California Cracks Down On Weed Killer As Lawsuits Abound

Containers of Roundup, a weed killer by Monsanto Co., are displayed for sale at a Home Depot Inc. store in the Brooklyn borough of New York, U.S., on Friday, Dec. 30, 2011. Monsanto Co., the world's largest seed company, is scheduled to release its first-quarter earnings on Jan. 5.

Containers of Roundup, a weed killer by Monsanto Co., are displayed for sale at a Home Depot Inc. store in the Brooklyn borough of New York, U.S., on Friday, Dec. 30, 2011. Monsanto Co., the world's largest seed company, is scheduled to release its first-quarter earnings on Jan. 5. (Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Jack McCall was a fixture at the local farmers market, where he sold avocados and other fruits he grew on his 20-acre ranch in Cambria, on California’s Central Coast.

The U.S. postal worker and Little League coach was “very environmentally friendly,” said Teri McCall, his wife of 41 years. He avoided chemicals, using only his tractor-mower to root out the thistle and other weeds that continually sprouted on the flat areas of the ranch.

But he did make one exception to that rule — a fateful one, his wife now believes. For more than three decades, on the hilly parts of the ranch where he grew the avocados, and around newly planted fruit trees, Jack donned a backpack sprayer and doused weeds with the widely sold herbicide Roundup.

“He believed Roundup was safe,” Teri McCall said, noting that St. Louis-based Monsanto Co. has regularly touted its flagship product as harmless to people and pets.

In 2012, the McCalls’ 6-year-old dog, Duke, who regularly accompanied Jack around the farm, fell ill with swollen lymph nodes in his neck and died shortly afterward of lymphoma — a type of blood cancer. Three years later, Jack discovered swollen lymph nodes in his own neck, Teri said. The diagnosis: a rare form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, which killed him on Dec. 26, 2015.

“I thought, ‘That’s kind of a coincidence that they both got lumps in their neck,’” Teri recalled. “Then I thought about all the time Duke spent sticking his nose in grass that had been sprayed with Roundup.”

In March 2016, McCall filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Monsanto, alleging that the company concealed the cancer risk posed by a chemical called “glyphosate,” the active ingredient in Roundup, which she now blames for the deaths of her husband and their dog.

Hundreds of similar lawsuits are pending in federal and state courthouses around the United States.

Monsanto vigorously contests them.

“To be clear: The underlying science behind glyphosate is not at question,” said Scott Partridge, the company’s vice president of global strategy. “Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides have a long history of safe use and have been studied in real-world application, including the largest study ever of the actual use of pesticides by farmers.”

Monsanto’s Partridge contended that “cherry-picking isolated documents out of context is an attempt by the plaintiffs’ attorneys in pending litigation to distract from the science, which is not on their side.”

The use of glyphosate has grown exponentially in the past two decades. The chemical has found its way into the food chain — and into people’s bodies. A study published this week in the medical journal JAMA showed that the number of Southern California adults who tested positive for glyphosate in their urine rose dramatically from 1993 to 2016, as did the amount of the chemical in those who excreted it.

In July, California added glyphosate to its list of cancer-causing chemicals under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. The act, also known as Proposition 65, requires businesses to warn consumers if their products or facilities contain potentially unsafe amounts of any toxic substances known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.

California is the first state in the U.S. to “take regulatory action to protect our residents from this chemical,” said Olga Naidenko, senior science adviser for the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization. The move is “a huge step and has global implications.”

The state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, which is responsible for listing chemicals under Proposition 65, has proposed a threshold of 1.1 milligrams of glyphosate a day for an adult weighing 70 kilograms, or 154 pounds. That’s about 122 times more stringent than the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s safety guideline.

The state agency is studying more than 1,300 written public comments, along with oral testimony from a June hearing, to decide whether it should implement or revise its proposed limit.

The Prop. 65 listing requires warning labels beginning next July.

Other companies, including Dow AgroSciences and DuPont, also sell products containing glyphosate, since Monsanto’s patent expired in 2000.

California’s decision to list the chemical was triggered by a 2015 study from the World Health Organization that described the chemical as “probably carcinogenic to humans” and cited “convincing evidence that glyphosate also can cause cancer in laboratory animals.”

The organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer found a “positive association” between exposure to glyphosate and malignancy in humans, though it added that other explanations could not be excluded. In particular, the international agency found a possible link to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the type of cancer that killed Jack McCall.

Monsanto sued in state Superior Court to overrule the California listing but lost in March, and it has appealed that decision. Its bid to temporarily halt the cancer listing pending trial was rejected by a state appellate court and the California Supreme Court. The company says that labeling glyphosate a cancer risk is unjustified.

It argues that the International Agency for Research on Cancer erred by neglecting to consider data suggesting no link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. That research was in an unpublished part of the multiyear and multifaceted Agricultural Health Study, which assesses the effects of pesticide exposure on farmers. The international cancer agency, an independent panel of scientists, said it weighs only published, peer-reviewed studies.

Other studies also have failed to establish a convincing link between glyphosate and cancer. Earlier this year, the European Union’s chemical safety regulator determined there was not sufficient evidence to classify glyphosate as a carcinogen, though it did say the compound could cause eye damage and long-term harm to aquatic life.

But the international cancer agency, which said it examined about 1,000 studies, determined there was enough information to support its finding of a link between glyphosate and cancer.

Advocates for farmers say California’s plan to require warning labels for glyphosate-based products is wrong-headed. At a June hearing, Cynthia Cory, environmental affairs director for the nonprofit California Farm Bureau Federation, told the board of the health hazard assessment agency that the herbicide is an important tool for farmers. It ultimately benefits the environment, she said, because “it allows us to reduce our tractor passes, which means you have cleaner air.”

Dr. Michelle Perro, a pediatrician who treats children for glyphosate exposure, offered the board a different viewpoint. “What I am seeing is sicker kids,” she said.

Research suggests that Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides may be linked not only to cancer but to a variety of other health problems. Recent studies link the compound to DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells, kidney failure, chronic kidney disease, intestinal disorders, Celiac disease and autism.

About 250 million pounds of glyphosate were sprayed on U.S. crops in 2014, a ninefold increase in just under two decades, according to a study in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe. Two-thirds of all the glyphosate used in the U.S. during the 40 years from 1974 to 2014 was sprayed in the last decade.

And you don’t need to live next to farm fields to be exposed to it, said Dr. Paul Winchester, a clinical professor of neonatology at Indiana University School of Medicine and medical director of the neonatal unit at Franciscan St. Francis Health in Indianapolis. “It turns out it’s in almost every [non-organic] food.”

That concerns him in light of a study that suggests chromosomal damage caused by pesticides has the potential to embed in DNA and get passed down to future generations.

Teri McCall said she applauds California’s decision to list glyphosate as a carcinogen and hopes it will help protect others from the kind of loss she’s suffered.

Since her husband’s death, “it’s kind of like my life of living color has gone to black-and-white,” she said. “My life with Jack was just so full of joy and laughter and fun, and this has just left a huge void. … Every day is just a series of efforts to escape the loss and there’s just no escaping it.”

This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, which publishes California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

California Cracks Down On Weed Killer As Lawsuits Abound 8 November,2017Laura Klivans

  • Robert Howd

    Will IARC and California reconsider their decisions to rate glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen, since the updated Farmer’s Health Study found no significant carcinogenic effect of glyphosate? An earlier version of this study, covering a shorter time period, was an important factor in the IARC decision to consider glyphosate a carcinogen, but with more data, the possible effect disappeared. The update was released by the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in their Nov. 2017 issue.

    • Debbie Owen

      The IARC and California shouldn’t reconsider their decisions at all, possible effects didn’t disappear even with the “adjustments” made. Here’s a quote….”There was an 80% increased risk of melanoma associated with glyphosate use in the age-adjusted analysis, which diminished slightly upon further adjustment. Adjusted risk estimates for colon, rectum, kidney, and bladder cancers were elevated by 30–60%….”.

      • Robert Howd

        The study conclusion is: “In this large, prospective cohort study, no association was apparent between glyphosate and any solid tumors or lymphoid malignancies overall, including NHL and its subtypes. There was some evidence of increased risk of AML among the highest exposed group that requires confirmation.”

        • Debbie Owen

          It doesn’t change the fact that there is a large increase in the risk of melanoma and cancers of the colon, rectum, kidney and bladder all associated with glyphosate. And this was after all the “adjustments” were made, it’s in the actual study.

        • Debbie Owen

          Here is another quote…”This prospective study of cancer incidence provided evidence of no association between glyphosate exposure and most of the cancers we studied, and a suggested association between glyphosate and the risk of multiple myeloma” Notice the words “most of the cancers we studied”. By the way, as far as “no association was apparent between glyphosate and any solid tumors or lymphoid malignancies overall”, isn’t that after all the “adjustments” were made to not include several people in the study?

  • Peter Poole

    As with many other agricultural chemicals, cancer should not be the only concern with glyphosate. Many agricultural chemicals have been unquestionably linked to environmental damage. Some Ag scientists say they see evidence indicating degradation of soil biology from repeated glyphosate use. Healthy soils are crucial to maintaining fertility and sustainable food production.

    In a general sense, allowing the development of GMO “Roundup Ready” crops is a slap in the face of agricultural history. Whether produced by genetic modification or simple genetic hybridization (cross-breeding), the focus on improved plant genetics has always been to increase disease or pest resistance and decrease pesticide use. Developing crops in order to increase pesticide use is just wrong.

    • FarmersSon63

      There is only drama, no science to back your claims.
      US soils are more healthy than they have ever been.
      All 5 of the largest crops ever in the US have been harvested in the last 5 years.
      This PROVES our soils are EXTREMELY healthy.
      GMO’s have drastically reduced pesticide use….especially the most toxic….insecticides.
      So developing GMO’s to drastically reduce pesticide use is just right?

      • George Peterson

        GMO anything causes cancer!

        • steven_lockwood

          I heard it was essential oils and ignorant people refusing to vaccinate spreading cancer causing viruses!!

          • drantigmo

            well, you heard that from trump or Bannon… the rest of the intelligent scientists of the world, not being bought by corporate funds, have never said this.

          • George Peterson

            cancer causing viruses … LOL

        • steven_lockwood

          Wow,sarcasm about nutjob anti-vaxxers and anti-gmo cults must need to be labeled. And FYI, some viruses DO cause cancer.But I don’t expect anyone anti-science to believe that despite the proof that’s been already published.

        • FarmersSon63

          There is absolutely zero peer reviewed evidence of your guess.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            Monsanto’s own studies found that glyphosate causes cancer. The EPA allowed Monsanto to hide these studies as a trade secret just before they approved glyphosate over the objections of their own staff toxicologists. Over 96% of GMOs grown today are cultivated with glyphosate which can not be washed off.

          • George Peterson

            Sorry, Genetically Modified Organisms are Cancer! There, I fixed it.

          • FarmersSon63
          • Peaceful Warrior

            You posted the often debunked Snell review.

            The Snell review has been heavily criticized as being,”biaisée” and for
            suggesting safety based on studies that do no meet safety guidelines(Par Gilles van Kote 2011). Not surprisingly the lead authors were plant scientists/biotechnologists with a professional conflict of
            interest(Snell LinkedIn profile, Bernheim LinkedIn profile). Criticism
            includes reviewing studies which used animals not physiologically
            comparable to humans(Brake 2003, Flachowsky 2005, Sissener 2009,
            Trabalza-Marinucci 2008, Steinke 2010), used performance and/or limited health parameters(Daleprane 2009 and 2010), that none of the relevant long term studies reviewed meet the minimum criteria to suggest safety for a chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study using too few subjects, only a single dose, etc.(Daleprane 2009 and 2010, Haryu 2009) and none of the results have been repeated using two or more mammal species. 8 of the 24 studies also used varieties of GE feed not currently consumed by humans.(Baranowski 2006, Domon 2009, Flachowsky 2005, Krzyżowska 2010, Rhee 2005, Sakamoto 2007 and 2008, Trabalza-Marinucci 2008). Some studies reviewed were not long term(Tudisco 2010, Brake 2004 and 2004a, Kiliç 2008). Therefore, this review cannot be used as evidence to suggest safety by chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity standards. In comparison, most of the relevant studies on the long term studies list suggested unintended potentially adverse effects were observed(Malatesta 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2004, Vecchio 2004). Most relevant long studies including those the authors did not review, suggest unintended potentially adverse health effects were observed for the GE fed subjects compared to the controls.

