I am Going to Stop Eating Corn

[Bronzeage]

Here is a general question, bearing on the discussion:

Is there an acceptable trade off between higher food production, which raises the standard of living, worldwide, reduces infant mortality, and all the other benefits of an adequate diet, and the increased health risk due to any particular chemical in the food chain?

For example, as a totally bogus statistic, Infant mortality drops enough that instead of 50 infant deaths/1000 (about 15 countries in that range), we see a rate of 25/1000. This is a substantial number of people who will become adults, and risk health problems because of agricultural chemicals.

Where is the balance? Do we concentrate on our first world problem of long term health effects, because we actually have a long term, or worry about health, in general?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Is Anthony Samsel a loon? At least he has done the FOIA request to make an attempt to find out what has been happening. I am not in a position just take take the word of just anybody that they are "loons" And sometimes, you need to have "vociferous" critics to counter vociferous lobbyists. While i am not 100% sure of any of this, there is enough evidence to point to danger here.

 

[bilby]

Is Anthony Samsel a loon? At least he has done the FOIA request to make an attempt to find out what has been happening. I am not in a position just take take the word of just anybody that they are "loons" And sometimes, you need to have "vociferous" critics to counter vociferous lobbyists. While i am not 100% sure of any of this, there is enough evidence to point to danger here.

Then present that evidence.

There is no more evidence of danger here than there is evidence that global warming is a scam, vaccinations cause autism, or 9/11 was an inside job.

The existence of a handful of shouty opponents to consensus is not evidence. Much less 'enough evidence' to reach any conclusion.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Is Anthony Samsel a loon? At least he has done the FOIA request to make an attempt to find out what has been happening. I am not in a position just take take the word of just anybody that they are "loons" And sometimes, you need to have "vociferous" critics to counter vociferous lobbyists. While i am not 100% sure of any of this, there is enough evidence to point to danger here.

Then present that evidence.

There is no more evidence of danger here than there is evidence that global warming is a scam, vaccinations cause autism, or 9/11 was an inside job.

The existence of a handful of shouty opponents to consensus is not evidence. Much less 'enough evidence' to reach any conclusion.

A number of peer reviewed studies have been posted here. How many such studies do you need? Ignoring reports of sick cattle and farm animals that were exposed to Roundup is sort of like ignoring the fact that heavy smokers have high rates of cancer to my way of thinking. The dead canaries in mine.

http://www.omicsonline.org/teratoge...ntific-evidence-2161-0525.S4-006.php?aid=7453

[TABLE="width: 660"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 648"]Abstract[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]The publication of a study in 2010 showing that a glyphosate herbicide formulation and glyphosate alone caused malformations in the embryos of Xenopus laevis and chickens caused a scientific and political controversy. Debate centred on the effects of the production and consumption of genetically modified Roundup® Ready® soy, which is engineered to tolerate applications of glyphosate herbicide. This study, along with others indicating teratogenic and reproductive effects from glyphosate herbicide exposure, was rebutted by the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, BVL, as well as in industry-sponsored papers. These rebuttals relied partly on unpublished industry-sponsored studies commissioned for regulatory purposes, which, it was claimed, showed that glyphosate is not teratogenic or a reproductive toxin. However, examination of the German authorities’ draft assessment report (DAR) on the industry studies, which underlies glyphosate’s EU authorisation, revealed further evidence of glyphosate’s teratogenicity. Nevertheless, the German and EU authorities minimized these findings in their assessment and set a potentially unsafe acceptable daily intake (ADI) level for glyphosate. This paper reviews the evidence on the teratogenicity and reproductive toxicity of glyphosate herbicides and concludes that a new and transparent risk assessment needs to be conducted by scientists who are independent of industry and of the regulatory bodies that were involved in the existing authorisation of glyphosate.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

