Peer reviewed articles on the link between glyphosate and cancers and intestinal/digestive illnesses and a correlation to autism. Very busy day today so I can’t look for more but I may have mentioned above that since going primarily organic and project nonGMO in my own diet since January 17 I have experienced many positive changes in my intestinal health which is linked to immunity and mental health, btw https://jech.bmj.com/content/jech/70/8/741.full.pdf
There are 2 different sets of research out there about glyphosate. One is about the direct exposure to it long term. This would apply to agricultural workers. Apparently it is somewhat carcinogenic at that dose.
The other research concerns (a) whether trace residues remain in food and (b) whether those trace residues have any effect at such minimal amount. I have not yet found solid scientific research suggesting this is something to worry about.
Much of this discussion ends up with people conflating the two.
I would prefer all food to be non GMO and free of pesticides and herbicides but I don’t think that’s the major dietary of health issue facing most people.
Or indeed horses. Just watched a person at our barn founder an obese QH on guaranteed glyphosate free non GMO low sugar alfalfa grass hay fed free choice. A train wreck I saw coming.
There are many more peer-reviewed, published studies. EPA testing has also shown high levels of glyphosate in our national waters after spring application of glyphosate, btw… since you mention water.
"Eight studies reported urinary levels in 423 occupationally and para-occupationally exposed subjects; 14 studies reported glyphosate levels in various biofluids on 3298 subjects from the general population. Average urinary levels in occupationally exposed subjects varied from 0.26 to 73.5”‰Î¼g/L; environmental exposure urinary levels ranged from 0.16 to 7.6”‰Î¼g/L. Only two studies measured temporal trends in exposure, both of which show increasing proportions of individuals with detectable levels of glyphosate in their urine over time. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6322310/
In the end we believe what we want to believe unless something shocks us enough to open our minds to critical thinking. I have studied this subject as it pertains to our national waters in post graduate research and came across many studies showing potential links to birth defects and autism among migrant women populations exposed in the field to glyphosate.
Did you read the article and the discussion/conclusion?
Thus was an overview of studies to date and the conclusion is that more data is needed. The paper makes no claims about health consequences, and notes that most studies were on agricultural workers exposed on the job. This paper does not strongly support your position.
When I see strong evidence I will change my position on glyphosphate.
I agree with your general sentiment, but I will take it further.
I’m a toxicologist who studies, among other things, herbicide toxicity, including glyphosate. I also have an ag background.
Glyphosate does not cause cancer. Not even in agricultural workers or people who work in the glyphosate manufacturing plant and have long-term exposures.
The ONLY organization in the world that believes glyphosate causes cancer is IARC. And the IARC proceedings were about a sketchy as they could be. See, for example, this Forbes article:
Portier, an American statistician who worked for the federal government for over thirty years, was the special advisor to the IARC panel that issued the report declaring glyphosate to be “probably carcinogenic.” The transcripts show that during the same week in March 2015 in which IARC published its glyphosate opinion, Portier signed a lucrative contract to act as a litigation consultant for two law firms that were preparing to sue Monsanto on behalf of glyphosate cancer victims. His contract contained a confidentiality clause barring Portier from disclosing his employment to other parties. Portier’s financial conflict-of-interest has been confirmed by the UK newspaper The Times.
It turns out that it was Portier himself, who as chair of an IARC committee in 2014 had proposed that the agency undertake a review of glyphosate in the first place. He then went on to play a key role in the deliberations resulting in the IARC conclusion that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic. In view of the new revelations, it appears that, rather than being the objective scientist he has portrayed himself to be, he may have had a preconceived plan to use the IARC ruling, which he played a major role in shaping, to cash in on the ensuing litigation campaign.
And I would not “prefer all food to be non GMO and free of pesticides and herbicides.” GMOs and modern pesticides are, quite literally, lifesaving technologies. Without these technologies, we could not feed ourselves - or our animals. And that’s not even getting into things that provide genuine health benefits (aside from keeping people fed), like Golden Rice.
They also have many environmental benefits. For example, herbicides (like glyphosate) make no-till/low-till farming possible. This type of farming significantly reduces erosion and loss of topsoil and water use. It also reduces greenhouse gas emissions because farmers don’t need to work the fields as frequently.
On average, farmers practicing continuous conventional till use just over six gallons of diesel fuel per acre each year. Continuous no-till requires less than two gallons per acre. Across the country, that difference leads to nearly 282 million gallons of diesel fuel saved annually by farmers who practice continuous no-till instead of continuous conventional till.
Fields managed using no-till for multiple years generally have a higher water holding capacity than conventionally tilled fields. This is particularly valuable in drought-prone areas, where lack of water is a major concern tied to crop loss. No-till adoption also reduces soil erosion, increases soil biological activity and increases soil organic matter. These benefits can lead to additional economic gains for farmers over time.
Pesticide residue levels in foods (human and animal) are well regulated in the US and Canada (not saying they aren’t in other countries, but these are the two I deal with). Even if they are present, they are present at levels well below those associated with any adverse effects. And GMO crops go through a strict approval process that ensures that they do not pose a risk to human or animal health.
I read it. I underlined above all the 3200 + subjects of the general population who are not farmers. If I had more time I’d find better ones but as it is this thread has been a distraction today and I must abandon it.
But to be clear:
Im not arguing that anyone change their opinion. I have formed mine based on reading and personal experience. Anecdotal information is often a precursor to hypothesis and research proven conclusions. This thread began seeking advice and has evolved now. I don’t denounce all GMOs btw, quite the contrary. As long as humanity continues to multiply like rabbits, food has to multiply alongside. It is unfortunate that arguments against glyphosate are dismissed as anti science rhetoric. The issue is glyphosate use not GMOs.
That’s actually not true. In fact, the genesis of the anti-glyphosate movement is the anti-GMO movement. Attacking glyphosate is a “back door” route to eliminate Roundup-ready GMO crops. If the activists can get governments to ban glyphosate, Roundup-ready crops are useless.
I will tell you, as a toxicologist, that I can pretty much design an experiment that will give me whatever results I want. I can also tell you that these days, peer-review doesn’t mean as much as one might hope. It is possible to get almost any article, even a deeply flawed one, published in one ostensibly “peer-reviewed” journal or another. See, e.g. “The Seralini Affair” for an example of how activist scientists work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair
And even if the scientists are working in good faith you want to multiple studies that reach the same conclusion. One study could be a fluke. If no one can replicate the findings then it isn’t going to get accepted as generally true.
@Redemption3 - please identify which foods that are being fed to horses have glyphosate in them, and show the causal relationship between glyphosate and whatever illness/disease you believe the horse has.
You are not a horse. Horses are much hardier and do wonderfully on diets that people cannot tolerate. I’m glad you are feeling better with your change in diet, but the FACTS are: people are living longer, organic has been around for enough decades that if it really made you healthier, organic eating people would be living longer and it would be documented.
And why is GMO bad? Modifying genes does beneficial things, like making crops more drought resistant, pest resistant, etc so as NoSuchPerson pointed out, farmers have to work the fields less, spray less, and they can utilize farming methods that are more earth friendly.
Dr. Malcolm: " If there is one thing the history of evolution has taught us, that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, it expands new territories, and crashes through barriers painfully, maybe even dangerously, but, uh, well, there it is." (Jurassic Park)
Personally I am glad we have choices: conventional, GMOs, and organic. I personally avoid GMOs because I don’t want our seed supply controlled by a few multi national corporations. Selective breeding, seed saving has been the hallmark of farmers for thousands of years. Plant diversity is a hallmark of our planet. I also take issue with Monsanto/Bayer defending their patents and suing farmers whose conventional seeds were exposed to wind drift, pollination from a neighbor’s GMO field.
I am concerned with the issues of tight junctions in the gut and how glyphosate affects them. Dr. Zach Bush from the University of Virginia has done some interesting research on tight junctions and glyphosate effects. And Don Huber, Ph.d
professor emeritus from Purdue, has found links to glyphosate and the rise of the T-2 toxin (Fusarium) in soils.
Its difficult for me to trust that glyphosate, 2-4D, etc is benign. That the biotech industry is so brilliant that they can supersede Nature.
Just one final thank you for teaching me yet again that Internet forums are not a necessary part of life. When I need advice again, I will study on my own. Going to see if I can delete this account, sign out and be on my way. Best wishes for everyone.
If you aren’t going to like some of the advice you ask for, then you are right, don’t post in a public forum.
Advice will almost always be both things you want to read and agree with and things you don’t agree with. The nature of advice and the beliefs and backgrounds of the individuals who respond to your request for advice will define the advice you get. Nature of the beast…
I did a quick check of the NIH link you posted regarding glyphosate in urine.
I did not find any references to ‘national waters’ in it.
I would be curious to know what you mean by ‘national waters’? Water sources east of the Continental Divide vs west? What states/sources were the source of the water defined by ‘national waters’??
Accounts can not be deleted, but can be left inactive, just quit posting, same results.
Forums open to all will just not be where only one opinion reigns.
They are places to learn and realize there is more to any and all in this world than we thought we knew.
In the early 1970’s, when Roundup first came on the market, we were conducting field trials for all kinds of products, some for cattle, other for crops, thru the TX A+M extension service programs, the USDA and the Soil Conservation Service.
We were some in our SW region to participate in those studies and use Roundup under different protocols to determine how it worked and why and why not.
One conclusion was that on drier, clay heavy soils as where our plots were, some of the Roundup tended to bind with the clay and not be as effective as it was other places, like in the Midwest.
Yes, we were certified to apply any products and Roundup was just one more of those.
As it turned out, Roundup was a game changer in agriculture.
Minimum and no tillage was a couple decades old then, new farming practices and implements were tried to keep from disturbing soils as farmland is from washing out and blowing away, diversion and conservation terraces, so much that we did then was helping use our natural resources best.
Being able to clean a field without disturbing the soil was made possible by Roundup and later herbicides
We conserved moisture in the soil and used less machinery and fuel, saving many resources.
That gave us the ability to go from one farmer feeding a handful of people to now over 100.
The way I see this where we are today, other than those that make a living from controversies, paid by those on all sides that profit from the controversies, those that tend to follow certain bandwagons against things they don’t understand or even can put into the right context as farming practices, which and how to use any of the many products out there, Roundup an example, those are people that don’t understand science or how the world works.
As the joke goes, any in this world, even water, can kill you, if you misuse it.
With proper use, well, that is where you need to keep working to assure any we do is done best we may, including using Roundup.
To dismiss Roundup offhand as some do that don’t even know what it is or how it is used, only go by fearmongering propaganda, well, that opinion will be debated in forums open to the general public, as we are here.
No product, particularly a chemical product, is “totally harmless” in the environment. Indeed, we just saw what wind and water can do when combined together in the Bahamas.
You live in a very arid climate and the practices that work very well for you might not be at all advisable for me, where we get almost 50" of rain per year on average (and last year got just over 73"). The idea that the folks in D.C. can dictate practices that require us both to do the same thing means that one, the other, or both us might fail depending on just what practices are mandated. This includes tillage as well as chemical use.
The general decline in scientific IQ in the our population at large, combined with the rise of zealotry, does not bode well for the future.