          • Kissing optional

            I would’ve thought you would be stuck on full assault about the quashing of deadly seed treatment, your handlers must have extra staff to help you troll all the fronts

          • FarmersSon63

            Nothing has been quashed.
            Glyphosate is not a seed treatment, you fool.
            We need to require that city people take some agriculture classes to graduate from high school.
            We have created a whole population who does not even have a 1st grade level of understanding of agriculture.

          • Kissing optional

            How many law suites for nemastrike toxicity?
            When a Monsanto troll has to earn his sheckles on so many fronts, I can see why you are so disorganized, fool.

          • FarmersSon63

            “Suites”?
            Obviously English is not your primary language.
            You need to actually look up the definition of a troll….you will see a picture of you.

          • Kissing optional

            Actually the blowback from your saturating and contaminating with glyphosate is from that education of city people aka consumers.
            Also the lawsuits, fool.

          • FarmersSon63

            Glyphosate is applied at 22-32 fluid ounces PER ACRE.
            No, uneducated city fool, that is not saturated.
            PLUS glyphosate is less toxic than table salt.

          • Debbie Owen

            Glyphosate is now found in our bodies so I would say glyphosate is saturated in our food supply.

          • FarmersSon63

            It is amazing that we can now detect substances at 1 part per billion.
            And no, they are not detecting glyphosate.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            That is a lie.

          • Peter Olins

            Yes, glyphosate has been detected in some human urine samples. Aren’t you pleased? In case you forgot, the kidney is a primary route for excreting foreign substances.

            I am not aware that it has ever been found in any other human tissues, but given the low levels we are exposed to, I suspect that this would be hard to detect.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            It has also been found in human breast milk and other body tissues.

          • Debbie Owen

            In case you forgot, before a substance gets to the kidneys it goes through the blood vessels which go throughout the body. And do you really expect people to believe that 100% of all foreign substances in the human body are excreted through the kidneys?

          • patzagame

            go head Peter,justify the fact that glyphosate exposure to babies in utero is perfectly acceptable. What is the acceptable exposure level of glyphosate to fetuses,btw? I bet you must know,being an industry spokesman.

          • Peter Olins

            Our foods expose us to tens of thousands of substances, both before and after birth, and it’s reasonable to expect that fetuses may be more susceptible. Do you have any reason for singling out glyphosate? I don’t claim to be an expert in embryology, but I do know that all the regulatory agencies have concluded that the traces of glyphosate we are exposed to do not pose a significant health risk. If you have a specific piece of evidence that is of concern to you, please be more specific.

            Regarding your fabrication that I am an “industry spokesman”, you cannot possibly know my sources of income. I do take a particular interest in the safety of common substances in our environment, which is why I take the time to comment on threads like this. However, if you would like to reveal your true name, address and all sources of income over the past two years, I’ll do the same.

          • patzagame

            Oh please! “Do you have any reason for singling out glyphosate?” Of course I do,its what we are discussing on this thread. All the regulatory agencies..who have based their health risk on industry studies,have not even bothered to access how much glyphosate is in the foods we consume and feed to our families.Why??? Because its too expensive or they’re captured by industry? I ‘d say both, except too expensive is a lame excuse when it comes to protecting consumers health.. Here’s what’s also wrong,Peter, about your claim of tens of thousands of substances,…glyphosate is now found in most foods product lining our grocery shelves,thats a piece of evidence I find concerning.Never before has a “substance”(herbicide) been so pervasive as a food ingredient. 300 million lbs of glyphosate used annually in the U.S….its in our air,water,soil,food,blood,urine…do I need to be more specific? In regards to your income,I could give a rats butt…you champion the the agro-chemical companies crusade every chance you get,that makes you an industry tool.

          • Wally

            Well said!

          • patzagame

            300 million lbs of glyphosate used annually.Its in our air,water,soil,food supply,blood and urine. Have you had your urine tested?

          • FarmersSon63

            And it is less toxic than table salt.
            And 50 times less toxic than the Atrazine it replaced.
            A perfect 40 year consumer safety record is pretty impressive, wouldn’t you agree?

          • Peter Olins

            I agree with your overall sentiment, but it’s not clear to me that the lethal dose of a chemical in a rat or mouse is an accurate predictor of human risk. I think it’s important no to over-interpret laboratory experiments using animals as models.

            Now, if we start in reverse, with a specific disease that has a clear cause in humans, it is possible to develop animal models that mimic human physiology. However, even this is not perfect, as evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of new drug candidates do not make it through human clinical trials.

          • patzagame

            No,I don’t agree. Have you had your urine tested? Glyphosate hasn’t replaced Atrazine,you are fibbing again pharmer.

          • FarmersSon63

            I would be more concerned if I lived in a dirty polluted city.

          • FarmersSon63

            Tell us why you think glyphosate is a seed treatment.

          • FarmersSon63

            You are consistent…..always 100% incorrect.

          • StopGMO

            Yawn! You are clearly talking to the mirror again. George is 100% correct.

          • George Peterson

            Enjoy the fool-aid

      • drantigmo

        Farmersson63: BS. As a soil scientist I refute what you are saying and state publicly that you are lying and that there is only corporate support for your statements.
        Where are all the field mammals that used to be in all grain fields? Where are all the reptiles & amphibians that used to be in all grain fields? Where are the trillions of birds that until the 90s flew the grain-belt flyways? Why do 7 out of 10 farm households all die of cancer? And the remaining 3 of the 10 have multiple cancer cases in that household.
        You are a liar and that makes you complicit.

        • Michael Sadlier

          Where is your evidence? Mr. Science?

        • FarmersSon63

          They went when farmers started tilling in the 40’s and 50’s.
          Farming crops is not the same as the original prairie/woodlands.
          Nobody claims this.
          Farming is needed to provide food for humans to survive.
          Every study has concluded that farmers and their families are more healthy and live longer than city people.

      • Michael Sadlier

        Nowhere in this country is agriculture more important to the national well being and economy than California, nowhere in this country are the people more ignorant of it.

        • FarmersSon63

          California is the number one ag state.
          But most of us could go without nursery plants, lettuce, kiwi, almonds and kale….not many calories are produced in California.

          The fact is, California has to import over 80% of the calories they consume.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            Calories and nutrients are not the same thing.

          • Robert Howd

            According to the California Dept. of Food and Ag, “California has been the nation’s leading dairy state since 1993, when it surpassed Wisconsin in milk production. California is ranked first in the U.S. in the production of milk, butter, ice cream and nonfat dry milk. California is second in cheese production.” Also, California and Oklahoma are tied for 4th among the states in total cattle production.

          • FarmersSon63

            Well, you got @ 2% of their calories consumed.
            Lets see if you can come up with the other 18% produced in California.

      • Peter Poole

        Some GMO’s have been developed to reduce pesticide use. That is not the case with “Roundup (glyphosate) Ready” crops. Since this article is about glyphosate, that’s where I focused. My comment below was not about defending or attacking GMO’s which seems to be at least part of your focus. Also, there is science connecting high use of glyphosate with changes in the soil biome. Glyphosate seems to favor certain soil organisms and suppress others. Long-term, there is concern that the crucial balance of soil organisms is being upset. See link below. BTW, I farmed between 125 and 265 acres for 30 years until I retired. Also taught a college Ag Science class on commercial viticulture. That does not make me right, but I just don’t believe I fit into the “drama” category.

        • FarmersSon63

          Pounds per acre is not what you should look at.
          What you should look at is reduced toxicity per acre.
          For instance, one quart of glyphosate replaced 1 quart of Atrazine.
          Atrazine is over 50 times more toxic than Glyphosate.
          In this case, there was no reduction in pounds per acre applied, but overall toxicity was reduced 50X.
          There is absolutely ZERO “science connecting high use of glyphosate with changes in the soil biome.” That is pretty funny though.
          Glyphosate is applied at 32 fluid ounces PER ACRE. It is less toxic on the soil biome than table salt is. It could never in a million years affect the soil biome in a noticeable way.
          I have farmed 3,000 acres for over 30 years. Raise 300+ cattle.
          And have a degree in Agronomy.
          Yes, you are stoking the drama with absolutely zero scientific facts.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            Glyphosate causes breast cancer cell growth at part per TRILLION concentrations. A recent peer review scientific study posted on the Nature website shows that Roundup causes fatty liver disease at concentrations over 430,000 times lower than the contamination allowed in the food supply.

          • FarmersSon63

            Brain Dead Ted, never provides any scientific proof of the things he dreams up.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            Nonsense. From the Nature website.

            https://www.nature.com/articles/srep39328

          • Mid West

            https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/2016/glyphosate_IARC2016.php see related links and all the references. Enjoy.

          • FarmersSon63

            Yeah, the IARC put glyphosate in the same rick category of eating processed meats, painting, being a hairdresser or consuming catsup.
            But new news is out today proving all you Drama Queens are fussing over nothing.
            https://www.thestreet.com/amp/story/14384739/1/scientific-study-finds-no-link-between-cancer-monsanto-weedkiller-glyphosate.html

          • Debbie Owen

            From the study mentioned in the link you provided……”There was an 80% increased risk of melanoma associated with glyphosate use in the age-adjusted analysis, which diminished slightly upon further adjustment. Adjusted risk estimates for colon, rectum, kidney, and bladder cancers were elevated by 30–60%….” Something everyone should be fussing over.

    • Michael Sadlier

      “Some Ag scientists” You just lost me.

      • drantigmo

        the ones not paid to ignore real science…

      • Peter Poole

        Here is a good article. I think it more or less explains my use of the words “Some AG scientists”. https://www.soilassociation.org/media/7202/glyphosate-and-soil-health-full-report.pdf

        • FarmersSon63

          All theories.
          No actual peer reviewed studies to confirm these theories.
          I have been using glyphsate on my farms for over 30 years.
          Thanks to glyphosate and no-till my soil is teaming with earthworms and a multitude of soil microorganisms.
          All 5 of my all time yield records (over 30 years) have happened in each of the last 5 years.
          THIS is evidence that your claim that the sky is falling is 100% incorrect.

    • drantigmo

      Atrazine is listed, by the EPA, as a probable endocrine disruptor. That is the highest level the crooked EPA now allows to be used against ag chemicals.
      Because they assume we are all stupid and don’t know what that means.

      • Robert Howd

        The U.S. EPA considers quite a few pesticides as probable human carcinogens. A list compiled by NRDC can be found at http://eap.mcgill.ca/MagRack/JPR/JPR_18.htm

      • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

        It’s banned as our GMO in Syngenta’s home nation of Switzerland yet they douse Hawaii transgenic/cisgenic trait development fields here in Hawaii and sued to overturn the vote of the people for independent health and environmental impact studies. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bc9bab94505050f335ddced5907f9580434b1eb9d19044e975d3cdf78693e26d.jpg

        • FarmersSon63

          Switzerland has not spent even 1% of what the US has to assess any dangers associated with GMO’s. Yet you wacko’s are all in on their political preferences.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Please cite the source for your claim.

        • Gmo Roberts

          Gmos are not banned in Switzerland as that is yet another of your lies. They import plenty of them. What is wrong with the truth? Are you too stupid to build an argument around it? It would at least mKe you a little more believable unstead of looking desperate.

          • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

            Nope, cultivation is banned, the WTO doesn’t allow any nations to ban GMO imports.

            Since the introduction of GMO, all US Ag exports went down every year, from a trade surplus before GMO to now having a record trade deficit with the EU.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b05da9be0859b17b30009ff110585ed0b8d92378123ffcc0438cedb642ea1c0e.jpg

          • Gmo Roberts

            So they are not banned as you tried to lead everyone to believe. Thanks for admitting you were spreading false rumors again.

          • FarmersSon63

            You claimed that Switzerland bans GMO’s yet they import significant amounts every year.

  • Michael Sadlier

    There is no doubt that glyphosate is overused and that Ma Nature is busy coming up with workarounds. The big problem with Roundup Ready crops is the danger the genes responsible for their resistance, genes that were not “made” but found in other plants, will be spliced into weed species. It is entirely possible that someday nature will produce a Roundup Ready Giant Hogweed” which RoundUp will not touch.

    • drantigmo

      As one who taught college Cell Biology I would recommend you take some science classes to learn something about cells. If you think glyphosate doesn’t hurt humans because we’re “not plants” you are as dumb as those hillbillies who voted for the Liar-in-Chief.

      • Michael Sadlier

        Funny you don’t sound like someone who has taught anything, if you did it is obvious why your students did not listen.