More dirty doings

Ex-Monsanto employee Richard Goodman has been removed from the Editorial Board of the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology. Goodman was appointed Associate Editor shortly before the Seralini study was retracted by the journal. Former Editor-in-Chief, A. Wallace Hayes will be replaced by someone else as well.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/huge-win-...tific-journals-editor-position/#ixzz3tgXuuLW7
Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook
​

In response to a 2004 study declaring Monsanto’s NK603 GMO maize safe:

“…a predominantly French team led by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini undertook a two-year (over 700 days), feeding trial [2], which was otherwise similar. Their work was published in September 2012, also inFCT. The early warnings that had been dismissed in the Monsanto paper developed into serious illnesses, includingdamage to liver, kidneys, pituitary gland and, most notably, early deaths and development of large tumours in females. In addition, the study included trials of minute amounts of Monsanto’s Roundup, the herbicide to which tolerance has been genetically engineered into NK603, in the rats’ drinking water.”

​

Some time later, the Seralini study was removed from the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology, and this fact has been used in a foolhardy way by biotech shills to promote the ‘fallacy’ of biotech dangers on more blogs and Facebook postings than I’d like to count. It looks like the journal is doing some house cleaning; however, because two Monsanto-supporting, biased editors have been removed from their positions.
After the Seralini study was retracted, hundreds of scientists contacted the journal to ask them why they were doing so, claiming that they were giving in to pressure from the biotech industry. The academic world was outraged, and they voiced that opinion, despite being labeled with childish names by Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, and others.
Now, the new Editor-in-Chief is Jose Domingo, who has published papers showing that the safety of GM crops is not an established fact.

“Critical changes have this year been made at the journal, Food and Chemical Toxicolgy, from which the Editor-in-Chief A. Wallace Hayes retracted the important paper by the Seralini team. The Editorial Board of the journal [19] now has a new Editor-in-Chief, José L. Domingo, who has published papers showing that safety of GM crops is not an established fact; and the Editorial Board no longer includes Richard Goodman, the ex-Monsanto employee who became Associate Editor for Biotechnology not long before the Seralini paper was retracted.”
​

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/huge-win-...tific-journals-editor-position/#ixzz3tgXRAnXn
Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook



So the Seralini study was withdrawn due to politics and not bad science. And the journal editor responsible for that has been fired.

Hmmmmmmmmm.....
​

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Yet more nastiness from Monsanto.

http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-...re-department-exists-to-discredit-scientists/


In a recent talk attended mostly by students hoping to get decent paying internships in their field, a student asked what the company was doing to negate “bad science” concerning their work.
Monsanto’s employee, Dr. William “Bill” Moar, who gives talks on Monsanto’s products to reassure everyone that they are safe, perhaps forgot the event was public when he openly revealed that Monsanto had:

“An entire department” (waving his arm for emphasis) dedicated to “debunking” science which disagreed with theirs.”
​

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-...exists-to-discredit-scientists/#ixzz3tgaMRUsV
Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook


Should we really trust Monsanto?

 

[bilby]

Then present that evidence.

There is no more evidence of danger here than there is evidence that global warming is a scam, vaccinations cause autism, or 9/11 was an inside job.

The existence of a handful of shouty opponents to consensus is not evidence. Much less 'enough evidence' to reach any conclusion.

A number of peer reviewed studies have been posted here. How many such studies do you need?

Enough to represent a new consensus.

That's how it works - if there are two opposing conclusions, you have to look at which has the weight of evidence. Looking ONLY at the evidence that supports your preconcieved position is futile.

There are more studies that say it is safe than say it isn't; more of those studies are published in more reputable journals; more of those studies examine humans, or look at exposure levels that are in the ball park of plausible exposures (both for consumers and for farmers).

I can 'prove' that any substance is toxic to rats (or chicken embryos) if the doses I give them are unlimited - the question is, are the doses that real humans are actually exposed to dangerous? And the answer, according to the vast bulk of the research, is 'No'.

