 Monsanto study, which was performed to bring the results from the 1981 study up to a level where they fully complied with the newly adopted OECD-452 and 453 guidelines, and managed to obtain a Klimisch ranking of 1.

      It’s just so odd that I can’t seem to find any similar studies indicating any adverse health effects. It’s almost like the researchers you support have utterly failed to perform any studies which meet the minimum GLP standards to comply with the accepted toxicity and carcinogenicity screens.

  • Denise

    Who gets to decide what our environment and it’s inhabitants can tolerate “at real world exposure levels”?
    What is that? Arrogance in full bloom.

    • obfuscate99

      That would be the toxicologists, ecologists, biochemists, molecular biologists, epidemiologists, immunologists, endocrinologists, and geneticists, with support from bioinformasticians, statisticians, cytologists, and various affiliated government, industry, and academic societies.

      In other words, those who have taken the time to develop the education and skills associated with this field.

      Would you prefer uneducated activists and politicians to be the arbiters of these things?

      • Denise

        I would prefer that We be consulted before they impose their godly standards on us. Yes!
        We, the inhabitants of this planet,have to live with the aftermath/consequences of these decisions.
        Time and time again these” holier than thou”decisions to manipulate nature have caused more harm than good. Need I supply a list?
        So a group of people gets to determine what “real world exposure levels” are safe enough to spread pesticides and genetically altered seeds around our environment?
        .. “those who have taken the time to develop the education and skills associated with this field” – this does not mean they are capable of making logical decisions. They are working outside the bounds of nature and have too much skin in the game to be unbiased in their ‘beliefs.’

        • obfuscate99

          And there’s the naturalistic falacy. All agriculture is outside the boundaries of nature. From the start, humans have produced crops through aritificial selection. None of the current varieties we cultivate could successfully compete in the absence of the selective pressure that we impose.

          As for your … comments regarding those with a relevant background and understanding, I have a very simple question.

          Are surgical techniques determined by committee? How about diagnostic testing protocols?

          Of course not.!

          They’re developed and tested by those who have earned the knowledge and experience to be directly involved in the field.

          Your argument distills down to fear and ignoramce, and lacks any empirical backing…and that’s exactly why you don’t get a seat at the table when it comes to determining the validity of any data generated.

          The only thing that matters is the data, and that’s not going to change, as it’s a fundamental aspect of scientific inquiry.

          You can rant and rave all you like, but unless you can produce some data that complies with the OECD standards, as well as GLP, your opinion will be ignored.

          As I wrote earlier, scientists are very easy to convince of something. Just show us the data, how you gathered it, how you analyzed it, and how it supports your conclusions.

          That’s the same bar that exists for all studies, and in over 20 years, not a single compliant study has shown any adverse effects below the NOAEL.

          And yes, that’s exactly how we determine safe levels, and the entire purpose for protocols such as OECD-452.

          • Denise

            You are right, the only thing that matters is the data- in a perfect world. However, the analysis and interruption of data can be difficult and questioned because of the many variables in play.
            For example: Some studies on glyphosate have provided data that say it may cause cancer . Other studies claim this not true. Whose scientific data do you believe?
            Plucking glyphosate out of a pesticide compound and testing it separately is an incomplete investigation: Roundup is a combination of glyphosate and adjuvants. Together they probably pose a greater risk than glyphosate alone but we don’t know, do we?
            These variable, adjuvants,combined with glyphosate in Roundup are ignored in testing and should not be.
            Bits and pieces of scientific data are unreliable and misleading. We need to know the whole story.

          • obfuscate99

            And this is what shows that you have no idea how experimental design is done.

            There is not a single OECD-451 or 453 compliant study that shows any causal relationship at levels below the NOAEL. The studies that you’re referring to come in two forms.

            1. Flawed design with insufficient power of analysis to differentiate treatment effects from background noise (this is Seralini’s modus operandi).

            2. Papers that don’t even try to show causation, and merely toss out hypotheses that they never even bother to experimentally test (Samsel and Seneff are the poster child’s for this strategy).

            Regardless, every study that has tried to make a causal link falls apart on basic design elements. They are great at one things, namely rolling up the scientifically illiterate with dire predictions of harm…but that doesn’t work on scientists.

            As for the adjuvents, those are some of the must amusing articles.out there as they are just moronic. I particularly enjoyed the zebrafish study that found a toxic effect when using a commercial Roundup mix.

            …a mix that was specifically not to be used in an aquatic environment, and the cytotoxic effects?

            You’d get the exact same results by adding dish soap to the tanks.

            Then there are the cell culture studies that once again showed that adding soap to a cell culture is a bad thing.

            Guess what they forgot to do?

            Actually use a concentration that would be present in situ. They used the base exposure as being representative of serum levels in vivo.

            Great work on those.

            Here’s the thing, we have looked at the data. We have looked at the data for decades. What you should be asking is why the anti-Biotech researchers constantly deviate from the gold standard methods?

            If they were making the studies more stringent, as is the case with the GRACE project, who incorporated the requirements from the 2011 EFSA revision, in addition to the OECD protocols.

            Your researchers, they like to stack the deck and try to pass of population variability as treatment effects.

          • Denise

            “Gold standard methods”? Scientists will be the first to admit that understanding how an element works independently leaves many unanswered questions about how it will interact with other elements in the real world. How many times have they failed to take into account all the variables? Vioxx comes to mind.
            When the precautionary principle is ignored because some corporation wants to get a new drug or product on the market ,as fast as they can , to replace one that’s failing, all kinds of bad things happen.
            Scientists are under a lot of pressure to produce favorable
            results for corps.

          • obfuscate99

            Yes, the OECD protocols are the most well studied methods that exist for determining acute and chronic toxicity in addition to carcinogenicity. Prior to their formal implementation, each and every one of them were tested and validated against, not only the previous protocols, but also parallel examination to ensure that the results are consistent.