      • hyperzombie

        You never taught cell Biology, if you are going to lie, at least try to believable.

      • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

        Thank god, another commenter with a background in molecular and cellular biology. Reading comments defending the indefensible is a sign the movie idiocracy is rapidly becoming reality.

      • SageThinker

        Indeed, glyphosate does inhibit some of the bacteria in our gut microbiome and other microbiomes, which do have the vulnerable form of the EPSPS enzyme.

        People who say it only affects plants are simply factually wrong.

    • FarmersSon63

      Knocking on Mikey’s noggin…..is anyone home?
      Dogs do not mate with cats.

      • Kissing optional

        Yet farmers sons do with sheep. What’s that about?

        • FarmersSon63

          That was the deepest thought you have ever achieved in your life.

          • Kissing optional

            Deeper than your penatration baaboy?

          • FarmersSon63

            No thanks, I am not interested in males.

    • Ag Boy

      Not to this point.

      https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi1tIXgsrLXAhVo94MKHRxNBWYQFggvMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dec.ny.gov%2Fdocs%2Flands_forests_pdf%2Fghcontrol.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1cKO4jU0aT5CTMgOUwxicq

      4. Herbicide Control – Giant hogweed is susceptible to systemic
      herbicides, such as GLYPHOSATE and triclopyr. The
      application of these herbicides is considered
      effective and cost efficient.

    • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

      Good point the gene was not “made” it was actually found in Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4 that was found at a glyphosate waste dump at a chemical plant in Louisiana not a “plant”… it was then put into corn and soy to infer the first case of resistance.
      Glyphosate resistance has already been shown in some hogweed not yet widespread enough to be totally ineffective. At least 24 other weeds already have acquired the resistance that would have otherwise stayed in the chemical dumping pits of a glyphosate waste factory.

      • FarmersSon63

        There are currently 485 unique cases (species x site of action) of herbicide resistant weeds globally, with 252 species (146 dicots and 106 monocots). Weeds have evolved resistance to 23 of the 26 known herbicide sites of action and to 163 different herbicides. Herbicide resistant weeds have been reported in 92 crops in 69 countries.

        Yet your narrow mind will only allow you to believe that only one herbicide creates resistance.

    • SageThinker

      In fact there are many resistant weeds already, some of which developed resistant forms of the EPSPS enzyme and others of which simply overexpressed the affected Shikimic pathway to survive glyphosate by brute force.

  • drantigmo

    “…It ultimately benefits the environment, she said, because “it allows us
    to reduce our tractor passes, which means you have cleaner air.” What a load of shat. The only reason glyphosate is allowed is that the EPA has been long stcoked with Monsanto employees. Since 1984. So I believe that all the others that empower Monsanto, et al, to toxify and poison our people should be held liable as well.
    In short order we will also show how GMOs are the cause of the rise in autism, ADD/ADHD.
    And then we will wipe those evil corporations from the face of the earth.

    • FarmersSon63

      Glyphosate is less toxic than table salt.
      Do you enjoy being a Drama Queen?

      • Peaceful Warrior

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

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

        Your argument is a false equivalency deception.

        • FarmersSon63
          • Peaceful Warrior

            Spam, flagged

          • Debbie Owen

            In other words you can’t dispute Peaceful Warrior’s comment so you might as well just admit you are deliberately trying to mislead people about glyphosate being less toxic than table salt.

          • FarmersSon63

            The truth hurts, doesn’t it.

          • StopGMO

            Moderator, please remove this spammer from this forum. He is not contributing to anything that is relevant to this article.

      • Kissing optional

        Hey there Monsanto troll, how much glyphosate do you use in a batch of sausage?
        How much glyphosate do you add to a five pound pot of spuds?
        How much $ do you get to post bs from you puppet masters?

        • FarmersSon63

          Give us details on one confirmed illness or death from consuming glyphosate on foods in its 40 year history.
          There are none?
          Again, do you enjoy being s Drama Queen over nothing?

          • Kissing optional

            How much glyphosate have you consumed troll?

          • FarmersSon63

            That took alot of thought to come up with that comeback.
            Go back to doing what you do best.
            https://media.tenor.co/images/ee1e462356409411fc6789a6a3bd7db1/tenor.gif

          • StopGMO

            You’re a complete idiot. Thought I’d tell you that.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            All those “safe” ag chemicals have turned into a retarded 2 year old.

          • Kissing optional
          • FarmersSon63
          • Debbie Owen

            A biased article without a link to the actual study, perhaps that’s because you want people to know only half-truths about the study.

          • FarmersSon63

            It is over for you anti-science drama queen.
            It has now bwwn confirmed that glyphosate is safe.
            Something we all knew from the beginning.

          • Debbie Owen

            From the study that you say confirms glyphosate is safe…”There was an 80% increased risk of melanoma associated with glyphosate use in the age-adjusted analysis, which diminished slightly upon further adjustment. Adjusted risk estimates for colon, rectum, kidney, and bladder cancers were elevated by 30–60%..”.

          • FarmersSon63
          • Debbie Owen

            Yes it does, the quote is from the study itself whether you like it or not.

          • FarmersSon63

            No Debbie.

          • Debbie Owen

            Right, it turns out the quote is from a different one than you were talking about. Many studies showing harm from glyphosate out there, I’m guessing that soon it will be made illegal.

          • StopGMO

            Nothing has been confirmed. Another lie. The information has been skewed, bought and manipulated, just like every “study” you guys claim straight out of the industries playbook. You people are suckers for faithfully believing in the industries PR campaign.

          • FarmersSon63

            It must really suck not having any science to back your point of view.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            You must be kidding. There has been a lot of science posted here that supports StopGMO’s claims.

          • FarmersSon63

            Absolutely Zero.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Educate yourself. You are embarrassing yourself with your ignorance.

          • StopGMO

            I have plenty of unbiased science to back my point of view and you’ve seen it over and over again. Quit pretending you haven’t. Just because it’s not biased, industry pseudo-science spreading BS in favor of their agenda.

          • FarmersSon63

            Share one peer reviewed study that concluded real world glyphosate residues on crops are dangerous.
            I double dog dare you.

          • StopGMO

            “I double dog dare you”? How old are you? There are plenty of studies and references cited here: http://fundacionterrazul.org/Archivo/Glyphosate_Fact_Sheets.pdf

          • FarmersSon63

            This is an opinion piece written by Journal of Pesticide Reform.
            Like I said, there is no peer reviewed study that has concluded real world glyphosate residues pose a danger. That is why every regulatory agency in the world has concluded glyphosate is safe.

          • StopGMO

            You’re opinion is not valid. This is not an opinion piece. Anyone who reads the link I provided, will know what you are saying is more nonsense as usual.

          • FarmersSon63

            Again, share one peer reviewed study.

          • StopGMO

            Now why would I waste my time doing that? You’ll just shoot it down with your opinions and bias BS & nonsense since it goes against your beloved biased, industries agenda. How does it feel to be a part of the corruption?

          • FarmersSon63

            Not even an attempt.
            What a surprise.

          • StopGMO

            I explained my why. Comprehend much?!

          • FarmersSon63

            Never an attempt.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Take a look a the Seralini study that was peer reviewed multiple time that Monsanto was desperate to suppress when they paid off the editor of the journal that published the study to have it retracted. It has been republished and is avail for citation in the scientific literature today. There are other studies as well but you only asked for one.

          • FarmersSon63

            It did not pass peer review.
            Try again.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            You are lying, or else your are totally ignorant of the facts. http://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/scientific-publication-peril-seralini-affair

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            That is a lie.

          • FarmersSon63

            Read the first few lines.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Your comment is a lie.

          • StopGMO

            They always are. It’s what he does best for his beloved and corrupt industry agenda.

          • JoeFarmer

            You couldn’t find anything better than an article in a zero-impact “journal” that ceased publication 11 years ago?

          • StopGMO

            No they haven’t. lol In fact, they’re celebrating their 40th Anniversary this year. Why are you continously lie through your teeth, fakefarmer?

          • JoeFarmer

            “NCAP’s Journal of Pesticide Reform was published quarterly from 1981
            through 2006, when our organization was called the Northwest Coalition
            for Alternatives to Pesticides.”
            www(dot)pesticide(dot)org/journal_of_pesticide_reform

            You were saying…?

            And it was a zero impact “journal” and I’m being liberal with the definition of “journal”.

          • StopGMO

            That doesn’t mean they ceased publications. lol It’s still the same organization. Your false opinions mean nothing. http://www.pesticide.org/

          • JoeFarmer

            Learn to read. And quit making stuff up, Stoppy.

          • StopGMO

            You should be taking your own advise, there fakefarmer. This is what your beloved industry does that you are so proud of.
            https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58c95699e4b0009b23bd94d9/amp

          • JoeFarmer

            Show me that the “Journal of Pesticide Reform” still exists.

            Oh, you can’t? I caught you making stuff up and now you’re trying to change the subject. Pathetic on your part but not unexpected.

          • StopGMO

            It actually doesn’t even matter whether they exist or not. What matters is that their findings are still legitimate and relevant today. Here’s another study for you. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253709/

          • JoeFarmer

            Guess what, Einstein? The 2017 report is based on the same cohort as the 2004 report. Think about that.

          • StopGMO

            And your point is?

          • JoeFarmer

            There’s another decade’s worth of data from the same study participants. That’s really useful data.

            The study conclusion doesn’t validate your quasi-religion, so you’ll spend hours and hours trying to pick the fly crap out of the pepper in a futile attempt to prop your ideology up.

            And the hilarious part is, you anti-GE types always say studies aren’t long enough!

          • StopGMO

            Nothing more than gibberish as usual. Give it a rest fakefarmer.

          • JoeFarmer

            You know I’m right. That’s why you just generated that childish response!

          • StopGMO

            Sorry to deflate that big fat head of yours, but no you are not right. You never are.

          • JoeFarmer

            That you’re unable to understand the statistical power of a study with over 50,000 participants for 20+ years isn’t my problem. It’s all on you, Stoppy.

            The anti-GE bunch is upset because they’ve spent years on a calculated campaign trying to make glyphosate = GMO, figuring you could demonize glyphosate and demonize GMO crops in the process. Except we now have the IARC being caught creatively editing, Christopher Portier taking a couple of hundred thousand dollars from a law firm the same week the IARC glyphosate monograph was published, and now this study that completely blows IARC’s contrived monograph out of the water.

            Looks like the anti-GE plan isn’t going so well, huh?

          • StopGMO

            You can stop calling me Stoppy and spewing more BS. You and your ilk can dream on.

          • JoeFarmer

            Keep telling yourself that. Let me know how it works out for you.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Basically, they are saying this study isn’t sh$t until it is replicated,
            which is how science works. This is why cohorts are weak to mid-range
            at best. Reviews like IARC did, are far more reliable and that is still
            just cancer and doesn’t take into account anything else.

          • JoeFarmer

            It’s always entertaining when you pretend to science, Ted!

          • patzagame

            Stoppy?? What are you and Mary dating? StopGMO is not making anything up. Whats the matter pharmer do the facts in that journal bother you?

          • JoeFarmer

            Try reading the thread. Stoppy claimed that zero impact “Journalof Pesticide Reform” was still being published. I showed that it ceased publication in 2006.

            Pretty simple, really, but too complicated for Stoppy. She had to start making stuff up.

          • patzagame

            snicker…you can’t even address the facts in that journal,all you could do is was claim how old it was. You see pharmer, the truth about facts are they are still facts regardless of how old they get.

          • JoeFarmer

            It was largely opinion in a now-defunct zero-impact “journal”. I gave it all the consideration it deserved, which wasn’t much.

            I guess you missed the part where Stoppy brought that dreck up just to distract from the fact that the NCI study completely demolishes the IARC monograph. It’s not going to end well for you guys or the IARC.

          • StopGMO

            There are many studies, papers and documents which have prove you wrong. Do not come back telling me that GMO Free USA is biased. They did not make these studies up. lol They’ve simply compiled them all into one spot for accessibility. https://gmofreeusa.org/research/glyphosate/glyphosate-studies/

          • JoeFarmer

            There’s nothing with anywhere near the statistical power of the NCI study, genius. You guys are really backed into a corner now.

          • StopGMO

            You wish industry $hill.

          • JoeFarmer

            I can tell you’re freaking out when you make your little childish posts.

            Face it, the fat lady is singing. You guys are done.

          • StopGMO

            Not even close. Your assumptions are incorrect, but nice try fakefarmer.

