Doctor's Note

What is glyphosate? Please see the “prequel” to this video, Are GMOs Safe? The Case of Roundup Ready Soy. Before that I covered GMO corn: Are GMOs Safe? The Case of Bt Corn.

It’s the dose that makes the poison, though. Do we have evidence that the levels of Roundup chemicals not only found on crops but also in our bodies after eating those crops actually have adverse effects? That’s the subject of the final installment of this video series, GMO Soy and Breast Cancer.

Commercial interests can have a corrupting effect on the science of nutrition and hold sway over institutions that are supposed to operate in the public interest. See for example:

If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

To post comments or questions into our discussion board, first log into Disqus with your NutritionFacts.org account or with one of the accepted social media logins. Click on Login to choose a login method. Click here for help.

  • Adrien

    I knew there was not much data on human, but I didn’t knew about this study on human placenta. Thanks for sharing it and to explicitly say that Glyphosate isn’t Roundup®. Because it’s a common tactic to deny the toxicity of Monsanto’s product. It was important to speak out.

    I was just talking about that two days ago

    • Merio

      indeed this is weird since animals should eat GMO’s for years, and the same for us.

      What if problems starts to present after 1, or 2 year ?

      At least i want a long term trial test.

      • Susan

        Seralini urges that we press for long term peer reviewed studies.

        Dr. Don Huber, retired professor from Purdue University where he taught soil and plant pathology and microbiology says that Glyphosate/Roundup is the most chronically toxic pest control ever permitted and should have never been registered in the first place.

        I’m unable to locate that interview, but here’s another that speaks of the diseases glyphosate has caused to livestock.

        http://mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/ExpertInterviewTranscripts/InterviewDrHuber-Part1.pdf

        • Merio

          Thanks for the informations !

          Sorry for your spine injury, but i’m happy that you manage that.

      • Susan

        Apparently, Monsanto does not want a long term trial test because it will tell the truth about Glyphosate or Roundup (with all the added ingredients that make it more toxic) and the GMOs.

        As for studies on people, Monsanto has blocked such studies for decades. Either they would not let their patented seeds be used in independent (of Monsanto) studies, or they put a retired Monsanto CEO in charge of the journal to which the study was sent, thus guaranteeing a rejection of the study.

        There have been many studies worldwide on GMO soy and corn used with glyphosate and how glyphosate is affecting animals, including wildlife, and some people (notably infants). For starters, go to gmoevidence.com.

        Effects of field-realistic doses of glyphosate on honeybee appetitive behavior

        Lucila T. Herbert, Diego E. Vázquez, Andrés Arenas and Walter M. Farina.

        • Merio

          I’m quite sure that Monsanto got the long term data in their files that of course are far away from their public.

          I think that some in a distant future someone would release that data and probably we will say “Look here, we were right to be suspicious”.

          I have to say that i have my bias against Monsanto.

          I can’t trust that corporation.

    • Kevin Folta

      Here’s a link that has links to a dozen long-term studies. http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2012/10/24/a-survey-of-long-term-gm-food-studies/

      There is a report from the EU from 250 euros and ten years showing no evidence of harm too. http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf

      I’d shy away from “cells in a dish” reports. They are a good first start, but are kind of meaningless. Anything you put in the media will cause a response. These things are looking for a reason to die. Sugar, salt, distilled water… all would do the same thing. Not to say they are bad reports or bad data, you just can’t interpret them beyond the data and system. The authors, and the doctor, do.

      • NoToGMOs

        “Not to say they are bad reports or bad data, you just can’t interpret them beyond the data and system.”

        The same thing can be said of the individual studies in the Snell review that your first link directs to. How can you interpret and extrapolate data from quails, broiler chickens and Atlantic salmon to safety of GMOs to human health, when humans are very different physiologically from these species?? For example the 10-generation study of quails feed Bt corn, looked at parameters like Hatchability and Laying intensity!! Unless humans are laying eggs, I don’t understand how this is relevant to human health, long-term or not.

        There are so many glaring issues with the individual studies of the Snell review, I’m surprised a scientist such as yourself has not seen them and is touting them blindly as proof of long-term safety of GMOs. I’m getting rather tired of repeating it, but I will for the readers here who might fall for the ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy of believing what you say based on the fact that you are a scientist (a plant scientist, I might add):

        -The Snell review has studies done on chickens, fish and quails that are physiologically very different from humans.
        -Several are production studies that look at things like body weight and production of eggs, meat etc. Not toxicological or carcinogenic studies that are more relevant to human health.
        -Some are on GMOs that are not currently approved and commercially cultivated like transgenic rice.
        -It has many studies that don’t use isogenic lines and even omits mentioning which specific transformation event is being studied
        -It has studies that use 10, 5 or just 3 animals!
        -It has many studies whose authors actually mention negative results and suggest further long-term studies that have not been undertaken.
        -None of the individual studies provides statistical power.

        And I could go on….but, instead I will provide you with a link that highlights the many drawbacks of this review and how it does nothing to prove safety of any GMO (hopefully as a scientist, you will respond to the points raised on this website instead of attacking and dismissing the website that it is posted on):

        http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15513-does-the-snell-review-show-gmos-are-safe

      • Dee Me

        That’s what happens when scientists receive money from powerful corporations. They then interpret whatever study to suit their patrons.

        • Kevin Folta

          Yes, and you are my patron. I’ve been a public scientist for 30 years, all of my funding is publicly viewable, and I’ve never received research or personal funds from the Big Ag companies. My only industry support comes from strawberry research, which is not the Big 6. Of course, those that want me silenced will distort and lie, and I can’t control that. But you can decide to look at the evidence and ask questions. You’ll see that I work for you, and I know inconvenient truths are not welcome. Just like climate and vaccines. Trash the scientists that tell the facts. I’m always glad to answer questions. Let’s solve problems for people, not create them.

          • Debbie Owen

            You have been discredited. You denied a relationship with Monsanto and that was proven to be a lie in the e-mails. You may not have received funds directly from Monsanto, but it was given to be used at your discretion for your “outreach”, which should be called Monsanto outreach. The e-mails also proved that you consulted with Monsanto about the “outreach”. Monsanto needed a scientist to appear independent and push their propaganda and you were (are) more than willing to do that, you really shouldn’t be considered as a public scientist.

          • Kevin Folta

            I understand why you would say such things. My research has never been sponsored by them. I’ve never seen a dime from them personally and never used a cent of their money. Nobody tells me what to say in science education sessions– that’s my words and my training. It all existed long before they thought they might pay for jump drives for participants and some Jimmy John’s subs for scientists that took the time to participate in communications training. That’s as public as they get. Most people see the facts, and that’s great. I have more speaking engagements than I can handle now, as people want to learn more about how the Organic Consumers Association bankrolled an attack on public scientists. It is going very well! Discredited? Hardly. Actually have much better visibility now, more than ever. What started as a cherry picking of my words now is quite a good platform. I take tons of screenshots of the vitriol I experience online. They really shift people that are unsure. I’ll add yours to the handout! Thank you, and keep up the good smear campaign!

          • Debbie Owen is part of a hardcore group of trolls, some of whom use multiple sock puppets, that pump out thousands of anti-biotech comments each year and will follow scientists such as yourself to the ends of the Earth to harass you.

          • Kevin Folta

            Yes, there are experts that have traced the IPs of many of the comment jockeys and they all point to a tiny handful of people that use false names (the ones that use names) and multiple handles to harass scientists and other commenters. We’re split on what to do with the information. We could ‘out’ the people involved, one is even a professional in health care! It is really wild. At the same time, we might just do a scholarly paper showing the representation of these ‘trolls’ in the internet versus their actual numbers. It’s pretty interesting.

          • John Zohn

            Just out of curiosity, did these experts you speak of hack the Disqus servers to find the IP addresses of these folks and then hack all of the different Internet providers that held the accounts associated with those IP addresses?

            Or did these experts subpoena Disqus for these IP Addresses and then subpoena the different Internet providers like Time Warner, Comcast, AT&T, Verizon etc. to figure out whose name was on the account that these IP addressees were associated with?

            Or did Disqus and all of these Internet providers just hand over all of these confidential records because the biotech industry asked for it?

          • Kevin Folta

            Hi John, it is much more intricate than that. I don’t know these people personally. They came to me, said that they busted a bunch of the anti-climate change goons this way. They used a strategy of monitoring interactions on twitter and in comments sections and noted some that never interacted with each other, then asked if they were one person. They were able to see that they were always active independently and didn’t respond to each other (themselves). There were strange linquistic queues too, plus sometimes the person with multiple troll personalities would even cut/paste the same thing. It was this way a ton with me. There were a few “personalities” they nailed it down to. Then they make some anti-GMO page/petition that required a sign up and account creation, and boom! All of the personalities signed up from common IPs, and some are the actual person’s real identity. Oops. They sent me all of the charts and analysis and it is just wild. The fact that people I don’t know would do this to defend science from trolls is pretty remarkable.

          • John Zohn

            So how did they get the IP addresses associated with the different user names of the accounts? By hacking the Twitter and Disqus websites?

          • Kevin Folta

            John, there was no hacking, nothing illegal. As mentioned above, they set up a fake website, petition, etc (I’m not sure which one) and then put a note on the comments sections where the trolls were active. Trolltrs would set up an account using those troll usernames, and IPs were logged. They also would sign in as their actual names. The IPs were logged. There were cases where the user’s real name was matched to many multiple troll accounts because they had the same IP.

            One person is involved in health care and one of the most aggressive, libelous and damaging. Then under her real name would reach out and be empathetic. Total psycho, many accounts, and all used to harass. It is unclear where I want to go with this information. Right now, nothing. What we did learn is that the majority of these accounts boil down to the same handful of people. We’ll make that public someday, not interested in mentioning names. However, we’ll see where it goes. These folks have one intention– to harm scientists.

            Luckily nobody really cares what aggressive trolls think. But it is fun to know who they are and how few there are.

          • John Zohn

            “Luckily nobody really cares what aggressive trolls think.” That’s exactly what I think about all the fake farmers that are now attacking Marion Nestle’s website.

          • Kevin Folta

            Most farmers do use their real names, at least that’s what I tell them to do in communications seminars. We all are constantly reminded that trust comes from transparency. So if you question their authenticity, reach out. You might be surprised. Lots of farmers are becoming engaged in this discussion. Their right to decide on the seeds they choose is being threatened, ironically not by multinational companies, but by activists.

          • John Zohn

            “Their right to decide on the seeds they choose is being threatened, ironically not by multinational companies, but by activists.”
            That’s a load of crap if I’ve ever heard on. The activists can’t even get labels and you’re saying now they going to take away you’re seed choices?

            There’s an army of you guys that sling insults like chimps sling feces and a good percentage of them have farmer in their name. You talk about activist following legitimate scientist and smearing them as your cabal of chimps is slinging it’s insults at Marion Nestle who is a Ph.D, M.P.H., is the Paulette Goddard Professor of
            Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University.

            They are slinging the insults because she’s exposing the frequency of industry funded scientific studies are pro industry? You have a lot of nerve denying that your little army aren’t the trolls.

          • StopGMO

            Most trolls use names insinuating they are farmers in which they clearly are not. Trust does come from transparency but this is clearly not transparency nor what you have been saying is. You should really be taking your own advice Kevin. “The right to decide on the seeds they choose is being threatened by activists?” More nonsense and BS! What about the right to decide what we want to eat, has been threatened do to the fact that millions of dollars have been spent apposing labeling? Does this even make sense to you? And you people think labeling GMOs will cost money, look at the disgusting amount of money literally thrown away because of this? Gosh, they could of saved many lives by feeding the hungry with this kind of money. Shameful & disgusting and you seem to be proud and are a part of this!

          • TZ

            No one signs petitions without vetting it first! Nic try Folta! Folta, is now trying to cover up his illegal activities after I pointed out it was illegal!
            http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/92bd83a798b752316c268f91154177a17df87032752231a36a6fa98e7bd4f8b8.jpg

          • Debbie Owen

            Are you claiming that I’m using a false name and/or have multiple handles? I believe this is just more lies coming from you.

          • Debbie Owen

            I have no sock puppets, how many do you have?

          • Debbie Owen

            Actually it was proven that some of your answers on the site GMO Answers were not your own, but that was no surprise. Thank you for taking screen shots of my comments, even though I have no doubt you will use them out of context. Your students can use them to look them up, to see for for themselves how you twist other peoples words to fit your agenda. I’m sure you know that most students google their teachers name, it would be interesting to know how they feel when they find the evidence that you have been discredited.

          • SageThinker

            Inconvenient truths are not welcome. You can say that again.
            http://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/chemicalsearch/chemical/foia/web/pdf/103601/103601-265.pdf

          • SageThinker

            Here i had posted a link to the 1991 EPA study, which was then removed by some mechanism from the forum. I had written the following and it had gotten about ten upvotes, and then weas removed while other links that are pro-glyphosate remain here:

            Yes, inconvenient truths…
            http://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/chemicalsearch/chemical/foia/web/pdf/103601/103601-265.pdf

          • Debbie Owen

            It looks like you had my comments deleted, some of yours too, were you ashamed?

          • Debbie Owen

            My replies keep getting removed, some people are against the truth being told.

          • Thea

            Debbie: Your replies are getting removed by the moderator because the conversation became inappropriate for this site. This conversation is over. As a moderator, I am telling you that you need to stop now. To review the posting rules for this site, see the FAQ page linked to at the bottom of this page.

            To review a fourth time: You need to stop now.

        • Richard

          This is nothing short of slander. I have worked on corporate sponsored projects and never felt the need to pander to the person supplying the money. I take pride in the validity of my data.

    • First Officer

      The strain of rats used in the quantities used is unsuitable for end of life studies as they get too many tumors on their own. Too much noise swamping out any signal.

      • NoToGMOs

        So where are biotech’s studies that were correctly done, using a suitable strain of rat in the correct quantities? Would love to see them.

      • Oh really — they got tumors on their own…. Well a study came out confirming that rat chow that was fed to the rats was laced with glyphosate. So maybe that is why the tumors ended up forming. http://farmwars.info/?p=14095

        • First Officer

          Nice try. The Sprague Dawley rat strain’s been around since 1925 and has shown little change in spontaneous tumor events when glyphosate became commonly used.

      • razorjack

        The Seralini study was a toxicology study that wasn’t looking for cancer or tumors. The corrupt GMO pesticide industry likes to focus attention on the tumors because it distracts attention from the seriously troubling toxicology findings.

        • First Officer

          Oh, is that why he posed with the poor tumored rats for photos that every anti-gmo site on Earth then posted and tweeted?

          • razorjack

            Do you want to discuss the toxicology study results or are you just going to gossip about the scientist?

    • Susan

      That was by Monsanto and Monsanto shills. Seralini tested them longer and that’s when the development disorders, the humongous tumors all occurred. Monsanto uses published studies to put out results it wants the public to know, it is not TRUE science, from what I’ve read and heard discussed in podcasts.

      • Carl Swaygan

        Seralini’s control also developed humongous tumors. Why do you think it was retracted and not submitted for peer review and instead republished in a pay to publish journal that anyone can publish in?

        • Debbie Owen

          The Seralini study was wrongly retracted due to a former Monsanto employee, according to COPE guidelines there was no reason for the retraction. It was republished in an open access journal, when will Monsanto publish their studies in an open access journal so everyone can see the raw data? I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

          • Debbie — they keep trying that old tactic, even though the paper has been republished for the very reasons you mentioned.

  • brec

    Hmm, Greger cites Séralini papers in the climax of a video. I’m about to swoon from cognitive dissonance.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair
    (The “affair” paper is not among those cited in this video.)

  • M.T.Davis

    As a bee keeper we have long known the detrimental effects Monsanto has had on the Bee population in the US, so it only stands to reason why should
    they stop there?

    • sandial

      Not only in the USA, but everywhere in the world where round up is used!!! I might add.

  • HemoDynamic, M.D.

    This fantastic video should anger the consumers of the world, but how does one go about changing the ways of ginormous, greedy corporations?

    One consumer/patient at a time.

    The more the individuals in society choose not to consume GMO’s (the same goes for meat, dairy, eggs, etc.), the more the stores won’t carry those products. Why? Because a stores bottom line, is it’s bottom line. If they aren’t making money off a product they won’t carry it. So education is key!

    That’s why Monsanto, and other large conglomerates (PepsiCo, ConAgra, Kraft etc. Black List of GMO Supporting Companies) that make money selling GMO’s spend millions of dollars every year to keep people from voting GMO labeling into law.

    How does one educate the world? One person at a time. Think globally, act locally.

    • Oregon voter

      GMO labeling lost in Oregon 49% to 51%. Really disappointing. Was surprised it was that close as I heard mostly anti-labeling propaganda. But very disappointed that it lost. I don’t eat processed or GMO foods just want others to be aware of what they are consuming.

      • Dylan

        Lost in Washington too. Billions of $ spent to claim it would increase grocery prices. Geez…

        • Susan

          The purpose of the anti-GMO labeling was to control people and force them to eat GMO foods. It may not be the GMO that is the danger per se. But crops grown with GMO generally are sprayed with more herbicides than those that are not because Monsanto dictates to the farmer how much must be sprayed. And, at least in the case of GMO soy, Roundup/glyphosate was identified at levels that Monsanto called extreme a decade ago in food. Now the corporation is pressing for my glyphosate to be used on non-GMO crops. The reason is to boost their profit margin!

          Monsanto has lost money by fighting labeling initiatives like Oregon, Washington, California, Colorado, as well as those on the East Coast.

          http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-losing-millions-gmo-labeling-push-grows-sorry-monsanto/

          If food prices go up, it means more herbicides may be used on those foods. Avoid them, for your health.

          The safest food out there is grown by the organic method be it by you from certified organic seeds, (to be certain that the seeds are not contaminated with GMOs and Roundup), grown by local organic farmers and CSA’s (community sustainable agriculture). Talk to local farmers and ask how they have grown the fruits, vegetables, livestock? In the case of livestock, how was the feed grown? With glyphosate (Roundup), 2,4-D (Weed-B-Gon or other tradenames), dicamba [Roundup Ready Plus]. Monsanto has increased the so-called tolerance levels to make up the money they spent fighting the ballot initiatives. But you don’t want to eat their toxic crops anyway. They will destroy your health even if they are not GMO created.

          Remember, there are basically two types of genetically modified crops. Those with the soil pathogen, B.T. (bacillus thringensis) such as corn, cotton, and potatoes; and those with a bacterium grown in the presence of Roundup at a hazardous waste site, which Monsanto has put into food, which is in soy and other crops. Some portions of the study are very readable. The study is entitled

          “Compositional differences in soybeans on the market: Glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready GM soybeans” by Bohn, M. Cuhra, T. Traavika, M. Sanden,
          J. Fagan, and R. Primicerio.

          “Organic soybeans are expected to represent a control group with zero
          residues of glyphosate, AMPA and others chemical pesticides. Such
          pesticides are not allowed in organic farming.” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814613019201

          The only way glyphosate and AMPA would get into organic is from drift and from runoff of toxic agriculture into waterways from which agriculture is irrigated, and livestock drink, Organic farmers would not use those toxic chemicals. And the Center for Food Safety will sue the USDA, EPA if it permits those chemicals to be used on organic food crops.

          You can help! I’ve contributed to CFS, and you can also.

      • Thea

        Oregon voter: Measure 92 was *really* close. So close that the number of contested votes, some 13,000, could make a difference in the final count according to one e-mail that I got. And new this year: people can check to see if their ballot was not counted because of some error. And then they can work to fix it. Here is the website to check and see if your vote was contested or not. Spread it around if this interests you. But I understand that the contested votes must be fixed by November 18, so the timeline is very short.

        http://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/12/2014-oregon-contested-ballots-database/18944625/

        Which states:
        “Oregon’s Secretary of State is trying something different this year to encourage voters with ballot signature issues to fix the problem — she’s naming names.

        Thanks to a law passed in 2013 the full list of approximately 13,000 Oregonians whose votes weren’t counted because they failed to sign the envelope or their signature didn’t match the one on file was made public Wednesday.”

        And just click the top link to, “View the database of problem ballots:”

        I don’t know if we can really fix this in time, but it seems worth trying.

        • John

          In both Oregon and Washington, The move to label GMOs was winning handily. THen wealthy out of state corporations poured literally millions into each state, dwarfing the money of the pro-label side. Predictably, on either side, the uninformed in the middle were gradually convinced due to constant drumming of the wealthy and powerful to their side. It’s a sad current state of American politics. They’re auctions, really, not elections. The Republican Supreme Court has declared that no one has the right to stop the wealthy from crowding out the media sources.
          John S

      • likesreading

        Oregon is actually not lost yet. Check out GMwatch’s twitter, or GMOfree USA Facebook page for updates. Right now there is a dead heat with indications labeling will win. Monsanto & co outspent labeling advocates, I think, like, 30 to 1. Rarely does a position win against those odds.

      • NoToGMOs

        Actually, as of last count, Measure 92 was trailing by just about 4,500 votes. And there are many, many contested ballots still left to count. So keep your fingers crossed! :)

        http://oregonvotes.gov/results/2014G/2013928344.html

  • Jackson

    Glyphosate is
    thought to be harmless to humans since it disrupts the shikimate pathway to kill weeds., a pathway
    not found in humans. However some research
    has claimed that the shikimate pathway
    is found in gut bacteria and eating gmo foods sprayed with Roundup
    disrupts the proper function of
    beneficial gut bacteria, leading to many
    diverse health problems.

    See articles by
    Dr. Stephanie Seneff, a researcher at MIT.
    Her home page:
    http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/

    • Larry G Maloney

      Thought to be harmless by whom?” Maybe they haven’t seen the research! Or maybe they are hired to promote Roundup.
      by whom?

    • Darryl

      This is probably where we should be looking for adverse health effects from glyphosate in humans. The work here has been benchtop or on domesticated animals, but I’ve got Google Scholar alerts on these papers hoping for the obvious human trial.

      Krüger, M., Shehata, A. A., Schrödl, W., & Rodloff, A. (2013). Glyphosate suppresses the antagonistic effect of Enterococcus spp. on Clostridium botulinum. Anaerobe, 20, 74-78.
      Shehata, A. A., Schrödl, W., Aldin, A. A., Hafez, H. M., & Krüger, M. (2013). The effect of glyphosate on potential pathogens and beneficial members of poultry microbiota in vitro. Current microbiology, 66(4), 350-358.
      Samsel, A., & Seneff, S. (2013). Glyphosate’s suppression of cytochrome P450 enzymes and amino acid biosynthesis by the gut microbiome: Pathways to modern diseases. Entropy, 15(4), 1416-1463.
      Schrödl, W., Krüger, S., Konstantinova-Müller, T., Shehata, A. A., Rulff, R., & Krüger, M. (2014). Possible Effects of glyphosate on Mucorales abundance in the rumen of dairy cows in Germany. Current microbiology, 1-7.

      • Kevin Folta

        If you ignore Kruger, who’s papers have no good statistics and curious design, and Seneff, who does no do research, but rather assembles cherry-picked reviews, there’s not much evidence to support your claim. Seneff’s papers are not primary research, so don’t be fooled. All of these are journals that just about any scientist could consider, well, junk. Check their impact factors, and they are not indexed on PubMed.

        Glyphosate is a pretty cool compound and all actual assessments show it is “low/very-low toxicity” both acute and chronic. And it does not “disrupt the function of beneficial gut bacteria”. There is no evidence that it does, and there’s no way that it can get in you in relevant amounts, unless you drank the concentrate. Do the math. It is really clear. Thanks .

        • Darryl

          I don’t disagree. If you look at my history here I’m generally a lone voice for a balanced view on GMO (and surrounding issues) vs the alternatives. All agricultural methods have both costs and benefits.

          However, the gut microbiota is emerging as a fairly important mediator for health, particularly with respect to the majority of chronic diseases with inflammatory etiologies. For the most part, humans aren’t exposed to nearly the concentrations of glyphosate that domesticated animals are. I think it would be straightforward to do a crossover trial with organic and non-organic foods (say tofu, or corn tortillas) and see if there’s a marked change in microbiota profiles, and measures of intestinal permeability like serum LPS. If such a trial is done it might either confirm or dismiss the concerns of Kruger and Seneff.

        • Beth Aaron

          Thinking in a vacuum though. Consider the assault on the human body not simply from this substance. Factor in how many other toxins are being absorbed into and through the placenta. Arguing is moot. Our health care system grew from sick people, sick babies, sick children. That we accept disease as normal and part of life, is the disease. The moral argument in favor of using chemicals that number perhaps 80,000, all contributing to suffering in humans and animals…Well , there is no argument. Personally, I think it’s cruel and absurd to profess protecting children or anything alive, while arguing for the use of this crap.

        • SageThinker

          You know why there’s “no evidence” that glyphosate disrupts the human gut microbiome? Because Monsanto hasn’t found it important to test that. I’ve done the math, Kevin, and i’ve read the 1972 paper by Ernest Jaworski that showed significant inhibition of R japonicum at less than 10 uM (that’s micromolars) concentration of glyphosate. And this was not fully reversed with addition of the aromatic amino acids, either. And then you have the fact that chronic exposure over time causes effects to accumulate.

          Jaworski, Ernest G. “Mode of action of N-phosphonomethylglycine. Inhibition of aromatic amino acid biosynthsis.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 20.6 (1972): 1195-1198.

          Then there is the fact that glyphosate affects bacteria in different ways. Some are highly continuously affected even in presence of aromatic amino acids. Some are midway, affected but only really if aromatic amino acids are not present, and others are not affected. B subtilis is in the most sensitive category and it’s in our gut. Pseudomonas is not affected and it’s in our gut. So what happens over time? It’s very very possible that Pseudomonas gets stronger as B subtilis loses ground. It’s likely. You say it’s not possible? Why and how and with what evidence? You don’t need Seneff or Samsel or Kruger to see that there’s industry science bias around glyphosate in a very bad way… very bad.

          Fischer, RANDY S., et al. “Comparative action of glyphosate as a trigger of energy drain in eubacteria.” Journal of bacteriology 168.3 (1986): 1147-1154.

          I’ve found blatant misrepresentations in Williams (2000) paper that is one of the main papers used to “prove” the safety of glyphosate. I’ll share if you want. Just ask.

          Williams, Gary M., Robert Kroes, and Ian C. Munro. “Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans.” Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 31.2 (2000): 117-165.

          That’s a brochure for the industry dressed up as a scientific paper.

          • Kevin Folta

            There’s no question is interrupts EPSPS activity, as Jaworski says. The problem is, there’s no human gut microbiome exposure at the levels tested. 10 uM is 10ppm. That’s above what it typically detected by far as residue. Risk is a combination of hazard and exposure. There is little risk, because there is almost no exposure. What you get from its proper on-farm use is orders of magnitude below physiological relevance.

      • Jeni

        Dr. Stephanie Seneff of MIT is a computer scientist and anti-GMO activist. The article (cited in the HHE blogpost about ‘der chemerkils on teh wheat’) is a hypothesis, not a study, that correlates an increase in celiac incidence with increase in glyphosate use, which became widespread in the 1980s. Well, before 1990, celiac disease was not on the radar. Suppose a disease has gone from being underdiagnosed to being correctly recognized over, say, the last 25 years. Seneff’s speculation on the inhibition of CYP (a detoxifying liver enzyme) by glyphosate as a mechanism for human health damage is speculative. There is a long list of OTC and prescription drugs that inhibit one or another of the CYP enzymes.
        And, neener neener, Entropy has a rather low impact factor – a rough measure of the rigour of the journal. To me it is a strange journal to publish human toxicology reports in. Isn’t entropy a concept in Newtonian physics?
        It is akin to claiming that vaccine deplete vitamin C, or D, or whatever, and concluding that vaccine injury is an inevitable result, a kind of instant scurvy or osteomalacia (severe vitamin deficiency diseases). But just because you suggest a mechanism, doesn’t make it a fact.
        ^which Seneff believes regarding autism as a “vaccine injury”. (Spoiler: it’s not.)