 

[tupac chopra]

Where is the balance? Do we concentrate on our first world problem of long term health effects, because we actually have a long term, or worry about health, in general?

I think we would need to consider the effect of large scale chemical use on the environment too, including it's effect on non targeted species.

- - - Updated - - -

A number of peer reviewed studies have been posted here. How many such studies do you need?

Enough to represent a new consensus.

In other words you have no relevant studies on roundup.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You normally test the individual chemicals, there's nothing unusual in this.

Which is clearly a problem. You can't claim Roundup is safe unless you test Roundup

Unless A and B react to produce C then testing A and B normally gives you a good picture of the safety of the combination.

 

[bilby]

I think we would need to consider the effect of large scale chemical use on the environment too, including it's effect on non targeted species.

- - - Updated - - -

A number of peer reviewed studies have been posted here. How many such studies do you need?

Enough to represent a new consensus.

In other words you have no relevant studies on roundup.

You can say whatever you like; But no, that is not a valid summary of my statement, which stands without your re-interpretation of it. A re-interpretation that could only be considered valid by someone who has not been following the thread at all - or who hopes some people have not been and will be misled by his comments.

 

[tupac chopra]

Some more science

Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells

We have evaluated the toxicity of four glyphosate (G)-based herbicides in Roundup (R) formulations, from 105 times dilutions, on three different human cell types. This dilution level is far below agricultural recommendations and corresponds to low levels of residues in food or feed. The formulations have been compared to G alone and with its main metabolite AMPA or with one known adjuvant of R formulations, POEA. HUVEC primary neonate umbilical cord vein cells have been tested with 293 embryonic kidney and JEG3 placental cell lines. All R formulations cause total cell death within 24 h, through an inhibition of the mitochondrial succinate dehydrogenase activity, and necrosis, by release of cytosolic adenylate kinase measuring membrane damage. They also induce apoptosis via activation of enzymatic caspases 3/7 activity. This is confirmed by characteristic DNA fragmentation, nuclear shrinkage (pyknosis), and nuclear fragmentation (karyorrhexis), which is demonstrated by DAPI in apoptotic round cells. G provokes only apoptosis, and HUVEC are 100 times more sensitive overall at this level. The deleterious effects are not proportional to G concentrations but rather depend on the nature of the adjuvants. AMPA and POEA separately and synergistically damage cell membranes like R but at different concentrations. Their mixtures are generally even more harmful with G. In conclusion, the R adjuvants like POEA change human cell permeability and amplify toxicity induced already by G, through apoptosis and necrosis. The real threshold of G toxicity must take into account the presence of adjuvants but also G metabolism and time-amplified effects or bioaccumulation. This should be discussed when analyzing the in vivo toxic actions of R. This work clearly confirms that the adjuvants in Roundup formulations are not inert. Moreover, the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death around residual levels to be expected, especially in food and feed derived from R formulation-treated crops.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Oh yeah, and some of those animals eating Roundup seem to be getting very sick from that. We have seen over the years that we have a rising problem with medical problems like autism. Could that be linked to Roundup? Don't know but it surely possible. Peer reviewe studies linking Roundup with human illnesses seem to have been done. And the news does not seem to be good.

Thus showing you don't know what you're talking about.

There is no rising problem with autism. There has been no actual increase in autism cases, there has been a big increase in correctly diagnosing autism. There were a lot of people who were being diagnosed as some form of retarded but they aren't stupid, they just weren't using that intelligence to interact with others.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Oh yeah, and some of those animals eating Roundup seem to be getting very sick from that. We have seen over the years that we have a rising problem with medical problems like autism. Could that be linked to Roundup? Don't know but it surely possible. Peer reviewe studies linking Roundup with human illnesses seem to have been done. And the news does not seem to be good.

Thus showing you don't know what you're talking about.

There is no rising problem with autism. There has been no actual increase in autism cases, there has been a big increase in correctly diagnosing autism. There were a lot of people who were being diagnosed as some form of retarded but they aren't stupid, they just weren't using that intelligence to interact with others.

http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/searching-for-answers/autism-rise

Two researchers who tracked the rate of autism in children born in the same area of England from 1992 to 1995 and then from 1996 to 1998 found that the rates were comparable, and concluded that the incidence of autism was stable. The study was published in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 2005.
But, Milunsky says, several studies have documented an increase in the U.S.
In a recent report in the journal Archives of Disease in Childhood, Milunsky and his colleagues point to several studies finding an increase in autism rates. In 2003, for instance, a large study conducted in Atlanta found that one in 166 to one in 250 children had autism, according to a report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.


Who says its all a matter of statistics and not a real increase? Being cocksure saves time but does not really mean much in and of itself.

 

[bilby]

Some more science

Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells

We have evaluated the toxicity of four glyphosate (G)-based herbicides in Roundup (R) formulations, from 105 times dilutions, on three different human cell types. This dilution level is far below agricultural recommendations and corresponds to low levels of residues in food or feed. The formulations have been compared to G alone and with its main metabolite AMPA or with one known adjuvant of R formulations, POEA. HUVEC primary neonate umbilical cord vein cells have been tested with 293 embryonic kidney and JEG3 placental cell lines. All R formulations cause total cell death within 24 h, through an inhibition of the mitochondrial succinate dehydrogenase activity, and necrosis, by release of cytosolic adenylate kinase measuring membrane damage. They also induce apoptosis via activation of enzymatic caspases 3/7 activity. This is confirmed by characteristic DNA fragmentation, nuclear shrinkage (pyknosis), and nuclear fragmentation (karyorrhexis), which is demonstrated by DAPI in apoptotic round cells. G provokes only apoptosis, and HUVEC are 100 times more sensitive overall at this level. The deleterious effects are not proportional to G concentrations but rather depend on the nature of the adjuvants. AMPA and POEA separately and synergistically damage cell membranes like R but at different concentrations. Their mixtures are generally even more harmful with G. In conclusion, the R adjuvants like POEA change human cell permeability and amplify toxicity induced already by G, through apoptosis and necrosis. The real threshold of G toxicity must take into account the presence of adjuvants but also G metabolism and time-amplified effects or bioaccumulation. This should be discussed when analyzing the in vivo toxic actions of R. This work clearly confirms that the adjuvants in Roundup formulations are not inert. Moreover, the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death around residual levels to be expected, especially in food and feed derived from R formulation-treated crops.

Seralini.

Horseshit.

 

[tupac chopra]

Some more science

Glyphosate, Hard Water and Nephrotoxic Metals: Are They the Culprits Behind the Epidemic of Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown Etiology in Sri Lanka?

Abstract

The current chronic kidney disease epidemic, the major health issue in the rice paddy farming areas in Sri Lanka has been the subject of many scientific and political debates over the last decade. Although there is no agreement among scientists about the etiology of the disease, a majority of them has concluded that this is a toxic nephropathy. None of the hypotheses put forward so far could explain coherently the totality of clinical, biochemical, histopathological findings, and the unique geographical distribution of the disease and its appearance in the mid-1990s. A strong association between the consumption of hard water and the occurrence of this special kidney disease has been observed, but the relationship has not been explained consistently. Here, we have hypothesized the association of using glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the disease endemic area and its unique metal chelating properties. The possible role played by glyphosate-metal complexes in this epidemic has not been given any serious consideration by investigators for the last two decades. Furthermore, it may explain similar kidney disease epidemics observed in Andra Pradesh (India) and Central America. Although glyphosate alone does not cause an epidemic of chronic kidney disease, it seems to have acquired the ability to destroy the renal tissues of thousands of farmers when it forms complexes with a localized geo environmental factor (hardness) and nephrotoxic metals.

 

[bilby]

Some more science

Glyphosate, Hard Water and Nephrotoxic Metals: Are They the Culprits Behind the Epidemic of Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown Etiology in Sri Lanka?

Abstract

The current chronic kidney disease epidemic, the major health issue in the rice paddy farming areas in Sri Lanka has been the subject of many scientific and political debates over the last decade. Although there is no agreement among scientists about the etiology of the disease, a majority of them has concluded that this is a toxic nephropathy. None of the hypotheses put forward so far could explain coherently the totality of clinical, biochemical, histopathological findings, and the unique geographical distribution of the disease and its appearance in the mid-1990s. A strong association between the consumption of hard water and the occurrence of this special kidney disease has been observed, but the relationship has not been explained consistently. Here, we have hypothesized the association of using glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the disease endemic area and its unique metal chelating properties. The possible role played by glyphosate-metal complexes in this epidemic has not been given any serious consideration by investigators for the last two decades. Furthermore, it may explain similar kidney disease epidemics observed in Andra Pradesh (India) and Central America. Although glyphosate alone does not cause an epidemic of chronic kidney disease, it seems to have acquired the ability to destroy the renal tissues of thousands of farmers when it forms complexes with a localized geo environmental factor (hardness) and nephrotoxic metals.

Debunked in previous thread. Heavy metals are toxic. Adding glyphosate doesn't make them less toxic. Conclusion - don't drink Arsenic laced water, with or without glyphosate.

I think you should make an attempt to find out what 'science' is, before attempting to give examples. Because these are woeful. And have been previously refuted several times on this discussion board.

 

[tupac chopra]

Some more science

Glyphosate, Hard Water and Nephrotoxic Metals: Are They the Culprits Behind the Epidemic of Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown Etiology in Sri Lanka?

Debunked in previous thread.

Yeah sure you did

 

[bilby]

Debunked in previous thread.

Yeah sure you did

Here.

I suppose the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health are not to be trusted either?



http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/2/2125

The paper you linked to hypothesises a link between Glyphosate and kidney disease, but does not demonstrate such a link. Subsequent studies (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2369/15/124 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25239006) indicate that a cocktail of substances, including industrial and agricultural pollutants, and particularly Arsenic and Cadmium in the local water supply, are the cause; Glyphosate does not appear to be a causative factor here, in contradiction of the preliminary hypothesis presented in the IJERPH article.

ETA

Of course, even if the hypothesis were true, and Glyphosate did enhance the nephrotoxicity of heavy metals in the drinking water supply, that would be a problem best resolved by eliminating the toxic heavy metals from the drinking water - something which is routinely done in the OECD. It might be a good argument for not using Glyphosate in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Northern India and other places with poor water quality standards with regards to heavy metals, but it wouldn't suggest any reason to discontinue the use of Glyphosate in the developed world.

The reason glyphosate is so popular is that it is so much safer than the herbicides it replaced. The choice is not Glyphosate vs no Glyphosate; it is Glyphosate vs Atrazine, or even worse, Glyphosate vs Paraquat.

Of course, the average 'March against Monsanto' enthusiast has likely never heard of these other hebicides; they are not the target of the witch hunt, so only farmers and biochemists give them a second thought.

Now if you could please start participating in these threads in good faith and without these cheap innuendoes that are even more readily debunked than your half-arsed 'science', that would be appreciated.


I won't be holding my breath.

 

[tupac chopra]

Yeah sure you did

Here.
.

You didn't debunk anything. Do you really think you did?
Anyway i'm going to put you on ignore. As usual you try to clog up the thread with nonsense like this.

...

All this and you still don't have any science about roundup yet, in comparison to glyphosate.

Science would be good rather than these immature outbursts

 

[Will Wiley]

...

Tupac posted peer reviewed studies in this thread showing that Roundup is more toxic than glyphosate on its own. These studies are very relevant as the OP asked about Roundup but several posters then posted about Glyphosate, apparently thinking they are one and the same