          • JoeFarmer

            You’re a textbook example of being blinkered by your ideology.

          • StopGMO

            That sounds about right about yourself fakefarmer.

          • JoeFarmer

            It really is fascinating the lengths you go to in order to keep your quasi-religious ideology from collapsing around you.

          • StopGMO

            Sounds just like you again, fakefarmer.

          • JoeFarmer

            Thanks for proving my point, albeit unintentionally on your part!

          • StopGMO

            Your delusions are sad but also hilarious.

          • JoeFarmer

            And you just keep proving my point!

            Self awareness is completely missing from the anti-GE faction.

          • StopGMO

            Keep displaying your true colors.

          • JoeFarmer

            Sure, I’ll keep pointing out your lack of self-awareness and your seemingly unlimited ability to go to any length required to keep your quasi-religious ideology from collapsing around you.

          • StopGMO

            Broken record syndrome much! Why do you keep repeating your usual nonsense? Nobody cares. Like I said, “keep displaying your true colors”.

          • JoeFarmer

            You really are a poster child for Dunning Kruger, confirmation bias and several other syndromes, Stoppy!

          • StopGMO

            Another PERFECT description of yourself fakefarmer. I couldn’t have said it better myself. That mirror talking is working great for you. Keep going.

          • JoeFarmer

            Nice try, Stoppy. But do whatever makes your tiny weak mind feel better about yourself.

          • patzagame

            Considering that this was published in 1995,”Estimated use in the U.S. is between 19 and 26
            million pounds per year.”, there are quite a bit of condemning facts that remain true and have most likely intensified. What really is a concern is this was published before GE crops took a strong hold on the commodity crop market and glyphosate usage has skyrocketed to 300 million lbs annually in the U.S.!

          • Peter Olins

            You want the actual study?

            https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jnci/djx233/4590280?redirectedFrom=fulltext

            Read it; then report back with your interpretation.

          • Debbie Owen

            I gave a quote from the actual study, it says greater increased risk of some cancers associated with glyphosate.

          • Peter Olins

            You missed the part about “not statistically significant”. There will virtually always be different numbers from the “test” sample to “control” sample, even when there is no effect.

          • WeGotta

            Ah yes, statistical significance. Another number used to mislead the public.

            “Solid science that it’s safe” = Experts are 95% sure it’s safe.

            No thanks, I’d rather not take even a 2% chance with my health if there is no need or benefit to me.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            In interesting that Monsanto’s hidden trade secret study Lankas & Hogan shows that Glyphosate causes malignant LYMPHOMA … Glyphosate-induced Malignant Lymphoma particularly in the female rats. These malignant lymphomas were found ONLY in the treated animals and found in fourteen different types of tissue. The controls animals did not have any lymphomas. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/dockets/8594/8767-anthony_samsel/glyphosate_lymphoma_female_rats_1981.pdf

          • Peter Olins

            The study was about human risk, not rats, Ted.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Yes it was. Rat are used instead of humans in trials because of their similarity. Let’s discuss the Lankas & Hogan data. This is clear that glyphosate caused lymphoma in rats, Jon.

          • Debbie Owen

            An 80% increased risk of melanoma and 30-60% increased risk of some other cancers is very significant whether or not it is “statistically significant”.

          • Peter Olins

            The authors of this latest study of glyphosate applicators stated “…glyphosate was not statistically significantly associated with cancer at any site.” Is there something in the paper that leads you to disagree with their conclusion? (I confess that I have only seen the abstract, because the full article is behind a paywall.)

          • Alokin

            This is the best and largest set of data to date, and it was negative. The possible association with AML requires further discussion, as I am confident it will be seized on by those with an anti-glyphosate agenda. First and most importantly, this association was not statistically significant. This means it is almost certainly noise in the data. Given the number of possible correlations being examined, non-significant possible correlations are almost inevitable.

            There are two other reasons to think this association is noise – there was no difference between the 5 year and 20 year exposure lag. If this were a true cause and effect, we would expect the lag time to matter. Even more significant, however, is the fact that previous possible correlations were between glyphosate and non-Hodgkins lymphoma (NHL). That is the association that led to the IARC classification. There was no association with NHL is this data, just a non-significant association with AML. This is exactly what we expect to find with random noise – different correlations in different sets of data. Such correlations don’t mean anything until they are replicated in an independent set of data.

            So the bottom line is that this large data set is essentially negative regarding any association between glyphosate and cancer. If the IARC had taken this data into consideration it may have (and it seems should have) changed their conclusions. They knew about this data, but chose to ignore it.

            http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/glyphosate-not-associated-with-cancer/#more-10348

          • JoeFarmer

            The anti-GE bunch is really suffering a major meltdown over this study.

          • Kissing optional
          • FarmersSon63

            The word glyphosate was not even mentioned in your link.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            Lets look at what that study says.

            “There was an 80% increased risk of melanoma associated with glyphosate use in the age-adjusted analysis, which diminished slightly upon further adjustment. Adjusted risk estimates for colon, rectum, kidney, and bladder cancers were elevated by 30–60%, but these estimates were not statistically significant. There was more than 2-fold increased risk of multiple myeloma associated with ever use of glyphosate in adjusted analyses, although this is based on a small number of cases. The association between myeloma incidence and glyphosate exposure was consistent in both states (ever used glyphosate, fully adjusted analyses: Iowa RR = 2.6; North Carolina RR = 2.7).”

            So, yeah, and 80% increase of melanoma, and big increases in colon, rectum, kidney, and bladder cancer, but yeah, nothing to see here–move along now…… https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253709/

          • FarmersSon63
          • Peaceful Warrior

            Yes it does. I posted a direct quote from the study. Educate yourself.

          • FarmersSon63

            No, Ted.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            Why do you continue to harass me with your name calling. You know I am not Ted.

          • FarmersSon63

            aModerator, please ban all accounts held by Ted Minor.
            He uses multiple screen names to deceive you and your readers.
            For example:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/251d0650b9696c49124ae5a366f587baad317d0aa723011cdb63a02825c90cfa.jpg
            and
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1720218de2875a30b2b8a4e438fad09674c8f4ce87f8c06ba8ee4d03a01033dc.jpg
            Again, Please ban all accounts controlled by Ted Minor.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            flagged, spam.

          • Debbie Owen

            All this spam just because you don’t want to admit you are wrong, LOL.

          • Debbie Owen

            Read the actual study, it’s there.

          • FarmersSon63

            Exactly.

          • Kissing optional

            Shouldn’t you just be blaming the victim ?
            How did your string holders word that again…?
            Oh yeah, ” the farmer didn’t follow the label’s instruction to avoid…”

          • FarmersSon63

            City people sure are uneducated about agricukture.

          • StopGMO

            City people? You are ridiculous. People who read your comments are well aware of the games you industry meat puppets play.

          • StopGMO

            It’s no different from “tobacco science”. These clueless, brainwashed industry PR meat-puppets are completely out of their minds. And, I have always suspected and said, anybody in their right minds would not be doing what they do. We live in a very corrupt and sad, sad world. I fear for my kid’s and future grand-kid’s futures and generations to come.

      • Kissing optional

        “chromosomal damage caused by pesticides embed in DNA and get passed down to future generations.”

        How much glyphosate did your mommy and daddy consume to make you the weird little freak that you are?

        • FarmersSon63
          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Basically, they are saying this study isn’t sh$t until it is replicated,
            which is how science works. This is why cohorts are weak to mid-range
            at best. Reviews like IARC did, are far more reliable and that is still
            just cancer and doesn’t take into account anything else. ……

          • FarmersSon63
          • JoeFarmer

            They’re really grasping at straws. Even more than usual!

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Yes. That is the one that says “There was an 80% increased risk of melanoma associated with glyphosate use in the age-adjusted analysis, which diminished slightly upon further adjustment. Adjusted risk estimates for colon, rectum, kidney, and bladder cancers were elevated by 30–60%, but these estimates were not statistically significant. There was more than 2-fold increased risk of multiple myeloma associated with ever use of glyphosate in adjusted analyses, although this is based on a small number of cases. The association between myeloma incidence and glyphosate exposure was consistent in both states (ever used glyphosate, fully adjusted analyses: Iowa RR = 2.6; North Carolina RR = 2.7).”

            Then there is the 80% increase of melanoma, and big increases in colon, rectum, kidney, and bladder cancer.

  • Michael Sadlier

    Cancer is the most common cause of death in dogs over the age of two other than accidents.

  • Martin Szy

    Di hydrogen Monoxide when combined with Roundup is lethal.
    http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

    • StopGMO

      That old joke is on the industry trolls such as yourself. Nice try!

  • Raysbucsbolts1

    Meanwhile, a study published in the Journal of National Cancer Institute today, and conducted by the Agricultural Health Study, found there is no statistical correlation. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-cancer-glyphosate/large-u-s-farm-study-finds-no-cancer-link-to-monsanto-weedkiller-idUSKBN1D916C

  • gbox king

    The EPA Allowable Daily Intake (ADI) for glyphosate is set at 1,750 µg (1.75 mg) per kg of bodyweight. The EU ADI is just 0.3 mg per kg body weight. Two-thirds of all the glyphosate used in the U.S. during the 40 years from 1974 to 2014 was sprayed in the last decade. why does everything have to be so damn confusing ? it’s an unnatural substance it should not be anywhere near human beings let alone being present in everything that dummerickkka consumes .. this and so many other trash ingredients that are now essential part of dummerickkkan diet .. perhaps this is why dummerickkka is in the situation it finds itself in .. incapable of thinking, acting, or effecting change .. doomed in every scenario.

    • FarmersSon63

      Yet it’s LD50 is less toxic than table salt.
      Lets hear you go off on table salt now.

      • Peaceful Warrior

        LD 50 is a measure of acute toxicity. Glyphosate is not acutely toxic it is a chronic toxin.

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

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

        Your argument is a false equivalency deception.

        • FarmersSon63

          Ole Brain dead Ted chimes in.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/251d0650b9696c49124ae5a366f587baad317d0aa723011cdb63a02825c90cfa.jpg
          Do you ever get tired of making a fool of yourself?

          • Peaceful Warrior

            Flagged, spam.

          • Debbie Owen

            Again you can’t dispute Peaceful Warrior’s comment, this is more proof that you are deliberately trying to mislead people into thinking glyphosate is less toxic than table salt. Your silly distractions won’t fool most people.

          • FarmersSon63

            For the 10,000th time. There is absolutely zero peer reviewed scientific proof that glyphosate is chronically toxic.

          • Debbie Owen

            One day there will be, meanwhile our country gets sicker and sicker.

          • FarmersSon63

            LOL, Pure Comedy.
            You would rather trust your own intuition than science?

          • StopGMO

            It’s your intuition that’s getting in the way of science. It’s hilarious to see you posting things that describe exactly what you do.

          • Debbie Owen

            People don’t need science to tell them when they aren’t feeling good. Do you need a study to tell you when you feel sick?

          • FarmersSon63

            LOL
            Pure comedy.
            Always the same answer from you kooks.

          • Kissing optional
          • FarmersSon63

            Natural News?
            You have got to be kidding me.
            You do not even understand science, do you?

          • Kissing optional

            Kidding?
            That’s what your mate did, baaboy.

          • FarmersSon63
          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Basically, they are saying this study isn’t sh$t until it is replicated,
            which is how science works. This is why cohorts are weak to mid-range
            at best. Reviews like IARC did, are far more reliable and that is still
            just cancer and doesn’t take into account anything else….

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            The truth doesn’t change.

          • Kissing optional
          • Robert Howd

            Obesity and lack of exercise are growing problems in the U.S. However, as documented in many ways, environmental problems are, in general decreasing, and overall cancer incidence and death rates are decreasing.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Anyone who understands science and toxicology know there is more than one kind of toxin. Glyphosate is know to be a chronic toxin. There is no need for any study to prove that which is an accepted scientific fact.

          • FarmersSon63

            And Ted brings out Cletus.
            I’m surprised you remembered the login info.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Troll, flagged

          • FarmersSon63

            Your condition is getting worse. Why don’t you follow your Dr’s instructions and take your meds?

          • Kissing optional
          • FarmersSon63

            Still no scientific evidence?
            Just some wacko conspiracy theory.
            You are all the same.

          • StopGMO

            Of course the truth is always looked upon as “wacko conspiracy theory” when reveals the truth and it goes against the agenda.

