It's not the first time that the toxicity of glyphosate has been brought under the spotlight and no doubt it won't be the last. These studies go largely ignored. Monsanto has friends in high places. 'Nuff said!
Ray Silty loam over clay, pH 5.5, altitude 1000m, latitude 30deg south, 150 frost free days.
Here is more info> US/World Roundup Weed Killer: Dangerous To Your Health? A new study says Monsanto's Roundup herbicide is linked to health ailments and diseases, aside from environmental degradation. By Matthew Mientka | Apr 28, 2013 03:45 PM EDT Aside from niche fervor for all things organic, many farmers and home gardeners wage chemical warfare against any and all natural threats to their design. A new study links Roundup with health problems, as the EPA continues a standard review with a 2015 deadline Share This Story U.S. farmers in 2007 dropped as much as 185 million pounds of glyphosate on crops, double the number just six years before, as home gardeners used the chemical in consumer herbicides, such as Roundup.
Researchers now say the chemical product could be linked to a host of health ailments and diseases, including Parkinson's, infertility, and cancers. American researchers published a study last week in the journal Entropy, reporting evidence of glyphosate residues in foods. Those residues worsen the ill effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins found in the environment, causing disease and health problems, researchers said.
"Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body," wrote study authors Stephanie Seneff, of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Anthony Samsel, a consultant from Arthur D. Little, Inc.
"We "have hit upon something very important that needs to be taken seriously and further investigated," Seneff said.
Environmentalists, botanists, and consumer groups from several countries have warned the chemical is causing health and environmental problems, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency continues a standard registration review of glyphosate. The agency will determine by 2015 whether use of the chemical should be limited.
U.S.-based Monsanto manufactures Roundup, in addition to a number of genetically-altered crops immune to the herbicide, including altered corn, soybeans, canola, and sugar beets. Industrial farmers use the genetically modified crops and accompanying herbicide for ease of use, given they can spray Roundup directly onto the crops.
Monsanto and others in the field say the use of glyphosate is safe, and causes less damage to the environment than other herbicides on the market. Jerry Steiner, the company's executive vice president of sustainability, told media: "We are very confident in the long track record that glyphosate has. It has been very, very extensively studied."
The herbicide is also widely used on lawns, which cover 40.5 million acres in America — by far the nation's largest crop.
I have done research in this general area (human gut microbiota, although limited to archaea), so I find it particularly interesting, and an important area of study. That said, they didn't do any experimentation. This is purely hypothesizing based on other research. There may be something to it, or there may not. They make some statements that I find to be pretty controversial. Hopefully someone will follow up with actual experimentation or at least demographic studies to see whether or not the hypothetical effects actually exist to any degree.
Growing where temperate rainforest meets the sea (WA coast): Jan avg low temp ~34*F, Aug avg high temp ~69*F, ~111 annual inches of rain, but only about 15 inches May-Sep, salt air, lots of wind.
Post by Joseph Lofthouse on Apr 29, 2013 17:35:05 GMT -5
Glyphosate [...] is the main herbicide in use today in the United States, and increasingly throughout the World, in agriculture and in lawn maintenance,
Around here, Glyphosate is widely used in lawn maintenance: It gets spayed on driveways, and beside pathways, and around trees, and along the edges of flower beds, and around mailboxes, and around irrigation infrastructure, and in residential gardens to kill the perennial weeds before planting. And to spot kill grass weeds growing in lawns, and to rejuvenate lawns with other cultivars of grass, and for weeding flower beds. In some of the dryer areas I frequent it is used to kill all vegetation around the house and outbuildings in order to reduce fire hazard. We still call the area around the front of the house a lawn even if it is bare dirt.
People use it here in every imaginable way because, after all, it's "non toxic". People use it here "just in case". They will spray it on sidewalks "just in case" a weed seed might be sprouting in a crack in the sidewalk. No one ever uses any type of protection when they use it so the spray often gets on their skin and in their lungs.
We'll know this country is on the right path when this stuff is outlawed.