            The precautionary principle is utterly uncalled for in the absence of a causal mechanism, and this has been brought up many times during the various registration periods. A good simmary is Tagliabue (2016), which echoes the findings of the studies to date, as well as pointing out how the PP has been misused over the years.

            You choose to live in fear of an unsubstantiated risk. It’s actually worse than that really, as we do have mountains of data where we can show harm, and those levels are orders of magnitude higher than the current ADIs.

            One of the major findings of both the GRACE project as well as G-TwYST was the finding that, in the absence of a defined hypothesis, “fishing expeditions” almost invariable lead to a significant increase in type I errors.

            You seem to act as though my peers and I don’t even consider these things. We do, and to an extent that you have no concept of. As always we look to the data, we look for causation, and we absolutely do not allow fear to dictate procedures.

          • Denise

            ‘we absolutely do not allow fear to dictate procedures”
            Well, maybe you should. Do you ever consider the fact that your procedures are not fail proof should be reviewed carefully and often?
            Richard pointed out the shameful results from your cast iron belief in the methodology and moving too quickly to get a product or drug on the market.
            It has hurt and killed many people and animals. Nature has taken a terrible hit from such bravado in the biotech and pharma/chemical industry.
            The idea seems to be ‘Well, we’ve done alot of research on this product/drug and spent alot of time and money on it, so let’s put out there and see what happens!”
            Richard’s list illustrates clearly why the public and farmers always should question pharma and biotech products/ drugs presented as the latest and greatest thing and selling it under the guise of “progress” The red flags should go up, immediately.
            What is even worse than putting something out on the market without knowing all the side effects or consequences is allowing something out on the market KNOWING full well there are harmful side effects.
            For example:
            -They knew BGH (bovine growth hormone)
            causes problems for dairy cattle.
            -They knew ractopamine makes hogs lives so irritable uncomfortable.
            -They knew glyphosate stays in body( bones and major organs mostly) and can cause cancer
            They defied common sense and decided it was okay to feed meat scrapes to herbivore livestock which caused scrapies and BSE. How reckless!
            They knew feeding antibiotics to factory animals meant it would loose it’s effectiveness on people . WE now have to deal with MRSA. A most horrifying bacterial infection that antibiotics can no longer cure. They have to cut off the diseased flesh.
            They knew GMOs /pesticides are sickening people and the environment and but corporate stocks and earning matter most of all!
            You say we absolutely do not let fear dictate the procedures but that incorrect. You fear your corporate masters.

          • obfuscate99

            “Do you ever consider the fact that your procedures are not fail proof should be reviewed carefully and often?”

            Yes, that’s why we continue testing. Fear isn’t a useful emotion when dealing with empirical data. The analysis needs to be objective, not reliant on any kind of subjective bias.

            To date, there hasn’t been any indication of adverse effects being causally linked to glyphosate or GMOs, even after decades of use. We do not see any meaningful epidemiological evidence that the toxicity studies to date are inadequate, and all you offer are vague assertions that have no backing when examined.

            “It has hurt and killed many people and animals. Nature has taken a
            terrible hit from such bravado in the biotech and pharma/chemical
            industry.”

            Really, because I can point to the increased yields since the start of the Green Revolution and state that advances in agriculture, germplasm, and agronomic inputs have saved billions of lives. This is actually a conservative figure, as the work of Borlaug as well as the incorporation of both conventional and GE varieties have enabled levels of production far beyond what is capable for other cultivation methods.

            Heck, the intrinsic yield loss that vexes organic growers provides direct evidence that this is the case (Leifield, 2016; de Ponti et al., 2012).

            And of course you forget that GE crops, as well as every pesticide go through safety testing prior to approval…something that traditional varieties are exempt from.

            You want to cite harm to people and animals, take a look at the introduction of kiwi to North American markets, or the effect of high prussic acid levels in grass.

            In both of these instances (as well as photosensitivity from celery, increased solanine levels in tomatoes and potatoes) pre-market testing would have caught these in advance.

            Look at that! GMOs show no causal link.

            “They knew BGH (bovine growth hormone)
            causes problems for dairy cattle.”

            …and? It was human health concerns that were the topic of discussion. The approval of BGH in the US was only concerned with that, and farmers certainly seem to have a desire to make use of it…which probably wouldn’t be the case if they were losing money as a result.

            “They knew ractopamine makes hogs lives so irritable uncomfortable.”

            See the previous answer.

            “They knew glyphosate stays in body( bones and major organs mostly) and can cause cancer”

            Lol, you’re using the unsubstantiated babblings of Samsel? Wow, that is hilarious. Do you know which study he claims showed bioaccumulation, because i sure do?

            MRID: 00093879 (Lankas, 1981):

            Have you ever looked at it, or did you just find a random factoid that you latched onto because it fit your desired worldview?

            Let’s take a look at the findings from that study.

            “Following a single oral dose of 14C-glyphosate, 30 to 36% of the dose
            was absorbed, less than 0.27% of the dose was eliminated as CO2 /and
            97.5%/ of the administered dose was excreted in the urine and feces as
            the parent compound, glyphosate.”

            Look at that! We’ve barely even started to get into the good stuff, but already Samsel’s pet theory is falling apart.

            Can it get worse for him?

            Yep!

            “Less than 1.0% of the absorbed dose remained in tissues and organs,
            primarily in bone tissue. Repeated dosing at 10 mg/kg did not
            significantly change the metabolism, distribution or
            excretion of glyphosate.”

            So the 1% level isn’t affected by increased exposure to glyphosate. Additionally, neither this study, nor the 1990 one, which was performed by Monsanto to bring the 1981 data into compliance with the new OECD-453 protocol.