          • FarmersSon63
          • StopGMO

            Do you know what that study is actually implying? Here is the conclusion, “In conclusion, we found no evidence of an association between glyphosate use and risk of any solid tumors or lymphoid malignancies, including NHL and its subtypes. However, we found some evidence of a possible association between glyphosate use and AML. This association was consistent across different exposure metrics and for unlagged and lagged exposure. Given the prevalence of use of this herbicide worldwide, expeditious efforts to replicate these findings are warranted.” Basically, they are saying this study isn’t sh$t until it is replicated, which is how science works. This is why cohorts are weak to mid-range at best. Reviews like IARC did, are far more reliable and that is still just cancer and doesn’t take into account anything else.

          • JoeFarmer

            You really are just flailing now. It would be sad if it weren’t so darn funny!

          • StopGMO

            You’re just too stupid to comprehend.

          • JoeFarmer

            Please include that in your application for Dunning Kruger poster child!

          • FarmersSon63

            It said there was “some evidence of increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) among the highest exposed group”, but added this association was “not statistically significant”.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Basically, they are saying this study isn’t sh$t until it is replicated,
            which is how science works. This is why cohorts are weak to mid-range
            at best. Reviews like IARC did, are far more reliable and that is still
            just cancer and doesn’t take into account anything else.

          • SageThinker

            They found a possible association from the data to a specific form of cancer that could use further investigation. Monsanto’s own animal feeding studies from the 1980s show many specific forms of cancer that glyphosate appears to correlate with, but they didn’t follow up on those. It’s like they don’t care. They only care to get their product approved so they lawyered their way around those inconvenient correlations. Many of those were indeed statistically significant.

            Also note the AHS study is only regarding *application* of glyphosate not *ingestion* which is a completely different risk set.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Yes. The industry wants to pass off this study as an endorsement of glyphosate safety, which it is not. The deception comes from the fact that it doesn’t consider exposure except for that of applicators who are fully trained to protect themselves from exposure.

          • Robert Howd

            Failure to find any significant adverse effects associated with glyphosate exposure is, in fact, an endorsement of glyphosate safety. When no adverse effects are observed, how can consider this to be “deception”? The Agricultural Health Study was conducted among farm workers because they are in fact the most exposed population.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            There are no children or older people and the study didn’t take into account the total exposure from glyphosate on the entire population.

            Cohorts are weak to mid-range at best. Reviews like IARC did, are far more reliable and that is still just cancer and doesn’t take into account anything else.

          • Robert Howd

            Farmworkers followed for decades do, in fact, include “older people,” and those who believe in dose-response principles accept that studying the most-exposed populations is the most logical way to find any adverse health effects. Yes, these reports are on cancer, but as I recall it, other endpoints are monitored in the Agricultural Health Study. Perhaps reports on other parameters will follow.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Cohorts are weak to mid-range at best. Reviews like IARC did, are far
            more reliable and that is still just cancer and doesn’t take into
            account anything else. The study need to be validated by replication before we can believe the results.

          • Robert Howd

            Ah, yes, all chemicals are guilty until proven innocent, but lack of adverse effects under all conditions can never be proven. Case closed for you, then, I guess.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Here is what Donna Farmer Monsanto toxicologist has to say about the study. Do you agree with here?
            https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Monsanto-communications-re-concerns-over-Hardell-research.pdf

          • Robert Howd

            I have no idea. There is a long chain of postings here.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Here is one small quote. You can read more and educated yourself if you care too.

            “Many groups have been highly critical of the study as being a flawed study, in fact some have gone so far as to call it junk science. It is small in scope and the retrospective questioneer on pesticide usage and self reported diagnoses also from the questioneer is thought to be unreliable”

            https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Monsanto-communications-re-concerns-over-Hardell-research.pdf

          • Robert Howd

            It appears that the people quoted here are unfamiliar with NCI’s Agricultural Health Study, which has been in progress since 1993 and has involved nearly 90,000 participants, in a wide variety of investigations on farmer’s health issues. The study is summarized here: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/ahs-fact-sheet.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            No, Robert. That is the study that Donna Farmer Monsanto toxicologist was referring to in the quote I provided you from the internal Monsanto documents where she said this about that study.

            “Many groups have been highly critical of the study as being a flawed study, in fact some have gone so far as to call it junk science. It is small in scope and the retrospective questioneer on pesticide usage and self reported diagnoses also from the questioneer is thought to be unreliable”
            https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Monsanto-communications-re-concerns-over-Hardell-research.pdf

          • patzagame

            no its because its”“not statistically significant”….repeat after me…lol

          • SageThinker

            “Farmer” — still trolling the internet round the clock, round the seasons?

          • FarmersSon63

            Sure thing, Ted.

          • SageThinker

            Still trolling at this hour, and you think i’m Ted. I’m not Ted. I’m Sage.

          • patzagame

            unless you are a lab animal,and then there are plenty of scientific studies disproving your false claim.

          • FarmersSon63

            Share the peer reviewed study that confirms your guess.

          • patzagame

            why don’t you ask the IARC? or do you believe they classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen based on guesses and not peer reviewed studies?

          • Robert Howd

            The update of the Agricultural Health Study which IARC relied on for helping substantiate the presumption that glyphosate is carcinogenic no longer supports that conclusion, just published in JNCI. No significant tumor increases were found, attributable to glyphosate exposure.

          • patzagame

            horse shit…the AHS is garbage!

          • Robert Howd

            Yeah, right. Throw out the best pesticide exposure study ever done, and what is left is equivocal stuff of no particular significance, and so glyphosate is home free. Great strategy!

          • GOOSE

            Look at what Monsanto toxicologist Donna Farmer says about the AHS study.

            “Many groups have been highly critical of the study as being a flawed study, in fact some have gone so far as to call it junk science. It is small in scope and the retrospective questioneer on pesticide usage and self reported diagnoses also from the questioneer is thought to be unreliable”
            https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Monsanto-communications-re-concerns-over-Hardell-research.pdf

            What can you tell us about the health of the over 30% of study participants who couldn’t be contacted to take the telephone survey.

          • SageThinker

            Kimmel (2012). Simply look for the loose stools and gut disturbance of the lab animals.

          • FarmersSon63

            No, Ted….

          • SageThinker

            Yes indeed, and i’m not Ted.

            Here’s a link to the paper. It’s free to the public.
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3581053/

          • FarmersSon63

            The summary statement says:
            “In summary, assessment of the entire body of the developmental toxicity data reviewed fails to support a potential risk for increased cardiovascular defects as a result of glyphosate exposure during pregnancy”

          • SageThinker

            Oh so you’re doing multiple replies of the same thing so i will too.

            Yep but look deeper at what i directed you toward. Look at the evidence of gut disturbance. Sometimes you have to peek through the cracks to see what people don’t want to show you. People do keep secrets, you know?
            Monsanto kept the risk of PCBs secret for a long long time. People died. Rivers are forever polluted beyond any use besides looking at them from a distance.
            That story is recorded here, in Monsanto’s own words — their executive memos.
            http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/dirtysecrets/annistonindepth/toxicity.asp

          • FarmersSon63

            Every REAL scientist disagrees with you.
            You are not qualified to even have an opinion on the subject matter.

          • FarmersSon63

            And:
            “These results indicate that of glyphosate exposure of pregnant rats at doses of up to 3500 mg/kg/day does not produce any evidence of cardiovascular malformations.”

          • SageThinker

            Yep but look deeper at what i directed you toward. Look at the evidence of gut disturbance. Sometimes you have to peek through the cracks to see what people don’t want to show you. People do keep secrets, you know?

            Monsanto kept the risk of PCBs secret for a long long time. People died. Rivers are forever polluted beyond any use besides looking at them from a distance.

            That story is recorded here, in Monsanto’s own words — their executive memos.
            http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/dirtysecrets/annistonindepth/toxicity.asp

          • FarmersSon63

            Obviously you are 100% wrong….no other scientist agrees with you.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Wrong. You are such a willful liar.

          • patzagame

            and you know that how?

          • TED

            Oh Sage is not one of my personalities. He is just another of those anti-GMO armchair cherry-picking scientists with a conspiracy worldview. https://disqus.com/home/discussion/geneticliteracyproject/correlation_causation_why_mit_computer_scientist_stephanie_seneffs_claim_that_gmos_cause_autism_is_s/

          • patzagame

            you’re seriously lacking in study knowledge…WTH do you think the IARC based its Probable Carcinogen status on,dimbulb?

          • FarmersSon63

            Tell us what they based their decision on. The rest of us would like to know.

          • Kānāwai Māmalahoe
          • Gmo Roberts

            Wow how strange is it that it ties up all of these essential minerals, but yet crops just keep right on growing? And go the tune of yet another record setting year for yields. Simply strange.

          • SageThinker

            Um, yeah there is. Monsanto’s own unpublished studies from the 1980s as revealed in Kimmel (2012) showed severe gut disturbance in many animals in the feeding studies.

          • FarmersSon63

            No, Ted.

          • SageThinker

            Ha ha ha. I’m not Ted. I’m another person who thinks the industry needs much more transparency and examination.

          • Peter Olins

            Stop giving Ted a hard time: he discovered that he could get his jollies by mastering “control-V”. Who knows what remote section of the keyboard he will venture into next.

          • Kissing optional
          • Kissing optional

            Your string puller is right up there with the banksters in the lobbyist (aka bribery) of legislators

            Top lobbyist

            “Chris Leahy, Bayer Corp.
            The drug and agricultural company is counting on Leahy as it deals with drug pricing, intellectual property provisions in trade deals and a proposed mega-merger with the seed-maker Monsanto.”

          • FarmersSon63

            What time are the X-Files on tonight?

        • FarmersSon63

          Why no more Cletus?…..that was my favorite name.

        • Gmo Roberts

          So anything that is chronically toxic you think should be banned?

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            I think anything that is chronically toxic and an endocrine disruptor like glyphosate should be banned. It should not be allowed to be used in the cultivation of our food. Most smart people who care about the health of their families, community, and the planet will agree with me.

          • Gmo Roberts

            You forgot to switch but that’s ok. It’s chronic toxicity is about forty times less than caffeine so should we get rid of all caffeine products as well I guess? You get them banned then we can move onto the less dangerous ones like glyphosate.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            We don’t cultivate foods with caffeine.

            Glyphosate is killing and making more people and other life forms sick than caffeine ever has, but maybe you can get traction on your straw-man false equivalency somewhere where only sheaple in the forum.

          • Gmo Roberts

            Point is glyphosate is safer than caffeine, and caffeine is hurting anybody. None of your other arguments matter until you come up with a better argument answer.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Absolute rubbish. Many people consume caffeine every day and it improves their lives. Glyphosate is a otent endocrine disruptor that has no safe dose. It causes DNA breaks and irreversible cellular death. It mimics glycine in the body. It causes rapid aging, multiple diseases, and early death.

          • Gmo Roberts

            yes caffeine is much more dangerous and people still over consume with no negative effects. I guess that’s why zero of your glyphosate horror stories are coming true. Lol, again you have shown you stupidity.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            You really are science illiterate aren’t you?

          • Gmo Roberts

            Obviously not as bad as you are if you think glyphosate is more toxic than caffeine.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            You are showing your science illiteracy again. There are two kinds of toxicity. Acute toxins like caffeine and table salt where toxicity is based on the dose. Then there is a chronic toxins like glyphosate. Chronic toxins don’t have a dose response but the degrade the body over time.

            You should educate yourself before you embarrass your self any further by showing us your ignorance about the facts surrounding this important difference..

          • Gmo Roberts

            I guess you might impress somebody, except for any educated person that is.

            https://www.epa.gov/iris/reference-dose-rfd-description-and-use-health-risk-assessments

            Notice the word chronic in the intro

            This concept paper describes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA) principal approach to and rationale for assessing risk for health effects other than cancer and gene mutations from chronic chemical exposure. By outlining principles and concepts that guide EPA risk assessment for such systemic effects the paper complements the new risk assessment guidelines (U.S. EPA, 1987), which describe the Agency’s approach to risk assessment in other areas, specifically carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, developmental toxicity, exposure, and chemical mixtures. (In this document the term “systemic toxicity” refers to an effect other than carcinogenicity or mutagenicity induced by a toxic chemical.)

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            They are talking about chronic chemical exposure not chronic toxicity which is not the same thing. You really need to educate yourself because you look clueless and ignorant when you post this kind of meaningless drivel.

          • Gmo Roberts

            I know you don’t understand. Ted Miner and I was talking the other day about how you lie about gmos. He told me you are really not to smart about most things.

