Home | About | Donate

Has Glyphosate Met Its Waterloo?


#1

Has Glyphosate Met Its Waterloo?

Jim Goodman

Can organic farmers can use Roundup® ? I get that question a lot. Society has been told and, it seems, really believes, that as crop chemicals go, nothing could be safer. But that's just it, using nothing is safer.

And no, organic farmers can't use it, but if I could why would I want to? It is after all, a poison. Its active ingredient, glyphosate, is a poison, as are some of its “inert” ingredients.


#2

Thank you!

Where can we find the studies to refute friends who show "studies" showing that GMOs are safe?


#3

The GMO PROCESS is inherently safe if the engineered traits have no negative consequences. The problem with GMOs is not the process, its the traits selected. Not only does pesticide resistant GMO crop put more pesticide in the consumer's body, it puts more pesticide in the ground, air, surface water, ground water, etc. The bigger problem is that Monsanto and the rest of the GMO cartel's main business is monopoly, the GMOs are just the lubricant that creates those monopolies. The biggest problem is that any agricultural monopoly expends monoculture which requires ever more pesticides of all kinds and threatens the food supply.

The chemical industry spent more than $100 million over a two year period trouncing GMO labeling law initiatives in California, Washington and Oregon. If their GMOs are safe they should be promoting labeling. In 2014 the emboldened chemical industry received federal approval for Dow's agent orange resistant seed. How much of our federal tax money in 2014 was used to pay off claims from Viet Nam vets (and their estates) injured or killed by agent orange ?


#4

The old debater's trick is to make direct challenges against their studies. Ask for the precise name(s) of the study or studies, when it was/ they were published, and who published (i.e. financed) it/them. The source of financing alone usually torpedoes any claims of objectivity or fairness.

If your 'adversaries' can actually provide the names of some studies then find those studies and examine their conclusions. Most studies do not say what those who use them in argumentation claim that they do. Also, such conclusions are generally couched in enough caveats to blunt their impact completely.

mcp


#6

Here is a site you might want to check out;

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/biotechnology.php

Also you might want to note a couple of things - 1) many of the "GMOs are OK" endorsements amount to saying that GMOs have not been proven to cause problems - but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - in other words, it is not that they have proven to be safe, just that they haven't been proven to be unsafe in the opinion of the endorsers. - big difference! Of course this is based on the published studies, and studies that have indicated problems have been squashed, and their authors attacked, fired, etc.. like Seralini 2) the studies that reportedly showed "no problems" were short term - a few weeks or a couple of months and have not been multi-generational - so there wasn't enough time during the duration of the study for the problems to show up. In other words the studies that need to be done, haven't been done or have been quashed ...


#7

I would take issue with "The GMO PROCESS is inherently safe ..." - the idea that we can simply artificially insert genes into an organism when we don't know what interactions those genes have with the biochemical processes of an organism and call it "safe" is a bridge too far for me .....


#8

So, just as with cigarettes, why do we have to go decades allowing a toxic process before enough evidence accumulates that this is bad news ... Why can't we proceed under the guidance of the Precautionary Principle - in which the proposed process/product has to prove it is safe before it is introduced ...

Of course i know the answer as to why we don't, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't push for this approach ...
And for every unsafe product that has been around long enough to reveal its dangers, there are a dozen more being introduced that are as bad or worse - we always seem to be behind the 8-ball playing catch up ...


#9

thank you.


#10

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#11

Since publication at the end of March of the IARC study that determined glyphosate is probably carcinogenic, testing labs have received 50 times the former number of samples to test for glyphosate and they're finding it to be pervasive. The stuff is now all through our food system and in our bodies, including breast milk.

When a carcinogenic chemical is being found in breast milk, that's it; there's no further debate possible.


#12

Institutional stupidity should be a crime. Instead, it is rewarded handsomely.

Examples:

"Of course safety test results are generally kept secret as they contain “commercially confidential information”.

"...the allowable or “safe” level of glyphosate in food crops has, as of July 2013, doubled according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

"Coincidence that as more Roundup Ready crops are approved by USDA and more Roundup is sprayed worldwide that safe residue levels are raised by the EPA? Hardly—it seems that the “powers that be” have generally fallen into lockstep support of GE technology."

"Universities, it seems, are more interested in keeping the money flowing their way than in doing research in the public interest—which was, I thought, the original intent of publicly funded universities."

The article is literally full of examples of institutional stupidity. Note that every bit of it derives from the US Government.

Liberal intention is a self deception. The GOP is liberal as well; it is spelled "illiberal."


#15

What is untrue?


#16

Would it not also help if an obese public stopped eating so much.

After all, farmers are just planting, producing and marketing what the American public wants. No more, no less.

I rarely use glysophate, but crabgrass treatment responds to no other compound available to me here in France. And, no, I don't believe glysophate leaves no residual chemical content in the soil where it is applied - but only if the soil receives considerable amounts of rain whereupon the runoff contains the chemical contents away.

Which is hardly a better solution since it ends up in the water supply and requires treatment.

Let's not look at just the chemical side at the equation, but at the fact that obesity also kills people, though perhaps not so quickly. But just as suredly ...


#17

Your reason for not using glyphosate is that it is a poison. Based on this reasoning, would you recommend that organic farmers not use Copper Sulfate, Rotenone, Streptomycin (on fruit) etc. as pesticides? All of these are approved for use in organic agriculture. Today, organic farming represents 5 - 8% of all agriculture and contamination by these compounds may be negligible. If it becomes mainstream in 30 - 50 years, would the environment be OK with their widespread use?


#18

A book came out in March called " Altered Genes, Twisted Truth" by Steven Druker.s book uncovers the biggest scientific fraud of our age. It tells the fascinating and frequently astounding story of how the massive enterprise to restructure the genetic core of the world’s food supply came into being, how it advanced by consistently violating the protocols of science, and how for more than three decades, hundreds of eminent biologists and esteemed institutions have systematically contorted the truth in order to conceal the unique risks of its products—and get them onto our dinner plates.

Altered Genes, Twisted Truth gives a graphic account of how this elaborate fraud was crafted and how it not only deceived the general public, but Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Barack Obama and a host of other astute and influential individuals as well. The book also exposes how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was induced to become a key accomplice—and how it has broken the law and repeatedly lied in order to usher genetically engineered foods onto the market without the safety testing that’s required by federal statute. As a result, for fifteen years America’s families have been regularly ingesting a group of novel products that the FDA’s own scientific staff had previously determined to be unduly hazardous to human health.

By the time this gripping story comes to a close, it will be clear that the degradation of science it documents has not only been unsavory but unprecedented—and that in no other instance have so many scientists so seriously subverted the standards they were trained to uphold, misled so many people, and imposed such magnitude of risk on both human health and the health of the environment.

  • See more at: Chelsea Green.com

#19

Purdue Professor Dr. Don Huber explains even though glyphosate is an herbicide, it was first patented as a mineral chelator. It mobilizes nutrients so that your body cannot absorb them. Since glyphosate was also patented as an antibiotic, it does double damage.

He says: “When you take the good bacteria out, then the bad
bacteria fill that void, because there aren’t any voids in nature. We have all of these gut-related problems, whether it’s autism, leaky gut, C. difficile diarrhea, gluten intolerance, or any of the other problems. All of these diseases are an expression of disruption of that intestinal microflora that keeps you healthy.”

So glyphosate, which has been patented as both a mineral chelator and an antibiotic, both of which have tremendous implications, is being used willy nilly all over the world. All the while, the agencies which are supposed to protect public health continue to look the other way.

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.”