            …how odd that Samsel ignores that study.

            Actually Samsel and Seneff do that quite a bit. They make a whole lot of scary predictions, but when it comes time to test their hypotheses, they never follow through.

            “They knew feeding antibiotics to factory animals meant it would loose
            it’s effectiveness on people . WE now have to deal with MRSA, a most
            horrifying bacterial infection that antibiotics can no longer cure. They
            have to cut off the diseased flesh.”

            …and again, I have no idea where you get your information, but wow are you out to lunch.

            Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) actually has multiple treatment options, and debriedment of the tissue is very fad down the list…and almost never needed in 1st world nations.

            More commonly used treatments (For review see Choo et al., 2016; Otero et al, 2013; Park et al., 2012; Chambers et al., 2016):

            – Do nothing, this is the most common treatment, as this isn’t a major health risk for healthy individuals. Simple monitoring, and treatment with one or more of the treatments below work quite well overall.
            – Vancomycin
            – Telavancin
            – Daptomycin
            – Oxazolidinones
            – Tigecycline

            And then there’s the combination treatments:

            – β-lactam + Vancomycin
            – β-lactam + Daptomycin

            In other words, once again, you go with rhetoric over empirical fact. You couch your arguments in emotional appeals, but they do not match the available data.

            “They knew GMOs /pesticides could sicken people and damage the environment but corporate stocks and earning matter most of all!”

            No they didn’t, and there still isn’t any such causal linkage identified to date. I have no idea how you’ve ended up so far down the rabbit hole, but there are no causal linkages between GMO and adverse health effects, and those are quite literally all that matter.

            Once again, you focus on rhetoric as opposed to the data.

            “You say ‘we absolutely do not let fear dictate the procedures’ but that incorrect. You fear your corporate masters.”

            I don’t have any corporate masters (all of my research is through state and federal agencies), and I will simply state one little fact regarding this.

            Those corporations have managed to conduct fully compliant toxicity and carcinogenicity trials, along with labs from government and academic institutions.

            Your side of the issue, can’t even provide one.

            Who’s got the real science backing their position?

          • richard

            Note the comment above ….”my peers and I keep getting varieties approved” Does this sound like the voice of independent, objective science…… or the confession of a corporate heeler?

          • richard

            They’re not looking for side effects Denise…. theres no money in it…..thats the sad truth.

          • richard

            Denise you will never get the whole picture from these characters….. the whole picture does not exist in the finite world of reductionist science…..ergo the deflection and obfuscation…..which is just code for …..We don’t have a clue what causes anything, only a sniff of what doesn’t cause it….. And thats the reason it all comes apart every five years or less, in epic fashion……

          • richard

            Furthermore Denise, the reason we need to “out” these people is because they are dependent on public money to insult our intelligence…. There is no ethical baseline behind defending status quo ignorance….. only self preservation (data sets and denial)…… Note how not one single farmer or agrologist is acknowledging or defending the elephant in the room. … ….. erosion of human health the consequence.

          • richard

            ……the naturalistic fallacy: “All agriculture is outside the boundaries of nature”

          • obfuscate99

            …you do realize that you brought up the 2015 USDA report that eviscerates your position here, right? Herbicide resistance through complimentary tank mixes, along with established rotations have been shown to greatly limit the development of resistant weed species.

            Then again, considering you though that document indicated that weed resistance ir rampant, that’s not overly surprising. As for your neighbors, direct them to the USDA study, that should give them quite a few pointers on how to integrate a better rotation order to assist with any weed pressure that they are facing.

            …and I’m also going to take a wild guess that you only selectively presented any of the points that I’ve made, and certainly didn’t pass along the citations that have been provided.

          • richard

            Sadly for eggheads, the farmers seem to have better grip on real world conditions than” experts”. Glyphosate resistance is rampant, and herbicide stacking is only a stopgap measure to temporarily avoid evolution…. has little to do with IPM and is nothing more than toxicity amplification…… IPM has been around a lot longer than your cute little corporate shibboleths ie. herbicide stacking…. IPM is based on a comprehensive, multifaceted approach to mitigating the impact of abuse of technology…. predominantly xenobiotics. As hard as you try, the concept of IPM is sound and will not be co-opted by a caste of reductionists vainly attempting to control the discourse….. which of course is why this thread is curiously absent of anyone supporting your anachronistic point of view.

          • obfuscate99

            And yet, that’s exactly what is being done in fields across the globe. Remember acreage devoted to GE varieties continues to grow, as to the number of lines, and species encompassed by the technology.

            There’s that word again, rampant. It wasn’t used in the report you cited, and thanks for providing a citation that served to support my position. It always helps when people don’t bother reading their sources, as the recommendations of the USDA and the ones that I’ve mentioned are quite similar.

            Looking at the 2017 field data, I’m seeing a whole lot of conventional acres, using modern IPM practices, and the USDA data shows overall yield increases for soy and cotton, along with a decrease in rice cultivation (off of a 20% reduction in acres over the last 5 years).

            Once again, that you don’t like the data I present, that does nothing to invalidate it. I can look at that USDA data and see a whole lot of producers who do follow modern practices, and follow it up with empirical data relating to yields and general quality metrics.

            So, when are those OECD-compliant studies to support your assertions showing up?

          • richard

            No ones investing in GMOs anymore…. they cost too much and deliver too little …..its about Crispr and gene editing now…. and they will receive the same public contempt of the past if they continue to deceive and exploit….. eg. hiding in the weeds with food labelling when you are so proud of you technological prowess….. …

          • Denise

            Looks like Mother Nature has you guys on the run with herbicide resistance. A combination of Dicamba and Roundup to deal with resistance is a step backwards.
            What are you cooking up next for your biotech and agrochemical masters?
            The young farmers question more and are not fooled by fear- mongering and boosts that”This is “progress” in agriculture and without this miracle potion you will lose your crop.” The old motto of “Believe the Science” has many doubters now.
            I think we’re going to see a lot more mechanical instead of chemical agriculture. Thank god.