          • TED

            You are right there. Cletus Debunkerman is one of the dumber of my personalities. Especially when he pretends not to be me.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            HAHAHAHAHAHA!! Troll with profile pictures stolen from facebook pages thinks he has credibility with his sleazy criminal ruse ..

          • TED

            Thanks for illustrating my point.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            I’ll be flagging you, again, for impersonation.

          • TED

            I have always known you were the dumb one among my personalities. You don’t have to go around proving over and over again.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

            Get lost, lowlife criminal thief troll.

          • patzagame

            flagged

        • SageThinker

          You are correct, Peaceful Warrior. That is one of the old memes of the central messaging department of the biotech / agrochemical industry propaganda team.

      • Kissing optional

        How toxic is it?

        • FarmersSon63

          You do not understand how to read a MSDS sheet?
          How surprising.

  • Peaceful Warrior

    Monsanto’s own scientists told them Roundup/glyphosate caused cancer over 35 years ago. Instead of disclosing that fact, they colluded with the EPA who approved glyphosate over the objections of their own staff scientists and called the science “inconvenient” and hid the science away from other scientists, the courts, and the people as a trade secret while at the same time telling us it was safe.

    Both the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Health Organization have declared glyphosate to be a probable human carcinogen.

    A recent peer review scientific study posted on the Nature website shows that Roundup causes fatty liver disease at concentrations over 430,000 times lower than the contamination allowed in the food supply.

    Monsanto’s 1981 glyphosate study in rats by Lankas & Hogan shows that Glyphosate causes malignant LYMPHOMA … Glyphosate-induced Malignant Lymphoma particularly in the female rats. These malignant lymphomas were found ONLY in the treated animals and found in fourteen different types of tissue. The controls animals did not have any lymphomas. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/dockets/8594/8767-anthony_samsel/glyphosate_lymphoma_female_rats_1981.pdf

    Monsanto study with 240 rats in their 2-year feeding trial concluded in 1990, which is called “Stout and Ruecker” in the literature. The data from this are revealed in the 1991 EPA memo and in Greim (2015) and clearly show cause for concern which was swept under the rug in the 1991 memo. Three EPA toxicologists also did not concur with the conclusions and did not sign the memo.

    The cancers related to transgenic organisms and glyphosate mainly increase cancers that were far rarer. Cancer of thyroid, pancreas, liver, bladder, stomach, and esophagus are all up since the introduction of transgenics and rise in glyphosate application by 17 fold.

    Table 3. Pearson’s coefficients between disease and glyphosate applications (N=21
    encompassing 1990-2010), except autism (N=16; autism data only available for 1995-2010).
    Disease Coefficient, R R 2 × 100 Probability, p
    Thyroid cancer (incidence) 0.988 97.6 =7.6E-9
    Liver cancer (incidence) 0.960 92.1 =4.6E-8
    Bladder cancer (deaths) 0.981 96.2 =4.7E-9
    Pancreatic cancer (incidence) 0.918 84.2 =4.6E-7
    Kidney cancer (incidence) 0.973 94.8 =2.0E-8
    Table 4. Pearson’s coefficients between disease and the percentage of US corn and soy crops
    that are GE (N=15 encompassing 1996-2010; GE crops were first planted in 1995).
    Disease Coefficient, R R 2 × 100 Probability, p
    Thyroid cancer (incidence) 0.938 87.9 =2.2E-5
    Liver cancer (incidence) 0.911 82.9 =5.4E-5
    Bladder cancer (incidence) 0.945 89.3 =7.1E-6
    Pancreatic cancer (incidence) 0.841 70.7 =4.0E-4
    Kidney cancer (incidence) 0.940 88.4 =2.0E-5
    Myeloid leukaemia (deaths) 0.889 79.0 =5.4E-5
    Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America

    ISSN 1177-4258

    Glyphosate is a potent endocrine disruptor that has no safe dose. It causes DNA breaks and irreversible cellular death. It mimics glycine in the body. It causes rapid aging, multiple diseases, and early death.

    Glyphosate should be banned from the planet. It is the perfect slow kill agent of genocide.

    • Chris Preston

      Glyphosate does not cause cancer. The largest ever study of herbicide applicators found no significant increase in cancer risk for users compared to non-users.

      able 3. Pearson’s coefficients between disease and glyphosate applications

      This piece comes from a paper by Swanson, Leu, Abrahamson and Wallet published an a pay to publish journal called Journal of Organic Systems. None of the authors have any expertise in any medical or biological field. Which is obvious when you read the paper. Below is just one figure from the paper: Figure 8, which purports to show a correlation between increased % of corn and soybean area sown to GM varieties, glyphosate use on corn and soybean crops and incidence of kidney cancer. You can clearly see from the figure that Kidney cancer started to increase from 1981, years before glyphosate was used on corn and soybeans. This is the ineptitude of the authors of this paper.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7da23483adcbc265d6ff33d1d4a4515d878c915c65c71cf4b262a86d2f7f566a.jpg

      • Peter Olins

        Swanson has a PhD in physics, so I think dishonesty is more likely than ineptitude. It’s also unbelievable that she plotted glyphosate application values starting at minus 40,000 tons! Mathematicians are adept at considering concepts such as imaginary numbers, but farmers can only apply real tons of herbicide.

        I think the ineptitude lies in the quality of “peer-review” and editorial judgement that took place.

        The tragedy is that crap like this undermines the credibility of ALL science in the minds of the general public, and we may never recover from the resulting cynicism.

        • Peaceful Warrior

          No surprise to see you here trying to spin the science away, Peter. We can see that you are listed as a “go to” PR asset on the industry astroturf website run by the Ketchum PR firm for the biotech chemical industry.

          Correlations in the Swanson study only verify what is being seen in medical offices all over North America. Millions of people are finding that the serious medical issues that can’t be explained by the medical profession get much better or disappear completely when patients dump cancer causing glyphosate laden GMOs and switch to a clean healthy organic diet.

      • Peaceful Warrior

        Let’s look at the details in the study you posted about herbicide applicators.

        “There was an 80% increased risk of melanoma associated with glyphosate use in the age-adjusted analysis, which diminished slightly upon further adjustment. Adjusted risk estimates for colon, rectum, kidney, and bladder cancers were elevated by 30–60%, but these estimates were not statistically significant. There was more than 2-fold increased risk of multiple myeloma associated with ever use of glyphosate in adjusted analyses, although this is based on a small number of cases. The association between myeloma incidence and glyphosate exposure was consistent in both states (ever used glyphosate, fully adjusted analyses: Iowa RR = 2.6; North Carolina RR = 2.7).”

        So, yeah, and 80% increase of melanoma, and big increases in colon, rectum, kidney, and bladder cancer, but yeah, nothing to see here–move along now……
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253709/

        You always talk about the journal when you can refute the science. Anyone can cherry pick one chart out of a study and make an issues, but the study is much more than one chart. Tell us specifically what is wrong with the entire study and stop trying to characterize the study with one cherry picked chart that support your industry agenda.

        • Chris Preston

          Let’s look at the details in the study you posted about herbicide applicators.

          “There was an 80% increased risk of melanoma associated with glyphosate use in the age-adjusted analysis, which diminished slightly upon further adjustment. Adjusted risk estimates for colon, rectum, kidney, and bladder cancers were elevated by 30–60%, but these estimates were not statistically significant. There was more than 2-fold increased risk of multiple myeloma associated with ever use of glyphosate in adjusted analyses, although this is based on a small number of cases. The association between myeloma incidence and glyphosate exposure was consistent in both states (ever used glyphosate, fully adjusted analyses: Iowa RR = 2.6; North Carolina RR = 2.7).”

          That quotation is not from the paper I linked to. It comes from a different paper.

          So, yeah, and 80% increase of melanoma, and big increases in colon, rectum, kidney, and bladder cancer, but yeah, nothing to see here–move along now……

          The risk ratios for cancers were as follows:

          All cancers: RR 0.99 (0.91 to 1.08)
          Oral cancers: RR 0.84 (0.48 to 1.46)
          Colon cancers: RR 1.01 (0.74 to 1.38)
          Rectal cancers: RR 0.84 (0.52 to 1.34)
          Pancreatic cancers: RR 1.06 (0.57 to 1.97)
          Lung cancers: RR 1.00 (0.76 to 1.33)
          Melanoma: RR 1.17 (0.78 to 1.74)
          Prostate cancers: RR 0.99 (0.86 to 1.13)
          Testicular cancers: RR 0.57 (0.20 to 1.67)
          Bladder cancers: RR 1.26 (0.87 to 1.82)
          Pancreatic cancer: RR 1.03 (0.66 to 1.61)
          Lymphohematopoietic cancers: RR 1.00 (0.74 to 1.34)
          Hodgkin lymphoma: RR 0.90 (0.25 to 3.24)
          Non-Hodgkin lymphoma: RR 0.87 (0.64 to 1.20)
          Non-Hodgkin lymphoma B cell: RR 0.86 (0.62 to 1.19)
          Chronic lymphocytic lymphoma, small lymphocytic leukemia: RR 0.87 (0.48 to 1.58)
          Diffuse large B cell lymphoma: RR 0.97 (0.51 to 1.85)
          Marginal-zone lymphoma: RR 0.44 (0.09 to 2.17)
          Follicular lymphoma: RR 0.85 (0.36 to 2.03)
          Multiple myeloma: RR 0.87 (0.45 to 1.69)
          Non-Hodgkin lymphoma T cell: RR 1.53 (0.23 to 10.38)
          Acute myeloid leukemia: RR 2.44 (0.94 to 6.32)
          Chronic myeloid leukemia: RR 0.82 (0.23 to 2.98)

          So yes, nothing much to see here.

          You always talk about the journal when you can’t refute the science. Anyone can cherry pick one chart out of a study and make an issues, but the study is much more than one chart. Tell us specifically what is wrong with the entire study and stop trying to characterize the study with one cherry picked chart that support your industry agenda.

          What is wrong with the study? Well complete incompetence for a start. You don’t even try to assess causes of cancer in the way Swanson et al. did. I could post every other figure in the paper and they would be just as senseless. Here is one purporting to show a link between deaths from Alzheimers and the amount of glyphosate used on corn and soybean crops. Notice the y axis starts at -20,000 tons of glyphosate. Yes readers, you read that correctly.

          The whole paper is complete junk science. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/11f142a5a9553fc9ae8c0a849f35e9771534e6aa562ef8ceb201956091a7fe0f.jpg

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            I find it interesting that the hidden trade secret Monsanto study supports the claims made by Peaceful Warrior.

            Lankas & Hogan shows that Glyphosate causes malignant LYMPHOMA … Glyphosate-induced Malignant Lymphoma particularly in the female rats. These malignant lymphomas were found ONLY in the treated animals and found in fourteen different types of tissue. The controls animals did not have any lymphomas.

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

          • Chris Preston

            I find it interesting that the hidden trade secret Monsanto study supports the claims made by Peaceful Warrior.

            It doesn’t actually. This is the conclusion of the Lankas and Hogan study of 1981:

            “A chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study was conducted using male and female Sprague-Dawley rats which were fed diets containing 0, 30, 100 or 300 ppm of glyphosate for 26 months. These levels were equivalent to 0, 3, 10 and 31 mg of glyphosate/kg/day, respectively, for the males and 0, 3. 11 and 34 mg of glyphosate/kg/day, respectively, for the females. There were no effects based on any of the parameters examined (toxic signs, mortality, body weights, food consumption, hematology, clinical chemistry, urinalysis, organ weights and organ/tissue pathology).”

            What you have provided is a table of cherry picked data from the study made by Anthony Samsel, who is not even a scientist, but a retired management consultant.

            I think you have to agree with me that it takes a certain type of incompetence on the part of Peaceful Warrior when being given a direct link to a paper, they quote a piece from a different paper claiming it is from the first paper. Or mendacity.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            That is Monsanto’s conclusion. The study data supports the facts I have posted. Smart readers can see where the mendacity here comes from, and it is not from Peaceful Warrior.

          • FarmersSon63

            I find it very sad that you have to try and create credibility for one of your other screen names.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            I find it very sad that you have to try and create credibility by harassing me with another one of your lies.

  • Mid West

    After this hit the fan today, Newsweek floated a Monsanto suck-up piece to apply fakenews confusion. Google news has a “47 minutes ago” tag…and the article is already gone. Newsweek is a propaganda outlet for monsanto…as are most evil corporations! Pushing real articles down with #fakenews is standard today for the corporate fake news outlets. Newsweek is just as evil as the ultimate evil of all time…MONSANTO!

