Skip to main content

TWO YEAR STUDY SHOWS MONSANTO'S OWN ROUNDUP TOXICITY STUDY HIDES THE        TRUTH AND THAT THEIR CLAIMS ON THE TOXICITY OF ROUNDUP HERBICIDE AND OF THEIR OWN GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM/GMO) ROUNDUP RESISTANT PLANT IS VASTLY MISLEADING

TWO YEAR STUDY SHOWS MONSANTO'S OWN ROUNDUP TOXICITY STUDY HIDES THE TRUTH
AND
THAT THEIR CLAIMS ON THE TOXICITY OF ROUNDUP HERBICIDE AND OF THEIR OWN GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM/GMO) ROUNDUP RESISTANT PLANT IS VASTLY MISLEADING

"Long-Term Toxicity of a Roundup Herbicide and a Roundup-Tolerant Genetically Modified Maize"
http://www.enveurope.com/...
The study was submitted for publication March 22, 2014

I was going to write this to show details about physiological effects of the study on the rats, but I have spent a lot of space explaining the hows and whys of the Monsanto Roundup spray and the GM (GMO) Monsanto plant and their probable dangers.  As this has gotten rather long I leave it to the reader to go to the study for the nitty gritty details.  Bottom line, Roundup is not good for anything living and the Monsanto GM PLANT is indeed a Franken-food monster.

WHY WAS THIS PARTICULAR STUDY SIGNIFICANT?

"Currently, no regulatory authority requires mandatory chronic animal feeding studies to be performed for edible genetically modified organisms (GMOs), or even short-term studies with blood analyses for the full commercial formulations of pesticides as sold and used, but only for the declared active principle alone."

Animal studies previously have lasted only for 90 days; this study ran for 2 years.  Most previous studies on herbicides had only tested the specific principal active ingredient in the herbicide, not the full components nor the residue/breakdown products of the chemicals that might remain in or on the sprayed plants, soil, run off, or food produced.

"…in contrast with the study we report here, none of these previous investigations have included a detailed follow-up of the animals, including multiple blood and urine sampling over 2 years, and none has investigated either the GM NK603 R-tolerant maize or of Roundup."  
Note:
GM NK603 R-Tolerant maize is the name of one Monsanto's GM plants.
End note

HOW DOES ROUNDUP WORK – EPSPS

All plants and microorganisms have the enzyme EPSPS aka 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase, which is necessary to synthesize the amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan without which the plant cannot grow, and so withers and dies.  Roundup blocks that enzyme.  http://en.wikipedia.org/...

"Ok that was simple, end of Diary?  I can stop reading now?"
"Not quite. There is a bit more to 'spalin."

Animals also need the amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan without which they also cannot grow.  But animals cannot synthesize those particular amino acids.  They get what they need from plants they eat.  So messing around with the EPSPS enzyme, it would seem, could pose some possible complications for the treated plants and even the animals that eat the treated plants.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE
Monsanto uses the commonly used herbicide, glyphosate, that will kill pretty much any growing plant, also possibly kill or damage any animal.  Glyphosate does that by inhibiting EPSPS functions.

Monsanto also uses Agrobacterium tumefaciens, a naturally occurring plant bacteria that causes gall and other tissue damage in plants. (http://en.wikipedia.org/...)

WAIT A MINUTE agro-BACTERIUM??  WE'RE INTO MICRO?  WHAT HAPPENED TO DISCUSSING PLANTS AND WEED SPRAY?

A. tumefaciens is a plant bacteria.  It has the natural capacity to transfer some of its DNA to plants (horizontal gene transfer) causing tumors.  That's how it naturally infects the plant.  A. tumefaciens is used by Monsanto and others as a carrier to transfer selected plasmids to other organisms. (http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/...)

In the case of Monsanto's genetically modified plants, it is used to protect them from the killing effect of Roundup.

Suffering from Vertigo, SILLINESS ENSUES

"Whoa Ol' Hoss.  
Waaaaait just a danged second, Dude.  You just said Monsanto's weed spray is 'spose to p'ison the whachacallit.  Right?
"EPSPS Enzyme.  Yeah.
"In the weeds and the crops, both?
"Yeah.  Actually it's not supposed to kill the crop plant but the herbicide doesn’t know the crop from the weeds so the crop is killed too.
"And then you said that Monsanto is using a bacteri bug to put that self same whachacallit back into the crop plant that Monsanto is going to spray with its own p'ison?
Yup.
'Cept, you said/ that crop plant already makes it's own whachacallt!!
Right.  The bacteria puts the EPSPS enzyme into the crop plant which already has its own EPSPS.  So. Yup, yup and yup.
"That don't make no damn'd sense 'tall.
"I know.  Calm down, take a slug of that Jack Daniels you're hugging and I'll try to explain.
"You have two thing's going on at the same time, the Monsanto's Roundup resistant GM plant with its natural EPSPS and its injected GM EPSPS and also Monsanto's Roundup spray with its active poison glyphosate that destroys EPSPS.   We'll get to glyphosate a bit later.  Just think of it as Roundup weed killer.
"That's three thangs, to keep up with, Dude.  Pour me another."
END of silliness.

BACK TO HOW THIS ALL WORKS

In order for the crop to survive the Roundup spray, Monsanto took the DNA plasmid for EPSPS, and using A. tumefaciens bacteria as the carrier introduced the plasmid into the crop plant.  So the plant has the natural EPSPS and also Monsanto's slightly altered GM EPSPS (aka Agrobacterium tumefaciens 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate).

Note:
The shikimic (5-enolpyruvyl--shikimate) acid pathway is a metabolic pathway in plants and microorganisms that synthesizes the aromatic acids phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan. (http://chemistry.umeche.maine.edu/...)
End note

Relative to the toxic dosage of glyphosate in Roundup, the GM NK603 R-tolerant maize plant is, thus, over dosed with EPSPS

OOPS

However, the plasmid Monsanto transferred, unintended, contains some DNA that follows beyond the specific instructions for EPSPS's terminator in the chromosome from which it was removed.  

Note:  Genes have Start Here and a Stop Here messages within the DNA strand, before and after each gene sequence.   That means a specific RNA polymerase that copies a given gene knows where to begin copying and where to end copying.   But Monsanto's spliced section of DNA has information not intended to be part of the EPSPS molecule.

When these GM plant's cells with the extra DNA create RNA to blueprint the construction of EPSPS enzyme it is likely creating GM EPSPS molecules with unknown functions within the cells of the plant.  (http://www.enveurope.com/...)   Thus, potentially exposing the plant and anything that consumes the plant or is exposed to its breakdown products to whatever effect that aberrant fragment of DNA produces, whether it is as an add on to the GM EPSPS molecule, or as a separate unnatural amino acid fragment wandering around in the plant's cells or animal's body after consumption. (http://www.google.com/...)
End note

GM NK603 R-tolerant maize plants do synthesize the needed excess amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan, to make them Roundup resistant.

Not withstanding, this study also showed a statistically significant decrease in the production of estrogenic isoflavones, and phenolic acids like caffeic and ferulic acids in the NK603 GM modified maize used as feed in the study

A possible cause of that could be the result of the DNA fragment.

Note:
Phenolic acids make up about half of the polyphenols in the body.  Polyphenols are a large group of molecules that mainly act as antioxidants and can block certain enzymes that are active in the growth of some cancers.  (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/...)

Caffeic and ferulic acids both act as antioxidants and have shown potential, in studies, to have antitumor activity.  
http://www.sabiosciences.com/...

Estrogenic isoflavones are enzymes that can attach to estrogen receptors on the cell.  This naturally reduces the effect of estrogen, which may have a protecting effect in younger animals against some types or tumors of the breast and uterus, but the opposite effect in older animals. http://www.medterms.com/...
End note

OK you can actually stop reading now if all you wanted to know was kind of how Monsanto's Roundup in combo with its GM plants works.

MORE ON HOW ROUNDUP WORKS – GLYPHOSATE  

Glyphosate is used as an herbicide under several brand names.  Glyphosate is the active ingredient of Roundup.  It is the specific inhibitor of the enzyme EPSPS and thus the inhibitor of synthesis of the three amino acids tyrosine, tryptophan and phenylalanine.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/...)

Importantly, glyphosate is the only molecule of the Roundup formulation that had been subjected to animal studies before this study was performed.

Glyphosate also interferes with aromatase aka estrogen synthetize or estrogen synthase.  Which is an enzyme that is key in the synthesis of estrogen from androgens.  Aromatase is found in many of the body's tissues.  It is also found in many tumors of the breast and uterus, and is active in early sexual differentiation and sexual development of females.  (Wikipedia)

The major residue of glyphosate is aminomethyl phosphonic acid. (AMPA)  It is chemically very similar to glyphosate and is of equal toxicity to glyphosate.  
(http://www.fao.org/...)

Roundup and its breakdown residues are found in runoff water from the fields where it was used.

One study found higher levels of AMPA, down stream from urban waste water plants than up stream in more agricultural areas.  This would point to heavier urban than rural use of glyphosate produces.  For example, its use on lawns and golf courses. http://toxics.usgs.gov/...

ADJUVANTS ARE POISONOUS TOO

To facilitate getting the chemically active constituent of Roundup, glyphosate, into the plant, adjuvants (aka surfactants) are used.  Their residues have been found in both surface and ground water and are linked to reproductive disruptions in both aquatic life and other wild life that access that water.  (http://www.subsport.eu/...)

Some widely used adjuvants are the nonylphenol ethoxylates .They alone are very toxic to aquatic and wild life.

Nonylphenol ethoxylates are used widely in some industrial settings and are common in commercial laundries, which release their waste water directly into the communal waste system.

Though they are not considered to have serious effects on humans they are endocrine disrupting.  (http://www.toxipedia.org/...)

The primary residue, nonylphenol, is extremely toxic to aquatic organisms and persists in the environment. (http://www.toxipedia.org/...)

This study comments several times on the lack of research on the effects of the "residue" of Roundup's less "active" ingredients.

AREN'T WE DONE YET?
NOPE SORRY, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THE ACTUAL STUDY YET
Sounds of groaning.

"Our study is the first and to date the only attempt to follow up Monsanto's investigation and to determine whether the differences found in the NK603 GM maize-fed rats, especially with respect to liver and kidney function, were not biologically meaningful, as claimed [by Monsanto and others], or whether they developed into serious diseases over an extended period of time.  

"Our study design was based on that of the Monsanto investigation in order to make the two experiments comparable, but we extended the period of observation from Monsanto's 90 days to 2 years."

OH, RATS!

Harlan Sprague-Dawley strain of rat was used.  The rats were 5 weeks old when the study began.  Sprague-Dawley is a strain of the common white lab rat Rattus norvegicus.  Specifically Harlan Sprague-Dawley strain is a strain that is considered an all round rat.  For purposes of your interpreting the study results it is not a strain developed specifically for oncology studies.  It is not specifically bred to be susceptible to tumors and cancers.  (Madison, Wisconsin )

Male and Female adult rats were used.  Some were fed varying levels of GM NK603 R-tolerant maize feed mixed with non GM feed of the same but unaltered variety.  Some were given water with varying amounts of Roundup added to the water.  This continued consistently for the two years, when the rats were euthanized and their tissues examined in detail.  Control rats were fed and watered in the same manner without the addition of the materials being studied.

Note:
See the "Animals and Treatment" section and the section "Plants, Diets, and Chemicals" of study.
End Note

Blood was collected multiple times during the study.  31 parameters were assessed for chemistry, hematology and coagulation.  At the end of the study the animals were euthanized dissected and organs examined for abnormalities.  

Note:
The blood collections tests would be comparable to the types of tests run on a thorough physical exam, for example: coagulation 2-3 tests, chemistry 14 or more, hematology 10 to 19 or more.  Results are in the study's tables.
End Note

RESULT

Abnormal, damaged and tumorous tissue was found in all the treated rat subjects.  Controls were examined in the same manner as the treated rats.

"We report the major findings with 34 organs observed and 56 parameters analyzed at 11 time points for most organs."

Note:  The specifics of the organs' examinations and parameters tests' results are in the study and its attachments.
End note

The results show that over the 2 year period rats exposed to levels of Roundup or of the GM NK603 R-tolerant maize, at levels conventionally considered to be safe, did experience serious hormone, hepatic, and kidney abnormalities.

The extent of the damage may be related to the disruption of normal biosynthetic pathways caused by the over expression of EPSPS.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/...)

My note:  Hepatic refers to the liver.   Ingested food moves directly to the liver from the intestines.  The liver is the primary organ involved removing toxins but also one of the most susceptible to toxins.

The kidneys (renal) are also particularly at risk from toxins as blood is concentrated during waste removal.  Then H2O, hormones, electrolytes etc. are reabsorbed back into the blood and the "cleaned" blood is returned to the overall circulatory system.
End note

As indicated above the study showed a statistically significant decrease in the production of estrogenic isoflavones, and phenolic acids like caffeic and ferulic acids.  Disruption in other metabolic and hormonal pathways may be caused by the over expression of EPSPS.   " Other mutagenic and metabolic effects of the edible EPSPS maize cannot be excluded"

"Pathologies included pathological signs related to liver, stomach and small intestine.  The liver showed congestions, macroscopic spots and microscopic necrotic foci."  

"There was pituitary dysfunction, as well adenomas, hyperplasias hypertrophies.
Mammary glands showed fibroadenomas and adenocarcinomas, galactoceles and hyperplasias with atypi.  This evidences hormonal imbalance and dysfunction"

Frankenfoods.  Indeed.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  YOU KNOW IT'S GONNA BE GOOD (10+ / 0-)

    WHEN IT STARTS IN ALL CAPS.

    Pollan on Seralini photo pollan_seralini2_zps06b3582a.jpg

    This was crap before, it's just exhumed crap now, stop clinging to fringy nutbags like climate deniers do. It's really embarrassing for Democrats to pull this kind of crap.

    What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

    by mem from somerville on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 12:19:28 PM PDT

    •  You like Michael Pollan then? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      6412093, Lujane, joynow, blueoasis

      I will trump your meme with an article.

      Playing God in the Garden

      By Michael Pollan
      The New York Times Magazine, October 25, 1998

      Today I planted something new in my vegetable garden — something very new, as a matter of fact. It’s a potato called the New Leaf Superior, which has been genetically engineered — by Monsanto, the chemical giant recently turned ”life sciences” giant — to produce its own insecticide. This it can do in every cell of every leaf, stem, flower, root and (here’s the creepy part) spud.

      ~

      I had called Margaret Mellon at the Union of Concerned Scientists to ask her advice. Mellon is a molecular biologist and lawyer and a leading critic of biotech agriculture. She couldn’t offer any hard scientific evidence that my New Leafs were unsafe, though she emphasized how little we know about the effects of Bt in the human diet. ”That research simply hasn’t been done,” she said.

      I pressed. Is there any reason I shouldn’t eat these spuds?

      ”Let me turn that around. Why would you want to?”

      It was a good question. So for a while I kept my New Leafs in a bag on the porch. Then I took the bag with me on vacation, thinking maybe I’d sample them there, but the bag came home untouched.

      The bag sat on my porch till the other day, when I was invited to an end-of-summer potluck supper at the town beach. Perfect. I signed up to make a potato salad. I brought the bag into the kitchen and set a pot of water on the stove. But before it boiled I was stricken by this thought: I’d have to tell people at the picnic what they were eating. I’m sure (well, almost sure) the potatoes are safe, but if the idea of eating biotech food without knowing it bothered me, how could I possibly ask my neighbors to? So I’d tell them about the New Leafs — and then, no doubt, lug home a big bowl of untouched potato salad. For surely there would be other potato salads at the potluck and who, given the choice, was ever going to opt for the bowl with the biotech spuds?

      So there they sit, a bag of biotech spuds on my porch. I’m sure they’re absolutely fine. I pass the bag every day, thinking I really should try one, but I’m beginning to think that what I like best about these particular biotech potatoes — what makes them different — is that I have this choice. And until I know more, I choose not.

      We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

      by occupystephanie on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 12:33:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Pollan isn't a scientist (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      occupystephanie

      I can't believe all the woo woo stuff that folks who think of themselves as scientists insist on using as crutches for their abhorrent support of chemical, industrial food.

      "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

      by Crider on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 12:36:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I had no idea caps in a title could frighten (0+ / 0-)

      an adult.  My apologies.

  •  I read this twice and still have no idea (6+ / 0-)

    what you're trying to say here, even though I do understand the dialect you're attempting to convey.

    Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility. Russia Today=FoxNews, Seralini=Wakefield. yadda yadda.

    by terrypinder on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 12:51:24 PM PDT

    •  I can't figure what you are referring to. (0+ / 0-)

      The diary is about a scientific study of the effects of Roundup and GMO plants.

      •  Marnie (7+ / 0-)

        Science is not about one report that claims something you want to hear. It's many independent scientists all reporting the same thing, over and over again, under various conditions that leave us with solid conclusions. The reason for not taking this report seriously is that it's very much an outlier and it has methodological problems. It directly contradicts things that toxicologists all over the world have established in many studies. So, do you believe one report that claims something you would like to be true, or do you believe the many long-term and acute exposure studies that have established with remarkable unanimity what the toxicity of glyphosate is? The problem you have to resolve in your mind is whether you believe in the scientific method or not. If you don't, then the study you point to doesn't really matter. No studies matter because you don't believe in science. If, on the other hand, you do believe in science, then you have to weigh this one study against all of the other studies that contradict this one. Scientists must be open-minded but not empty-headed.
        Glyphosate has nowhere near the toxicity that could yield such data as a carryover from GM maize.

        Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

        by Anne Elk on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 05:40:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's also not just simply "a scientific study." (7+ / 0-)

          As other commenters have pointed out, this is a republication of an earlier paper that was retracted from a different journal due to numerous criticisms from those within the scientific community.  The original publication occurred about 2 years ago and this republication is largely the same paper with no attempt to address the criticisms leveled upon the original one.  It's also presented in an open access journal, in which the authors pay for its publication, and was not subject to the peer review process that this journal, Environmental Sciences Europe, would normally perform.  For anyone that believes in the scientific process, these elements should raise some substantial red flags even without understanding the specific esoterica that accompanies this particular scientific field of study.  The diarist may not be familiar with this process and that's understandable, but if someone is going to champion their cause under the mantle of Science, they ought to at least explore what the opinion of the relevant scientific community is, acknowledge what that opinion is, and not rely on a single study as being authoritative.

          At the same time, I would like to point out that while I don't expect DKos bloggers in general to be able to refute scientific criticisms of a study that is exciting to them, I would like them to at least acknowledge the controversy over its contents, should one exist.

  •  Glyphosate studies (7+ / 0-)

    seem to have results from "nothing to see here" to scary research like the one cited (in ALL CAPS) above. I would question the outright scare stories as a great deal of them seem to be associated with one source, the University of Caen. However, the effects of Roundup on the environment are much  longer lasting than the label would have you believe, especially in northern latitudes where breakdown takes longer. Studies done on fish seem to show that juveniles do experience significant problems, however short term toxicity to humans seems to be negligible, though a certain percentage of people who drink the stuff die.
    Anecdotal experience (mine) shows that it doesn't work particularly well for killing many weeds, so I generally leave it alone. My opinion is: if we can't make enough human food without resorting to the machinations of one large, rapacious agricultural company, we have too many humans.

    "The 'Middle' is a crowded place - that is where the effective power is - the extreme right and left might annoy governments, but the middle terrifies them." Johnny Linehan

    by northsylvania on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 12:56:23 PM PDT

    •  Not just one university, one guy. Who has been (5+ / 0-)

      thoroughly discredited. Pesticides do have some toxicity but glyphosate is extensively used with non-GMO plants as well.

      •  Ne, he hasn't been thoroughly discredited (10+ / 0-)

        But the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology has itself been thoroughly discredited.

        Monsanto and their ilk did everything they could to rid themselves of an inconvenient peer-reviewed 2012 study headed by French scientist, Gilles-Eric Séralini, that showed that GMOs and the herbicide Roundup caused severe liver and kidney damage and hormonal disturbances in lab rats.

        1. The Séralini study was published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology.

        2. In 2013, Monsanto placed one of their former employees as associate editor at the journal FCT and VOILA!, Séralini’s study was retracted.

        3. Study gone forever — Monsanto very happy!

        Or so they thought. This year, after 3 rounds of rigorous peer review, the study has been republished by Environmental Sciences Europe. Poor Monsanto, all that time and money spent greasing palms and still failing, just like their GMOs.

        "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

        by Crider on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 01:15:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you prefer to live in the fantasy world, that's (5+ / 0-)

          your choice.

          •  Even so, (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FG, Betty Pinson, RMForbes

            the preponderance of other studies out there make carte blanche acceptance of glyphosate problematic. However, ordinary fertiliser runoff causes massive problems in watersheds.

            "The 'Middle' is a crowded place - that is where the effective power is - the extreme right and left might annoy governments, but the middle terrifies them." Johnny Linehan

            by northsylvania on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 01:56:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree that glyphosate has some degree of (3+ / 0-)

              toxicity but compared to other pesticides it's not that bad. And introduction of GMOs decreased overall pesticide usage. The options are to either go organic and live with much lower crop yields or develop better pesticides.

            •  What studies would these be? (0+ / 0-)

              Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

              by Anne Elk on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 05:47:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                "The 'Middle' is a crowded place - that is where the effective power is - the extreme right and left might annoy governments, but the middle terrifies them." Johnny Linehan

                by northsylvania on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 12:30:25 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The LD50 in humans requires you to ingest (0+ / 0-)

                  a very large amount. From the link you provided:

                  Accidental ingestion of glyphosate formulations is generally associated with only mild, transient, gastrointestinal features. Most reported cases have followed the deliberate ingestion of the concentrated formulation of Roundup®1 (41% glyphosate as the IPA salt and 15% POEA). There is a reasonable correlation between the amount ingested and the likelihood of serious systemic sequelae or death. Advancing age is also associated with a less favourable prognosis. Ingestion of >85mL of the concentrated formulation is likely to cause significant toxicity in adults.
                  In practice this would require you to ingest upwards of a pound of glyphosate, hardly the most dangerous chemical around. You know, you actually have to read what you link to and understand what it means. You are basically showing that glyphosate, according to your own citation, is very weakly toxic and has to be ingested intentionally.
                  The Tilapia paper reports a toxicity to freshwater fish that is higher than reported by others. However, there are guidelines for exposure of aquatic systems to glyphosate. It's probably worth noting that in the first article you cite, quite a good article, it is noted that glyphosate is degraded over about 2 weeks. However, see this peer-reviewed article that takes a decidedly different tack.

                  Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

                  by Anne Elk on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 11:42:30 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  But how (0+ / 0-)

              independent were the majority those studies?  
              Who was willing to spend the most money on setting them up?

              •  it always amuses me when the fringers weep and cry (0+ / 0-)

                Boo hoo we can't do any studies because Monsanto won't let us boo hoo hoo----and then in the very next breath they tell us about all the scientific studies like Seralini's omigod that prove, PROVE!!!, that gmo's will kill us all oh noez !!!!!

                Both of those arguments cannot be correct. At least one of them MUST be bullshit.

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 04:04:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Nope, thoroughly discredited. (5+ / 0-)

          It's a fitting victory if the best Séralini could do is pay over a grand to have his work published in an open-access journal with no impact factor. He might as well have run it off in fliers to distribute on the street corner.

          Remember that good (and bad) science reveals itself regardless of the personalities behind it, and Séralini's study is not only bad, but notoriously bad for flubbing everything from statistics 101 to basic experiment design. None of those are Monsanto's fault. Blame it on the lazy peer-reviewers at FCT for letting such sloppy work get through the first time.

          ESE's stated reason for republishing the article (in addition to the hefty fee they get for it) is "print the debate", which makes about as much sense in GMO studies as it does in climate change or evolution. You print a debate when you have evidence for a debate, not because controversy exists.

          But make no mistake: Séralini has done real damage to the anti-GMO movement, which already didn't have much going for it, but has hitched it wagon to science so transparently bad that it doesn't matter who's involved with it.

          Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

          by pico on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 02:29:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  If that's your idea of rigorous peer-review, (4+ / 0-)

          then I have to wonder at the reviewers' inability to pick up on things as simple as:

          (a) not measuring tissue or diet levels of glyphosate
          (b) a citation that's a link to a dead URL
          (c) failure to cite contradictory studies that include a rich list of both short-term and long-term toxicology studies in mice, rats, rabbits, and goats.

          Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

          by Anne Elk on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 05:47:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  To be fair, (0+ / 0-)

            linking to a dead URL is common in academic writing. We had to include the date accessed in the bibliography to get around that but, if the information was crucial to the argument, we had to print a hard copy and include it in the appendices.

            "The 'Middle' is a crowded place - that is where the effective power is - the extreme right and left might annoy governments, but the middle terrifies them." Johnny Linehan

            by northsylvania on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 12:33:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Right. However, I thought Ref 33 was pretty (0+ / 0-)

              important. Others might disagree.

              Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

              by Anne Elk on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 11:52:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Unfortunately libraries no longer have things (0+ / 0-)

              like Biological Abstracts and Medical Abstracts.  It does make judging the quality of what is available on the internet difficult.  And so much of what used to be free in university libraries is now behind pay walls.

              That is not the fault of those who use what it available for reference.

        •  Thank you for that. (0+ / 0-)

          For one thing I looked something like 50 sites over the week that I spend putting the diary together as I wanted to understand from my science major level what the physiology of the combo was.  Nothing I saw, invalidated the study.
          It was to cover that issue that I included some but not all of my references.

          It makes sense that Monsanto would have, and certainly is continuing to try to stop any criticism of its produces.

          I felt like I had been attacked by a gang of goons last night.

          Whatever the failings of the might be or not be the biochemistry of the combo is at best disquieting.

    •  It wasn't a story it was a published scientific (0+ / 0-)

      study.  Please read the study and see if it reads like a story.

      Take a look at the data and the analyses of tissues and body fluids.  Its not a fairy tale.

  •  If anyone is interested (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mikidee, Anne Elk, erush1345

    in an accessible piece about glyphosate, written by a qualified scientist, try this:

    Inconvenient Glyphosate Math

    And this is a really good piece too, by a farmer: Myth: GM farmers “drown” crops in “dangerous” glyphosate. Fact: Farmers use eye droppers

    What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

    by mem from somerville on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 03:13:52 PM PDT

    •  You can beat up on people (3+ / 0-)

      all you want my friend, but glyphosate is indeed an extremely dangerous chemical.  It has no business being part of our food system.

      I suggest you spend a little time reading Dr. Don Huber's research, from Purdue University.

      When you do, you will realize that we know very little about the effects of glyphosate, and what we do know is that it has a pervasive impact on bacteria, enzymes and fungii.  Last I checked, that's about the totality of the microbial biome that we co-evolved with over millenia.

      Our bodies have 10 times more foreign cells than our own, and any time we start killing off the very basis of our larger web of life, we begin a process that leads to unintended consequences, many of which are showing up now in studies.

      Don't be so sure that people on this site are being ignorant anti-science types -- they may be a little more informed than you realize.  Or, maybe they understand that growing food is alarmingly simple, and doesn't need Monsanto's team of genetic scientists and chemists in order to perfect.

      Industrial food production in America ruins our health, our environment and consumes more fossil fuel than any segment of our economy.

      by Mi Corazon on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 05:04:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you for not slinging mud. (0+ / 0-)

        There were several reasons that I included so many links.  And why I spent so much of the diary explaining some of the biochemistry.

        I found nothing that contradicted the general findings of this study.

        It is for us to well to keep in mind that there is a lot money involved in Monsanto's virtual monopoly of certain grain seeds.  They are going to protect their earnings through just about any means that they can.

      •  There are, I suspect, a few scientists commenting (5+ / 0-)

        here, as I am. I am sure you are sincere in your beliefs. But please don't wrap your beliefs up in science. Glyphosate has been studied over and over. It's toxicity is very well-established. It has very low toxicity to a variety of animals including humans. As far as your reference to microbes is concerned, remember that glyphosate's safety comes from the fact that it is a highly specific inhibitor of a plant-speciific enzyme. It has little potential to harm even bacteria. And even if it did, the levels to which gut bacteria would be exposed is incredibly low. Toxicity is a dose-dependent phenomenon, remember.

        Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

        by Anne Elk on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 05:56:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So, help me understand (0+ / 0-)

          How killing generally, and glyphosate is a broad systemic killer, is the route to a better food system?

          Can you just for a moment stop with the glyphosate isn't so bad meme and deal with the real issue?   Do we need to kill our way through organisms to get to a better food system?

          Get to the core.  You can say:  all the killing that glyphosate does is not so bad.  But, at the end of the day, what does all the death provide for human beings -- besides a better bottom line for corporations?  

          Meanwhile, we, our children and our environment amount to the largest and most dangerous experiment in the history of mankind.

          Who wins and who loses?

          Industrial food production in America ruins our health, our environment and consumes more fossil fuel than any segment of our economy.

          by Mi Corazon on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 08:35:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What do you mean by "broad systemic killer"? (0+ / 0-)

            I assume you mean broad in the sense of killing a wide variety of plants that commonly grow on cropland? Actually, yes, we do need to kill unwanted organisms to grow food. Even organic farmers kill weeds. I would argue that the genetic modification of crops to be glyphosate-resistant is a tremendous advance in environmental safety. Farmers have switched from heavy use of demonstrably very toxic herbicides, like 2,4-D, to a very low toxicity herbicide like glyphosate. Farmers are not going to stop using pesticides. Just. Not. So, I want to see reduced environmental toxicity and GMO's get us further down that road.

            Maybe you don't know this, but the Earth will soon have 9 billion people - 70% of whom will live in cities. The climate is also changing very rapidly. Agricultural technology can help stave off disaster. If you give me a choice, killing plants - and all farms kill plants - vs killing people is an easy choice for me.

            Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

            by Anne Elk on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 11:51:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  We were just talking about Huber (0+ / 0-)

        the other day. We are sad that his career has taken the turn it has, tofictitious organisms and wild fearmongering.

        We were saying his presence in this clown car of misinformation is definitely the saddest thing in all of this.

        What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

        by mem from somerville on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 06:39:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hey Mem (0+ / 0-)

          Who is "we"?

          Are you sitting around with corporate apologists planning how you can subvert the truth about glyphosate?

          Just deal with the reality that "we" are dumping tons and tons of a general systemic herbicide into our fields as a regular part of growing food for human beings.

          And hoping, despite the evidence, that nothing bad will happen.

          This is not a political issue.  It's stupidity.

          And you are making a case for ecological genocide.

          Thanks for your contributions to a better planet.

          Industrial food production in America ruins our health, our environment and consumes more fossil fuel than any segment of our economy.

          by Mi Corazon on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 08:40:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  THIS ---> (0+ / 0-)
            Are you sitting around with corporate apologists planning how you can subvert the truth about glyphosate?
            comes very very very close to an accusation of paid shilling, which is a bannable offense here--several people have already been bojo'd for it.

            I'd rethink your strategy if I were you.

            Nobody here has any love for Monsanto. Nobody.

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 03:57:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  ps--blaming GMOs for the effects of pesticides (0+ / 0-)

            because we spray pesticides on the GMOs, is like blaming grass for the effects of fertilizer runoff because we spray fertilizer on grass.  It's silly.

            The chemicals are the problem. Not what we spray them on.

            You DO know, btw, that Roundup and other herbicides are also sprayed on NON-gmo crops too, right . . ?  Indeed, Roundup was sprayed willy-nilly for TWENTY YEARS before gmo's ever even appeared.

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 03:59:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Dr Huber of the magic microbe that only he can see (0+ / 0-)

        Right?

        And you wonder why nobody takes the anti-GMO fringers seriously . . . . . ?

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 03:54:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The most glaring omission in the paper (3+ / 0-)

    is that there was no attempt to measure levels of glyphosate in rat tissues. Claims of toxicity due to exposure to a specific toxin usually are backed up by demonstration of exposure to that toxin. The paper doesn't even measure glyphosate levels in the maize! Perhaps the telling sentence is this from the Conclusions: " It was previously known that G consumption in water above authorized limits may provoke hepatic and kidney failure [33]." Citation 33 is a link to a non-functional website. I would think that the kind of toxicity reported would require pretty large doses of glyphosate, even over a 2-year period. The LD50 in rodents is 5.6 gram per Kg body weight. To quote from the above link, " In a chronic feeding study with rats, no toxic effects were observed in rats given doses as high as 31 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested. No toxic effects were observed in a chronic feeding study with dogs fed up to 500 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested (8). Mice fed glyphosate for 90 days exhibited reduced body weight gains. The lifetime administration of very high amounts of glyphosate produced only a slight reduction of body weight and some microscopic liver and kidney changes. Blood chemistry, cellular components, and organ function were not affected even at the highest doses."
    It seems very unlikely that such levels could be carried over in the maize diet. My suspicion is that the authors "helped things along" in some way in order to generate the "data". In other words, it's a fraudulent study.

    Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

    by Anne Elk on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 05:29:38 PM PDT

  •  oh puh-leeeeze, not Seralini's horse shit again (0+ / 0-)

    Perhaps the diarist would like to explain to everyone why, in Seralini's study, the control rats who were not given one speck of GMO got tumors too, at about the same rate the GMO-fed rats did . . . . . .

    (I know why, as does anyone who actually read the study--I want to see if the diarist does, or if he/she is just breathlessly parroting some crap websites who are telling him/her what he/she wants to hear.)

    In the end, reality always wins.

    by Lenny Flank on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 03:53:24 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site