          • obfuscate99

            If that ends up the case, that’s fine as well. Provided it’s of equal or better efficacy, I have no issues with it. For now, that is not the case, and it will not be for quite some time. Fortunately, more and more acres are being used to cultivate GE varieties, which do bring along with them some well characterized IPM practices, including stacked herbicide resistance traits, as well as rotations to deal with weed resistance.

            Why would we be on the run? We already have valid methods for dealing with the issue, richard was even so kind as to bring up the 2015 USDA report on the issue. Of course, he ignored the findings and recommendations included in that report, as they stated the same strategy to deal with resistant weeds as I’ve been doing throughout this thread.

            Now, did you miss the part where I don’t have any agrochemical masters? I don’t receive a dime from any of them, and my research is far more focused on genome evolution and comparative genomics surround domestication. I’ve made dozens of GE lines, but all for study, not for cultivation.

            And no, a combination of Roundup and Dicamba (or any auxin analogue) is not a step backwards. It’s quite effective for broadleaf control, to such an extent, that it’s use on monocots only requires glyphosate resistance to ensure that the weed pressure is minimized.

            I can tell that you have a very skewed view of the number of farmers that adhere to your belief set, as that is not what we see in the overall data from the USDA, AAFC, FAO, MAPA, actually a whole lot of regulatory agencies across the globe.

            Heck, in the case of organic agriculture, thy still have yet to crack 5% of the total yields. Looking at the entire dataset gives a clearer picture of the overall trends.

          • Denise

            It is alarming to me and it should be alarming to everybody (farmers and consumers) that you and your peers have no fear as you “boldly” go where no man has gone before.
            Fear is necessary survival intinct. Without it, we would become extinct as a species.
            Fear can bring about two reponses. Run away and hide in the pack or muster courage to face the threat.
            My fear is giving me the courage to stand up and question the herd instinct.
            Of course, you do not feel the need to fear as you can find acceptance and encouragement amongst your peers.
            That is a false sense of security. Many bad and wrong decisions have been made by groups of similar thinking people.

          • Denise

            Dicamba lawsuits are growing after millions of acres of crops and trees have been damaged or destroyed by it’s reckless use. That’s progress?

          • obfuscate99

            Yes, yes it is. In fact, there are quite a few new varieties, along with herbicide formulations to reduce any kind of drift. It should also be noted that the drift of any auxin analogue containing herbicide is far more dependent on the application, than the formulation.

            This is actually exemplified by comparing the levels of drift damage between the US and Canada. For the 2018 growth year, only 18 cases were reported to Health Canada.

            The difference comes from both application methods and proper timing of applications.

            In other words, the issue isn’t the result of the biochemistry, it’s agronomic in nature.

          • Denise

            Roundup(glyphosate) and Dicamba increase the rate of antiobiotic resistance 100,000X faster and leads to greater use. Good stuff!

          • obfuscate99

            Only if you don’t rotate both the cultivated crop, and the herbicides that are part of the IPM for that given location and crop.

            Again, increasing the dosage when genetic resistance has already occurred makes no sense, and the farmer would be throwing their money away.

            …Most tend to not want to do such a thing.

            Once again, thank richard for bringing up the 2015 USDA report where they explicitly state that proper rotation of both the crops and the herbicides is highly effective in managing the emergence of new resistant weeds.

          • richard

            Yeah nothing like piling on one obsolete relic of chemistry on top of the new relic….. Now thats innovative! You know Einstein once stated that the leading edge of change was a full human generation ahead of political and educational institutions…. He said this because he realized that it took a full generation to flush out the ossified worldviews of a generation of scientists too bedazzled by their own willful ignorance…… sound familiar?

          • richard

            Reality cares not about your platitudes of status quo ignorance. Category one through six herbicide resistance is rampant in western Canada ….. as are blackleg, fusarium and pythium and have been reported on these pages…… Agritoxin amplification is nothing more than kicking the can down the road….. Yet again evolution trumps arrogance. Arrogance and incompetence at high levels are a dangerous tank mix, …

          • obfuscate99

            “…blackleg, fusarium and pythium”

            …those are all fungal pathogens . No herbicide is going to have an effect on them except at ridiculously high concentrations.

            For control, the methodologies range depending on the individual species involved, but a combination of genetic resistance (through conventional or transgenic methods), plant architecture, and fungicides offer a broad range of control options.

          • richard

            Thats right and they’re all a function of a totally reductionist model of agriculture that is coming apart at the seems right before us all….in spite of [your] proclamations

          • obfuscate99

            Let’s just take a quick look at blackleg.

            Currently in Canola, we have a collection of 14 different genetic sources of resistance, which are already being used in crop rotations as well as variety development programs.

            As is the case with pesticides, the rotation of these genetic sources of resistance, greatly reduce the incidence and severity of blackleg infection.

            We also have a similar strategy for fusarium, anthracnose, powdery mildew…actually we have these options for a lot of crop species.

            So how is this coming apart at the seems? The yield data certainly doesn’t indicate this?

          • richard

            Because it doesn’t address the problem….it addresses the symptoms. It only increases costs to the grower, the environment and the taxpayer. Solutions require discipline and insight and. make YOU and your masters, no money…. Which is which is why you continue to push rope with the latest magic bullet…..It creates an illusion of progress….. Simple extended rotations, including forage legumes and residue management (the vector for the majority of plant diseases) solves nine out of ten circumstances…..and costs nothing but patience…..and a refusal to chase evolution and market myths.

          • obfuscate99

            Actually modern IPM saves the grower costs in the long run. By being able to target treatments quite precisely.