  • Wally

    Now it makes sense to me why so many people have cancer these days. I don’t know the statistics, but it seems that there are more cancer cases than in the past. Or, is it that I’m hanging around with an older crowd?

    • FarmersSon63

      You sure have a simple mind.
      All cancers have decreased over glyphosate’s 40 year history.

      • Debbie Owen

        Wrong again, ALL cancers have not decreased.

      • StopGMO

        Hogwash! Nothing more is expected from you biotech PR pushing trolls. How much do they pay you per post? And, how does it feel to be a part of the corruption? You certainly have no morals or integrity. Sad.

      • patzagame

        “All cancers have decreased over glyphosate’s 40 year history.” Why hasn’t The state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, asked you for studies? You certainly seem to know a lot about glyphosate safety!

        • FarmersSon63
          • Peter Olins

            I think the incidence of new cases of cancer is a more useful statistic than deaths. It is probably not useful to lump all cancers together, since there are so many factors affecting the totals.

            “All cancer” incidence in the U.S. increased from about 400 per 100,000 people (age-adjusted) in 1975 to roughly 500 around 1990, but has fallen back to a little above 400 in the latest data.

            The good news is that 5 year survival rates have been increasing steadily.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            The decline in cancer rates is due to lung cancer being the most prominent and a tremendous reduction in the amount of people smoking tobacco and laws against second hand smoke. The cancers related to transgenic organisms and glyphosate mainly increase cancers that were far more rare. Cancer of thyroid, pancreas, liver, blader, stomach and esophagus are all up since introduction of transgenics and rise in glyphosate application by 17 fold.

            Table 3. Pearson’s coefficients between disease and glyphosate applications (N=21
            encompassing 1990-2010), except autism (N=16; autism data only available for 1995-2010).
            Disease Coefficient, R R 2 × 100 Probability, p
            Thyroid cancer (incidence) 0.988 97.6 =7.6E-9
            Liver cancer (incidence) 0.960 92.1 =4.6E-8
            Bladder cancer (deaths) 0.981 96.2 =4.7E-9
            Pancreatic cancer (incidence) 0.918 84.2 =4.6E-7
            Kidney cancer (incidence) 0.973 94.8 =2.0E-8
            Table 4. Pearson’s coefficients between disease and the percentage of US corn and soy crops
            that are GE (N=15 encompassing 1996-2010; GE crops were first planted in 1995).
            Disease Coefficient, R R 2 × 100 Probability, p
            Thyroid cancer (incidence) 0.938 87.9 =2.2E-5
            Liver cancer (incidence) 0.911 82.9 =5.4E-5
            Bladder cancer (incidence) 0.945 89.3 =7.1E-6
            Pancreatic cancer (incidence) 0.841 70.7 =4.0E-4
            Kidney cancer (incidence) 0.940 88.4 =2.0E-5
            Myeloid leukaemia (deaths) 0.889 79.0 =5.4E-5
            Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America

            ISSN 1177-4258

          • FarmersSon63
          • Peter Olins

            Hi FS63, it’s curious that these data don’t match the numbers on the SEER website, which covers data starting 1975:
            https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html

            I wonder if the numbers you show are not age-adjusted?
            (Not being nit-picky, just curious.)
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2dadfb8044a318623f6b289a2f37a1ef8d09e95fb1c88f4ee42ae3a9ecedec87.png

          • Peaceful Warrior

            Please cite the source for this chart.

          • FarmersSon63

            Can you read the link?
            It says cancer.gov.

            and more:
            https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/images/2013-e-incidence-m-all3.gif
            from the CDC.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            Cherry picked out of context charts don’t prove anything. Please link to the part of the website that puts it int full context.

          • FarmersSon63

            LOL
            I cannot stop laughing at your stupidity, Ted.
            You enjoy being made the fool, don’t you.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            Please post the context for the study and stop your abusive harassing name calling.

          • FarmersSon63

            You will have to ask cancer.gov and the CDC.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            You ether have it or you don’t. I am not going on a wild goose chase to try and locate some proof for your false claims.

          • FarmersSon63

            gModerator, please ban all accounts held by Ted Minor.
            He uses multiple screen names to deceive you and your readers.
            For example:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/251d0650b9696c49124ae5a366f587baad317d0aa723011cdb63a02825c90cfa.jpg
            and
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1720218de2875a30b2b8a4e438fad09674c8f4ce87f8c06ba8ee4d03a01033dc.jpg
            Again, Please ban all accounts controlled by Ted Minor.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            Harassing spammer flagged

          • StopGMO

            I hope this backfires on you and you get banned for spamming this forum with irrelevant nonsense.

          • FarmersSon63

            1,000 times and still not banned.
            What have I posted that is incorrect?

          • FarmersSon63

            Moderator, please ban all accounts held by Ted Minor.
            He uses multiple screen names to deceive you and your readers.
            For example:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/251d0650b9696c49124ae5a366f587baad317d0aa723011cdb63a02825c90cfa.jpg
            and
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1720218de2875a30b2b8a4e438fad09674c8f4ce87f8c06ba8ee4d03a01033dc.jpg
            Again, Please ban all accounts controlled by Ted Minor.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            Spam, flagged

          • FarmersSon63

            eModerator, please ban all accounts held by Ted Minor.
            He uses multiple screen names to deceive you and your readers.
            For example:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/251d0650b9696c49124ae5a366f587baad317d0aa723011cdb63a02825c90cfa.jpg
            and
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1720218de2875a30b2b8a4e438fad09674c8f4ce87f8c06ba8ee4d03a01033dc.jpg
            Again, Please ban all accounts controlled by Ted Minor.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            Flagged, spam.

          • Debbie Owen

            So you just post spam when you can’t prove your claim, I’m not surprised.

          • patzagame

            Really? why don’t you post childhood cancer rates now. Start with this…https://curesearch.org/Incidence-Rates-Over-Time.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Yes. These children are the ones who have been poisoned by glyphosate laden GMOs for their entire life.

          • patzagame

            Perhaps FS63 can explain away why such an advanced country has such a high infant mortality rate, and one of the highest cancer rate of
            children.

          • FarmersSon63

            Obviously it is not because of pesticides.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            So you say. Have you some peer reviewed proof?

          • FarmersSon63
          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Sorry. That study doesn’t support your claim.

          • patzagame

            what does that even have to do with infant mortality rate?

          • FarmersSon63

            Pesticides have nothing to do with infant mortality rate.
            I’m glad we both agree.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Children are not pesticide applicators. The study you posted proves nothing about children being poisoned by glyphosate exposure and the increase in childhood cancers.

          • FarmersSon63

            It proves that the people who are most exposed to pesticides did not have any adverse effect.
            Children do not spray pesticides, therefore there is no concern.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            No it doesn’t say that. Applicators are the people who have been trained to protect themselves from exposure. This study isn’t valid until it is replicated, which is how science works. This is why cohorts are weak to mid-range at best. Reviews like IARC did, are far more reliable and that is still just cancer and doesn’t take into account anything else.

          • FarmersSon63

            This study is the replication.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Nonsense.

          • JoeFarmer

            “This study isn’t valid until it is replicated, which is how science works.”

            Not in this case, but I’m not surprised that you don’t understand. And why weren’t you saying that about Seralini’s lumpy rat study?

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Because they are not the same kind of study. I would love to see the Seralini study replicated. Maybe you can get your industry employers to pay for it.

          • JoeFarmer

            And Ted proves once again he knows absolutely nothing about science…

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            LOL! You prove your ignorance every time you open your mouth. The Seralini study was a controlled laboratory toxicology study. This study was a statistical study based on interviews and records from scattered individuals. The study you are slavishly shilling for needs to be replicated before it becomes serious science.

          • JoeFarmer

            OK, Ted. But if you keep repeating that, Geppetto will never turn you into a real boy.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            The people I care about know that I am a real boy.

            I suspect you have some concern about your own situation or you wouldn’t project your lame self loathing on others like you seen to need to do in most of your posts.

          • JoeFarmer

            You must take some comfort in being wrong 100% of the time, Ted.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            You wish, and you don’t even know who your talking to.

          • JoeFarmer

            Your nose is growing.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            You must be drunk again.

          • JoeFarmer

            I’m really enjoying the anti-GE crowd’s meltdown over the NCI glyphosate study!

            Seriously entertaining.

          • Gmo Roberts

            Strange how it can’t be, and since it can it must be fake. Thanks for clearing that up.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            It can be replicated all it takes is the funding for the study. Maybe you can get your industry employers to pay for the study. I don’t think your unintelligible gibberish supports your industry position very well.

          • Gmo Roberts

            The organic industry has plenty of money to spare, but atlas, it still doesn’t happen. One must wonder why? The only logical conclusion is also the simplest — it can’t.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            You are the one who is complaining about it. Most people see that the study was peer reviewed multiple times and republished and that it is now being cited in other studies all over the world. If you think it should be replicated come up with the cash or else please save us the need to listen to your whiny troll drool.

          • Gmo Roberts

            Sorry, but all I read in the real news is that everyone agrees gmos are safe. Only on the fake sites are they not. Thanks anyway teddy

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            I can’t do anything about your industry biased ignorance. What does it feel like to live in and false industry PR reality?

          • Gmo Roberts

            Not being scared of ones own shadow as you and your fake news people would want you to believe.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Ignorance is bliss for some people I guess.

          • Gmo Roberts

            Is that what works for you? Lol.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            I’m not the one posting ignorant comments here, industry guy.

            We can all see that it is you.

          • Gmo Roberts

            Yes I thought I would try your style for awhile. Lol Ted said you were pretty easy.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Thanks for proving my point, industry guy.

          • Gmo Roberts

            Yes Ted told me you would like that.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            You really are not very bright. LOL! You look like a complete fool who acts like he is 13 years old.

          • Gmo Roberts

            And still yet you are the five year old that keeps answering. Ted told me you would.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            You are a liar and a troll. I’m done with you for now.

          • Gmo Roberts

            Then why did you post to me after this one? That makes you the liar, but Ted already told me about you.

          • patzagame

            Really? what do you suppose it is?

          • FarmersSon63
          • patzagame

            no can’t be pesticides,no way ,its probably environmental toxins,right pharmer?

          • FarmersSon63

            Most likely toxins from the nasty polluted cities.

          • patzagame

            pffft! nice try!

          • FarmersSon63

            Over 90% of all toxins and pollutants come from cities.

          • FarmersSon63

            Because children do not apply pesticides, pesticide applicators do.
            The obvious way to determine if pesticides cause cancer is to do a study on those who come into contact with pesticides the most.
            I know your small little brain cannot comprehend logic.

          • patzagame

            okay, you are seriously impaired. You spammed the tread with cancer death rates. CHILDREN are the most vulnerable,exposed in utero to pesticides ,whether maternal exposure,or thru diet. “The obvious way to determine if pesticides cause cancer is to do a study on those who come into contact with pesticides the most.” can be pesticide applicators,(according to you)…or it can be the innocent unborn exposed to toxins flowing thru the maternal blood supply. I know your small little childless brain cannot comprehend epidemiology.

          • JoeFarmer

            “I know your small little childless brain cannot comprehend epidemiology.”

            And irony meters around the world explode!

          • patzagame

            Hilarious.

          • JoeFarmer

            As long as you find exploding irony meters hilarious.

          • patzagame

            I do as well as you

          • JoeFarmer

            Even when you’re the cause of the irony meters exploding?

            Lack of self-awareness seems to be a hallmark of the anti-GE bunch, though.

          • patzagame

            stuff it.

          • JoeFarmer

            Gee, I would have thought that a person with “a degree in biotech” like you claim to have would be able to come up with a more intelligent response.

            I think you made up having that “degree in biotech”.

          • FarmersSon63

            Again, children do not apply pesticides, pesticide applicators do.
            Do you think you can sell the idea that children are more exposed to pesticides than those who handle them every day?
            LOL
            Pure Comedy!!

          • patzagame

            you’re so ignorant it seriously amazes me! Children are the most sensitive to pesticides whether thru ingestion or contact from the environment, including those pesticide applicators bringing those toxins home.

          • FarmersSon63

            Where did you dream that up?