Post by prairiegarden on Dec 14, 2015 22:01:34 GMT -5
Well there are even more toxic chemicals lurking..the news out of Hawaii from people living near the testing grounds is really horrifying. When there are billions of dollars at stake it's going to be an uphill battle, although the tide does seem to be turning, slowly.. California has now designated glyphosate officially as a cancer causing chemical - something that was known at least 10 years ago, and at least the Canadian government was informed of it. I sent the then PM Harper and all the ministers of each party who were even remotely involved with agriculture a link to a joint university study done in Ontario with greenhouse workers. I got a patronising letter back from the then government saying that the Ag people had looked into it and decided it was safe and not to worry my poor little head about it, and all the other responses were equally disinterested if somewhat more polite in saying so. With a new government in place, perhaps now we can get some traction.
However, it was distressing to read in an interview published by Modern Farmer today in an interview with the USDA secretary Tom Vilsak when this question and answer is reported:
"MF: There is a big disconnect between polls showing that a majority of consumers are very concerned about GMOs in the food supply and the scientific consensus around GMOs, which says they are generally safe to eat. What do you attribute that disconnection to?
TV: I think it goes back to when this technology was introduced into the marketplace. I think that companies that promoted this did a very good job explaining the benefits to farmers and producers. They failed to make the same case, if you will, to consumers, either by reassuring them of the safety of the product, and/or by pointing out that these products are allowing us to produce more with less inputs than we would’ve had if we were producing an equivalent amount under the old way. [With GMOs] you have less chemicals and less pesticides per bushel, or per acre being used. "
You really really have to wonder what magic mushrooms he's been eating that allows him to make such a statement with a straight face.
Well, you have to weigh the interests of a few "important" people against the interests of many "unimportant" people, of whom we have such a surplus. There are so few really "important" people that they must be protected from the mass of "unimportant" humanity, again, a veritable plague of unproductivity, demanding undeserved benefits: useful work; health care; education; representation; freedom from exploitation.
I really have to question the notion that GMOs require "less" chemicals; "fewer", maybe, but still a lot of stuff sprayed directly on the crop, incorporated into it, and not wash-off-able.
I don't doubt that Tom Vilsak is spot on when he says consumers weren't sold an adequately industrial-centric sack of bullshit. Damn! That's too bad, Tom.
"Yesterday is history; tomorrow is mystery; today is a gift, that's why it's called the present." E. Roosevelt "If the world is to end tomorrow, I would plant an apple tree today" Martin Luther
Well, yes, but the important thing is that the trend benefits Big Chem/Ag, which is to say, the "important" people, the self-denominated "job-creators", not the economically "unimportant" people, who are really just an industrial outlet for whatever Big Ag produces (can't feed it all to cattle and swine; they'll only eat so much).
I fear Soylent Green is going to be a high-fat snack. It's ironic that low-brain could lead to high-fat.
BTW, when I cite "fewer" chemicals, I only refer to the number of different chems, not quantity of any; there is no doubt whatsoever that total quantity of applied chems is increasing. It's an arms-race and these self-promoting arms-merchants have every reason to push it just short of nuclear (one hopes).
Post by prairiegarden on Dec 15, 2015 2:26:21 GMT -5
Heard an ad last summer aimed at farmers, and had to wonder if anyone is actually thinking about what they are saying..or on the other hand what they are being told. Included in the ad was something along the lines of "you've seen that ABC isn't stopping this problem any more, but now you can use this new chemical XYZ " Do they realize what they are admitting? and do farmers really not THINK about what they are being told and where that has to lead? I saw a clip where the Monsanto people swore in the original hearing for permission to use GMOs and the attendant chemicals(glyphosates) that this system of ag would not, could not, ever lead to superbugs or superweeds, that it would never happen. Since that statement denies evolution, I've often been a bit bemused by the claim that people who are anti GMO are anti science.
Apparently thousands of acres in the US are now out of production because of a wild amaranth which just LOVES glyphosates...one plant, which grows faster than the crop and cannot be combined because of the woody stems and branches, can produce a million seeds, according to one government site I read, which said that at the moment the only sure method of dealing with it was pulling it out by hand. (!!) An Ag official in Saskatchewan told producers not to worry , we don't have it in Saskatchewan ( yet).
Post by prairiegarden on Dec 15, 2015 2:33:48 GMT -5
One light in the darkness though, is the recent refusal of the USDA or FDA to allow the use of the next nasty that the chem ag people had in mind. So perhaps finally someone is starting to take a look instead of simply rubber stamping whatever the chem ag people put in front of them.