            And wow, do you have any idea regarding the crop rotations currently in use? Do you think that something like including cover crops, or soil management, haven’t been used?

            … farmers have been doing that since long before GE varieties, and those crop rotations still occur today. …

            As an example, a very common rotation is Corn-Soy-Wheat-Cover.

            Guess what?

            The disease pressure doesn’t disappear as a result. Crop rotation is nowhere near enough to deal with plant pathogens, but this rotation along with herbicide rotation, as well as changing the individual varieties used in each cycle is quite effective.

            Any more revelations …?

          • richard

            Yeah….your rotation is inadequate to suppress weed, disease and pest cycles….. and your sudden conversion to anything resembling ecological agriculture is the reason why…… A four year rotation with two grasses in it…. and possibly three depending on your cover, is a recipe for fusarium, smut, smudge, ergot and black point…. not to mention locusts and grasshoppers. Five to ten year rotations are required that include cereals, oilseeds, and pulses and particularly forage legumes like alfalfa, sweet clover and favabeans from two to five years each and to be incorporated into the soil….. Disease and insect pressure is suppressed to background levels…. weed pressure still exists but is reduced by timely planting and increased seeding rates. Use your own seed, and stay away from weak hybrids and GMOs.. Forty years of eschewing agribiz mythology needs no explanation, I know thousands across the planet doing it….. System resilience is the only goal of ANY sustainable system…… agritoxins reduce resilience exponentially and are the reason ego based agriculture finds itself terminally addicted to its own hubris….. Any more questions?

          • richard

            ….the naturalistic fallacy: “all agriculture is outside the boundaries of nature”….. You mean like, disease, weed, pest and antibiotic resistance? You mean like a thousand human degenerative diseases with NO answers for? You mean like the contamination of soil, watersheds and river deltas? And you wonder why your science looks like a faith based religion with the ”rapture’ soon to come……Goebbels was correct…. repeat the same lies enough times and it becomes the truth.

          • obfuscate99

            I’m still not seeing any evidence for causation in your usual screed. You keep having issues with this, but it’s quite simple really.

            Until you can show some kind of does response, all you have is unsubstantiated opinion, not empirical fact. Science only uses the latter when determining actual causal relationships. The former merely serves as a way to develop hypotheses to be tested, and this is exactly what we’ve been doing since GMOs were first developed in the lab.

            Throughout all of this, the same bar has to be met. Namely causation must be shown through the use of any number of in vivo methodologies (Refer to OECD section 400 for a full list). If you prefer to start things off in vitro, or in silico, that’s fine as a starting point, but proof of causation outside of a whole organism methodologies is not generally acceptable.

            Take a guess how much support you have in the primary literature?

            I even provided you with multiple citations regarding your erroneous stance on herbicide resistance, which is also applicable towards antibiotic resistance.

            – Busi et al., (2013)
            – Peterson et al., (2018)
            – Sammons and Gaines, (2014)

            Guess what? Herbicide rotation and stacked traits have been shown to be very effective, and in many cases, these techniques are already being integrated into IPM strategies. Once again, your ideology loses out to experimentally derived data…and this is exactly as it should be.

            Feel free to post OECD-compliant support for your position, it if is ever actually generated. I do read the results of studies that I disagree with, and if those results are substantiated, I alter my conclusions accordingly. This differs from what you’ve displayed, as you seem to think that any data that conflicts with your worldview is in error, when it is your worldview that needs to change.

          • richard

            I know we don’t want the facts to get in the way of your good stories, but … we’re more interested in the signal than the noise….. It may be a revelation to you but your data and statistics are only one tiny part of a much broader set of facts, observations and actions we call agriculture and food and environment and global trade. To try to reduce it all to toxicological data sets is just bizarre…. and the primary reason you get zero traction here with the readership….. You [and your] friends constantly rail against the activists, while clearly representing an “inactivist” faction of reactionaries, who constantly find themselves woefully out of touch with real world circumstance….. You have not once admitted to rampant glyphosate resistance, even though the USDA did just that in 2015 (thirteen weed species on sixty million acres)….. You have no concept of why taxpayers globally need to proffer a half a trillion dollars annually (CATO Institute 2016), to maintain life support for your … vision of agriculture…. And you clearly have limited knowledge and respect for evolution, otherwise you and your peers would find something intelligent to say the insidious global history of regulatory failure aka: scrapie, BSE, CJD, CWD, lindane, mercury, PCBs, dioxins, weed, pest and disease resistance….. and the spectre of the environmental degradation inflicted by monocultural dogma. “Agriculture is the largest non point source of pollution in America” (National Research Council of America, Alternative Agriculture)………. So although you tend to find yourself here kicking and screaming at me….. in fact I am just the messenger. Take it up with the NRC, CATO Institute and and the USDA…..Your constant flight from complexity is the sole reason that outside your little cabal, no one believes the “experts” anymore and the source of your apparent need to obfuscate…..its that simple….. You’re welcome!

  • obfuscate99

    Yes, it can. Water intoxication (hyponatremia) is a very real condition, that can be life threatening. It is most prevalent in athletic circles, but also affects the elderly to a greater extent than the general populace.

    It’s a fairly insidious condition, as the cause, drinking too much water over a short time period, is often the go-to activity among anyone engaging in strenuous activity or exercise.

    The fact that our thirst response does not abate until the serum hydrating levels rise, can cause people to simply drink too much water, not allowing enough time to pass for the earlier drinks to get into their system.

    This is very much an acute affect of water consumption, and it does show that it is the dose that makes the poison. Solar is quite correct that the acute toxicity of glyphosate is less than common table salt, and the chronic toxicity levels have been well established through multiple OECD-452 and 453 studies over the years.

    • ed

      Yes, and with this product now is in every breath we take, drink we consume and bit of food that we eat. From baby food, formula and breakfast cereal, it is not a wonder that the same result as drinking too much water is occurring to so many people on this planet. Thank you for shedding more light on this modern day delemia.

  • richard

    Thank you for validating my point of view…..reductionist science is a jail cell with no windows…. As usual no ability to discuss real world economics or the legacy of regulatory incompetence, or environmental degradation……… I know you would like to keep the discussion to data points and toxicology but this is an agricultural journal and some of us need more than simplistic answers to complex questions. Being trapped in a cube with a microscope may be an excuse but its no reason….. You ask yourself how much toxicity we can inflict on the environment….. We ask, with no underlying human need why are we inflicting it at all?……… Abuse Of Technology (ie GMOs, ritual glyphosate, antibiotics, growth hormones and implants ) leads to overproduction, to depressed markets, to dumping on global markets, to repression of the indigenous production in those markets, to their dependence on cheap imports….. while crushing the spirit of enterprise in the country of origin ie. North America, EU, Brazil, Malaysia, China etc….. and why taxpayers globally have been cajoled in a half a trillion dollars USD annually to prop up the proud farmers’ illusion of “progress” and “sustainability”………Thats just the way it is……And beyond the fact that you resent “truth to power” you evidently have no capacity to refute anything I have just stated…..

    • obfuscate99

      So again not a single study showing adverse health effects from glyphosate at exposure levels at or below the ADI?

      “I know you would like to keep the discussion to data
      points and toxicology but this is an agricultural journal and some of
      us need more than simplistic answers to complex questions.”

      That’s what the discussion is limited to in science. The data is all that matters, and you keep on dismissing this. The public do not determine the validity of research, neither do the courts, politicians, or corporations; it all comes down to the scientists and the data. The closest that those other groups can get is to act through legislation, but that doesn’t change the data.

      The fact that you choose to conflate the toxicology and ecology data with social babbling does nothing to alter the results from those studies.

      – The acute and chronic toxicity remains the same.

      – The alpha and beta elimination phases remain the same.

      – The environmental persistence remains the same.

      In other words, nothing relating to social metrics has any effect on the experimentally derived data, and in case you’ve forgotten, this entire article was about the safety (AKA the experimentally derived toxicity from the OECD-compliant methods).

      Your entire argument rests outside of the toxicity of glyphosate, and what’s more amusing is how you point to market forces, which literally have nothing to do with any of the derived metrics for glyphosate (LD50, NOAEL, LOAED, RfD, ADI, ect).

      You claim an abuse of of technology, yet you cannot provide even a single example of a direct causal relationship between the use of glyphosate, or the consumption of GMOs, and any adverse health effects.

      In terms of overproduction and subsidies, do these have any impact on any of the toxicity data? Not one bit.

      What’s especially amusing is that no one forces conventional farmers to use seed under variety protection, or to use any particular pesticide. You’ve made multiple errors in regards to this topic over the past weeks, ranging from application rates, and the utterly moronic assertion that applying more glyphosate is the accepted practice when dealing with resistant weeds (and I even provided the application rates for you); to your citing of the 2015 USDA report as support for your position, when the findings stated exactly what I have been writing from the start.

      It’s the data that you need to counter; that’s been your issue from the start. When dealing with the toxicity of something like glyphosate (which was the point of this article), the only thing that matters are the results from the OECD-compliant studies.

      So any chance you’ll be providing some of those in the near future?

      • richard

        No….the public, the politicians, the courts, the corporations do control your fate…. In spite of your hubris, thats where the buck stops. Without consumer spending and taxpayer largesse you and your caste … …..are fossilized. The age of transparency is upon us and is shedding a clear white light on arrogance and incompetence at high levels.

        • obfuscate99

          Well then, I sure am glad that the majority of those groups do see the value in this research, as investments, grants, students, and technology is all being allocated to further this research along with affiliated pure research programs (I’m good for at least the next 7 years, but since my research isn’t contingent on GMO varieties, it’s not going to see any meaningful change). There are even quite a few collaborations between the USDA, FDA, CFIA, and AAFC that are ongoing, and producing some wonderful data.

          Once again, that you don’t like the empirical data has no effect on it’s validity, and you still haven’t been able to show harm at expected exposure levels.

          • richard

            So now it does matter what the public and the politicians and the corporations think…..? …

          • obfuscate99

            Not in relation to the toxicology and safety data. They still have no influence on that, as it is determined through the various OECD protocols.

            So still no data showing adverse effects at expected exposure levels?

          • richard

            A hundred degenerative human diseases with no known cause….. and you hiding behind your data sets as an excuse, over and over and over….

          • obfuscate99

            Thank you for providing a perfect example of why correlation is not the same as causation, nor can it be used as predictor of causation.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0050cfbf56fe74327f7a0721097f3f4ebfb2b95f67040df2ac15be665b670563.png

            Spurious correlations abound everywhere, and you appear to have fallen into this trap. The odds are pretty high that confirmation bias is to blame for it. As has been the case with previous sources that you’ve provided, you seem to take the single event/treatment/population that support your ideology, and then ignore the rest.

            That’s not how causation is established…or proper data analysis is done.

            So any more topics you want to jump around to?

            Really, you should be trying to find some data showing a causal relationship, but as that doesn’t exist, deflection may be your best choice.

          • richard

            … ….. Sadly every cause ultimately has a correlation, although you fear to go because it might actually shatter your … worldview and force you to think again …. Instead of mocking autism why don’t you try to use your limited knowledge to try to help solve it??? The public has no interest anymore in knowing what doesn’t cause anything….. they want to know what does….. which of course is why no one is listening to you anymore except those in your echo chamber…. You have no credibility with an increasingly knowledgable public because you tell them nothing but the same old corporate platitudes….. But hey…. if thats your tune, keep on playing…. the musicians on the Titanic did?

          • obfuscate99

            …seriously?

            The fact that a causal relationship also correlates with the same effect is a give-in. It’s the reverse that you cannot assume, or even predict.

            It would appear that fear is a far greater variable for your worldview, as my peers and I haven’t changed our requirements that causation needs to be observed (through something like OECD-452 or 453).

            Once again, the public seems to have very few issues with, as is exemplified by the continual growth in GE acreage, and new variety development…which in contrast to your assertions, includes transgenic methods.

            As for assertions of an increasingly knowledgable public, the annual NAS surveys provide direct empirical evidence that this is not the case, and the overall level of scientific literacy in North America is quite abysmal. I did bring up specific examples of this for you previously.

            As I indicated, the only metric that factors into the validity of a given study, is the methodologies and analytics used, all of which are determined by my peers and I.

          • richard

            Of course scientific literacy is limited….. so is science’s ability to extrapolate beyond its own cage….. Your point is? The fact that industrial agriculture requires half a trillion dollars a year of life support pretty much sums up the status quo…..Nothing more really needs to be said…. Your denial of that… weed, disease, pest and antibiotic resistance is symptomatic of a caste of priests who are totally oblivious to the real politic….. Your war on nature is simply a means of ratcheting up the costs of agriculture to both the producers and the public coffers…..Tell me thats not dysfunctional? Those of us who produce in abundance successfully through internal optimization are agape at your constant drive to attempt to outrun evolution with your whack a mole approach to agriculture…. chasing the next magic bullet to overcome the last problem you created for yourself…… I understand, its just about money, why don’t you just admit it. If it were about solutions the recurrence of the same issues over and over would not occur…. Your belief that your flurry of genes and chemistry is somehow a metric for progress is just bizarre….its a metric for a sad little cult of evolutionary deniers. The economics speak loudly, the optics are not good, your trying to herd cats….it aint working….. Get back to me when you have solutions that don’t require the intervention of public welfare…… Until then its back to that same old tune…..on the Titanic.

          • obfuscate99

            “Your denial of that… weed, disease, pest and antibiotic resistance is
            symptomatic of a caste of priests who are totally oblivious to the real
            politic”

            I’ve never once denied any of that, and have instead pointed out multiple ways to overcome it based on actual data as opposed to your blind ideology. It’s you who doesn’t understand this material, and instead, just wrap everything in some banal appeal to nature, to such an extent that you provided citations that contradict your thesis.

            Your understanding of evolution is quite frankly abysmal, and falls apart just by looking at your comments. You don’t take into account the degree of selective pressure on population genomics, nor do you look at the energy costs associated with things like chemical resistance. The very fact that you cannot see how the costs associated with maintaining these traits in the absence of a strong selective pressure exemplifies your ignorance on this topic.

            This is the same issue associated with every aspect of your babbling. You toss out allegations, but when asked to support them, you can’t show any causal effect.

            For instance you never once answered my question from weeks ago regarding the reaction kinetics associated with the WT and glyphosate-resistant EPSPS enzyme, nor do you seem to understand the effect of such a metabolic load has on a species, to say nothing of the costs to maintain multiple resistance traits in the absence of a strong selective pressure.

            Fortunately, my peers and I do understand these things, and we don’t need to wrap it up in some backwards naturalistic fallacy.

            You deny that stacked and rotating herbicides is an excellent method of managing the emergence of resistant weeds, and that runs counter to the actual field data. Once again, did you miss the total production figures, or was this an instance that you just didn’t want to read something that might threaten your worldview.

            This rotation has been shown to work, which was supported by the 2015 USDA report that you cited.

            By contrast, you have provided no meaningful support for your statements, and that really is the end of it.

            You don’t get to decide what’s valid science, and it’s a very good thing that’s the case.

            Get back to me when you can measure a direct causal effect backing your assertions. Until such time, I get to smile as more and more GE varieties are released, along with increased land devoted to their cultivation, and the dispersal of modern agronimics to developing nations.

          • richard

            SO…..still not able to refute the economics or the ecology…. which of course are one and the same at the end of the day…… The thing is, your “system of agriculture” really looks important if : 1/ There were a global shortage of food. 2/ The system could actually outrun evolution. 3/ The system were able to sustain itself in marketplace of laissez-faire capitalism. 4/ The system were not the largest non point source of pollution in America….. Given that none of the aforementioned are true, I guess we’re going to have to disabuse you of the notion that all your data points and spurious proclamations actually lead to anything called progress. Meanwhile back on the Titanic….

          • obfuscate99

            Yields, varieties, and germplasm plasticity all disagree with you, and those stats actually have empirical valies as opposed to you ever nebulous (FAO, USDA, EPA for starters).

            It’s just so cute how you keep going for thr shotgun approach, now it’s non-point source water that’s got your attention. Guess what hakes a big difference in controlling that?

            No till, targeted soil treatments and supplementation, crop rotations, and microrhizal inoculation.

            Fun fact, we’ve been out running evolution since the first time humans managed to exceed the base carrying capacity of a given environment.

            Wake up and smell.the data, which you still have yet to produce showing adverse health effects, but we both know you won’t be producing any.

            For dispelling illusions, just look at what’s in the pipeline? For all your bluster about your superior ways, you’re not gaining traction among breeders, growers, and distributers…unless you count the scientific ignorance that causes someone to pay a premium for food that has the same nutritional content, but is predicated on the use of outdated, and wasteful practices.

            …and then there’s that pesky yield gap (avg 21% high 55% USDA, 2016), but hey you’ve got fearmongering behind you.

            Oh, FYI, there were over 86 GE variety registrations globally last year, and the vast majority were produced through transgenic methods.

          • richard

            I would have thought you might try at least to refute at least one of my four key points with something beyond pride and vanity…. Eutrophication of watersheds is a function of abuse of N and P in agriculture full stop… tillage is just subterfuge for a weak argument….. Furthermore we haven’t been outrunning evolution, or we would not be continually raising the stakes in the war on nature….. the very thing your entire professional existence is predicated on….. More systemic, persistent and pernicious chemistry is not outrunning evolution, its enslaving oneself to it. Thats the problem with ego based agriculture……it gives intelligent people the mistaken belief that they are actually in control. Think about it…. if you were actually in control we would be progressing to cleaner, smarter, residue free food….. one that required no taxpayer welfare and was actually contributing to a cleaner environment rather than externalizing its burden of waste upon it…. Furthermore, unlike yourself I don’t require the endorsement of agribiz….. Ecological agriculture is self evident, self financing and self actualized which is why it needs no multi billion dollar marketing affectation… aka taxpayer funded hyperbole……No further comments on the blackleg debate below????

          • Denise

            This simplistic graph is a discredit your scientific community and displays a superior attitude toward people outside the scientific community. Looks like subjectivity overtook objectivity.

          • obfuscate99

            …it’s called a spurious correlation, and it being idiotic was the entire point, as was the case when it was first produced. The anti-biotech fanatics love to point to correlations that support their ideology, but the knife cuts both ways here, as is exemplified by that figure.

            The key lesson was to show how foolish it is to conflate causation with correlation. The information contained in that figure is all accurate, and the sources are listed in the description below. It’s blatantly obvious that there is no causal relationship between organic market share and autism, but the correlation coefficient is ridiculously high.

            Keep in mind that a correlation coefficient can range from -1 to +1, with 0 representing no correlation between the variables, and both -1 and +1 showing a 100% correlation (negative, or positive slope).

            In this case, the correlation is quite a bit higher than if we were to look at some other comparisons that have been used by your ilk over the years. Using the same autism data, GMO acreage, market share, or even the total application of RoundUp from 1992-2017 don’t come anywhere near this value.

            Correlation is not causation, nor can it be used to predict causation. That was the whole point of this, as both you and richard seem to love pointing out the dire effects of GMOs, pesticides, modern agriculture, but when it comes to showing causation, you both have nothing but banal ideology.

            You claim harm, show evidence of causation. That’s the beginning and end of it. I have been able to provide data showing no causal effect between glyphosate and adverse health effects at exposure levels below the NOAEL, to say nothing of the ADI (between 0.5-1% of the NOAEL usually). That’s all covered in the OECD-452 and/or 453 study designs.

            Simple truth, you don’t have anything comparable. In the entire time from their first field trials, to now, not a single compliant study has been produced by your side of the issue.

            Think about that!

            Not even one study that managed to meet the same bar that is a basic element of toxicology. Seralini has had almost 5 years since the retraction of his 2012 study in November 2013, which is more than enough time to complete two full replications of the study.

            Yet, nothing was done…at least by him.

            The EFSA was more proactive, and the GRACE, G-TwYST, and GMO90Plus studies were conducted to see if there was any truth to Seralini’s results.

            So after blowing over 20 million Euros on three seperate studies (which were OECD compliant), they came to the same conclusion that every other comparable study found.

            No causal link.

            This is the truth. That you don’t like it is meaningless, and that will be the case until you can rebut the data. No nebulous allusions, no spitballing ideas to see what soundbite will garner a response; design and conduct a study that complies with the same methods used by academia, industry, and government, yet have eluded every researcher in the anti-biotech world.

  • richard

    Funny, I don’t see anything on the food shelves proclaiming…. This food product is the proud result of genetic modification…… Rather all I see is…. This food contains no GMOs…. Ironic wouldn’t you say. Good luck with that hot mess.

    • obfuscate99

      Why would I even care about that? It does nothing to support any of your assertions, nor does the presence of absence of a label affect the methods, analysis, or conclusions of the derived toxicity levels established using the OECD protocols.

      Now, to your comment about GMO labels, or rather the presence of non-GMO labels; that’s how it should be.

      Just as is the case for anyone who chooses to follow a specialty diet; be it for religious reasons (such as Kosher and Halal), social and/or ideological ideals (including vegan), or even purely personal choice (such as paleo), it is the individuals who choose to follow these dietary restrictions who bear the cost of maintaining the program, from base accreditation to the testing and QA/QC to ensure compliance.

      What you seem to want is for others to subsidize your dietary choice.

      • richard

        Of course you wouldn’t care…. you’re paid not to…. and lack the initiative to look at anything but your own limited data. I alone subsidize my dietary choices for myself and my family….. The healthcare system subsidizes yours….. and the global tax system subsidizes (half a trillion usd) hot mess known as industrial agriculture….. which you help enable. Thats quite a legacy.

        • obfuscate99

          Well, from the Green Revolution to now, it’s estimated that modern agricultural methods have saved the lives of between 1.2-1.7 billion people, as well as provided food security for many who had no such luxury prior to the combination of genetic and agronimic advances in the field.

          So yes, I do view it as quite the legacy.

          Currently you are correct that you are the only one subsidizing your diet, but mandatory GMO labeling, combined with the requirement to revamp the entire logistics of crop growth, harvest, transport, storage, and use, would be subsidized by every consumer, not just the ones who choose to avoid GMOs.

          Hmmm, let’s see. No, I can’t find any DB-RCT indicating any causal relationship between the consumption of GE crops with adverse health effects, and there’s even a dearth of case studies.

          It would appear that your assertion regarding the healthcare system is flawed…big surprise there, as there is no evidence that the breeding method has any impact on the nutrition or safety of a given crop.

          … You do realize that I can just keep pointing out that you need to have actual data, not anecdotes, to substantiate your position, right?

explore

Stories from our other publications