        • StopGMO

          He just thinks he does. lol

    • Robert Howd

      The latest National Cancer Institute Cancer Trends Progress Report shows that some cancers have been decreasing and some increasing. Cancer death rates are generally down. I quote:
      “The rate of death from cancer continues to decline among both men and women in all major racial and ethnic groups.
      “Mortality for the most common types of cancer (colorectal, female breast, lung, and prostate) continues to fall. For colorectal and lung cancer these declines are evident among both sexes and all major racial and ethnic groups except American Indians and Alaska Natives. For breast cancer, recent declines are evident except among Hispanics and American Indians and Alaska Natives. For prostate cancer, the declines are evident among all the major racial and ethnic groups. Changes in trends among smaller subpopulations are more difficult to determine.
      “Death rates from cancers of the stomach, ovary, and larynx and non-Hodgkin and Hodgkin lymphoma are all falling at greater than 1% per year. Death rates from leukemia and cancers of the kidney and renal pelvis and esophagus are also falling, but at rates of less than 1% per year.
      “The incidence of some cancers, including thyroid cancer, myeloma, and leukemia, has been increasing at more than 1.5 percent per year, whereas the incidence of other cancers, including breast, testicular, and oral cancers and melanoma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, is increasing at less than 1.5 per year. For some cancers, e.g. thyroid cancer, the increase is associated with the earlier detection of thyroid tumors, some of which may prove to be relatively indolent.
      “Recent trends in the death rates for thyroid, pancreas, liver, and corpus and uterine cancers have been increasing.”

    • Peter Olins

      Yes, cancer is amazingly common, and accounts for about 1 in 4 deaths. And yes, cancers can take years or decades to develop (and even longer to kill), so it’s largely a disease of aging, like Alzheimer’s.

      It’s believed that the majority of cases of cancer are not caused by environmental factors. One of the reasons it’s so hard to pinpoint environmental dangers is that the background rate of many spontaneous cancers is so high, and that any change in incidence is hard to distinguish from “noise”.

      • WeGotta

        Alzheimers and cancer are not diseases of aging.
        They are lifestyle diseases like most of our most common diseases.

        People who choose “certain lifestyles” are at much less risk of developing Alzeimers, cancer, heart disease, stroke, and diabetes.
        This is clear even though it is difficult to pinpoint causes of disease in this world we’ve made for ourselves and each other where greed trumps everything.

        • Peter Olins

          Until recently, the main cause of death was infections, which can kill in days or weeks. Modern killers in so-called developed countries take decades before they become lethal.

          • WeGotta

            Which is why short term animal studies are woefully inadequate at determining the health risks of those things studied in such a way.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            Exactly!

          • Jason

            Well, that would only be true if you were able to show any of those things are the underlying cause of these cancers. Otherwise it would appear they’re perfectly adequate for testing them.

          • WeGotta

            Don’t tell me. Lean over to the other cubicle and tell Peter Olins.

          • Jason

            But he’s not the one claiming they’re woefully inadequate… you are. So that wouldn’t really make a lot of sense now, would it?

          • WeGotta

            Peter: “Modern killers in so-called developed countries take decades before they become lethal.”

            Jason: “Well, that would only be true if you were able to show any of those things are the underlying cause of these cancers.”

            Me: Let’s do those tests.

            Jason: “that wouldn’t really make a lot of sense now, would it?”

          • Jason

            You didn’t think that through very well at all, did ya?

          • patzagame

            perhaps you can explain away the rising rate of childhood cancers?

          • Peter Olins

            Yes, the incidence of childhood cancers has risen steadily over the past three decades (see image below), but I have absolutely no idea why.

            I’m reminded of historical times when unexplained diseases were blamed on evil spirits, Satan or witches. Human have a hard time saying “I don’t know”, and tend to make things up to replace their ignorance.

            If you have a hypothesis for why childhood cancers are increasing, please share it (hopefully with some evidence).

            If you are interested in learning more about cancer incidence, the SEER website is a good source:
            https://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/index.php

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c4d04b6a11f46d865d2789e55bb5573aadfbfc30bf3f2de9c5cd67070b16c05e.png

          • patzagame

            hogwash,Peter! don’t post this B.S. “I’m reminded of historical times when unexplained diseases were blamed on evil spirits, Satan or witches. Human have a hard time saying “I don’t know”, and tend to make things up to replace their ignorance.” Should we ignore the prevalence of chemicals that entered the food supply and our daily lives?

        • Jason

          The single largest thing that increases risk of either disease is living long enough to get it. They absoutely are diseases of aging.

          • WeGotta

            Maybe to people with limited imagination.

            “Increasing risk over increasing time” could describe multiple different scenarios.

            For instance:
            The longer you eat gmo the sicker you get (your risk increases over time).

            Show me the studies which exclude this possibility.

          • Jason

            Well, why didn’t you tell me we were counting imaginary problems. Of course, if you “use you imagination” you can dream up about anything!

          • WeGotta

            Absolutely!
            And it’s real if you believe it.

            I’m going to believe I was sent back in time with a second chance to take responsibility for the care of my body after prayers to God on my surgical gurney on the way into a triple bypass operation.

            You can imagine the joy you’d feel if that were true and actually feel it proportional to your imaginatory ability.
            Then it’s real, or at least “substantially equivalent”.

          • Damo

            “Maybe to people with limited imagination.”

            Imagination is where most of these conclusions begin, unfortunately. This one is dishonest, and has absolutely no qualms about the fact that she/he/it lies in order to be right.

            Further discussion with WeGotta is not only pointless, but useless, since she/he/it can’t stand the fact that they are wrong. If I were WeGotta, I would delete my account and start fresh with a new one. The new username can embrace GMOs, and the person behind the username will feel smug for being right, but not have to lie or be devious in order to be right.

    • FarmersSon63

      It’s all in your imagination. Cancer rates have been declining.
      https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/images/2013-e-incidence-m-all3.gif

    • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

      Hawaii is the chemical/gmo corn seed source for the globe. In Maui, we voted for Longterm Independent Health and Environmental Impact Studies on new GMO. After failing to buy the vote despite spending the most in the history of Hawaii or any county voter initiative in US history Monsanto-Bayer and Dow-DuPont still lost so along with BASF/Syngenta-ChemChina they sued and had federal judges with financial connections to the chemical firms avoid the tests they know they would fail.

      https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/23/hawaii-birth-defects-pesticides-gmo

      Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/440076da88bbb7a0de5b289a349b6f2ddf0e28b8fb0f3bdd0aebbae8214526d4.jpg

      • FarmersSon63

        Correlates exactly with the rise in organic food consumption and phone texting too.

      • FarmersSon63

        Hawaii accounts for less than 1% of the US Ag economy.
        Quit pretending like Hawaii is important.
        They import over 80% of the calories they consume.

      • Gmo Roberts

        Let’s never forget that ordinance was illegal and you are just trying to put a spin on it for your cUse.

  • Rich Cummings

    How about Monsanto executives sign up for a round of human glyphosate testing? Then we will know for sure. Shouldn’t be a problem for them since they know how safe it is…

    • FarmersSon63

      40 years and still not even one confirmed illness or death from consuming minute glyphosate residues on foods.
      A 100% perfect safety record is pretty impressive, wouldn’t you agree?
      Guess how many people got sick or died from consuming alcohol LAST WEEK?

      • Debbie Owen

        Alcohol is tested for in the blood but glyphosate isn’t so you really have no argument.

        • StopGMO

          LOL! Do they ever?

        • FarmersSon63

          Because there is never been a blood sample that contained dangerous levels of glyphosate.
          It is against the law to inject glyphosate into your veins.

          • Debbie Owen

            Glyphosate is ingested, not injected, and it should be against the law to allow this poison in our food supply.

          • FarmersSon63

            You do not understand what you are talking about.

          • StopGMO

            No you don’t FarmersSon63. What you accuse people of, describes you to a T.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            There is no safe exposure level for glyphosate. Glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor that has no safe dose. It causes DNA breaks and irreversible cellular death. It mimics glycine in the body. It causes rapid aging, multiple diseases, and early death.

          • FarmersSon63
          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            You mindless spamming is getting old.

          • FarmersSon63

            A normal person would get tired of people making fun of their stupid games. Or is your memory shorter than a gnat?

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Your disingenuous lies are getting old too.

      • WeGotta

        1 million times repeated and “40 years and not even one confirmed illness or death” still isn’t science, still isn’t actual evidence and still isn’t proof of anything except your misunderstanding of both.

        • FarmersSon63

          Every regulatory agency in the world agrees that glyphosate is safe at real world exposure levels.
          There has always got to be one crazy one in the crowd.

          • WeGotta

            Still doesn’t mean “40 years and not even one confirmed illness or death” is science, is actual evidence or is proof of anything except your misunderstanding of both.

            What’s the evidence which proves “things regulatory agencies say are safe” won’t actually cause you harm?

          • FarmersSon63

            No negative effects over 40 years will never be enough for anyone who has already made their mind up.

          • WeGotta

            Right.
            This illogical claim will never be enough for me since I’ve already made up my mind that “40 years with no problems” isn’t science.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            It is also a big fat lie.

          • Peter Olins

            I thought I had already blocked all your Disqus aliases, Ted, but here you pop up as “Cletus”. Bye.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Industry troll, flagged

          • JoeFarmer

            Like herpes, Ted keeps coming back.

          • patzagame

            you would know.
            snicker

          • JoeFarmer

            Really not clever, Patzy. Actually rates a facepalm.

          • JoeFarmer

            It’s not often that a person can make 1400 posts in 60 days and keep getting worse. But you’ve managed to do it!

            Congrats, I guess.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            Regulatory agencies are not scientific organizations. Take the EPA for example. They allowed Monsanto to hide their own studies that show glyphosate causes cancer as a trade secret just before they approved glyphosate over the objections of their own staff toxicologists.

          • FarmersSon63

            LOL
            Your stupidity grows every single day, Ted.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            I posted a fact. All you have is abusive harassing name calling to try and cover your failure get traction on your industry spin.

          • FarmersSon63

            dModerator, please ban all accounts held by Ted Minor.
            He uses multiple screen names to deceive you and your readers.
            For example:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/251d0650b9696c49124ae5a366f587baad317d0aa723011cdb63a02825c90cfa.jpg
            and
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1720218de2875a30b2b8a4e438fad09674c8f4ce87f8c06ba8ee4d03a01033dc.jpg
            Again, Please ban all accounts controlled by Ted Minor.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            Flagged for spam.

          • StopGMO

            Stop infiltrating this forum with your childish and irrelevant posts. Flagged!

          • patzagame

            define real world exposure levels and when and who set them?

          • FarmersSon63

            glyphosate is applied at 28-32 fluid ounces per acre….which results in less than 4 ppm on the plant right after a application. Then it degrades rapidly.
            Yet you city people think crops are bathed in it.
            There is a reason why there have been zero confirmed illnesses or deaths from consuming residues on plants. It would be impossible. Especially when at full concentration it is less toxic than table salt.

          • patzagame

            How many times a year is it applied to that acre,pharmer? Could it possibly be up to 4x annually? Then it degrades rapidly..while findings show glyphosate can persist in the soil for one to two years depending on several variables,including the type of soil.

          • FarmersSon63

            No, that would be against the law. You should read the label for the first time in your life to see what is allowed.
            You look like a complete fool arguing that farmers are breaking the law on a regular basis.
            The half life in 30-60 days, quit being such a Drama Queen over nothing.

          • patzagame

            No legit answers from the phake pharmer as usual.

          • FarmersSon63

            Tell us how much glyphosate can be legally sprayed per acre per year.
            You stupidly claim 4X annually.

          • JoeFarmer

            Another display of utter cluelessness by Patzagame.

            Must be a day ending in, “y”.

    • Peter Olins

      Rich, do you really think feeding a pesticide to a human would be ethical? What dose would you use? The reason we use laboratory animals for testing is that we can give them very high doses in order to look for potentially harmful effects.

      The best that we can do is compare people (such as farmers) with higher glyphosate exposure to those with lower exposure and look for possible differences. These studies have been going on for years, and I’m not aware of any significant differences.

      • Cletus DeBunkerman

        You claim it is safe so why wouldn’t Monsanto executives want to take part in that kind of study?

      • patzagame

        “Rich, do you really think feeding a pesticide to a human would be ethical?”lololol…

      • George Peterson

        But testing on another animal is ethical? Humans are such hypocrites!

        • Peter Olins

          I’m confused: are you proposing that we test pesticides on humans?

          I am totally against unnecessary animal suffering, but occasionally human well-being trumps the “rights” of other animals. On the other hand, I question whether the common practice of administering the ‘maximum tolerated dose’ of a toxic substance is either scientifically valid or ethical.

          • George Peterson

            Typical human virus answer

State of Health Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor