Pesticide residues vex food firms

Food companies are struggling with costly challenges launched by anti-pesticide activists.

While they are not facing mega-costs like Bayer is facing with the recent US$289 million jury judgment against Monsanto, activist lawsuits and claims are causing food companies to spend time and resources on lawyers and repackaging.

General Mills, the food and cereals colossus that makes Cheerios, just settled a lawsuit launched by Moms Across America, Beyond Pesticides and Organic Consumers Union by agreeing to drop its “100 percent natural” claim about the oats in one of its breakfast bar products.

The activist groups claimed that there were glyphosate residues in the oats, which was enough to invalidate the claim. They said they found half of one part per million in the oats tested in the Nature Valley granola bars, or one-60th of the U.S. maximum allowed.

General Mills denied the label was incorrect or that there was anything wrong with its product or its packaging.

“Nature Valley is confident in the accuracy of its label,” said spokesperson Mike Siemienas.

The agreement to change the label claim was just to avoid costly litigation, Siemienas said.

Other companies have also faced claims and lawsuits against using terms such as “natural,” often with tiny glyphosate residues as the reason.

The Organic Consumers Association has sued Ben and Jerry’s ice cream owner Unilever over glyphosate residues, and Post Foods and Quaker Oats have faced lawsuits over glyphosate residues in foods labelled “natural.”

The targeted products have generally not claimed to be organic, but the activists’ lawyers have argued that consumers believe “natural” means there will be zero residues of chemicals.

The lawsuits have not achieved much success in court, but some companies, such as General Mills, have chosen to settle cases rather than be caught in multi-year legal struggles.

The public furor over glyphosate continues to ferment with an Aug. 15 study by activist organization Environmental Working Group receiving huge play in the mainstream media, leading to millions of stories being shared on Facebook and other social media.

The group entitled its news release Breakfast With a Dose of Roundup? and led the story with, “Popular oat cereals, oatmeal, granola and snack bars come with a hefty dose of the weed-killing poison in Roundup.”

That tone extended to most of the media coverage, despite the fact that the residues were far beneath regulatory limits, being listed in the report in parts per billion.

“Report: Oatmeal, breakfast foods contain unsafe amounts of weed killer,” was the Detroit Free Press headline.

Most mainstream media reports reported the claims, referred to the recent jury award against Monsanto and mentioned the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s much-challenged claim that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic.”

Slate magazine, the respected online news source, tore apart the Environmental Working Group’s claims with its science editor, Susan Matthews, stating that “basically the EWG threshold has to be set at one-ten-thousandth of what the (Environmental Protection Agency) has deemed to be safe for the trace amounts of glyphosate to register.”

However, that informed analysis did not make nearly the same public impact that the initial claims did, leaving food companies with a continuing headache of trying to explain pesticide residues and safety.

Major companies named in the report included Quaker, General Mill’s Nature Valley and Kellogg’s.

Bayer’s Monsanto hangover has just begun, but food companies have long grappled with pesticide residue challenges, and there’s no sign of those challenges subsiding.

About the author


  • richard

    What did they expect was going to happen? Ignoring the abuse of a patented, systemic antibiotic (Glyophsate) being applied to living seeds at harvest for twenty years………and then being “vexed” by the bio accumulation in the food stream is just lame…….If food processors are not going to take responsibility for the quality of the ingredients they use, the public will…….and they will overreact… .just like anyone who has been deceived……duhhhh!

  • grinninglibber

    Either listen to the market – or do not be surprised if the buyers go elsewhere.

    • Sheryl McCumsey

      Oh they know the buyers are going elsewhere -hence the big attack on organic. It is not live and let live it is monopolization and attempts to control the entire food industry. Bayer bought Monsanto-even conventional farmers are worried about what that means. We have lost 75% of insect life……….one has to wonder when the light bulb goes on about what this is going to do to our ability to feed ourselves. Canola does not feed the world people. Climate change is doing a number on farmers in regards to drought and more adverse weather. Organic systems are more resilient and diversity is key. Growing a whole lot of one thing has historically lead to famine. This is not just making us sick it has the potential to destroy agriculture. As glyphosate continues to be ineffective-di-camba will wipe out crops……..this is like a drug addiction and no good will come of it.

      • Pat Zagame

        Glufosinate,glyphosate,2,4-D ,dicamba resistant GE crops all containing herbicide residuals combined with Bt toxins…whats a consumer to do? The agri-chemical industry attacks organics,but they are the leading cause for sky rocketing sales…double edge sword?

      • AgSciGuy

        Think the attacks on organic foods might be a reaction to the unscientific accusations that “big organic” constantly spews at conventional farmers.

        • Sheryl McCumsey

          You make general sweeping statements with zero to back up your claims-

  • “if we educate ourselves about lack of science used to assess harm and want something better”

    That is the problem, you haven’t educated yourself as to how pesticides are regulated or assessed for harm, instead you peddle fear and expect educated people to take you seriously.

    You claim a lack of science without understanding the science that is used.

    “Bowel cancer is on the rise even though Canadians “think” they are eating better.”

    So you blame the thing you dislike, this is called a confirmation bias, yet you think saying stuff like this makes you sound clever. The reality is quite the opposite.

    • Sheryl McCumsey

      The audit on the Pest Management Regulatory Agency revealed pesticides on the market without the required science submitted. Ecojustice sued for the unlawful registration of pesticides on the market. This should never have been allowed in the first place. You can download this audit which I have done. In the recent court case in which a groundskeeper developed cancer and won his case you can download transcripts which I did. In them it reveals that Monsanto hid evidence of cancer and used ghost writers. A recent study shows how “below” acceptable limits of exposure gut issues develop. It is a fact that Canada is a world leader for IBD AND studies show that when people immigrant to Canada they then develop gut diseases especially in the very young. We have higher levels of this in Canadian food than most countries. Hundreds of studies illustrate harm with this pesticide HOWEVER it is a serious flaw in our system that industry provides the science used AND that the actual product used (round-up with its additives) is not what is actually assessed-only the active ingredient. How is that for LACK of science? I have letters from government to prove these facts. So we have the science that clearly illustrates a variety of concerns, we have evidence this is in our food, water and bodies, we have evidence that many chronic diseases associated with them are on the rise. AS well I have asked for the reports of abuses of pesticides and in our province I see hundreds of complaints that are not followed up on, I have photos of people abusing pesticides, I have the evidence given to me from people all over the country. Just like the tobacco industry who claims tobacco is “safe” – the pesticide industry does exactly the same thing. People do take me very seriously because I take that evidence with me when I discuss my concerns. This is irresponsible and Canadians should be outraged.

      • “A recent study shows how “below” acceptable limits of exposure gut issues develop.”

        Are you talking about the Ramazzini Institute studies? If you are then you may want to read them since this is not what they found.

        There is no evidence of roundup/glyphosate posing a cancer risk, the court case does not change this.

        “studies show that when people immigrant to Canada they then develop gut diseases”

        The suspected reasons for this are low vitamin D levels from low light exposure, overly hygienic environments and food additives. Again, your confirmation bias is limiting your ability to properly analyse these issues.

        “Hundreds of studies illustrate harm with this pesticide ”

        This is wrong.

        “industry provides the science used”

        Not all the science used, but if industry didn’t provide the “science” then who would? you?

        “actual product used (round-up with its additives) is not what is actually assessed-only the active ingredient”

        The research I do uses the actual product, I would like to see your information source saying only the active ingredient need to be assessed. No doubt, there would be times that individual ingredients need to be tested in isolation, but I doubt you have evidence to suggest that formulated products are never assessed.

        “we have the science that clearly illustrates a variety of concerns”

        No you don’t, but if you do please post the citations.

        “we have evidence that many chronic diseases associated with them are on the rise”

        Again, this is your confirmation bias talking, there is no evidence linking glyphosate with chronic disease.

        “I have photos of people abusing pesticides”

        Please elaborate on this, what abuse are you talking about?

    • Peter Olins

      The incidence of colorectal cancer in Canada is decreasing, possibly due to increased screening and removal of (precancerous) polyps.

      • Sheryl McCumsey

        You just contradicted yourself. You mean “deaths” are decreasing possibly due to increased screening and removal of polyps. The actually incidence of disease is increasing.

        • Peter Olins

          “Incidence” refers to the point at which a disease is diagnosed, and it’s my understanding that early removal of polyps reduces the chance of actually developing colorectal cancer.

          At least in the US, the incidence of new cases (and deaths) have been declining steadily since around 2000.

          Unfortunately, we don’t know enough about how the disease develops, let alone how to prevent it. However, alcohol and obesity appear to be modifiable risk factors.

          • Sheryl McCumsey

            Glyphosate is found to be an endocrine dysruptor which will impact obesity rates-this is something that is not a requirement for registration of a pesticide for assessment and it is one of the many serious concerns. If we allow endocrine dysruptors into the food system these so called risk factors are not being controlled. It certainly can explain in part why 1/4 of the population is obese.
            Livestock producers deliberately give animals low dose antibiotics to enhance growth. Glyphosate is also registered on the patent as an anti-microbial-so this is yet another reason it might affect obesity just for starters. However as I have said before-studies show this negatively impacts the gut at below acceptable limits AND the increase of IBD is most pronounced in the young-who hopefully are not yet drinking alcohol not to mention young children who are new to Canada who develop this after arriving here. Something is definitely different in our food system and glyphosate has evidence that clearly points a finger in its direction. Unless your data is up to date this will not truly reflect what is going on. My data is up to date. All resources state that deaths have declined due to early interception-I would think preventing cancer is a good idea not just treating it.

          • Peter Olins

            “Glyphosate is found to be an endocrine dysruptor [sic]…”

            There you go again, with yet another new topic, and no evidence to support this dramatic claim.

            “…studies show this negatively impacts the gut at below acceptable limits..”

            1. Provide a link for one study.
            2. Offer a brief comment.
            3. Wait for a response.
            4. Rinse, and repeat.

          • Damo

            ” My data is up to date”

            Once again, what data, what studies?

          • AgSciGuy

            Why don’t you answer Peter’s question? I know, it is easier to throw out an endless string of unsubstantiated claims.

      • Sheryl McCumsey

        If Western Producer will not post my answer the editor needs to think why information such as this is suppressed. Mr. Olins’s statement makes little sense. How does cancer “decrease” due to increased screening? It hasn’t-screening has increased the rapid diagnosis which improves mortality-nevertheless this is now the second most common form of cancer death for men and third for women. The incidence has gone up-the mortality has gone down.

        • Damo

          So, you admit that increased diagnosis is the reason for increased cancer rates.

          Thanks for that.

          Otherwise, though you did not address Peter Olins comments.

      • Thanks for the correction Peter, I didn’t fact check what Sheryl had said, I will next time.

  • Damo

    “Bowel cancer is on the rise even though Canadians “think” they are eating better”

    What is it that they think they are eating more so that they are eating better?

    • Sheryl McCumsey

      Studies show that they are eating what is considered “healthy” – the reason I say “think” is because many of us are unaware of how contaminated our food has become.

      • Damo

        And how contaminated has it become?

        Bowel cancer is related to meat consumption. Not many people are downing their steaks with RoundUp.

        • Sheryl McCumsey

          Animals are exposed to this too-however that is exactly the point-although people are eating more fruits and vegetables they are getting sicker. It is kind of a dumb thing to say people are “drowning” their steaks with round-up. The fat in an animal is where toxins reside. New evidence is showing that this is also impacting livestock. The federal government found glyphosate exceeded acceptable limits in Canadian food. We have increased pesticide use by 70% in 8 years.

          • Damo

            “although people are eating more fruits and vegetables they are getting sicker.”

            Citation needed for that one. That is totally bogus.

            ” It is kind of a dumb thing to say people are “drowning” their steaks with round-up” Agreed. Which is why I didn’t say that.

            ” The fat in an animal is where toxins reside.” Any proof that these pesticides are found in animal fat.

            “New evidence is showing that this is also impacting livestock.” What evidence?

          • Sheryl McCumsey

            I see you have now edited your question-however I do have a life and do not want to write a book on-line if you don’t mind. You can search for this information for yourself-google Canada eating habits changed perhaps-google cancer/infertility/kidney disease/liver disease/parkinson’s for Canadian stats (all increasing and all linked to pesticide exposure), why make a stupid comment then and look up toxins in animal fat, animal studies showing harm glyphosate and case studies…………it is clear you are just argumentative in your responses and I have other things to do today. I already gave you a BIG one-gut diseases did you forget?

          • Damo

            That is not true. I did not edit my post. You are now lying about me.

            Also, I actually do have a life, so excuse me if I don’t want to spend too much time investigating your lies. Searches for the information you claim came up empty, so I am not going to spend anymore time on it. If what you are saying is the the truth you will provide a source. If you don’t provide a source it is obviously a lie.

            What was your “BIG one-gut disease?” Whatever that even means.

          • AgSciGuy

            Fake science. Glyphosate is not fat soluble and is excreted rapidly from the body.

          • Goldfinger


            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.

          • AgSciGuy

            Entropy is a pay-to-play journal. Almost all the references in the article are from Samsel, Seneff, and Kim. All who have been thoroughly discredited. …

          • Byron Smith

            Are you saying that there is something wrong with the Monsanto study data that found these facts? If so please tell us, specifically, what the issues are.

          • AgSciGuy

            Post a link to the study and I will review it. I don’t want to have to waste time searching for that trash paper again. But, the researchers referenced in the article are known for drawing unsupported populist conclusions to gain fame and publicity, especially among people uneducated in science.

            All the studies are reviewed by EPA and FDA. Guess they’re in Monsanto’s back pocket!! Conspiracies are great. Oh yeah, the lunar landing was fake, a PR stunt.

          • Goldfinger

            The data was from Monsanto’s own studies. Let’s discuss the data and the analysis and avoid the gossip about your opinions of the journal or the scientists. Let’s examine the facts and forget the spin.

          • AgSciGuy

            Please provide the compete citation. It will probably make interesting reading – like a good Stephen King horror novel.

        • Byron Smith

          Not all bowel cancer is related to red meat consumption. There are other issues that contribute. It is not as simple as you would like to trivialize it to be.

          • Damo

            Really? You are telling me that things aren’t as simple as I “trivialize them to be.”

          • Byron Smith


      • Damo

        What studies?

        • Sheryl McCumsey

          There are hundreds of studies-what exactly are you referring to?

          • Damo

            You said studies. What studies are you talking about?

    • S.G.

      Such nonsense. You must have your head in the sand.

  • Peter Olins

    Which Canadian “gut disease issues” are you referring to, and where can we see the statistics?

    • Sheryl McCumsey

      Go to the Canadian Digestive Health Foundation web-page for starters-we have gone from 10-20 million Canadians “diagnosed” with a gut disease in 10 years. That includes IBD, Crohn’s and celiac. Your can get stats for every province-the incidence has been reported in many news media since it is a concern seeing this in younger children.

      • Damo

        Has it occurred to you there may be other reasons for an increase in diagnosis? Including more people getting tested?

        • Sheryl McCumsey

          10 Million MORE in 10 years? Studies also show that people who move here from other countries “develop” gut diseases they did not have before. I already mentioned a study which showed gut issues with below acceptable limits of exposure. The science, the evidence and the exposure are all there. People who work in these fields have said many times this is related to environmental exposures. You have to try very very hard to ignore it.

          • Damo

            What studies?

            “Studies also show that people who move here from other countries “develop” gut diseases they did not have before. ”

            That could be due to them a. living older (age correlates with disease a lot of times), b. actually being diagnosed (you don’t say where these people are from), or c. some other diet related thing (like increased meat consumption).

            “People who work in these fields have said many times this is related to environmental exposures. You have to try very very hard to ignore it.”

            What people? I don’t believe every shiester that works in auto repair either. I make sure they are not trying to profit off me before paying any attention. It would do you well to do the same regarding possible toxins in your food.

          • Sheryl McCumsey

            These studies focused on the children not the older relatives. This is in Canada-this story and segment is about Canada. Studies focus on one issue-there are other studies that support this as harming the gut. Doctors could be “shiesters” but I fail to see why they would say this unless it is true……there are several sources but it is clear that you believe what you want to believe. Do you smoke?

          • Damo

            What study? Answer the question.

      • Peter Olins

        I think it’s a mistake to lump all gastrointestinal conditions together, so I’m not sure your number is useful.

        Canada has a very high prevalence of IBD (Crohn’s, Ulcerative Colitis) relative to other countries, but the reason for increased incidence over the past two decades is unknown.

        Prevalence of celiac disease is hard to determine, since the majority of cases go undiagnosed. However, if I recall correctly, the prevalence reached a plateau a couple of decades ago. The causes are still poorly understood.

        If you have any ideas about the cause of a specific gastrointestinal disease, I’d be glad to discuss further, but I’m not sure why you are bringing this up in the context of an article about pesticides.

        • Sheryl McCumsey

          One of the causes cited in many references for IBD is exposure to anti-biotics. Glyphosate happens to be registered on the patent as such as well recent study indicates this is exactly what it does. Glyphosate is the pesticide mentioned in this article and how it is found in our food. NOT sure why you missed that. This herbicide is also used to dry down cereal crops-it is interesting that there are at least three studies to show severely altered normal flora in celiac patients. Some brewers have found this to be a problem in that this interferes with the fermentation process. To dismiss this evidence is to dismiss science that does not suit the agenda to market a harmful pesticide that is becoming less useful to farmers due to weed resistance.

          • Peter Olins

            Sheryl, you need to stop throwing out this stream of claims without substantiating them. Are you truly interested in learning about this topic? If so, pick a topic and show the evidence, so that we can discuss. These are important issues, but you are not helping anyone with your wild claims.

            I know of no evidence to suggest that traces of dietary glyphosate affect human gut flora. Where are you getting these extreme notions?

            Regarding celiac disease, why wouldn’t you expect the gut flora to be different, given that the disease reduces the absorption of many nutrients; plus the diet of a typical (diagnosed) celiac is quite different from the general public.

          • Sheryl McCumsey

            LOL-sorry Peter-but I have been stating where this information comes from-does it bother you?-I can’t help you if you do not want to look. Studies, reports and evidence are not wild claims. There is no way of knowing exactly why the gut flora of someone with celiac is so severely altered-however many claim they can eat wheat in places where glyphosate is not used as a desiccant. It needs more study to illustrate why someone suddenly develops this sensitivity.

          • Peter Olins

            Au contraire, Sheryl!

            Celiac disease is characterized by shrinking gut villi, resulting in malabsorption of nutrients (and fatty stools). I find it hard to imagine that unabsorbed nutrients would not result in the proliferation of a subset of gut microbes.

            If you have evidence (or rationale) for how minute traces of glyphosate would result in the microbial changes seen in celiac patients, and that this change is the CAUSE of the disease please share.

            Your claim about celiac patients being able to eat wheat from certain sources is almost impossible to believe—if true, it could be a breakthrough in this major disease. Please share this information here (or contact me privately).

            Or perhaps your claims are bogus, in which case you are using the plight of real patients to advance a destructive agenda.

          • Sheryl McCumsey

            Peter you are talking about the symptoms of disease which is not the same thing as the cause.

          • AgSciGuy

            Funny, can’t find anything about a link between glyphosate and celiac disease at,,, . . . …

          • AgSciGuy

            Where do you come up with this garbage? The Environmental Working Group? Try to actually rely on science.

            Glyphosate is an h-e-r-b-I-c-I-d-e. This means it controls plants! It doesn’t even control all plants. It certainly isn’t an antibiotic that controls all microorganisms. If glyphosate is really an antibiotic, don’t you think the evil chemical companies would be marketing it as such? (Sorry, that would be logical).
            The ethanol in your organic wine is a real antibiotic. It is used to sterilize and disinfect items in many processes.

            If you are that paranoid, I hope you don’t use disinfecting cleaners such as Ajax, Mr. Clean, etc. They are a much broader spectrum killer than glyphosate. (BTW, these products are FDA and EPA registered pesticides.)

            Don’t forget your dish soap, laundry, etc. They’re probably toxic too – see Environmentalist-wacko Working Group cleaning guide.

          • Sheryl McCumsey

            Glyphosate is a pesticide which all herbicides are. … The patent illustrates how this is a broad spectrum anti-microbial.

  • Jason

    Actually, Bowel cancer is on the decline in the US and Canada. Is it possible you don’t know what you’re talking about?

    • Sheryl McCumsey

      AS of 2017-actually the rates are increasing “specifically” in the younger population according to the Canadian Cancer society statistics, “Colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer, accounting for 13% of all cancers. Starting from the
      mid-1980s, overall incidence rates for colorectal cancer declined for both sexes until the mid-1990s, though this decline was more prominent for females.(9)
      Incidence rates then rose, only to decrease again, beginning in 2000 for females and 2008 for males (Table 1.5). This is most likely due to increased use of
      colorectal cancer screening, which can identify treatable precancerous polyps and reduce cancer incidence. The decline in colorectal cancer incidence rates appears confined to older adults as rates are increasing among adults younger than 50 years of age in Canada and in the United States.” As professionals in the field have remarked it is sad to see gut diseases increasing in children as young as 5. “Carroll, Alberta lead on the study published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology, explained that a decade of data suggests the rate of illness is rising. This is especially true for young children — between 1999 and 2010, there was a 7.2 per cent increase per year in children under five who were diagnosed. ” Note that studies show glyphosate will cause these issues in below acceptable limits of exposure. It is registered on the patent as an anti-microbial that lists gut flora it destroys. Pathogenic bacteria are found to be more resistant in studies.

      • Jason

        So, faced with the fact that colo-rectal cancers are not increasing, you move the goalposts to focus on a narrower age range and some set of mystery “gut disease”?

        Unless you have a plausible explanation as to why the older population (who’s been exposed to glyphosate far longer) would be less effected, then please… don’t waste our time.

        • Denise

          How old is older? Children and babies have not developed strong immune systems,yet, and are more vulnerable to diseases .

          • Jason

            As the previous poster said…people below 50. Not exactly young enough fo underdeveloped immune systems.

        • Sheryl McCumsey

          Read the post-that is not correct. “The decline in colorectal cancer incidence rates appears confined to older adults as rates are increasing among adults younger than 50 years of age in Canada and in the United States.” It is entirely up to you how you use your time lol.

          • Jason

            No, dear. It is correct. You were wrong so you cherry picked the evidence to find a subset of the data that fits your narrative. In fact it’s not all of the adults younger than 50. It’s really people 40-50. So, please explain….how would glyphosate be causing cancer in them, but nobody else?

      • AgSciGuy

        The glyphosate dose needed to achieve anti-microbial activity is unrealistically high to be obtained from treated crops. see Again, the ethanol in your organic beer is a much more toxic than glyphosate and the exposure is orders of magnitude grater.

        • obfuscate99

          There was a study from last year that quite elegantly measured this. Nielsen et al., (2017). Glyphosate has limited short-term effects on commensal bacterial
          community composition in the gut environment due to sufficient aromatic
          amino acid levels. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.10.016

          • richard

            Meanwhile over here on planet earth, intelligent humans have concluded that human progress in the twenty first century will be defined by zero agritoxins in their food….. not by how much we can get away with as is the case on the planet of the apes.

          • obfuscate99

            Actually, as even organic cultivation practices make use of pesticides, plus the minor detail that organic produce, even after decades on the market hasn’t cracked 5% of the total market in terms of cultivation.

            You’re overestimating the size of your membership.

          • richard

            The only thing I’m overestimating is the ability of those trapped in paradigm paralysis to overcome their obsession with xenobiotic substances as a path to either sustainable agriculture or clean food…….That’s the zeitgeist pal… pesticide residues in food is neither smart nor acceptable in the twenty first century….. lead, follow or get out of the way!

          • obfuscate99

            If that is the case, you should be able to cite an OECD-452 or 453 compliant study that shows a causal, dose dependent relationship between any pesticide and adverse health effects at or below the established ADI.

            But I guess your adherence to the naturalistic fallacy provides enough evidence that you have no understanding of even rudimentary toxicology…and I’ll also throw in biochemistry, molecular biology, genomics, and organic chemistry.

            As for your “…lead, follow or get out of the way!” comment, a few things to consider.

            1. Global acreage for GMO crops continues to grow year over year. In fact, the only time when there was a decrease was in 2015. Of course the 2016 acreage made up for this decrease, with the 2017 data showing 469,000,000 acres for GMO crops globally.

            2. More GE varieties have been developed and achieved approval year over year. Heck, in the case of some developing nations, the development of entire biotech pipelines to produce locally adapted GE varieties has started to show remarkable success.

            3. Contrary to the doom and gloom predictions of you and your ilk, no new toxicity data has been produced that shows the current ADIs are insufficient for any pesticide, released or in development.

            4. Finally, even after over two decades, organic farming has yet to crack the double digits in terms of total production…and in reality it’s not even over 5%.

            So who should be the one to get out of the way here? I have studies that have complied with the OECD and GLP standards supporting my position. Your side hasn’t been able to perform a compliant study at all. Only Seralini was crazy enough to try to claim that he was using OECD-453 for his lumpy rat study, but comparing his methods to paragraph 19 of the protocol shows that he was nowhere close.

            From my perspective, you are the one who will occupy the dustbin of history.

          • richard

            No, what I cite is the fact that DDT, lindane, mercury…..ractopamine, zilmax, antibiotics as prophylactic…..PCBs, dioxins and flame retardants, were all proclaimed at one time by eggheads in lab coats and corporate heelers to be the next modern wonders of science…. Sadly they have all found themselves in the dustbin of corporate techno hubris, a sad legacy of a defective regulatory model, that ironically still exists…… That aging white technocrats find themselves increasingly anachronistic is the obvious reason for the projection and self righteous indignation….. The public is way out front of you on this one pal…..and has zero interest in any ppb of antibiotics (glyphosate) or neurotoxins (neonicotinoids) in their food. I know! How can the public be so misinformed???

          • obfuscate99

            So you don’t have any data to support your claims, and instead go for a shotgun approach…which is actually rather amusing, as in many cases the scientists at the time did indicate that caution should be taken, as there were concerns relating to mercury, lindane, PCB, and dioxins long before they were any issues.

            For ractopamine, DDT, zilmax, there is still quite a bit of debate regarding the real world risks. In the case of ractopamine and zilmax, the MRLs for both have been well established, and there is no data indicating that there are any adverse effects at exposure levels equal to or below the MRL.

            In the case of DDT, there was never a concern regarding mammalian toxicity, and the total ban enacted in some countries has been questioned since the appearance of diseases such as Zika that are spread by insects. With proper management, it is entirely possible for DDT to be used to limit the spread of these diseases, and minimize the off target effects.

          • richard

            My data lies in the outcomes, we both know that….quit obfuscating…. Reductionist science performed by deeply compromised corporate entities through compliant bureaucratic channels with one and only one outcome in sight, is a recipe for disaster. The flight from complexity and avoidance of ecological principles is precisely why the public is confronted with having to clean up the mess every five years or less…. while those responsible are busy hawking the next magic bullet and blaming the victims…. And you people wonder why the public doesn’t believe one word you utter. Now THATS amusing and totally daft.

          • obfuscate99

            No, your data is nothing more that specious nonsense based far more on nonesemse ideology and annecdote as opposed to empirical data.

            So you know the reason why the OECD standards are used?

            It’s to ensure that the ability of any researcher to manipulate the data are minimized, and this is very well supported by the simple fact that the results from these studies can be replicated by different groups around the world. That’s been the case for pesticides like glyphosate (for review see Griem et al., 2015) and for GMOs themselves (GRACE Project, G-TwYST, GMO90+).

            Fortunately progress continues to be made in spite of you and your I’ll. Global acreage for GMOs continues to increase, more.GE varieties and species are entering into the market, and throughout all of this, not a single OECD compliant study has managed to support your position.

          • richard

            So none of the bans on any of the many xenobiotic substances I listed for you are in reality correct? These bans were all based on specious data and false arguments right? And glyphosate and neonicotinoids are not going down hard and fast right? And you do not attempt to obfuscate and project in order maintain an illusion of credibility right? And the dish ran away with the spoon right?

          • AgSciGuy

            Thanks for citing that study. It supports the fact that glyphosate is safe when used as labeled. Some quick points from the earth-shattering study you cite:
            -most studies were in vitro – a good starting point but not decisive .
            -“we found that glyphosate . . . at up to 50x the established European Acceptable Daily Intake had very limited effects on bacterial community composition in Sprague Dawley rats . . .” Note: 50x rate.
            – “We conclude that sufficient intestinal levels of aromatic amino acids provided by the diet alleviate the need for bacterial synthesis of aromatic amino acids and thus prevents an antimicrobial effect of glyphosate in vivo.”
            -“We found no differences between treatment groups in in fecal consistency”
            -“We did not observer abnormalities in organs from the rats dosed with glyphosate.” Even at 50x rate.
            -Your pen-name is very appropriate: obfuscate = to make something less clear and harder to understand

          • obfuscate99

            “Thanks for citing that study. It supports the fact that glyphosate is safe when used as labeled.”

            …that was my point.

            The idea that gut bacteria are affected by glyphosate at or below the ADI is purely idiotic, but one that the anti-biotech factions repeatedly bring up. That study explained the reason why the results from in vitro and in vivo studies showed such a difference.

          • Denise

            It’s not used as it was originally intended for.
            Instead of using it sparingly, only as a last resort, for out- of -control weeds, they ‘decided’ it could be used ubiquitously and proactively to kill ‘ possible’ weed growth.
            Just like the over use of antbiotics has left us with fewer drugs to fight bacterial infections , glyphosate is on the same path. Weeds are becoming more resilent and genetically adapting to withstand these poisons.
            Greed and maximizing profits win over sustainable and proper use ,everytime. Too bad for all of us, even the greedy guys will lose in the end.

          • obfuscate99

            This is quite amusing, as its original use in agriculture was as a pre-emergence herbicide…and it still is used in this manner. There are quite a few other broad spectrum herbicides (AKA non-selective) that can be used. Several interrupt amino acid biosynthesis, as glyphosate does, but inhibit branched chain amino acids, such as Imazethapyr (Pursuit, Sceptor), and when used in rotation they can greatly reduce the emergence of resistant varieties.

            Due to the broad modes of action found in the modern collection of pesticides, making use of stacked traits, such as the auxin analogues combined with an ALS or EPSPS inhibitor, resistance can be minimized.

            As was the case for antibiotics, people didn’t listen to the scientists (or the distributors), where we very much did warn not to use the same herbicide over and over.

            Given the hard limits associated with so called permaculture or agroecological methods, along with the existing yield gap in organic farming methods, the system that we have is very much the best we have. Yields continue to grow thanks to both improved variety development, as well as new agronomic techniques, and this doesn’t show signs of abating any time soon.

            The fact that you don’t like it isn’t in any way shape or form relevant.

          • Denise

            I wish it was safe and didn’t harm people and our planet,
            but it does, so we have to stop this out- of -control practice in farming.
            In the beginning, it seemed like a miracle weed killer but like all things that seem too good to be true, so is it. Roundup (glyphosate and it’s adjuvants) are toxic to everything it touches except Roundup Ready seeds.
            Sorry, we can’t take it anymore even though it makes conventional farming so much easier.

          • obfuscate99

            Roundup is quite safe at the label rates of application. Do you not find it odd that not a single OECD-compliant study had comrnoutnodnthe anti-Biotech groups in the over 3 decades where it has been used?

            That isn’t an exaggeration, and while many OECD-453 compliant studies have been performed over the years, not a single one supports your position (for review see Griem et al., 2015).

            Your entire position isn’t based on the science, it’s simply fearmongering.

            Again, all I need to do is look at the yield data, as well as the dearth of supporting information for your side of the issue, to dismiss your thesis.

          • richard

            Its not used at label rates of application or at recommended frequency…..otherwise it would not find itself in every foodstuff on the planet….. … industry bafflegab is no replacement for the facts….

          • obfuscate99

            Actually it is used at the label rates. For multiple formulations, recommended, minimum,baand maximum application rates are included in the product information.

            Normally, 32oz/acre are applied, with a max of about 64oz/acre.

            There are also instructions for various scenarios, as well as describing when not to use any particular formulation.

            Monsanto maintains a list of label and MSDS.

            And which products have levels at or above the NOAEL, let alone the ADI?

          • richard

            No, its not used at label rates…..Its used at whatever rate it takes to get some result…. which when you’re chasing abject resistance in weeds you have habitually abused year after year after year in a monoculture….. results increasing dosages to get the same results….. …

          • obfuscate99

            … No farmer is going to use a herbicide above the recommended limit, as it will kill even the resistant crop species. It doesn’t make economic sense in the slightest.
            Having resistance to a particular herbicide is in no way the same thing as being immune or insensitive to its effects (insensitivity is an important element if you wish to use the DELLA proteins, or EIN lines (more used in experimental and breeding programs).

            In the previous example (Roundup Weathermax), any application over the label limits will cause significant damage to any crops that have been planted, even those with the mutated EPSPS.

            If the weed pressure is that strong, it is far more effective to use an alternate herbicide, which can be applied at the base label rate, and represent a much less expensive option, while still removing the weeds (unfortunately also the crops, unless the farmer is using one of the new stacked resistance varieties).

          • richard

            … glyphosate is used both pre-planting and particularly post harvest where rates are three to six times the original corporate recommendation of half a litre per acre. And staked resistance is simply code for evolutionary ignorance

          • obfuscate99

            That’s hardly the case, and once again, spraying above the label limits is utterly idiotic and not cost effective, as a pre-emergence, post-emergence, or post-harvest treatments. In fact, Monsanto lists the application rates for each of those scenarios in the label information for its various formulations…even going so far as to indicate which ones to use, and which to avoid for particular scenarios.

            Heck the Canadian webpage for Roundup actually has documents directly stating what the applications for post harvest weed control should be depending on the species of weed present.

            Care to guess the range that those rates fall within?

            22.65oz/ac (0.67L/ac) to 44.97oz/ac (1.33L/ac)

            Do you ever get tired of being wrong? None of this information is hidden. There are no secret handshakes, or cryptic notes needed to access the information. It’s all quite openly available, which leaves the only option that you never bothered to look.

            Oh, and it’s stacked resistance, not staked, and you once again cannot be more wrong. Evolution is the very reason why stacked traits are a superb solution.

            When ideology and empirical data collide, it’s not the data that needs to change. You’ve provided nothing to support your position, and fall back on everything from anecdotal accounts to appeals to nature…but not the science.

            How odd that’s the main aspect that you are lacking, but the one that I have in abundance.

          • richard

            … farmers, and gardeners and groundskeepers are often not using glyphosate at recommended rates….they are chasing resistance with excess and its a dead end evolutionary avenue…..just like stacking herbicides…. a cute industry term for increasing toxicity on the environment.

          • obfuscate99

            … Applying any pesticide above the label rates, and particularly on a resistant weed is utterly moronic, and not part of any IPM strategy…for over 30 years now.

            There’s a reason why we’ve developed such a wide range of pesticides with multiple modes of action, and differing specificities, and it is to allow farmers to respond to a wide range of scenarios.

            None of those involve using a treatment for which resistance is already present.

            Like I wrote earlier, using an EPSPS inhibitor on a resistant line will be ineffective and inefficient, better to use and ALS inhibitor or something likr ammonium nonanoate (AXXE).

          • richard

            Its not moronic, its just the result of addiction to one obsolete chemical….. and the sophistry that drives it….. and the false economy that drives reductionist science…. and the five hundred billion dollars of taxpayer largesse that drives blind faith in technology.

          • obfuscate99


            You do know that resistant weeds are nowhere near ubiquitous, right?

            Glyphosate is still an extremely effective and integral part of IPM, and no, that does not include application rates in excessnof the label.

            You don’t like modern science. That’s fine, but you don’t get a seat at the table to decide what is and is not valid science. …

            Your posts never contained any relevant data …

            It’s really very easy, show some chronic or accute toxicity data showing adverse health effects at or below the established ADIs.

            Until you can do this, you will continue to be ignored by my peers and I even it comes to actually deciding formal policy (as was the case at the SOT, last year).

          • richard

            Thirteen weed species on sixty million acres resistant to glyphosate (USDA 2015) and rising every minute of every hour of every day……And sorry, stacking herbicides is not IPM….its stacking toxicity and the vain illusion that you can attempt another end run around evolution. Sadly for yourselves nature takes you and your peers to the mat every time….. And if you are all ignoring me why do you continue to dignify my critical thinking? If industrial agriculture is so clever why does it require five hundred billion USD annually in social welfare. Put it on a level playing field and then we can have an adult conversation about who is really getting fed.

          • richard

            … as a P AG described to me several years ago at a crop field day…..” I have identified today for you, several examples of category one to category six resistance to different weeds” ….

          • obfuscate99

            And this conflicts with the data inoresented how exactly?

            The fact that they exist does not mean that they will be present in every field, or that they cannot be managed as part of a modern IPM strategy.

            Once again, stacked traits and herbicide rotations are an excellent way to limit the effects of any given treaemr.

          • richard

            Herbicide resistance is ubiquitous as is the willfull ignorance of a caste of aging white males most of whom have never had their hands in the soil.

          • obfuscate99

            So another .. unsupported post; … Conversely, I can provide multiple studies and reviews to back my position. Now for a few examples.

            Let’s see, we can start with Busi et al., (2013) which goes into the methods, both chemical and agronomic that can be used to prevent herbicide tolerance.

            What a surprise, incorporating different herbicides into an IPM system is very much part of the plan.

            Peterson et al., (2018) also examines these effects, and once again, using stacked traits and herbicide rotation have shown very positive results.

            Sammons and Gaines, (2014) go through the various resistance mechanisms and offer evidence on the most effective IPM best practices are, and herbicide rotation is part of the solution.

            …and are you are going to offer what study as support, or just double down on “… a caste of aging white males most of whom have never had their hands in the soil.”

          • Denise

            The label should read: Roundup (glyphosate)
            Use sparingly and only as a last resort for stubborn and out- of -control weed patches.
            Do not spray on ditches, road allowances, school yards, playgrounds, lawns or near farmyards.
            Please note: Glyphosate is not effective on superweeds. Non-chemical weeding alternatives are the best method for removing most weeds.

          • obfuscate99

            Your requirements are in no way justified ed in light of the dearth of OECD-compliant studies that show a riskwhen exposure levels are at or below the ADI.

            As mentioned earlier, stacking and rotating herbicides will reduce the pressure from weeds, and if people actually listen to the scientists this time, and actually rotate active ingredients, there will be a far greater chance that we can avoie a repeat WRT herbicide resistance.

            Non-chemical weeding is woefully inefficient. The only real option for something the size of the average farm in the US, is flame weeding, which has limited effect on several noxious weed species. Additionally the risk to the crop plants themselves is not insignificant, and late season use of flame weeding is not recommended.

            Oh BTW, if you are even considering hand weeding, you’re already out to lunch. That average farm size works out to 442 acres. In countries like Canada, it’s over 800 acres.

            There’s a reason why groups that exalt permaculture don’t like to get into the labor issues, which are why even the largest of these operations are all less than 30% of the average farm size.

          • Denise

            Yes, hand weeding is unrealistic however some superweeds are best removed by hand to contain the super seeds from spreading. A lot of super weeds stand out in a crop because they are so tall.
            There is little conversation about the adjuvants used with glyphosate in Roundup but they are of great concern for the environment and its inhabitants too.
            “Ignoring adjuvant falsifies the safety profile of commercial pesticides.”

          • obfuscate99

            Stacked and rotating herbicide rotations are far more effective, and will reduce the development of resistant weeds. This was actually the recommendation of scientists decades ago, when the first RR crops were released.

            …and you really need to screen your sources a bit more carefully. The studies that Mesnage and Antoniou choose to cite (which of course include those performed by Seralini), universally do not make use of real world concentrations or exposure levels.

            For instance, when on Earth are cells other than epithelial cells going to come into contact with POEA, let alone at the concentrations that were used?

            Take a guess what the effect of adding any soap to a cell culture would be?

            There’s a very good reason why these kinds of studies are not viewed as a concern among toxicologists. The results sound scary to the scientifically illiterate, but, and I’m writing from first hand experience with this, it’s not viewed as a realistic concern (quite literally at the 2017 SOT annual meeting, my peers and I had a collective shrug relating to studies of this type).

            These aren’t things that scientists are ignoring, the fact that I read the very publication you cited back when it was published at the beginning of the year (I think it was in my Feb 2018 collection) is some evidence of this.

            The problem is that, the vast majority of people have no idea what constitutes a real world comparison for this kind of study. In the same way that the 2012 Seralini lumpy rat study was quickly debunked in the scientific community, the general public latched onto the images that Seralini decided to release, and they still make the mistake of pointing to them to this day.

            As always, my colleagues and I have the same bar for all data. Using an appropriate methodology (usually OECD protocols), be able to show a causal relationship between any given compound, and adverse health effects at real world exposure levels.

            In the case of glyphosate, it’s quite amusing that not a single OECD-452 or 453 compliant study has been conducted by any anti-biotech researcher to date, yet industry, government, and academic labs have been able to do so, and the results from these studies indicate that there is no adverse effects at anywhere near the ADI.

          • Denise

            Too bad the farmers don’t use the same bars you and your colleages use to determine safe levels of use of glyphosate.
            Are farmers trained to use use products safely and precisely or do they just read the instructions on the containers and go for it..
            When they’re desiccating a crop do they really care if they are over the limit? Does any farmer consider the adverse health effects of glyphosate residues in the chaff dust when combining?

          • obfuscate99

            “…do the really care if they are over the limit?”

            Yes, yes they do. No farmer will spray more than they need to as the herbicides are not free. Every ml that they add to the tank, is money out of their pocket.

            Rather than spraying more glyphosate, they’d achieve better results by using a different dessicant.

            Training varies from state to state, but requiring some level of training and certification is required in many districts, and additionally worker safety laws require them to ensure that any employees they have are trained.

            As for health effects during harvest. The residual levels are well below the NOAEL, let alone the ADI. No adverse health effects have been seen at these levels, and also there is a complete lack of clustering when it comes to health effects.

          • richard

            Yeah, this just in….its not used as labeled…..and has not been for thirty years….. …

          • obfuscate99

            Actually it is. The application rate is printed right on the label of the concentrate, and it hasn’t changed very much at all.

          • richard

            Sorry I guess I missed it….. Does the label say two to three litres per acre? Does the label say recommended for desiccating peas, lentils, barley, oats, sunflowers, durum, hemp, flax and wheat ten days prior to harvest? Does the label say…recommended to casual gardeners and groundskeepers to apply at any rate they see fit? Because thats whats going on. Welcome to the real world of drug abuse!

          • razorjack

            Here are the instructions from the Roundup Canada site.

          • obfuscate99

            …you linked to the agronomy portion of the site. What you needed to link to was the “Labels & MSDS” tab.

            What you needed to look up was the label information for the relevant product. As you decided to link to the preharvest tips, which relate to Roundup Transorb(R), here’s the correct label document:

            Roundup Transorb(R)

            The sections relating to preharvest application begin in section 9.9.

          • obfuscate99

            The rate depends on the formulation, but the standard application rate is 32oz per acre, with a maximum rate of 64oz per acre.

            And yes, the application rates can all be found for the product, with them even providing recommendations when not to use Roundup, and instead something like Reglone should be used.

            So once again, your conspiracy … doesn’t pan out. …

          • richard

            I really must thank you once again for being here…. It is really important for the public to fully understand how so called experts in the field of agritoxins can be so utterly disconnected from the real world of abuse of technology….. Everything I stated in my previous post has been verified in real world applications… Listen carefully….. Glyphosate is NOT used as directed because it is CHEAP, it is allowed to be in the hands of PESTICIDE NUMBSKULLS…..and it is perpetrated as SAFER THAN TABLESALT by industry savants…..Your tired glib shibboleths are … absolute proof that arrogance and ignorance are a dangerous outcome of too much “education”

          • obfuscate99

            The acute toxicity studies or glyphosate so show it is less toxic than sodium chloride. That’s an easily measured metric that has been determined repeatedly.

            Just because you don’t like it, that OECD-compliant data does not go away. The fact that you cannot produce a single compliant study to back your assertions is ample proof that your belief is based on ideology not empirical data.

            The use of glyphosate as a desiccant was approved back in the early 90’s for wheat, barley, soy, peas, lentils, canola, and flax.

            In the case of Canada, the approval was from 1992. Heck the approved label text is right on page 8 of the report.

            You have no GLP and/or OECD-compliant data, you ignore the actual use approval of glyphosate, and your position just collapses into little more than a tantrum because scientists don’t share your worldview.

          • richard

            Funny, my worldview is that glyphosate is going down hard and fast, just like neonics….. and eight thousand lawsuits in the USA against the perpetrators kinda supports that theory….. That … eggheads don’t make the connection is simply a function of being trapped in a time capsule called reductionist hubris…. Glyphosate is found in all foods on earth including arctic seafood and organic vegetables … …… Its a drug that has been abused by its dealer and its addicts…..and its finished ok?

          • obfuscate99

            How odd. I can’t seem to find any policy , law, or even jurisprudence stating that scientific validity is determined by the courts.

            Did you follow the trial, particularly the jury selection?

            During the selection process the plaintiff’s council ised their strikes to remove jurors with a formal education in science or medicine. If their argument was going to be based on the studies to date, they should have fought to keep those potential jurors.

            As is the case with civil suits in the US, the strategy they chose to follow was to focu en an emotional appeal to the jurors, which is a very successful tactic.

            …but it quite often falls apart during the appeals process, where there are no jurors, only a panel of 3 judges, or the full number for the corcuit if they go immediately to an en banc hearing.

            You really do need to focus on the data rather than pseudoscience and conspiracy.

          • richard

            Yeah yeah, blame the jury, blame the judge…. blame the victims…..kinda reminds me of OJ or Bill more recently….. When xenobiotic substances of systemic nature, with long half lives appear in virtually every food on earth…. and the perpetrators do nothing about it…..its finished…..Speak to the champions of dioxins, pcbs, lindane, flame retardants, mercury….and then get back to me and we might have an adult conversation on the evolution of greed…..and those who enable it.

          • obfuscate99

            You’re the one rejecting the empirical evidence, and relying on nebulous and uncorroborated anecdotal evidence .

            That’s not how things work in science. It’s quite simple really, show causitive relationship between glyphosate and any adverse effect when the dose it at or below the ADI.

            You forwarded the hypothesis, but are incapable of producing even a single study that complies with the OECD 451, 452, and/or 453 designs.

            Which position is the more childish, you spouting drivvel that as as much backing as a fairy tale. Or mine, which is based on the research to date?

            Which of our positions is used by both professional science organizations the world over, and doesn’t have to detour into soncpiracy land to be possible?

            When you want to have an adult discussion, and one based on the data, not your feelings, please come back. Just be sure to have the citation for the OECD compliant study ready, as without it , your position is untenable.

          • richard

            PCBs, dioxins, mercury, lindane, DDT, …..finished….and soon glyphosate and neonics….for the same reasons….any questions?

          • obfuscate99

            Yes, where are the OECD-compliant studies showing adverse health effects from glyphosate when the exposure levels are at or below the ADI?

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Sodium cloride is salt. Salt is acutely toxic but people ingest it over a lifetime without any health problems and they would die without it.

            Glyphosate is a chronically toxic from the smallest dose up but it slowly degrades your body at the cellular level until the weakest system breaks down and the system dies. 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.

          • obfuscate99

            Ah the good old copy and paste … . Funny how the only ones who tout those claims regarding glyphosate, Samsel and Seneff mainly, have never actually publihed anything where they experimentally test their hypotheses.

            The two of them scrape the literature and cherry pick the ones that they like, but they stop at that point, and this is why they are anyone in the scientific community.

            Heck, the email from Michael Hansen to Michael Antoniou, one of Seralini’s collaborators specifically warn against associating the two of them.


            So … , can you actually cite any compliant study to support your claims?

          • Papa Ray

            The facts are the same no matter how they are posted. Interesting that you chose to divert your argument to something that had nothing to do with Cletus comment. Tell us, what are your specific issues with the facts he posted?

          • obfuscate99

            The fact that the major proponents for his entire screed regarding glyphosate toxicity are Samsel and Seneff, both of whom are considered to be fringe lunatics even by other anti-biotech researchers makes my comment entirely relevant …

            That particular quote has been used by quite a few … over the years, and it still continues to be utterly unsupported by the empirical data.

            Why is this the case? Well Samsel has never performed any studies to validate his hypothesis, and Seneff doesn’t even pretend to perform any wet lab work at all, and limits herself to datamining.

            Those are the facts. Everything that was written is utterly unsubstantiated. Given the fact that this moronic duo’s first meaningless paper in Entropy in 2013, they’ve had 5 years to experimentally validate their hypotheses.

            Heck a simple radiolabeled feeding study could have been done in a matter of only a few short months, and yet, we see nothing from either of them.

            Not only that, but that whole mimicry nonesense ignores the large (and charged) phosphate group in glyphosate. The simple steric interference from that alone is more than enough to block its incorporation under normal cytosolic conditions.

            Endocrine disruption? Nope! The EFSA performed the most recent review, who’s results matched with the previous work. This was particularly aided by the adoption in 2012 of a standardized testing methodology for determining endocrine disruption.

            These methods were actually updated in 2018…yet it’s funny that there’s not a single citation with Samsel or Seneff’s name on it. It’s almost like they once again never bothered to validate their hypotheses.

            The claim that this comes from Monsanto’s own studies is pure bunk, and even what was summarized in Griem et al., (2015) shows that this is not the case.

            As another example of the position of the research community, even the anti-biotech factions, how about this lovely excerpt from Mesnage and Antoniou, (2017), “…Samsel and Seneff largely serve to distract rather than to give a rational direction to much needed future research investigating the toxicity of these pesticides…”

            … can [you] provide some OECD-compliant studies?

            … they don’t exist.

  • Denise

    What do you think the consensus would have been, many years ago, if there would have been a referendum asking the public if they approve or not of the practice of desiccating crops with Roundup to kill the crop, dry it out, and make it more uniform and easier for combining?
    Personally, I was shocked and alarmed when I found out that farmers had started doing this, some thirty years ago, without the consumers’ knowledge.

  • Jason

    No. It is not possible. But thank you for your rather misplaced concern.

    • richard

      Your welcome…. and now you understand why glyphosate is going down hard and fast in spite of all the weak subterfuge…..kinda like we predicted here five years ago.

      • Farmer_Guy

        Pray tell how glyphosate is “going down hard”

        • richard

          When the public resents everything the addict and its dealer has to say about the most abused chemical in the history of humanity….. its finished..

          • AgSciGuy

            … Please give scientific information used to determine this is the “most abused chemical in history”. Sounds like an unsupported claim to me.

            Glyphosate does not appear to be “finished”. It seems to be holding steady at a high level of use: Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the US and globally (

  • AgSciGuy

    Often disrespect is not intended, but those of us with a strong science background get very irritated with the lack of science presented by organic groups.

    Speaking of lack of respect, the unsubstantiated claims the conventional food is dangerous is extremely disrespectful. The vast majority of pesticides in your food are natural – produced by the plants themselves. . . . . Unfortunately, that destroys the “victim” status of activists.

    • Denise

      Only trouble is that boiler pipe cleaner (glyphosate) was never meant to be used on our food supply and released into the natural environment.
      WE use bleach to kill germs in our bathroom but we would never think of drinking it to kill germs in our body.
      I guess you could say in small amounts, over time, it won’t kill you, but I’d rather not take that chance.
      I respect my body, feed it nutritous and pesticide- free food and it rewards me with good health. It is challenging at times because the labeling is often misleading.
      For example: With Non-GMO labeled products they forget to add that the Non-GMO crops can still have residues of glyphosate because they desiccate the crops with Roundup/glyphosate, more often than not.
      Glyphosate chelates micro-nutrients in the soil, including copper, iron, magnesium,manganese,nickel, colbalt and zinc.
      GMO glyphosate tolerant plants are deficient of many necessary minerals that our bodies require for good health.

      • AgSciGuy

        If glyphosate is so dangerous, shouldn’t farmers show the greatest injury? I haven’t seen those studies!! Where are they? Glyphosate chelates certain micronutrients in the soil. You make a giant jump to claim that happens in plants. Which study did you read???

        If you use any bleach, you are likely exposed to much more of its residue than you will ever be exposed to glyphosate. And guess what, glyphosate is about the same toxicity (LD50) as bleach.

        • Denise

          Saying “glyphosate is about the same toxicity (LD50) as bleach” does not reflect well on glyphosate’s reputation. We don’t go around spraying bleach in our environment for very good reasons. Yet glyphosate is spread around and is increasing in strength and use in higher amounts to try to combat Roundup- resistant superweeds.
          The use of glyphosate is “out of control” and is being used in ways it was never intended to be used for, when it first hit the market.
          Good for sales and profits though! You won’t find an agrochemical company questioning the safety of increased use. Profits are more important than people’s lives and the environment. We all know that.
          Where’s the scientific studies that prove the increased use of glyphosate is safe? Where’s the scientific proof that more residues of glyphosate in our food are not damaging the development of children even more than already?

          • AgSciGuy

            Toxicity is also dose dependent. The dose of glyphosate in a normal diet is too low to be toxic. . . ….

          • Byron Smith

            Glyphosate is not acutely toxic. Glyphoste is a potent endocrine disruptor. There is no safe dose. It damages at the molecular level and the damage is cumulative. Glyphosate remains in the human urine for 30 days. It damages slowly but continuously until the weakest body system breaks down. Then it’s any number of symptoms. Eventuality it kills.

          • AgSciGuy

            The endocrine disruptor theory always comes out when there is no real science.

          • SUNNY

            Actually there is real science that shows glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor.



    • Sheryl McCumsey

      Hundreds of studies illustrate harm with this pesticide. All of those studies are done by scientists. The disrespect comes from the inability to consider anything that does not fit into the agenda of selling this pesticide-

      • More unsubstantiated claims, Sheryl if you have hundreds of studies that show harm then it should not be hard for you to post one of them. Throwing out a bunch of claims with no evidence is not what a scientifically literate person would do.

        Sheryl, are you able to post a study that supports any of your claims?

        • Sheryl McCumsey

          What you don’t think scientists perform studies? You want a study on that lol? I am not going to post hundreds of studies. If you can’t even ask a specific question don’t expect an answer. Can you post a study that proves round-up is safe?

          • So you aren’t going to post even one study showing harm from glyphosate? Why would anyone take you seriously if you won’t provide the evidence to your claims?

            “Can you post a study that proves round-up is safe?”

            That’s not how science works, given your claims of being scientifically literate I assumed you knew of the difficulties in proving a negative, I guess you are not the scientist you think you are. Furthermore, I am not the one making claims without evidence.

            So just post a study that supports your claims so we can discuss it.

          • Sheryl McCumsey

            Mr. “Effnnell”… You do not know me but to harp on how scientifically literate I am is stupid. A chemical company is required to submit studies to illustrate that their product has an “acceptable” risk. The onus is not on me but on them. They lost in a recent lawsuit because they have been hiding evidence that this pesticide is linked to cancer. I have more important things to do in my life than to respond to [you]… I am not interested in discussing anything with you.

          • I don’t need to know you Sheryl, all the information I need is here in this forum, you have been asked multiple times for evidence to support your claims yet you refuse to provide that evidence. My guess is its because you don’t have any evidence. Maybe its time to change your thinking Sheryl.

          • obfuscate99

            First, the courts do not determine the validity of scientific results.

            Second, given the fact that the plaintiff’s attorney elected to exclude jurors with formal education in science or medicine, it was obvious from the start that their strategy was to make an emotional appeal to jury. It worked, as is the case in a disproportionately large number of civil cases involving personal injury.

            What is also true is that the appellate court is a very different story. No juries, just a panel of three judges (or the full complement of judges if they progress to an en banc).

            Now, about being able to show the toxicity data indicating the NOAEL and or LOAEL. Have you even bothered to look into the testing for glyphosate?

            I ask because it has been studied, repeatedly I might add. Want to see a partial list?

            How about just a sampling of the tests NOT conducted by Monsanto beginning with OECD-453 compliant studies 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

            In each and every case, these studies showed that there are no adverse health effects anywhere near the ADI.

            Care to guess how many OECD- 453 compliant studies have been conducted by the anti-GMO research groups?





            Only Seralini had the gall to try and pass of his retracted 2012 study as being compliant with the OECD methods, but a simple comparison of the 453 design and the materials and methods he used shows that this was not the case. Paragraph 19 expressly states that his use of only 10 rats per gender per treatment was insufficient, as it required the support of the results from the carcinogenicity phase of the study to provide a sufficient power of analysis to distinguish treatment effects from background variation (and even then, his use of Sprague-Dawley rats for a two year study on its own requires the population sizes to be much higher, in accordance with Guidance Document 116, and also the 2011 revision of the EFSA standards).

            Hey, I may as well toss in the Monsanto ones, right?

            – Monsanto, 1990: Klimisch Rating 1
            – Monsanto 1981 (Predates OECD 451 or 453): Klimisch Rating 3
            – Monsanto 1983 (Predated OECD451 and 453): Klimisch Rating 2

            Care to guess one other thing that these studies have managed to do that not a single one of the anti-GMO research groups have managed to do in over 2 decades?

            These studies are reproducible, and continue to align with each other in a way that none of the dire papers from the anti-GMO Luddites have never once managed to achieve.

            Heck the EU wrapped up not one, but three studies to see if there was any veracity to Seralini’s work (GRACE, G-TwYST, and GMO90Plus).

            …take a wild guess what the results were?

            Oh, and you should note that those OECD-453 studies I listed, they weren’t all in the US. Research groups from North America, Europe, and Asia were able to follow a basic study design…kinda odd how your side keeps on screwing up by the numbers.

          • richard

            The courts WILL determine the validity of scientific results if they are found to be defective and lead to compromising the health and welfare of citizens or their environment…..(ie. lindane, mercury, DDT, dioxins, PCBs and soon glyphosate and neonicotinoids)

          • obfuscate99

            No, the courts will make a decision only applicable in the US, and even that’s not a certainty given the structure of the appeals system, and will have no impact on the validity of the data generated as part of the toxicology studies to date.

            How can the courts determine causation?

            They’ll have to rely on the science. Remember earlier when I pointed out that the plaintiff attorney in the civil suit made it a point to remove anyone with a formal education in science and medicine?

            Why would that be the case if the science supported them?

            The history of the US courts show that, for at least the last 40 years, emotion wins at the trial level, facts during the appeal, when juries are removed from the process.

            In terms of the science, it won’t make any difference. The literature will not change, as it can only do that when new empirical data shows a valid reason.

            Fortunately, emotion plays no role in the process.

          • Denise

            Unfortunately, scientific studies have been compromised by special interest groups that sponor the research.
            Work done by independent researchers are the only reliable sources but look how their work gets torn to pieces by Big Pharma , Big Agrochemical and Genetic Engineering corps. Loks like tobacco science to me.

          • obfuscate99

            If they’ve been compromised, you should easity be able to point out design or analysis errors in the findings. For glyphosate, Griem et al., (2015) summarizes multiple studies, many of which fully comply with the OECD-452 or 453 protocols.

            There are some very good reason why the international standards are used. First, try have been developed to ensure that their reliability and reproducibility are unmatched, but also it makes it very difficult to falsify any aspect of the study.

            Basically, reproducibility becomes a near impossibility due to the little fact that everyone would need to perform the same manipulation in order to generate the same results.

            Simple fact here, none of your “independent” researchers have bothered to perform any OECD-compliant studies to date. As those are the gold standard in toxicology, this is quite frankly unacceptable.

            When you fator in the use of non-standard techniqies, and insufficient sample size, you are left with nothing that supports your position.

            Oh, while I do try to focus on the design defficiencies when debunking those anti-GMO studies, I do find it amusing how you decry industry’s involvement, but completely ignore the fact that quite a few of the anti-GMO researchers are involved, and even directly compensated by the organic, and alternative medical businesses.

            In the end, the only factor that matters is the data, and you have none that supports you. The various researchers and organizations have had over two decades to perform an OECD-compliant study, but have never done so. In the case of glyphosate, they’ve had almost 4 decades since the adoption of the OECD standards (1981).

            Sorry, but you bought into a lie, and there’s a good reason why my colleagues and I have dismissed the studies, and it’s not due to big ag or pharma (in my own lab, all my finding is from federal and state agencies, in addition with a collaboration with the Canadian CFIA, and AAFC),

          • richard

            Fortunately it does as we witness a major food company responding to public demand about the ersatz use of the term “natural”….. And much to your chagrin it will grow and continue as the public becomes more knowledgeable on conflicts of interest built into the regulatory regime…..And all your literature and data will be relegated to secondary importance. Consumer is king…..thats the zeitgeist….. lead, follow, or get out of the way……

          • obfuscate99

            And that has no relation to the underlying science. As I’ve repeatedly stated, until experimental evidence shows harm at or below the current limits, the science will remain unchanged. It doesn’t matter what the courts, or consumers decide, it has no effect on the ongoing research.

            Once again, you do seem to keep missing the fact that there are more acres being used to cultivate GMO crops globally, and that more varieties, and even new trans or cisgenic lines being released annually. The only one who should get out of the way is you, as the research continues on unabated.

          • richard

            No it does matter what the courts and consumers decide as it determines cultural evolution in the democratic world…. witness tobacco and alcohol abuse. Its no different with chemical abuse and the theology that flows from the technocrats and lab coats trying to cope with their addictions and their blind adherence to technology over common sense….. and the fact that global society annually must proffer five hundred billion dollars to maintain the illusion of “progress” through “science”

          • obfuscate99

            But it does not affect the validity of the science. You keep forgetting that part.

            Throughout history, political machinations have promoted or suppressed various aspects of scientific inquiry, but that did not have any impact of the data, and time and time again, the data is the element that survives; the ideology did not.

            The tobacco analogy is deeply flawed, and also ignores the overall data once again. First of all, the notion that science supported tobacco products as a healthy pastime, hasn’t been accurate for over a century. The correlations between tobacco use, and a whole swath of conditions was a part of the literature since the late 19th century but (1898 to be exact), as I’ve indicated previously the key difficulty was in showing causation, and this was the case for both scientists and physicians as the incidence of lung cancer increased through the 1930’s and 40’s.

            Fortunately, in the middle of the 20th century, the infrastructure, as well as the methods to test for causation were finally in place, and it was the confluence of four elements that enabled for the link to be conclusively derived:

            1. Population Studies
            2. Animal Experimentation
            3. Cellular Pathology
            4. Extraction, isolation, and screening of chemicals extracted from tobacco

            Once this was possible (and is very much the case today for pesticides, GMOs, and any other compound), the link, and the earlier science were all vindicated. Also, don’t conflate the science with marketing. As no causal relationship was proven until the mid 20th century, the tobacco companies could say whatever they wanted really. The whole causation issue was a two edged sword. While science was unable to show the a causative relationship, those same scientists also could not disprove the marketing gimmicks of the tobacco companies…this is also part of the reason why in the 80’s and 90’s the laws were changed so that health claims must be accompanied with experimental evidence (take a wild guess what type) was needed to bakc those claims.

            It’s been commented on quite a bit over the years at the SOT meetings, that both tobacco and ethanol would have zero chance of being approved for human consumption based on our modern techniques.

            Today, tobacco is quite useful for another purpose, as they have been harnessed as biological factories to produce a whole host of products, from antibodies for research and medicine, to chemical treatments. Additionally, they are used extensively in research, as their genome is extremely plastic in terms of adapting to molecular work.

            The science was vindicated, as it will be with glyphosate, as you have no causal relationship. Not only that, but the OECD-452 and 453 studies support this without exception, and this is even after modifications to the study designs to make them even more stringent (1989, 2004, 2011, 2018).

            Until your side can actually counter the data, nothing will change on the science side of things, and no court will affect that. Once The research will continue, new pesticides and crop varieties will be produced (conventional, cisgeneic, or transgenic), and throughout all of it, your influence is zero. As the acreage devoted to GE crops continues to grow, the number of GE varieties increases, and the number of countries taking direct steps to cultivate, and even develop GE varieties, I don’t think you’re going to be too happy about how things progress.

            The data is all that matters in research, and that’s not going to change. That you disagree with it isn’t a concern, until you can support your position in the same way my peers and I have for the past 4 decades worth of R&D.

          • Damo

            Really, what evidence was that?

            You claim you don’t have time to respond, but then you do just that–but not to answer questions or even provide the studies you keep claiming to have, but to deflect.

          • Damo

            So, you can’t produce even one of those studies?

      • Damo

        Are these the same studies that show that people are eating more fruits and vegetables and getting more sick?

  • richard

    Thirteen weed species on sixty million acres resistant to glyphosate (USDA 2015) ….and growing every minute of every hour of every day…. two and a half litres per acre to do the same fall burnoff it took a half litre and acre twenty years ago (my neighbour)… I say its finished… good luck with that hot mess pal… your welcome!

    • Jason

      Maybe it is finished? Seems unlikely given that all the other herbicide options already have far more resistant weed species than that. But who cares? And what’s that got to do with whether or not bowel cancers are on the rise because of it? What was that you were saying about changing the subject?

      • richard

        Bowel cancers are your obsession not mine…. your subterfuge for the fact that your favorite drug is obsolete….. Thanx for the admission though… takes a real man to admit he’s finally facing reality….. Sadly all the little ancillary GM/glyphosate crops are riding the disorient express to absurdistan as well…. Curious how producers still believe they are at the throttle…..Comical if it weren’t so pathetic…..

        • Jason

          No. On the contrary, bowel cancers were the topic of the conversation…. at least until you butted in to change the topic why simultaneously accusing me of changing the topic.

          You seem to have a strange obsession with glyphosate. Why is that?

          • richard

            No, on the contrary the topic of the article was food processors vexation with glyphosate residues….. Bowel cancer is your obsession. Glyphosate is finished for so many reasons and I am only here to remind the willfully ignorant why this is so…..Your welcome!

    • AgSciGuy

      If resistance is growing that fast, there would be many more resistant species than there are. Actually there are 42 resistant species. See: . Even though there are resistant weed species, glyphosate still has a great deal of utility, which is why it continues to be used.

      BTW, if it is true resistance, increasing the rate 5x would nt make a difference. You are obviously commenting on a topic you do not understand very well. This site isn’t too bad: –> glyphosate resistance. (Unfortunately, it is not a coloring book.)
      There is also a grate deal of antibiotic resistance. Gues we better eliminate all antibiotics!!

      • richard

        … My neighbors occupy some of the best land in Canada and they are not stupid. That they use and abuse glyphosate three to five times a season is a function of the fact that there is some residual effectiveness to their efforts in spite of declining results….they all admit this…. The fact that some egghead enabler comes on here proclaiming the wonders of glyphosate and antibiotic abuse is a function of how terminally disconnected from grassroots reality are the so called experts…. trapped in their cubicles and their agribiz coloring books….. Furthermore it doesn’t matter a lick what you or I think…. the public has clearly concluded that your addiction to glyphosate and its concomitant GM mythologies is an utter fraud…. and that you and your ilk need to be outed….. The world is not starving for food…. it is bloated on forty years of theology dressed up as “science” Talk about your karma running over your dogma.

        • AgSciGuy

          If they really apply glyphosate 3-5x/yr, that would be a bad practice because it selects for herbicide resistance. There would not be harmful residues if applied according to the label. Yes, I’m an ignorant scientist. I guess the paranoid science-illiterate fear-mongers know more.

          • richard

            “There would be not harmful residues if applied according to the label”…..Which of course is why glyphosate residues are found in virtually all foods on planet earth…. including arctic seafood and organic grains and produce….. Being wilfully ignorant of the facts is complicity, glyphosate is a victim of nothing but its perpetrators hubris….. As with PCBs, dioxins, mercury, flame retardants…… when xenobiotic substances with long half lives appear in everything… they are finished.

          • AgSciGuy

            Discussion that is all about detections and not concentrations is a sign of an early study, a very weak study, fear-mongering, or ignorance.

  • AgSciGuy

    Science is at a disadvantage!! It is fast and easy to lob unsubstantiated claims and accusations, and maybe throw in a few quasi-technical term like the anti-science fear-mongers. It takes much more time and effort to respond using real science and facts.

    • Sheryl McCumsey

      Yes-science is besieged by corporate interests. 19 of the 20 studies done at our university are sponsored by Dow and Bayer. They will ensure that those studies they fund are in their self interest. Universities should be publicaly funded and corporate subsidies discontinued. In the past laboratory workers faced criminal charges around bad laboratory practices and went to jail. Where are the watch dogs now? There is no transparency to the science used since it is considered “proprietary.” The only argument is a smear campaign which tobacco did for decades-it is the same tactics used with chemical corporations. You sir are a hypocrite for doing exactly what you claim those who have valid concerns about the system of assessing harm, the system of tracking compliance, the system to assess the need for any pesticide, the system to track harm to the environment and human health. You also do not have the integrity to reveal your name and identity. WHO are you?

      • AgSciGuy

        Science is also besieged by science-ignorant activist.

        • richard

          yeah….and it is also besieged by reality ignorant technical activists…. you know the savants who believe a degree in science is the equivalent of enlightenment…..???

      • AgSciGuy

        There is also a tendency for some researchers to do poor research and publish false claims about pesticides to gain fame such as Mona Thiruchelvam who fabricated data to claimed atrazine caused Parkinson’s disease. She also injected paraquat directly into the fetal brain tissue of mice resulting in Parkinson’s-like symptoms – that unrealistic exposure can only be viewed as fraud.

        Also, I don’t give my name because I am a scientist by day but am greatly frustrated by all the ignorance spread by uneducated people. So, I try to challenge ignorance with science. In addition to wanting to remain professional, I also fear the potential violence from wacky environmentalist zealots.

    • obfuscate99

      My apologies for jumping to another discussion, but I think the WP comment system has run afoul of the Ted patrol, and comments are going into moderation very quickly.

      “hanks for citing that study. It supports the fact that glyphosate is safe when used as labeled.”

      …that was my point.

      The idea that gut bacteria are affected by glyphosate at or below the ADI is purely idiotic, but one that the anti-biotech factions repeatedly bring up. That study explained the reason why the results from in vitro and in vivo studies showed such a difference.

      I think you misinterpreted my comment, as I very much do stand behind current GE varieties, and the research done by my peers, and in my own research program have repeatedly showed no additional risk.

      • AgSciGuy

        My apologies.

        • obfuscate99

          It’s almost an instinct when a thread gets mobbed by the usual crowd of anti-science nutbars, but I’m not aligned with this group in the slightest.

          Along with Peter Olins, Verna Lang, Mem Somerville, and Chris Preston, I’m another biologist who has grown tired of the constant lies and manipulation tactics used by the anti-biotech cult.

          • richard

            ,,,,,,versus the constant lies and manipulation of … corporate puppet masters….

          • obfuscate99

            How odd that, for lies, there’s so much more reproducible empirical evidence on my side of the issue.

            You just double down on conspiracy theory, when it’s the OECD-compliant toxicity data that you need to counter.

          • richard

            How odd that in spite of all your data, the public finds you an anachronism to their quest for real food free of agritoxins

          • obfuscate99

            Never forget that half the population has an IQ less than 100. The level of scientific illiteracy is quite abysmal in North America. In 2015, a survey conducted by Oklahoma State University Department of Agricultural Economics showed that 80% of respondents thought that food containing DNA should be labeled.

            The NSB has performed annual surveys regarding the public’s knowledge regarding a wide variety of topics. Some highlights from the recent works.

            – 52% of respondents didn’t know that an electron is smaller than an atom.

            – 55% thought that lasers focus sound waves

            – A full 30% thought that all radiation was man made

            – In broader terms, only 21% of respondents were able to describe what made up a scientific study

            – Only 34% had an understanding of experimental design.

            – … those who lacked a formal education in science were more likely to view pseudoscience as being valid.

            The public doesn’t get to decide what is or is not science, that’s the sole domain of the researchers themselves.

            …and if you think organic is free from agritoxins, I have some beautiful ocean front property to sell you in Iowa.

          • richard

            Your contempt for those with lesser intelligence is only exceeded your ignorance of the real politic….. I could care less what you research or what you consider valid science, that is up to you and those you pay fealty to….. But when the public decides they don’t buy into monocultural myths of GMOS and its ancillary toxic crutch, they vote with their voices, their feet and and their dollars….. and I am quite certain they could care less what eggheads with attitude have to say about it…… Your cognitive dissonance is a function of the hard cold fact that those of lesser intellectual capacity have the power to make you and all your proclamations totally irrelevant…. They have outed you…..and you resent it.

          • obfuscate99

            So no empirical data to back your position then?

            Currently, the public has made its choice, and as organic only represents about 7% of the market, but less than 5% of the total production when it comes to overall yields.

            Emotional appeals, and unsupported conspiracy nthepry will not garner support among the scientific community, which is quite odd if you can support your position with OECD.compliant studies.

            Scientists are easily convinced, just present the data. Detail how it was produced, how it was analyzed, and how it supports your position.

            Funny how even after three decades, not a single compliant study has been performed showing causation of adverse effects at or below the ADI.

          • richard

            Its funny how you continue to gravitate to “conspiracy” and those big mean “organic” people to defend yourself…… I never mentioned either….. … …… Organic agriculture is self evident and needs no defence….. As for conspiracies pleeeease…..Never claim conspiracy when arrogance and incompetence will suffice…..I thank you for having provided both….. The age of transparency and public awareness is upon us and is going to be very challenging for those hiding in their cubicles behind their letters.

          • obfuscate99

            When you are unable to substantiate any of your views with data showing a causal relationship (BTW, for this the gold standard is OED-452 or 453, in addition to the acute toxicity studies), you have very much entered into conspiracy territory. You have no empirical support, and instead rely on a nebulous Machiavellian plot to explain why you lack said data.

            Your beliefs mean nothing without that support, and it doesn’t matter of often or how loudly your bluster gets, it does not change the fact that, after multiple studies, dating back to the 1980’s, there remains no evidence of harm at expected exposure levels.

            It doesn’t matter where your beliefs come from, be it simple ignorance, a predilection towards conspiracy, anti corporate, or an adherence to a naturalistic fallacy, none of it is supported by the actual research that has come about though the use of the OECD protocols.

            It’s rather odd that you would call me incompetent, as between the two of us, I am very much the one with the more applicable skill set and knowledge in regards to the underlying science. The fact that you choose to pontificate on a subject that you lack even a cursory understanding of speaks far more towards your own competence.

            Science deals with data, and scientists are some of the easiest people to convince, just show us your data.

            That’s it. No need for conspiracy at all. Just show us how you generated the data, how you analyzed it, and then how it supports your conclusions.

            I’ve done this multiple times for you, but your own evidence has been utterly absent.

            Not a single study showing causation.

            No dose response when exposure levels are at or below the established ADIs.

            And to cap things off, not a single OECD-452 or 453 compliant study has been performed by even the biggest anti-biotech groups.

            Oh, fun fact:

            Number of deaths that have been attributed to the ingestion of GMOs: 0

            Number of deaths from organic produce: 53…in 2011 alone (German outbreak caused by organic sprouts). For review see Smith-Spangler et al., 2012; Harvey et al., 2016.

            Being able to back up your position with empirical data as opposed to blind ideology is quite rewarding. You might want to give it a try some time.

          • richard

            Its all a ” Machiavellian Plot”!? yikes…. I think I said its all a simple function of “arrogance and incompetence” at the regulatory level. And your obstinance has confirmed that for us….thank you…. I still do not understand however, that if my position is so untenable why you keep coming back to dignify it for me?

          • obfuscate99

            But I’m not dignifying it. I’m staying quite openly that your position is lacking any supporting data, and as such, is little more than delusional ranting on your part.

            Quite simply, you continue to present your opinion without providing any empirical backing, and that’s in no way a valid approach when dealing with something like toxicology.

            Until you can produce an appropriate dataset to back your position, don’t expect anything different.

          • richard

            We both know glyphosate is finished…..same with neonicotinoids….. … Perhaps you might revisit the Shiv Chopra/Health Canada/Monsanto RGBh coverup to understand why to this day “the emperor has no clothes” Can you find a way to put some lipstick on that pig? One more time, you people have no street cred ok?

          • obfuscate99

            No, what we have is actual cred.

            Glyphosate is off patent, and is made by quite a few different companies.

            It’s use is in no way contingent on any US Court, normdo the findings of any court have an impact on the approval or use of it or its various foilations.

            It’s use in agriculture remains in effect in all the major nations involved in crop production, and even the EU supported it’s renewed registration.

            Best of all, the stacked trait varieties are coming on the market now, and the first crops using these traits are already found across North American farms.

            … my peers and I will continue to ignore [un]substantiate[d] … claims … while we focus on the data.

          • richard

            But you can’t seem to ignore me or my substantiated claims like….”thirteen weed species on sixty million acres resistant to glyphosate (USDA 2015) and rising every minute of every hour of every day…..! So much for the off patent frenzy….. … Funny, I didn’t get your response on the Shiv Chopra/Monsanto/Health Canada debacle a few years ago? Kinda says everything about the state of regulation wouldn’t you agree? And the thing that really strikes all of us, is that with so much credibility how not one scientist or farmer has spoken up here to back your … point of view.

          • obfuscate99

            First of all, why would I need any input or support from other scientists? The only other poster who I know has a doctorate in a relevant discipline is Dr. Olins, and his last post was two weeks ago.

            The information that I’ve provided is still completely accurate, and I note that you didn’t provide any data indicating that there was any associated toxicity with GMOs or glyphosate at or below the established NOAEL, to say nothing of the ADI.

            Now in regards to Health Canada, you are once again conflating a courtroom with a laboratory. At no point was there any evidence that there were human health concerns associated with rBST, and that remains the case, with Health Canada noting in the 1999 decision (long before the 2004 dismissal of Dr. Chopra I might add) that, while there was no evidence of impacts to human health, there was sufficient evidence of adverse health effects in cattle after prolonged use, or high doses of rBST (1998 Report of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association).

            How odd that you failed to mention any part of this, or the 1999 report from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. It’s almost like you went into the topic wanting to find a conspiracy, and by not looking through the available data, you simply settled on the bits you liked, and ignored the rest.

            As I mentioned earlier, that’s not how things work in science. Far from being pressured, Health Canada appears to have performed a thorough analysis of the available data, and even issued updates in the intervening years (I haven’t checked, but 2012 may have been the most recent update).

            I should add that while rBST is not used in Canada, progesterone, testosterone ,estradiol-17ß, trenbolone acetate, zeranol, and melengestrol acetate are all permitted in Canadian beef cattle.

            Now on to Dr. Chopra. At no point were his allegations proven, and interestingly enough, his 2008 Human Rights Tribunal complaint, only awarded him $4,000, while at the same time chastising him for maligning other Health Canada scientists and managers.

            Fortunately, all of that is meaningless when it comes to the empirical data, which once again fails to support your position.

            So, any more deflections you want to bring up? Are you ever going to show some COED-compliant data where you can point to any causative relationship between glyphosate, or GMOs and adverse health effects at real world exposure levels?

          • richard

            Thank you for your input, although of course you failed to mention that Dr. Chopra was not the only whistle blower, Monsanto’s regulatory wheedling to achieve license, and the fact that growth hormones in dairy cattle result in Mastitis and an accelerated shortening of the cows productivity and lifespan…. Ergo in spite of your reductionist assertions around the human safety of hormones in milk, the whole concept of recombinant grow hormones was another failed attempt at an end run around natural law……. As far as my conflating human law with the laboratory…. of course I do….. How can you separate the history of a deeply compromised corporation, a sordid history of litigation with everyone from farmers, j to consumers, to governments. The two are inseparable and relevant…….. The fact that you conflate your laboratory results with absolute truth is far more compelling. From that perspective you have developed a vain notion that the final word in the safety and efficacy of any xenobiotic substance is to be found in the reductionist scope of acute toxicity and acceptable daily limits, both of which ignore the spectre of chronic toxicity (LLD), synergistic effects with a thousand other compounds in the environment, bioaccumulation and persistence in humans and the environment….and the health and welfare of both….. Given that the courts have been forced to intervene to curb the hubris of regulatory benefactors for fifty years may be the excuse for your contempt, but hardly a reason to ignore due process….. And finally in spite of the spine numbing repetition of acceptable contamination in food and the environment the crux of the matter always lies in economics and ecology…. All of your favourite drugs have inevitably hit the brick wall of resistance, bioaccumulation, redundancy, and/or market rejection…. The fact that global agriculture requires five hundred billion dollars USD annually as life support is living proof that blind subservience to technology is nothing more than a faith based religion.

          • obfuscate99

            So again … not a single bit of clinical data to support your assertions.

            Once again, I’m quite aware of the entire affair regarding Health Canada, including the events regarding Margaret Haydon and Gerard Lambert. Take a wild guess if they were able to prove any of their allegations?

            As before, there was no proof of their allegations, and there has not been any to pop up in the intervening decades. How is it that you keep missing this?

            Heck, Dr. Haydon was found to have been insubordinate, and the 2016 tribunal only found that her punishment was not commensurate with her employment record.

            Fact: There have been multiple studies to determine the toxicity, and biochemistry of a whole host of compounds, including analysis of both chronic and acute toxicity…and I’ve brought up several many times with you. For oral assessment of chronic toxicity, OECD-452 or 453 are the gold standard for determining causation. There are also protocols for dermal, intravenous, and inhalation vectors, in addition to additional tests looking at endocrine disruption, and a whole host of other metrics.

            …and you can’t show a single compliant study to back up your assertions. Just to put the icing on the cake, you also decide to explicitly fall back on a naturalistic fallacy, “…the whole concept of recombinant grow hormones was another failed attempt at an end run around natural law…”

            So you have no data, your worldview isn’t based on any kind of validated metric.

            How do I separate history from science? Very easily. Science only relies on the empirical data, nothing more. It does not rely on anything other than the internal support of the findings that are generated. They are quite easy to distinguish from outside measures, and as I indicated earlier, neither the courts, nor public opinion factor into the validity of the results.

            You choose to wrap things up in a worldview that stands in contrast to the data, and as such you reject it…but that’s not how things work in science. When the data conflicts with your beliefs, those beliefs are the things that must change, not the data.

            This is rarely something that people can grasp, particularly if they ascribe to worldviews that rely on an unknowable, and untestable supernatural aspect, but I have been pleasantly surprised at how some groups and individuals do see the distinction.

            “If scientific analysis were conclusively to
            demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept
            the findings of science and abandon those claims.” -Dalai Lama XIV

            This is really quite simple, simply stating your beliefs has no weight with most scientists. This is particularly true when your claims contradict the actual empirical data.

            The bar for acceptance in science, and from scientists is the same regardless, just show us the data. How us how you gathered it, how you analyzed it, and how it supports your conclusions.

            Until you can do that, you will not be making any difference in regards to research.

            As I wrote earlier, the data does not support the glyphosate cancer link, and no court ruling will change that. As something to consider, look at the absence of any OECD-451, or 453 studies showing any carcinogenic activity at ADI levels. The anti-biotech activists have had almost 40 years to perform a compliant study. Not only that, but every compliant study has failed to show any toxic or carcinogenic effect at representative exposure levels.

            Note: The current OECD-453 protocol was not available prior to 1989, but there were earlier methods to use. This was part of the reason that a whole host of studies were conducted in the 1990’s to ensure that the latest protocols were in use, and this has continued to this day.

            You need to address the data.

          • richard

            And you fail to address reality…. RGBh is banned in Canada, it causes mastitis, and it leads to nothing but dairy burnout and depressed milk prices in the USA….. talk to any Wisconsin dairy farmer…… So its a failure at the regulatory level, an ecological failure and an economic depressant. And although you love to praise the approval of various growth hormones and antibiotics, the fact is that consumers, retailers and restaurant are rapidly shifting to hormone and antibiotic free suppliers. They are light years ahead of you….. So for all your fulminating and low brow bravado around data and the scientific method, you have demonstrated nothing but that the monocle of reductionist science offers no more than simplistic answers to complex ecological and economic questions…… It kinda reminds me of a dog chasing its own tail….. …

          • obfuscate99

            I already mentioned the Health Canada decision wasade based on adverse effects in animals, and that there was no human toxicity concerns. The US determined that these effects were not enough of a concern to halt it’s use.

            In either case, the harm to humans was non-existent, and remains that way.

            As always, I have the empirical data, and you have a limited view centered around your beliefs.

            You blame a regulatory body for the glut of milk overproduction, and yet no one forces the farmers to used recombinant hormones. They made the choice, and now face market pressure as they didn’t have a place to sell the excess production.

            The market for hormone free milk and meat is a tiny segment of the market, and it’s so amusing to see you overstate your position.

            It’s very much akin to the whole organic market. Less than 5% of the total crop production, even after decades on the market.

            There’s a reason why organizations like the OCA usually report percentage growth as opposed to the actual market.

          • richard

            … RGBh causes mastitis In dairy cattle ergo they are slaughtered prematurely…. a net economic loss in spite of the temporary uptick in milk production…. Your … assertion that no one forces milk producers to use the hormone is perfectly true and totally useless. As with all of the magic bullets coming out of agribiz mythology, be it RGBh, GMO seeds, prophylactic antibiotics, ractopamine, zilmax, ralgro and other hormone manipulators…..the myth is that progressive farmers must and will jump on board. The early adopters realize a short term advantage until everyone is doing it…. at which time the market collapses and producers are looking to taxpayers to cover the losses. The fact that agriculture is subsidized globally by $500B USD (CATO Institute 2017) taxpayer largesse is living testament to the hypocrisy of feed the planet proclamations…..The proliferation of anti establishment labelling in food marketing is remarkable….. Non GMO everything, hormone free beef, antibiotic free poultry, cruelty free eggs, residue free produce, glyphosate free bread and pasta…… … the public is looking for truth in food, not ideology from industry sycophants and their agribiz colouring books….. …

          • obfuscate99

            Yet again, not a shred of evidence for any health concerns relating to any of the technologies you choose to demonize.

            Have you looked at the data regarding year over year growth for organic as a whole? Not only is it still less than <5% of the total volume, but the growth of said market segment?

            The slope on that line is changing.

            In fact, it's reaching the same marketshare that we see for other luxury products.

            In quite a few regions, it's even being referred to a maturing market. Even based on the 6.4% growth, and ignoring the overalls reduction in growth, it will still require a long time before you see even 10% volume.

            How odd, as the global GMO acreage is also increasing.

            Again, for someone who claims to be aware of the underlying history, why is it that you seem to have missed yet another indicator that your worldview is unsupported ideology?

          • richard

            The simple fact that you allow yourself to ignore evolution…. ergo disease, pest, weed and antibiotic resistance, as a metric for the abject failure of a systemically defective agriculture…… And the more compelling fact of your enabling with weak regulatory aegis, an agriculture addicted to chemistry and five hundred billion dollars of taxpayer welfare globally, is the only real subject in play here….. Your peculiar obsession with organic agriculture is yours alone and nothing more than subterfuge for your inability to explain the madness of a paradigm based on overproduction, dumping, subsidies, waste, pollution and a whole lot of apocryphal notions of saving the planet from itself……… We both know its total nonsense and yet with your faith based theology and a book of data, you somehow believe you can brow beat intelligent consumers into submission with a lot of intellectual mumbo jumbo…..Good luck with that hot mess.

          • obfuscate99

            Who said I’m ignoring evolution, as I’m pretty sure I have a far better understanding of it than you.

            So, let’s take a look at resistance to herbicides, particularly ones like glyphosate whose mode of action is to interfere with the function of one or more enzymes.

            Have you looked at the reaction kinetics for the wild type EPSPS enzyme as compared to one that confers resistance to the herbicide (there are multiple point mutations that cause this BTW with P101S, T178I, and P182A among the more common sources)?

            As each of those substitutions reside within the active site.of the enzyme, these changes actually result in an enzyme whose reaction kinetics are less efficient than the wild type enzyme.

            This is also the case for the majority of the protien-based resistance traits, and work in bacterial species show that, in the absence of a strong selective pressure, these traits tend to be lost over time, as the individuals who possess the mutated gene are outcompeted by their wild type relatives.

            Now, in the presence of a strong selective.pressure, suddenly the reduced efficiency of the enzyme isn’t associated with negative effects, as those WT individuals are killed off.

            It all comes down to balancing costs. Maintaining a resistance trait in the absence of a selective pressure is an unfavourable situation, and both bacteria and plants have a greatly reduced inheritance of these traits.

            A perfect answer to this comes in the form of the rise in bacterial strains harboring multiple antibiotic resistance traits, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or Clostridium difficile.

            Where are these resistant bacteria typically found?

            Is it out in the wild?

            No, they’re normally found associated with hospitals, and ong term care facilities…precisely where an antibiotic resistance trait would provide a strong selective advantage.

            Backnto herbicides, one key aspect to note is that, by swapping the class of herbicides used, resistance can be reduced, or even eliminated if enough modes of action are brought to bare.

            Rather than just using glyphosate, toss in an ALS inhibitor, or auxin analogue, and rotate the IPM plan, and the probability of resistance development is greatly reduced. Not only that, but the lack of a single gene conferring resistance increases the odds that what resistance traits the plants do possess will be lost due to additional mutations or recombination events.

            Basically, if farmers had listened to scientists (and Monsanto at the time), and included refuge ranges, along with specifically not using the same single herbicide in successive growing seasons, much of the problem would never have even started.

            Once again, your worldview is found wanting. I don’t require any luck, as I have the supporting data. Your position is the one with the highest probability of being relegated to the dustbin of history.

            Quite simply:

            -The number of GMO varieties continues to increase

            – The number of acres growing GE crops continues to increase,

            – More countries are with examining the possibility of growing GE crops domestically, particularly in Africa, and SE Asia.

            – In the most encouraging cases, countries like India, and the Phillipines; they are even developing internal development pipelines to produce locally adapted GE varieties (GR-2E IRRI dhan-29 for instance).

            Quite simply, you cried wolf too often, and focused on your own backyard.

            Having supporting data makes this quite easy.

          • richard

            Stacking herbicides, stacking pesticides, stacking fungicides, stacking antibiotics depicts an agriculture desperately ignorant of evolution (natural law)…. The reason you and those of your faith continually find themselves hitting the brick wall of obsolescence is because you are in abject denial of the principles of genetic mutation. “More of the same” is not progress, its another vain attempt at an end run around the biological reality, that no matter how clever you think you are with all your data and jargon, its all just pretence….. You’re absolutely correct…”having supporting data makes this (explaining) quite easy…… And five hundred billion dollars USD of global taxpayer life-support for your defective model of agriculture is all the data I need. Please tell us how your grand vision is going to survive without it….. where’s the data?

          • obfuscate99

            An appeal to nature is your rebuttal?

            It appears to be you how has a sketchy understanding of mutations, as my comments relating to overcoming resistance are all completely correct, and backed by the primary literature.

            In addition to this, I actually have direct experience in both cis and trans modifications, using Agro, biolistic AKA Gene-Gun, EMS, and viral vectors to get the transgene into the cell.

            Heck, a recent project I was involved with had the main thrust in measuring genetic drift rates between wild-type, and domesticated crop varieties, and comparing the rate of mutation in the nuclear, plastid, or mitochondrial genomes, including a direct comparison of how stable the trans genes are in relation to chromosome location, and the degree of epigenetic silencing (through cytosine methyl status, and histone modification, particularly lysine methylation and or

          • obfuscate99

            Edit: Part of reply was cut off.

            “…in relation to chromosome location, and the degree of epigenetic
            silencing (through cytosine methyl status, and histone modification,
            particularly lysine methylation and or acetylation).

          • obfuscate99

            Addendum: BTW, LLD (Lowest Lethal Dose) isn’t generally used for chronic toxicity, as it’s lumped together with the LD50, LD100 measures.

            In chronic toxicity we tend to look for the lowest observed adverse effect limit (LOAEL), and the no observed adverse effect limit (NOAEL).

          • richard

            LLD…..less than lethal dose, please… and neither you nor anyone else here has any idea where that plays into a hundred different degenerative human disorders.

  • AgSciGuy

    The real disrespect are the unscientific accusations that farmers and modern agriculture are poisoning people. Or, that farmers are poisoning people because evil ag-chem companies have duped them to using unnecessary products they because they are sooo stupid.

    • richard

      not stupid…never…..misguided, misled, overworked, underpaid, abused, manipulated, brainwashed, under appreciated yes…..but stupid never!

  • Sheryl McCumsey

    Correlation is how we decide to do a study-and a study has been done.

  • Verna Lang

    Perhaps the consumer can be wrong. That is reflected in responses to poll questions like: Do you want to see DNA in food labelled? About 80% of consumers in the US and Canada said yes to that question, revealing that they apparently do not know that DNA is part of all of all the animals and plants we eat. So why should the opinions of uninformed or misinformed consumers be given precidence over the global scientific consensus of glyphosate and GMO safety?

  • Denise

    Glyphosate vexes honey producers too.
    “Glyphosate linked to bee death in shocking new study. – University of Texas

  • richard

    No but the manufacturers should made accountable for the residues of drugs and agritoxins that end up in our drinking water……because the environment has no where to excrete poison but right back at us.


Stories from our other publications