What Are GMO Foods, And Are They Okay To Eat?

All hail the GMO.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/us/on-hawaii-a-lonely-quest-for-facts-about-gmos.html?emc=eta1&_r=0

All the industry needs is a bit more savvy marketing. Who wouldn't want glow in the dark pork roast to serve at a Halloween party?

They've got great marketing...they just don't really talk about GMO.

http://www.americasfarmers.com/

That's not what I call 'great marketing'. Where we come from it's called a 'snow job'.

Yes, I know why the industry has a bad name. They lobby for "substantial equivalency" instead of doing thorough scientific research. And of course, the corporate history of covering up environmental/health damages in the past doesn't help.

But show me glowing pork revellers in a viral video, demonstrating that they, and their excreta () don't glow (or at least, not permanently ). That would be more like the show and tell we've been missing.

Yeah. I was being facetious with the word great.

I'd really just like to see some of our massive, expensive government bureaucracies, do their jobs.

I don't understand why this stuff can't be thoroughly tested by the agencies we pay for, as opposed to those agencies relying on Monsanto's in house studies, as proof that it's all safe. It's an outrage.

Of course they're OK. After they are decontaminated.

We have been eating gemos, as we call them, for many years.....

I do think some caution is necessary but I suspect most objectors are luddites. They do not have sufficient skills to reason out if the food is safe so they fear it.

What ought to be done is identify any differences in the food product (what we eat I am not concerned with what we do not eat) from GMO and the original. I hope they do this and be wary of the differences. Methyl alcohol as a waste product of formaldehyde while ethanol as a waste product of acidaldehyde. Both are nasty reactants but our body can readily metabolize acidaldehyde. We need to make sure the body can safely process each GMO food before it is offered to the public.

You take a far too narrow view of the potential negative impact of the unknown qualities of GMO's in general and foods in particular.

Fact is very little is known about any potential hazards that may come from indiscriminate spread of GMO's.

Nothing at all is known about long term implications of mutations that may come down the road as a result of GMO evolution.

Money talks and screw the little guy. Congress does not pass laws protecting corporations from unknown, future liabilities because it's the right thing to do. They do it because somebody bribes them!

If we treated every industry like we have Monsanto and GMO, we could just shut down all of our regulatory agencies, have the companies submit a study saying that whatever they were doing was safe, and call it a day.

To have the FDA and USDA rely solely on studies from the GM industry, is criminal. We have very competent and well paid researchers and scientists that could be vetting this stuff. Now it's too late, GM has spread to non-GM species, and it's here forever. It's insanity.

There are very few products produced that are completely safe....witness the recalls and lawsuits filed...If the company is making enough money to cover the lawsuits generated from litigation, then they continue....Any harmful effects from any product must be proven in a court of law, that is how the society of laws we live in functions....If any company could be made to quit producing a product just because somebody didn't trust them, then everything would come to a screeching halt overnight....

http://www.legalreform-now.org/menu3_3.htm

It has nothing to do with lawsuits. It has to do with our government citing nothing but Monsanto's own studies, to determine the overall safety of GM, or more particularly, increasing levels of glyphosate in our food supply. Levels that go up every year, as weeds develop an increasing tolerance to Roundup.

We've already been through this. GM was touted as a way to reduce pesticide use, and not only has it taken higher and higher levels of glyphosate every year, but we know next to nothing about it's long term effects on humans, nor that of the Bt toxin.

http://www.hoaxorfact.com/Health/gmo-corn-contains-harmful-insecticide-and-is-sold-unlabeled-facts-analysis.html

My point is, that there shouldn't be any speculation at all. Our government should have originally done, and should be continuing to do, their own studies.

Considering that all of us are ingesting these toxins and chemicals, the process should be similar to the FDA approval process for new drugs...not fast tracked because Monsanto says that it's all good.

Your expectations are unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky, unworkable, and ridiculous....Let me ask you, is your car perfectly safe? Is your home perfectly safe? Is the food preparation of the foods you eat perfectly safe? Is the water you drink perfectly safe? When you walk down the street, are you perfectly safe? The fact is, this standard of perfection you seek, does not exist....

That's the weakest argument I've ever heard.

"Nothing is perfectly safe, so there's no point in doing independent studies on long term glyphosate/Bt toxin ingestion."

Well, it doesn't matter; because nothing is being looked into anyway, and I'm not bothering to go find organic...so whatever happens, happens.

I do make an effort to minimize HFCS from the diet of my 6 year old. I have a bad feeling about that stuff.

OK so we get to the root of the problem....you think Monsanto scientists are falsifying research data so they can poison the world including themselves and their families, to make more money, even though the truth would come out eventually and they would be put to death and have all the money they ever had taken away, and then be liable for countless more millions....yeah that makes sense.....
"It is frequently claimed that GM foods are not properly tested, or asserted that few independent studies have been published to establish their safety. Another similar claim made is that the food regulatory agencies rely exclusively of corporate information to decide whether GM food and feed are safe. The further claim is made that very few independent tests relating to GM food safety are done.
This conventional 'wisdom' is wrong.
The modern scientific literature shows that these commonly held opinions are merely myths. Academics Review website comprehensively shows that many of these myths are merely baseless rumours and misinformation.Currently there are near 2000 peer-reviewed reports in the scientific literature which document the general safety and nutritional wholesomeness of GM foods and feeds.

Citations to 600+ of these published studies are collected below (scroll to Exhibit 3). Close to 30% of these publications are produced and funded by organisations that are completely independent of large commercial seed companies.A larger consolidated paper list (see also explanatory comment Making sense of lists of studies by Karl Haro von Mogel on 25 October 2013) has also been curated at the GENERA (Biofortified) database here."

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/p/450-published-safety-assessments.html

I know....we've been through this.

Here's the rub:

If you hand me some GM corn seeds and I grow them into corn, and we test the corn, it is going to be just fine. We will have "proof" that GM corn is safe, and that the modification won't do any harm.

We hand those results to the FDA, and they give us the green light.

What happens afterwards, is that we sell our nice, safe seeds to farmers, along with millions of tons of glyphosate; which is sprayed on our safe GM plants, and absorbed into the entire system of each plant, and eaten by consumers.

So, while we have lots of evidence that our modification won't hurt people, we have managed to completely bypass any testing on long term glyphosate ingestion.

Why?

Because we didn't bother to saturate our test plants with Roundup. We didn't have to; we were only supposed to submit a study that looked at the modification itself.

Pretty neat trick.

Here is a chart of glyphosate use since GM crops were introduced.

Does it seem odd to you that Monsanto sells Roundup, and GMO's?

Not at all.

I'm waiting for them to develop a pill for glyphosate related illness, and they can profit every step of the way.

I thought they had US farmers by the nuts too, as far as buying new seed every year...but that's kind of irrelevant anyway.

There seems to be some push back. I think they may be getting tired of having to buy more herbicides every year. What a racket!!!

http://farmwars.info/?p=5341

There is no glyphosate related illness, except in your mind....it has been thoroughly studied....here read some facts for a change....

http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html

That's a relief:

They list all of the nasty things that it does, and conclude that it is safe for humans to eat, every day of their lives.

SolarEagle- What is it with you and Monsanto?

The studies in which illness was present, and found not to be from glyphosate, was thought to be caused by the surfactants or other chemicals in Roundup. That doesn't make it okay.

Thanks for the facts.

Signs of Toxicity - Animals

• Animals exposed to formulated glyphosate herbicides have displayed anorexia, lethargy, hypersalivation, vomiting, and diarrhea. Symptoms persisted for 2 to 24 hours following exposure. The surfactants in formulated products are thought to be responsible for the clinical signs.²²
• Clinical signs typically appear within 30 minutes to 2 hours following ingestion. Animals may exhibit excitability and tachycardia at first, followed by ataxia, depression, and bradycardia. Severe cases may progress to collapse and convulsions.¹⁵
• The Veterinary Poisons Information Service in London, England recorded 150 cases over an 8-year period of dogs exposed to glyphosate primarily from eating grass recently treated with formulated products. Of these, roughly 40% of the dogs exhibited no clinical signs, 45% exhibited mild to moderate clinical signs, and roughly 15% were classified as serious.¹⁵
• The Centre National d'Informations Toxicologiques Veterinaires of France reported 31 certain cases of intoxication of domestic animals by glyposate-containing products in a 3-year period. Most exposures resulted from animals ingesting the product prior to application. Of these cases, 25 were dogs and 4 were cats. Vomiting occurred within 1-2 hours of ingestion in 61% of the cases. Hypersalivation occurred in 26% of cases, and mild diarrhea was reported in 16% of cases. Centre records did not report long-lasting effects or any fatalities.²³

Animals

• Researchers fed rats a diet containing glyphosate at 0, 89, 362, or 940 mg/kg/day (males) and 0, 113, 457, or 1183 mg/kg/day (females) for two years. The low-dose and high-dose male groups had a slightly increased incidence of pancreatic islet cell adenomas and hepatocellular adenomas. The mid-dose and high-dose male and female groups had a slightly increased incidence of thyroid C-cell adenomas. The U.S. EPA concluded the adenomas were not treatment related.²⁷
• In a carcinogenicity study, mice were fed a diet containing glyphosate (0, 150, 750, or 4500 mg/kg/day) for 18 months. Researchers observed no effects in the low-dose and mid-dose groups. In the high-dose groups researchers observed decreased body weight gain in both male and female mice. In high-dose males, slightly increased incidence of renal tubular adenomas, increased incidence of hepatocellular hypertrophy, hepatocellular necrosis and interstitial nephritis were noted in the high-dose group. In females, researchers noted increased incidence of proximal tubule epithelial basophilia and hypertrophy at the highest doses. The U.S. EPA and an independent group of pathologists and biometricians concluded that the occurrence of adenomas was not caused by glyphosate.^34,35
• Based on this mouse study, the systemic NOEL and LOEL were determined to be 750 and 4500 mg/kg/day, respectively.⁶
• Goldfish (Carassius auratus) were exposed to 5, 10, or 15 ppm of the formulated product Roundup® containing the IPA salt of glyphosate and the surfactant POEA for 6 days. Researchers noted increased DNA and micronuclei damage in the peripheral erythrocytes. This may have resulted from decreased DNA repair. Genotoxicity test results are generally mixed, although formulated products appear to be more likely to cause effects than glyphosate alone.³⁶
• Glyphosate has been the subject of numerous genotoxicity tests and the results are overwhelmingly negative.³⁷

Reproductive or Teratogenic Effects: Animals

• Researchers dosed pregnant rats with glyphosate by gavage (stomach tube) on gestation days 6-19 at doses of 0, 300, 1000, or 3500 mg/kg/day. At the highest dose, they detected decreased body weight gains in both the dams and fetuses, increased maternal mortality, and an increased number of fetal skeletal abnormalities. The NOEL for maternal and developmental toxicity was 1000 mg/kg/day and the LOEL was 3500 mg/kg/day.³⁹
• In a developmental study, scientists exposed pregnant rabbits to glyphosate by gavage on gestation days 6-27 at doses of 0, 75, 175, or 350 mg/kg/day. They detected no developmental effects. At the highest dose tested, the animals exhibited diarrhea, nasal discharge, and increased mortality; too many animals died in this group to assess developmental effects at this dose. The NOEL for maternal effects was 175 mg/kg/day.⁴⁰
• Dietary concentrations of up to 10,000 ppm or 293 mg/kg/day of glyphosate given to rats over two generations had no effect on male or female sexuality and fertility. The NOAEL for parental and offspring toxicity is 3000 ppm, based upon a reduction of body weight at 10,000 ppm.^37,41
• Researchers reviewed the scientific literature on glyphosate, its major metabolite AMPA, formulated Roundup® products manufactured by Monsanto, and the surfactant POEA. They concluded that neither glyphosate, AMPA, nor POEA caused reproductive effects in various animal studies.¹³

Humans

• Questionnaires filled out by farm operators and eligible couples collected during the Ontario Farm Family Health Study suggested that there was an association between preconception exposure to pesticide products containing glyphosate and elevated risks of late spontaneous abortion.⁴²

From your list of facts:

Animals exposed to formulated glyphosate herbicides have displayed anorexia, lethargy, hypersalivation, vomiting, and diarrhea.

Animals may exhibit excitability and tachycardia at first, followed by ataxia, depression, and bradycardia. Severe cases may progress to collapse and convulsions.

The low-dose and high-dose male groups had a slightly increased incidence of pancreatic islet cell adenomas and hepatocellular adenomas.

The mid-dose and high-dose male and female groups had a slightly increased incidence of thyroid C-cell adenomas.

In the high-dose groups researchers observed decreased body weight gain in both male and female mice. In high-dose males, slightly increased incidence of renal tubular adenomas, increased incidence of hepatocellular hypertrophy, hepatocellular necrosis and interstitial nephritis were noted in the high-dose group.

Researchers noted increased DNA and micronuclei damage in the peripheral erythrocytes.

they detected decreased body weight gains in both the dams and fetuses, increased maternal mortality, and an increased number of fetal skeletal abnormalities.

At the highest dose tested, the animals exhibited diarrhea, nasal discharge, and increased mortality; too many animals died in this group to assess developmental effects at this dose.

Farm Family Health Study suggested that there was an association between preconception exposure to pesticide products containing glyphosate and elevated risks of late spontaneous abortion.

.......................

Do you really think it's a good idea to concentrate this stuff in high fructose corn syrup, and use it as an across the board sweetener for everything sweet on our grocery shelves?

Combine these "facts" with the unknowns regarding the spliced in Bt toxins, and it also begins to sound pretty lame, when we claim that GM crops and force feeding HFCS to commercial bee operations, has nothing to do with the bee decline.

All you've shown here is that there may be some negative reaction if you drink this stuff like you would water....so tell me what herbicide do you recommend? Surely if you are asking that the herbicide of choice be discontinued, you must have a safer viable alternative....what is it? I ask because I have never found a herbicide that works as well as Roundup™....In fact nothing comes close.....Let's face it, you have no proof of your allegations, no viable alternative, know nothing about the process of digestion(you have apparently taken the phrase "you are what you eat" literally)....

You've eaten too much cow DNA....

I haven't shown anything, nor are they allegations.

I copied the "facts" from your link, and pasted them.

You told me to look at the facts for a change, and I did. Now you want to fight about your own "facts".

Signal words for products containing glyphosate may range from Caution to Danger. The signal word reflects the combined toxicity of the active ingredient and other ingredients in the product. See the pesticide label on the product and refer to the NPIC fact sheets on Signal Words and Inert or "Other" Ingredients.

You presented this as proof that it's safe to eat glyphosate products, and each year, our food contains more of them.

Are you and Tinac related?

Herbicides are not used during harvest time....the herbicide quickly biodegrades over the course of 60 days in soil and even faster in the foilage....

GMO in the form of a car.↑

Vehicle manufacturer's aren't immunized from the damage their products do? Why do we have homeowners insurance?

You can sue a food vendor if their food makes you sick. Oh, the food vendor probably gets periodic inspections, too. Ask W. VA. about water safety. Is anybody taking the rap for that? Nope.

Fact is, still, that GMO's risks are not known, but the companies who make them have enough lawmakers, lobbyists and politicians on the take that they ARE IMMUNE from prosecution if there is a problem.

If they are safe, why buy the protection, up front? So taxpayers will pay for the clean-up, is my guess.

Kinda like Fannie and Freddy. They reap the billions of $$$$ in rewards, we pay the lo$$e$.

You take a far too narrow view of the potential negative impact of the unknown qualities of GMO's in general and foods in particular.

Fact is very little is known about any potential hazards that may come from indiscriminate spread of GMO's.

I will take a more than caviler approach for argument's sake. The biggest worry is, as you stated, an uncontrolled spread of GMO.

That said, we are used to mutations in the world. This happens probably many times a second if you include all life forms on the planet. Although possible, I feel a GMO provides little more danger than natural mutations. Most mutations don't do anything. Chromosomes break and pieces recombine. The genetic material is still there and will probably function well enough even if it gets moved to a different chromosome. If the break actually occurs inside a gene altering its functionality 99.99% of the time is detrimental and does not result in the Flash or someother X-man mutant. Detrimental means the mutant can't make a required enzyme correctly and the being is very unhealthy or dies. That is what genes do they provide a template to create a protein which is usually an enzyme. I would liken creating a super being or even a dangerous creature from a mutation or even a few mutations in one step and having a million monkeys banging on typewriters writing the bible. You wouldn't expect smashing a functioning machine into parts will make it better. That is why evolution takes millennias for even small noticeable changes. What does happen is most mutants that have altered genes die and do not propagate. Leaving the few that continue to live and procreate.

I see such a minute possibility of something bad happen it is almost not worth thinking about. If it does happen we will be letting the genie out of the bottle. However, mankind continually does this on a more mundane level. In an earth threatening population explosion, we are still greasing the skids not trying to slow it down. I have 3 kind so I am part of that problem.

I concur with your view of the government, with enough money you can usually get anything done barring assignation. This is doubly so if the action is below the public radar.

Unfortunately genetic modification introduces genes which can never occur as a natural mutation. They are genes from totally different organisms and their code is not in the original plant.

The long term effects of this are unknown.

We may produce outstanding new plants (or animals). On the other hand we are more likely to produce major problems.

Our bodies have adapted to handle the genetic make up of various plants. Suddenly we are introducing a genetic make up which has some parts totally different to any plant we have ever known - and could ever develop by selective breeding.

We then rely on limited testing by self interested laboratories who have their work peer reviewed by workers who are usually employed where they have a vested interest in the result so naturally a favorable review.

Fully independent testing here is rare but cannot cover for unknown long term effects of genes we have never adapted to.

In practice the actual benefits seem to have been heavily overstated with yields being no where near as great as proposed, but farmers are now wedded to the seed and find it difficult to get off the treadmill.

This area needs to be approached with great caution as our ignorance is far greater than our ability to make the changes.

The benefits of Roundup ready crops have been wildly overstated, and in an effort to stem the failure, we are now adding more chemicals than ever to the mix, in order to try to overcome the continuing tolerance of weeds to currently used herbicides.

This is not a secret.

Tired of Roundup not working? Just spray this stuff on your corn also.

http://www.dowagro.com/herculex/tolerance/

I think it's fascinating that we had to splice genes into crops to get them to be herbicide tolerant, and within a relatively short time, the weeds have adapted to the herbicide all by themselves. That's an amazingly short, (unnatural), evolutionary adaptation, and these super-weeds are becoming more and more prevalent....which leads to the purchase and application of more and more chemicals.

"That's an amazingly short, (unnatural), evolutionary adaptation,"

What's unnatural about it?

No one did any gene splicing to make the weeds more tolerant. They adapted on their own to changing conditions just as their natural DNA adaption systems told them to using survival of the fittest as the standard process driver as it has been doing since the beginning of life a few billion years ago.

Maybe we need to start looking at regrowing the weeds to be the crops? They seem to have the best natural and fastest acting strategies to dealing with change and adapting to local competition and variables in their environments.

What's unnatural about it?

Really?

Are you suggesting that these weeds would have gone through these changes, without being sprayed with Roundup every year?

I don't care if people turn the weeds into crops; the point is, that they were not supposed to be around. That was the selling point of Roundup ready crops.

Now, the weeds are Roundup tolerant, and we're having to spray the fields with more/stronger chemicals to keep them at bay...all of which is being absorbed into our food crops.

I can't comprehend how you guys can think this is a good thing.

"Are you suggesting that these weeds would have gone through these changes, withoutbeing sprayed with Roundup every year?"

I am saying these particular plants adapted to a threatening environmental change just like their genetic programing had designed them to do so though survival of the fittest.

The problem is domesticated crops have had much of their natural ability to adapt bred out of them in the trade off to make them produce more of what we want from them in a much more controlled growing environment than nature would ever provide or ever has provided.

Maybe one of you can tell us if the rate of weed adaptation has increased since the introduction of Roundup™ ready crops.

Seems to me that Roundup™ has been around for a long time.

Has the rate of weed tolerance changed, or has the Roundup™?

It's so simple, that Monsanto didn't think it was possible.

Even government controlled media is covering it...in a nice way.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/03/11/148290731/why-monsanto-thought-weeds-would-never-defeat-roundup

No reason to slow down now I suppose. Damned the torpedoes; there's money to be made from this screwup. Let's just sell more chemicals!!!

More pesky, peer reviewed studies on the health issues:

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/07/30/scientists-link-monsantos-glyphosate-to-birth-defects/

One of Mansanto's studies was about the sterility one of its genetic modifications produced...the goal was corn to feed the overpopulated nations of this world....I think that was in 1987...What other problems (solutions) have they purposely or accidentally added to our food chain? What if the roughly 1 in 110 of the children who are born autistic (did you ever hear of autism as a MAJOR problem 40 years ago?)what if that is due to their parents appetite for corn flakes as children and not adjuncts to vaccines?

"What if the roughly 1 in 110 of the children who are born autistic (did you ever hear of autism as a MAJOR problem 40 years ago?)"

Actually the term autism as we know it has been around for roughly a century now but the account of people with what we would classify as autism has been around as long as written history.

The primary reason for less known numbers of autism cases more than 40 - 50 years ago was that most families who had a child born that way had them put in a state mental institution and never talked about it or they simply died at an early age due to health or personal actions getting them killed.

Ever watch the Lassie series? How many times did Timmy fall down a well or mine or hole or get himself into a situation where if he had not had such a smart dog he would have been dead anyway? Ever think that maybe he was a bit autistic?

So was there autism more than 40 years ago? Yep and likely in per capita numbers comparable to now. They just didn't have super smart dogs to come and rescue them every day.

Here's some data from the CDC. Of course, it's a coincidence that GM ingredients went into 2/3 of all processed foods, between 1997-1999.

Figure 4 is particularly telling.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db10.pdf

OMG!!!!

Please give us all a BREAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You can't possibly believe what you just wrote!

Monsanto's goal was to make billions of dollars SELLING STERILE CORN SEED!!!!

They don't give a damn about, "the overpopulated nations of this world". If they did, they would sell corn with fertile seed THAT COULD BE REPLANTED!

Monsanto is doing everything they can to MAXIMIZE their profit, that's why they jealously collect all the seeds from all their GMO crops. That is, the ones that they haven't sterilized yet. That way the farmer collects the seeds for Monsanto and turns them over to them, so Poor little Monsanto doesn't even have to grow their own seeds. They just re-sell them. After the farmer plants, waters, feeds and harvests them for the savior of starving children.

What a crock!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, Monsanto seed isn't sterile; which is part of the problem. Pollen drift is turning non-GMO fields, into GMO, through cross pollination.

The devious part, is that farmers sign an agreement not to save any seed from one year to the next, and have to buy new seed from Monsanto every year. They face criminal prosecution if they get caught trying to avoid the contract and save seed.

No, the seed sold here in the USA, where they can control it, isn't.

But the "save mankind from hunger" seed was. That was the whole point of the program. To render the seed unusable, so governments would always have to buy more of it.

SO what exactly is the genetic modification in the foodstuffs?

Are they splicing DNA from another foodstuff to make a second one better and if so does our digestive system and related enzymes care if the genetic components that they strip out to use to build and maintain our bodies really care if those generic bit n pieces came form one DNA strand or two independent one?

That is to say does our bodies digestive enzymes and related processes care if we ate fish on a cornbread sandwich or if we ate bread made from a corn/fish hybrid that carried all of the dietary ingredients and benefits of both in one DNA chain set?

There is mounting evidence, but the US government refuses to do independent studies...because nothing is perfectly safe.

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/05/11/scientists-discover-bt-toxins-found-in-monsanto-crops-damage-red-blood-cells/

Arjun Walia is a person who's articles are based on junk science....he has been thoroughly debunked at numerous sites....

http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2013/10/oh-not-again-another-post-claiming-vaccines-cause-autism-with-studies-to-prove-it.html

Here, look for yourself.....I especially like the one on "free energy"...

http://www.collective-evolution.com/author/arjun/page/2/

Friends:

1. The full article that began this blog addressed the safety of the DNA in GMO foods (concluding it was safe for consumption), but generally ignored the changes in the chemistry of the food as a result of the DNA's expression as the food plant grew.
2. The article mentioned three agencies in the USA that had some level of oversight or influence on GMO foods, but only discussed one of these (the FDA). The others were left out completely.
3. The article mentioned concerns about insect population resistance to Bt type seeds and similar issues, but didn't cite any studies on this topic. A real hand-washing.
4. The article generally ignored the issue of genetic diversity.

If the "devil is in the details", we have a lot of details that are poorly covered. I certainly side with those who are opposed to the seemingly indiscriminate spread of GMO technology and foods. I believe the future result will be seen as more harmful than helpful (at best) or highly destructive (at worst). Buried in all the research and work may be some very good results, but this will need time (perhaps golden rice may be one).

--John M.

Back in the day, short term studies were considered enough to prove that smoking tobacco was perfectly safe. If people didn't know they were smoking, how much and how long, there would never have been any reason to question those short term conclusions, either.

BTW, the retraction of Seralini's article by the journal editor, which is cited in Gizmodo's puff piece as evidence that we are safe from "allergies" so far (!) is just another instance of the long arm of the industry, "assistant editing" in the pocket of Elsevier to keep articles that report adverse effects from being published, apparently:

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15184-journal-retraction-of-seralini-study-is-illicit-unscientific-and-unethical

The controversy is far from over. And no, I won't be "putting down the pitchfork", any time soon.

In my mind, the studies are moot.

We can stop the Roundup ready experiment, because it has failed to produce the promised results.

We are now increasing glyphosate usage to unacceptable levels, and we are altering the biological chemistry of everything that it touches. It makes no sense to continue.

Look! there's a UFO!

Look! SE provided evidence that glyphosate exposure causes spontaneous late term abortions...along with citations.

Humans

• Questionnaires filled out by farm operators and eligible couples collected during the Ontario Farm Family Health Study suggested that there was an association between preconception exposure to pesticide products containing glyphosate and elevated risks of late spontaneous abortion.⁴²

Give me a break.

Definition;

preconception

1. a preconceived idea or prejudice.
2. preconceived idea/notion presupposition assumption presumption prejudgment prejudice

Web definitions;

1. an opinion formed beforehand without adequate evidence;

"he did not even try to confirm his preconceptions"

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=preconception


In other words, these abortions were caused by power of suggestion by evil doers that post lies...

Um.......no.

Here is the reference from your fact sheet.

Arbuckle, T. E.; Lin, Z.; Mery, L. S. An exploratory analysis of the effect of pesticide exposure on the risk of spontaneous abortion in an Ontario farm population. Environ. Health Perspect. 2001, 109 (8), 851-7.

Since you supplied the facts, which ones are bogus?

References:

1. Tomlin, C. D. S. The Pesticide Manual: A World Compendium, 14th ed.; British Crop Protection Council: Hampshire, UK, 2006; pp 545- 548.
2. RED Facts: Glyphosate; EPA-738-F-93-011; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1993.
3. Roberts, T. R. Metabolic Pathways of Agrochemicals-Part 1: Herbicides and Plant Growth Regulators; The Royal Society of Chemistry: Cambridge, UK, 1998; pp 396-399.
4. Herbicide Handbook, 8th ed.; Vencill, W. K. Ed.; Weed Science Society of America: Lawrence, KS, 2002; p 231-234.
5. Roundup herbicide bulletin Number 1; Monsanto Agricultural Products Company: St. Louis, MO, 1980.
6. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED): Glyphosate; EPA-738-R-93-014; U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1993.
7. Giesey, J. P.; Dobson, S.; Solomon, K. R. Ecotoxicological risk assessment for Roundup herbicide. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2000, 167, 35-120.
8. SRC PhysProp Database: Glyphosate; Syracuse Research Corporation. http://www.syrres.com/what-we-do/databaseforms.aspx?id=386 (accessed Dec 2007), updated Jan 2010.
9. Shaner, D. L. The impact of glyphosate-tolerant crops on the use of other herbicides and on resistance management. Pest Manag. Sci. 2000, 56, 320-326.
10. Franz, J. E.; Mao, M. K.; Sikorski, J. A. Glyphosate: A Unique Global Herbicide; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1997; pp 521-527, 604-605, 615.
11. WHO. Data Sheets on Pesticides: Glyphosate; International Programme on Chemical Safety, World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1996.
12. Wu, J. Y.; Chang, S. S.; Tseng, C. P.; Deng, J. F.; Lee, C. C. Parenteral glyphosate-surfactant herbicide intoxication. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2006, 24 (4), 504-506.
13. Williams, G. M.; Kroes, R.; Munro, I. C. Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2000, 31, 117-165.
14. Bradberry, S. M.; Proudfoot, A. T.; Vale, J. A. Glyphosate poisoning. Toxicol. Rev. 2004, 23 (3), 159-167..
15. Bates, N.; Campbell, A. Handbook of Poisoning in Dogs and Cats - Glyphosate; Campbell, A.; Chapman, M., Eds.; Blackwell Science Ltd: Oxford, England, 2000; pp 135-138.
16. Monsanto Department of Medical and Health Sciences. Roundup and other gyphosate/tallowamine surfactant-containing herbicides: The clinical effects and their managment. Unpublished report, 1994, cited in Burgat, V.; Keck, G.; Guerre, P.; Bigorre, V.; Pineau, X. Glyphosate toxicosis in domestic animals: A survey from the data of the Centre National d'Informations Toxicologiques Veterinaires (CNITV). Vet. Hum.Toxicol. 1998, 40 (6), 363-367.
17. Birch, M. Toxicological investigation of CP 67573-3. Unpublished Report no. 4-70-90, 1970, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Corporation, prepared by Younger Laboratories, Inc. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Glyphosate; EPA-738-F-93-011; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1993.
18. Blaszcak, D., Primary dermal irritation study in rabbits for glyphosate technical (wetcake). Unpublished Report no. BD-88- 114, project number 4887, 1988, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Corporation, prepared by BioDynamics, Inc. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Glyphosate; EPA-738-F-93-011; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1993.
19. Blaszcak, D. Eye irritation study in rabbits for glyphosate technical (wetcake). Unpublished Report no. BD-88-114, project no. 4888-88, 1988, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Corporation, prepared by BioDynamics, Inc. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Glyphosate; EPA-738-F-93-011; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1993.
20. Maibach, H. I. Irritation, sensitization, photoirritation and photosensitization assays with a glyphosate herbicide. Contact Derm. 1986, 15, 152-156.
21. Rattray, N. J. Glyphosate acid: 4-hour acute inhalation toxicity study in rats. Unpublished Report no. CTL/P/4882, study no. HR2884, 1996, submitted to WHO by Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Basel, Switzerland, prepared by Zeneca Agrochemicals, Central Toxicology Laboratory, Alderley Park, Maccelsfield, Cheshire, England. Pesticide Residues in Food - 2004: Toxicological evaluations; International Programme on Chemical Safety, World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1996.
22. Welch, S. Glyphosate. Clinical Veterinary Toxicology; Plumlee, K. H., Ed.; Mosby: St. Louis, 2004; pp 162-163.
23. Burgat, V.; Keck, G.; Guerre, P.; Bigorre, V.; Pineau, X. Glyphosate toxicosis in domestic animals: A survey from the data of the Centre National d'Informations Toxicologiques Veterinaires (CNITV). Vet. Hum. Toxicol. 1998, 40 (6), 363-367.
24. Talbot, A. R.; Shiaw, M. H.; Huang, J. S.; Yang, S. F.; Goo, T. S.; Wang, S. H.; Chen, C. L.; Sanford, T. R. Acute poisoning with a glyphosatesurfactant herbicide ('Roundup'): A review of 93 cases. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 1991, 10 (1), 1-8.
25. Acquavella, J. F.; Weber, J. A.; Cullen, M. R.; Cruz, O. A.; Martens, M. A.; Holden, L. R.; Riordan, S.; Thompson, M.; Farmer, D. Human ocular effects from self-reported exposures to Roundup herbicides. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 1999, 18 (8), 479-486.
26. Reyna, M. Twelve month study of glyphosate administered by gelatin capsule to beagle dogs. Unpublished Report no. 830116, project no. ML-83-137, 1985, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Company Environmental Health. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Glyphosate; EPA-738-F-93-011; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1993.
27. Stout, L.; Ruecker, F. Chronic study of glyphosate administered in feed to albino rats. Unpublished Report no. MSL-10495 R.D. 1014, 1990, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Agricultural Company. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Glyphosate; EPA-738-F-93-011; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1993.
28. Glyphosate. Human-Health Assessment Scoping Document in Support of Registration Review; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 2009.
29. Lavy, T. L. Conifer seedling nursery worker exposure to glyphosate. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1992, 22, 6-13.
30. Jauhiainen, A.; Rasanen, K.; Sarantila, R.; Nuutinen, J.; Kangas, J. Occupational exposure of forest workers to glyphosate during brush saw spraying work. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 1991, 52 (2), 61-64.
31. Acquavella, J. F.; Alexander, B. H.; Mandel, J. S.; Gustin, C.; Baker, B.; Chapman, P.; Bleeke, M. Glyphosate biomonitoring for farmers and their families: results from the Farm Family Exposure Study. Environ. Health Perspect. 2004, 112 (3), 321-326.
32. Chan, P. C.; Mahler, J. F. NTP Technical Report on toxicity studies of glyphosate (CAS No. 1071-83-6) administered in dosed feed to F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Toxicology Program: Research Triangle Park, NC, 1992; pp 12-13, 24.
33. Draft List of Initial Pesticide Active Ingredients and Pesticide Inerts to be Considered for Screening under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Fed. Regist. June 18, 2007, 72 (116), pp 33486-33503.
34. Knezevich, A.; Hogan, G. A chronic feeding study of glyphosate (Roundup technical) in mice. Unpublished Report no. BDN-77420, project no. 77-2061, 1983, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Company, prepared by BioDynamics, Inc. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Glyphosate; EPA-738-F-93-011; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1993.
35. McConnel, R. A chronic feeding study of glyphosate (Roundup technical) in mice: pathology report on additional kidney sections. Unpublished project no. 77-2061A, 1985, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency prepared by BioDynamics, Inc. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Glyphosate; EPA-738-F-93-011; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1993.
36. Cavas, T.; Konen, S. Detection of cytogenic and DNA damage in peripheral erythrocytes of goldfish (Carassius auratus) exposed to a glyphosate formulation using the micronucleus test and the comet assay. Mutagenesis 2007, 22 (4), 263-268.
37. FAO. Pesticide Residues in Food - Evaluations Part 2: Toxicological; International Programme on Chemical Safety, World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2004.
38. De Roos, A. J.; Blair, A.; Rusiecki, J. A.; Hoppin, J. A.; Svec, M.; Dosemeci, M.; Sandler, D. P.; Alavanja, M. C. Cancer incidence among glyphosate-exposed pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health Study. Environ. Health Perspect. 2005, 113 (1), 49-54.
39. Rodwell, D. E.; Tasker, E. J.; Blair, A. M.; et al. Teratology study in rats. Unpublished report no. 401-054, unpublished study no. 999- 021, 1980, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Company, prepared by International Research and Development Corporation. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Glyphosate; EPA-738-F-93-011; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1993.
40. Rodwell, D. E.; Tasker, E. J.; Blair, A. M.; et al. Teratology study in rats. Unpublished report no. 401-056, 1980, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Company, prepared by International Research and Development Corporation. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Glyphosate; EPA-738-F-93-011; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1993.
41. Moxon, M. E. Glophosate acid: multigeneration reproduction toxicity in rats. Unpublished report no. CTL/P/6332, study no. RR0784, 2000, submitted to WHO by Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Basel, Switzerland, prepared by Zeneca Agrochemicals, Central Toxicology Laboratory, Alderley Park, Macclesfield, Cheshire, England. Pesticide Residues in Food - Evaluations Part 2: Toxicological; International Programme on Chemical Safety, World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2004.
42. Arbuckle, T. E.; Lin, Z.; Mery, L. S. An exploratory analysis of the effect of pesticide exposure on the risk of spontaneous abortion in an Ontario farm population. Environ. Health Perspect. 2001, 109 (8), 851-7.
43. Brewster, D. W.; Warren, J.; Hopkins, W. E. I. Metabolism of glyphosate in Sprague-Dawley rats: Tissue distribution, identification, and quantification of glyphosate-derived materials following a single oral dose. Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 1991, 17, 43-51.
44. Wester, R. C.; Melendres, J.; Sarason, R.; McMaster, J.; Maibach, H. I. Glyphosate skin binding, absorption, residual tissue distribution, and skin decontamination. Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 1991, 16, 725-732.
45. Monsanto Corporation. The metabolism of glyphosate in Sprague Dawley rats- Part I. Excretion and tissue distribution of glyphosate and its metabolites following intravenous and oral administration. Unpublished report no. MSL-7215, 1988, submitted to WHO by Monsanto Ltd, prepared by Monsanto Environmental Health Laboratory/Monsanto Life Sciences Research Center, St. Louis, Missouri. Environmental Health Criteria 159, Toxicological Evaluations - Glyphosate; International Programme on Chemical Safety, World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland,1988.
46. Bodden, R. M. Metabolism study of synthetic 13C/14C-labeled glyphosate and aminomethylphoshonic acid in lactating goats. Unpublished report, 1988, cited in Williams, G. M.; Kros, R.; Munro, I. C., prepared by Hazelton Laboratories America, Inc. Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate for humans. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2000, 31, 117-165.
47. Bodden, R. M., Metabolism study of synthetic 13C/14C-labeled glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in laying hens. Unpublished report, 1988, cited in Williams, G. C.; Kroes, R.; Munro, I. C., prepared by Hazelton Laboratories America, Inc. Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate for humans. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2000, 31, 117-165.
48. WHO. Environmental Health Criteria 159, Toxicological Evaluations - Glyphosate; International Programme on Chemical Safety, World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland,1988.
49. Hori, Y.; Fujisawa, M.; Shimada, K.; Hirose, Y. Determination of the herbicide glyphosate and its metabolite in biological specimens by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. A case of poisoning by roundup herbicide. J. Anal. Toxicol. 2003, 27 (3), 162-166.
50. Ridley, W.; Mirly, K. The metabolism of glyphosate in Sprague-Dawley rats. Part I. Excretion and tissue distribution of glyphosate and its metabolites following intravenous and oral administration. Unpublished report no. 86139 (MSL 7215), RD no. 877, 1988, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Company. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Glyphosate; EPA-738-F-93-011; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1993.
51. Howe, R.; Chott, R.; McClanahan, R. Metabolism of glyphosate in Sprague-Dawley rats. Part II: Identification, characterization, and quantitation of glyphosate and its metabolites after intravenous and oral administration. Unpublished report no. MSL-7206, RD No. 877, 1988, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Company. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Glyphosate; EPA-738-F-93-011; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1993.
52. Talbot, A.; Ku, T. S.; Chen, C. L.; Li, G. C.; Li, H. P. Glyphosate levels in acute Roundup herbicide poisoning. 1994 Toxicology World Congress Abstracts. Ann. Emerg. Med. 1995, 26, 717.
53. Aprea, C.; Colosio, C.; Mammone, T.; Minoia, C.; Maroni, M. Biological monitoring of pesticide exposure: a review of analytical methods. J. Chromatogr. B Analyt. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2002, 769 (2), 191-219.
54. Motojyuku, M.; Saito, T.; Akieda, K.; Otsuka, H.; Yamamoto, I.; Inokuchi, S. Determination of glyphosate, glyphosate metabolites, and glufosinate in human serum by gas chromatography-mass spectometry. J. Chromatogr. B 2008, 875, 509-514.
55. Sato, K.; Jin, J. Y.; Takeuchi, T.; Miwa, T.; Suenami, K.; Takekoshi, Y.; Kanno, S., Integrated pulsed amperometric detection of glufosinate, bialaphos and glyphosate at gold electrodes in anion-exchange chromatography. J. Chromatogr. A. 2001, 919 (2), 313-320.
56. Biagini, R. E.; Smith, J. P.; Sammons, D. L.; MacKenzie, B. A.; Striley, C. A.; Robertson, S. K.; Snawder, J. E. Development of a sensitivity enhanced multiplexed fluorescence covalent microbead immunosorbent assay (FCMIA) for the measurement of glyphosate, atrazine and metolachlor mercapturate in water and urine. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2004, 379 (3), 368-374.
57. Curwin, B. D.; Hein, M. J.; Sanderson, W. T.; Striley, C.; Heederik, D.; Kromhout, H.; Reynolds, S. J.; Alavanja, M. C. Urinary pesticide concentrations among children, mothers and fathers living in farm and non-farm households in iowa. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2007, 51 (1), 53-65.
58. Castle, S.; Ruzo, L.; Katheryn, S. Degradation study: photodegradation of carbon 14 glyphosate in a buffered aqueous solution at pH 5, 7, and 9 by natural sunlight. Unpublished report no. 233W-1, 233W:1020, 1990, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protections Agency, prepared by Pharmacology and Toxicology Research Laboratory, Inc. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Glyphosate; EPA-738-F-93-011; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1993.
59. Brightwell, B.; Malik, J. Solubility, volatility, absorption, and partition coefficients, leaching and aquatic metabolism of MON 0573 and MON 0101. Unpublished report no. MSL-0207, 1978, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Company. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Glyphosate; EPA-738-F-93-011; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1993.
60. Tsui, M. T. 60. K.; Chu, L. M. Environmental fate and non-target impact of glyphosate-based herbicide (Roundup) in a subtropical wetland. Chemosphere 2008, 71, 439-446.
61. Nicholls, R. Confined rotational crop study of glyphosate Part I: In-field portion. Unpublished report no. EF-88-22, 1990, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Pan-Agricultural Labs, Inc. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Glyphosate; EPA- 738-F-93-011; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1993.
62. McMullan, P.; Honeggar, J.; Logusch, E. Confined rotational crop study of glyphosate Part II. Quantitation, characterization and identification of glyphosate and its metabolites in rotational crops. Unpublished report no. MSL-981, 1990, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Agricultural Labs. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Glyphosate; EPA- 738-F-93-011; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1993.
63. Curwin, B. D.; Hein, M. J.; Sanderson, W. T.; Nishioka, M. G.; Reynolds, S. J.; Ward, E. M.; Alavanja, M. C. Pesticide contamination inside farm and nonfarm homes. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2005, 2 (7), 357-67.
64. Fink, R.; Beavers, J. One-generation reproduction study in bobwhite quail: glyphosate technical. Unbpublished report no. 139- 141. 1978, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Company, prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Glyphosate; EPA-738-F-93-011; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1993.
65. Fink, R.; Beavers, J. Final report: One-generation reproduction study in mallard ducks: glyphosate technical. Unpublished report no. 139-143, 1978, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Company, prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Glyphosate; EPA-738-F-93-011; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1993.
66. Folmar, L. C.; Sanders, H. O.; Julin, A. M. Toxicity of the herbicide glyphosate and several of its formulations to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1979, 8, 269-278.
67. Howe, C. M.; Berrill, M.; Pauli, B. D.; Helbing, C. C.; Werry, K.; Veldhoen, N., Toxicity of glyphosate-based pesticides to four North American frog species. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2004, 23 (8), 1928-1938.
68. McAllister, W.; McKee, M.; Schofield, M.; et al. Chronic toxicity of glyphosate (AB-82-036) to Daphnia magna under flow-through test conditions. Chronic toxicity final report ABC 28742. Unpublished report, 1982, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Company , prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Glyphosate; EPA-738-F-93-011; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1993.
69. Bentley, R., Acute toxicity of roundup (technical) to grass shrimp (Palaemonetas vulgaris) and fiddler crab (Uca pagilator). Unpublished report no. SF1536, 1974, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Company , prepared by Bionomics, Inc. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Glyphosate; EPA-738-F-93-011; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1993.
70. Bentley, R. Acute toxicity of roundup (technical) to Atlantic oyster (Crassostrea virginica). Unpublished report no. SF1536, 1974, submitted to study U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Company , prepared by Bionomics, Inc., CDL 094171-L. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Glyphosate; EPA-738-F-93-011; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1993.
71. Frasier, W. D.; Jenkins, G. The acute contact and oral toxicities of CP67573 and MON2139 to worker honey bees. Unpublished report no. 4G1444, 1972, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Company , prepared by Huntingdon Research Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Glyphosate; EPA-738-F-93-011; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1993.

That's too lame to let go.

Preconception exposure: Exposure to the substance prior to getting pregnant.

And they don't necessarily mean the woman.

My wife miscarried numerous times because of my overexposure to hazardous solvents. (before the toxicity was known, or at least disclosed to those exposed to it)

That was NOT a preconception, it was a fact.

I feel like Alice in freakin' Wonderland.

SE told me to look at the facts, provided a link............and when I posted the facts, (with a copy/paste), here's what I got:

..Let's face it, you have no proof of your allegations.

Maybe it's those pesky preconceived notions.

The first thing I would do with that list of references, is throw out the ones from Monsanto.

If you ask the devil if he's up to no good, there's a chance that he's not gonna be honest with you.

This quote is taken out of context, let's look at it all....First of all, this is an exploratory analysis, not a proper study....The results were basically the same for all herbicides mentioned, and the results were not statistically relevant beyond margin of error....The exploratory analysis was aimed at the pesticide exposure with herbicides as an added factor, rather than either pesticides or herbicides alone....This was not a controlled study dealing strictly with glyphosate or even herbicides....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11564623

Show me a peer reviewed study....

Dude!

This is stupid. You are telling me to prove the facts that YOU presented. WTF?

YA GOT NUTHIN'!!!

SE,

Your argument "This was not a controlled study dealing strictly with glyphosate or even herbicides...." has one major flaw. Many times any single stressant (chemicals, health condition, etc.) by itself does not create a problem. But, when it is coupled with a second one or a limiting condition then that stressant can be harmful or even catastrophic. A good example of this is interaction between many drugs and chemicals. In our modern world the millions of chemicals that we have created and used are very poorly studied, with much less than 25% having been truly studied in depth. When the pesticide Parathion was introduced we learned early on that it was extremely toxic to the human body. Later, a related one (Malathion) was developed very low toxicity to the human body. Studies "dealing strictly" with it showed it was great. However, these studies completely missed the interaction between malathion and a whole family of medicines that blocked the metabolic pathway in which malathion was de-toxified in the human body. When a person took any of these drugs and was exposed to "normally safe" levels of malathion, this person often died.

Many people try the argument you use, of controlled studies of single components of what ordinarily are very complex combinations of stressants. These studies, when they are complete, show no connection between the claimed adverse effect and the particular component being studied. Are the results flawed?--NO. Is the study protocol flawed?--NO. BUT the assumption of no real-world correlation between the component being studied and the claimed adverse effect is invalid because the study has. not. looked. at. the potential interactions between multiple components.

I expected better logic than the one you exhibited in your post, Solar Eagle.

--John M.

Glyphosate is not bioaccumulative, it passes quickly through the body....

Published studies from a government website.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23820267

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-04/uopm-rhl040105.php

Here's one where the scientists know the chemicals aren't safe, but Monsanto won't give them access to their data....so we'll have to wait.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23146697

A 2013 study showing toxicity in fish:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24448465

Glyphosate and liver damage in rats:

http://toxgate.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/r?dbs+toxline:@term+@DOCNO+medline/21783836

Accumulation of glyphosate in soybeans:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24491722

Gill, digestive, and DNA damage to freshwater clams:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24433785

Liver and muscle damage in bullfrog tadpoles:

http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/39888100

Kidney and liver damage to goldfish from low dose exposure:

http://toxgate.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/r?dbs+toxline:@term+@DOCNO+medline/19450865

Roundup linked to massive amphibian deaths:

http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/4908453

Roundup thought to cause genital abnormalities in male mammals:

http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/32133733

DNA damage to caimans:

http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/35774838

DNA damage to the European eel, and general threat to fish species:

http://toxgate.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/r?dbs+toxline:@term+@DOCNO+medline/20643706

This one's important. Damage to human placental and embryonic cells:

The cytotoxic, and potentially endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup are thus amplified with time. Taken together, these data suggest that Roundup exposure may affect human reproduction and fetal development in case of contamination. Chemical mixtures in formulations appear to be underestimated regarding their toxic or hormonal impact.

http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/5572098

There's more here:

http://www.science.gov/scigov/result-list/fullRecord:Roundup/#ResultList=0|20|_|RANK|1%2C2

That last one is terrifying.

Furthermore, glyphosate acts directly as a partial inactivator on microsomal aromatase, independently of its acidity, and in a dose-dependent manner. The cytotoxic, and potentially endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup are thus amplified with time.

What would happen to the US healthcare system, (and everything else), if we had a couple of complete generations of people that had DNA damage from the long term effects of glyphosate?

I don't even want to think about it. We'd be finished.

Our data demonstrated that as little as 0.01%Roundup,within only 24 h, provoked a significant reduction of 19%ofestrogen production in transfected 293 cells. Estrogens are

known to be necessary for normal fetal development.

Hey look SE! They used the word bioaccumulate!

. Pesticide adjuvants and surfactants, which are present

in Roundup, are used in herbicide formulations to favorstability and penetration of the active ingredient into cellmembranes (Cox 1998). These adjuvants amplify the cellulareffects of herbicides not only in plants but also in animalmodels (Marcet al. 2002, Walshet al. 2000, Nosanchuket al. 2001). Some of them may eventually stick to DNA andbioaccumulate in new and not usually detected forms (Pelusoet al

. 1998).

Here's the full study. Not only is it worth a read, but it should scare anybody that can understand what they're saying.

http://www.gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Benachoural.AECT_2007.pdf

Ah the magic word....may

"...Some of them may eventually stick to DNA and bioaccumulate in new and not usually detected forms (Pelusoet al..."

You may some day find that you are wrong...

You will find that magic word in all studies. Scientists are careful not to declare conclusions as fact.

You didn't bother to read the study, so you are unaware of the results, as well as the results, (and conclusions), in the long list of studies above.

I'll summarize all of the results for you:

Roundup causes DNA and other damage, in amphibians, fish, animals, and humans.

None of these studies are fabricated lies. I believe the results to be accurate, and we'll know for sure in about 5+ years, when people that were born around 96 or 97, and have been eating HFCS for their entire lives, start trying to have children.

If there are widespread reproductive problems, there won't be any turning back the clock.

"None of these studies are fabricated lies. I believe the results to be accurate, and we'll know for sure in about 5+ years, when people that were born around 96 or 97, and have been eating HFCS for their entire lives, start trying to have children."

So how did the previous generations survive the mass applications of.......

-------------------------------------

aldrin

ethyl hexyleneglycol [6-12]

benzene hexachloride [BHC]

fluoroacetamide

2,3,4,5-Bis(2-butylene)tetrahydro-2- furaldehyde [Repellent-11]

hexachlorobenzene [HCB]

bromoxynil butyrate

lead arsenate

cadmium compounds

leptophos

calcium arsenate

mercurous chloride

captafol

mercuric chloride

carbon tetrachloride

mevinphos

chloranil

mirex

chlordane

monocrotophos

chlordecone [Kepone]

nitrofen (TOK)

chlordimeform OMPA

(octamethylpyrophosphoramide)

chlorinated camphene [Toxaphene]

phenylmercury acetate [PMA]

chlorobenzilate

phenylmercuric oleate [PMO]

chloromethoxypropylmercuric acetate [CPMA]

potassium 2,4,5-trichlorophenate [2,4,5-TCP]

copper arsenate

pyriminil [Vacor]

cyhexatin safrole

DBCP

silvex

DDT

sodium arsenite

dieldrin

TDE

dinoseb and salts

Terpene polychlorinates [Strobane]

Di(phenylmercury)dodecenylsuccinate [PMDS]

thallium sulfate

1,2-dibromoethane ethylene dibromide [EDB]

2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid [2,4,5-T]

endrin

vinyl chloride

EPN

-------------------------------

If HFCS and Roundup are the end game how did we ever survive all of these before it?
Just curious.

Were all of those sprayed onto food crops, absorbed, and put into the food supply?

To put this into perspective, consider this....

The very same FDA that is ignoring all of these studies, is attempting to push through a national ban on trans-fats. Even though transfat use and consumption has been steadily dropping, the FDA tells us that trans-fats may be responsible for up to 7000 heart attack deaths a year, and must be banned.

All I want them to do, is replicate the studies that have been done on Roundup and glyphosate, and tell us the truth about the results.

I don't understand why they would publish all of the other studies, and reach the conclusion that only the Monsanto studies are relevant, in terms of public safety, without bothering to repeat any of them.

If that's how the FDA views it's responsibility to the American public, we don't need them.

"Were all of those sprayed onto food crops, absorbed, and put into the food supply?"

Do some reading and find out.

After you do Roundup is going to seem pretty mild compared to some of those other chemicals and how they were used world wide in the last century.

You're making my point that we can eliminate the FDA, just from a different angle.

Along with a bunch of other useless, corrupt agencies.

I'll go with your argument...we've lived through everything so far, so lets cut government to being responsible for a military and a few other things, and we can be responsible for ourselves on everything else.

I figure we can gut them to 1/3 the current size.

In a truly free market, and without government collusion through creating artificial demand through ethanol, etc., we would never have seen this degree of power and influence from Monsanto and others.

Really.....Do you even know what the FDA does? Here's a brief 194 year history of just some of their accomplishments...

http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/Milestones/ucm128305.htm

Right now, they are ignoring GM crops and Roundup, and going after transfats.

My response was to Tcm, and his suggestion that since we survived all of those other chemicals, testing Roundup wasn't necessary, since we go on living anyway.

If that's the case, we don't need an FDA.

What's terrifying here is the amount of time and effort you would put into trying to convince somebody of something that does not exist....You do not have even one piece of evidence that glyphosate causes any harm to anything other than the weeds it's intended to control....when used as directed.....and that's only temporary... My advice is for you to look at foodborne illness, something that actually exists....If for no other reason than to see what something that does exist, looks like...and is a serious threat...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foodborne

I'm convinced...you ARE related to Tinac!

Actually, if you browsed the studies, you would find that your statement is not only incorrect, but the Roundup causes more damage than glyphosate alone, due to the additional chemicals.

Fortunately, I didn't go to the trouble of compiling that list, for you. You could be drowning in Roundup, and your last words would be, "It's safe".

I thought some of our other members might be interested, and although nothing I say is going to change anything, they may want to consider moving any kids in their lives, away from HFCS. We can't avoid all of it, but that's a pretty simple step, that may end up being important.

So going by this,

"

• Researchers dosed pregnant rats with glyphosate by gavage (stomach tube) on gestation days 6-19 at doses of 0, 300, 1000, or 3500 mg/kg/day. At the highest dose, they detected decreased body weight gains in both the dams and fetuses, increased maternal mortality, and an increased number of fetal skeletal abnormalities. The NOEL for maternal and developmental toxicity was 1000 mg/kg/day and the LOEL was 3500 mg/kg/day.^39"

If I extrapolated those numbers out to person my size that would equate to me having to drink between 12 and 16+ ounces of the stuff every day to reach those upper end exposure limits?

I don't get where the fuss is then being that around here herbicides like Roundup are applied at around 10 - 40 ounces an acre for most crops. Then from there given an average corn crop of 250 bushels per acre yield some 7 tons of corn............HUH? WTF?

So even at a dismal crop yield of 50 bushels per acre from a field where the farmer was overspraying at 4:1 160 oz per acre that would mean my direct exposure would be at best would be around 2 (2000 mg) grams for every pound of pure corn I ate.
At normal more realistic application levels in more average crop yields plus factoring in higher than average corn based diet I would still at best be exposing myself to no more than 150 mg per day of the theoretical LOEL limit of some 450,000+ mg's!

Now that said even if humans were to have a 100 times greater sensitivity over the rats my LOEL limit would still be 4500 mg per day yet eating all the corn I could handle would still put me at less than 4% of that limit and all of that is assuming that there is zero percent dilution or breakdown between time of application upto the point of personal consumption which in realistic ratios would likely drop the true exposure level to less than 5% of what I am estimating or about 6 mg per day (about 1 drops worth while having to eat about a Kg's worth or pure corn a day).

Now take into account that 6 mg number against my theoretical LOEL that was some 16+ ounces or roughly 75,000 times more than that. Even given a 100:1 sensitivity over rats that would still be some 750 less more than what would be considered a safe exposure limit.

(Or did Monsanto just send me a check for an undisclosed amount to say that.)

You are so right, that you can eat GMO (or roundup residue) corn till you can't stand no more, and never see an acute toxic effect: there would never be enough glyphosphate residue to produce the acute effect.

That being said, when studies show acute toxicity at high levels of exposure, it is often the case that chronic lower level exposures are found to have other adverse health effects.

In the normal process for testing product safety and exposure limits, acute toxicity tests are quick and come first of all. If acute toxicity is confirmed, it makes sense to proceed with caution and do the longer term tests!

Don't mind him. He breaths tire smoke from his boiler all winter long. It addles his brain and gives him hallucinations.

Haven't you ever heard him ramble on about his alien wife?

Oops... the 'proceed with due caution' comment slipped out without thinking! Never mind that, then, tcm.

Actually if you check my math and reference that against real life crop volume and mass values you will find my end number is still high by at least one order of magnitude. Less than .6 mg's per day would be a more realistic number of average daily exposure.

I factored the applied amount in a typical acre to be absorbed 100% into the corn kernels which in reality make up about 10% of a typical corn plants actual mass.

Dip your finger in a jug of Roundup up to the depth of your fingernail then shake it off and lick your finger. Thats still likely more twice as much as you are being exposed to in reality even if you eat three massive all vegetable based meals a day.

In real level values even at a toxicity hypersensitivity 10,000 times that of the average rat you would still have to drink at least a teaspoon full of Roundup a day to reach a proportional LOEL ratio.

BTW my wife is not the alien. According to her I am.

I don't care for the taste of Roundup, thanks.

I don't like the smell either, I have asthma.

I grew up in the country and we use it like salad dressing.

Things change when you have kids.

It becomes your job to make sure that they aren't being harmed, so the criteria changes.

I wouldn't give a crap about this stuff, if I didn't have a 6 year old with a craving for high fructose corn syrup.

I don't feel like looking her in the eye 20 years from now, and saying, "I suspected something was wrong with that crap, and I didn't do anything about it".

We can throw the studies away. Roundup ready crops are a failure, and there's no reason to continue them.

Honesty and ethics have no place in the quest for profits of the Monsanto's of the world.

They will "save the world", even if it kills us.

Monsanto, a Ben Swann Investigative Report, page 1 - Above Top Secret
Is Monsanto America's Best Example of Crony Capitalism?

"Whether you agree or disagree on whether or not GMO's are dangerous, 64 other countries require GMO labeling. Again, the United states does not. Could it be that most Americans just don't care? Actually no, a staggering 93% support mandatory labeling of GMO foods.

In the early 1990's the FDA took a look at these genetically modified foods. There were a lot of concerns including tests that showed rats were developing stomach lesions from the Genetically modified tomatoes they were fed. According to Jeffery Smith at the Huffington Post, in memo after memo, these experts "described toxins, new diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and hard-to-detect allergens,"

So what changed? In 1994 the USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service hired a new administrator, Mike Taylor.

Taylor had worked for the FDA in the 1970's and then in the 1980's he became a private sector lawyer for a firm that represented Monsanto.

In 1994 Taylor takes over the FSIS and remains in that post until 1996.
1996, GMO foods began showing up on plates in American homes.

After 1996 Mike Taylor goes back into the private sector and goes to work for Monsanto itself.

For the next 16 months he works directly for the company.

In 2009 returns to the public sector now leading the food side of the FDA."

Mike wants to save the world. Yuk Yuk.

So this rhetoric is all based on Jeffery Smith's non-scientific, non-specific articles which are based on hearsay and innuendo, scare mongering and headline grabbing buzz words all, no doubt from his self-promoted, self-published books....

http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-individuals/jeffrey-smith/

Bulldozing a mountain of bullsheet....

http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/

Just what is this rag you are holding up as an authority? Where did you dig them up?

With your bulldozer?

Please feel free to refute anything between the quotation marks, which is what I offered. I just included the source.

We can play dueling sources all day, but that game bores me rapidly.

I fear you are suffering from preconception.

Take two tablespoons of Roundup™ with some GMO soy milk, eat some GMO corn, and get some bed rest.

Call me in the morning.