        • Darryl

          Mind, I’m not endorsing the glyphosate+microbiota hypothesis, but its the first place I’ve seen where the potential concentrations might contribute to measurable heath effects. For all we know, microdose glyphosate may actually increase levels of sentinel beneficial species (like A. muciniphila and F. prausnitzii) by selectively impairing the competition. I think given the public interest, even a study published in a journal of negative results would be a valuable contribution.

          Seneff is clearly a dilettante here. I’m much more interested in followups to the Kruger studies.

          • SageThinker

            Darryl, you wrote this a year ago, but if you’re interested, i would converse with you on this topic, and you can also see my message in response to Kevin Folta, the noted scientist, above.

    • Jeni

      Dr. Stephanie Seneff of MIT is a computer scientist and anti-GMO activist. The article (cited in the HHE blogpost about ‘der chemerkils on teh wheat’) is a hypothesis, not a study, that correlates an increase in celiac incidence with increase in glyphosate use, which became widespread in the 1980s. Well, before 1990, celiac disease was not on the radar. Suppose a disease has gone from being underdiagnosed to being correctly recognized over, say, the last 25 years. Seneff’s speculation on the inhibition of CYP (a detoxifying liver enzyme) by glyphosate as a mechanism for human health damage is speculative. There is a long list of OTC and prescription drugs that inhibit one or another of the CYP enzymes.

      It is akin to claiming that a vaccine depletes vitamin C, or D, or whatever, and concluding that vaccine injury is an inevitable result, a kind of instant scurvy or osteomalacia (severe vitamin deficiency diseases). But just because you suggest a mechanism, doesn’t make it a fact.

      And, neener neener, Entropy has a rather low impact factor – a rough measure of the rigour of the journal. To me it is a strange journal to publish human toxicology reports in. Isn’t entropy a concept in Newtonian physics?

    • macduff40

      have Californian walnuts been tested for glyphosate residue?
      Must I buy organic everything?
      this is getting truly old!

  • Darryl

    Polyethoxylated tallow amine:

    presumably, the Roundup surfactant is a derivative of tallow, a complex mixture of fat from the fatty tissue of cattle or sheep

    Bradberry, S. et al (2004). Glyphosate poisoning.Toxicological reviews, 23(3), 159-167.

    Experimental studies suggest that the toxicity of the surfactant, polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA), is greater than the toxicity of glyphosate alone and commercial formulations alone.

    Evidently the toxicity of beef fat derived detergent has been known for some while.

    • bob

      Taking a hint from a label on a treatment for sewer roots….I added 1/2 bottle dish soap to 1 lb copper sulphate in order to kill tree roots in a sewer line. Works well. It’s the surfactant’s…etc…that allow the penetration of the “other” toxic ingredients. I am waiting with baited breath for the new AgentOrange crops.

      • hyperzombie

        Why would you dump a highly toxic chemical (Copper sulphate) down the sewer line, this is a very bad Idea if you are on a septic system, the copper sulphate will corrode your pipes and kill all the beneficial bacteria in the septic field.

    • hyperzombie

      The acute toxicity of this beef fat derived detergent has been known for some while

      It is soap, and just like all other soaps it is slightly toxic (not acutely toxic). But hey you have no problem with brushing your teeth with other ethylated amines (soap).

  • That Damn Hippie

    Here are at least three studies that I found regarding glyphosate and human cells (not sure if the other two studies involved human cells based on just the abstract):

    Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells – http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n

    The effect of metabolites and impurities of glyphosate on human erythrocytes (in vitro). – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24581382

    Cytotoxic and DNA-damaging properties of glyphosate and Roundup in human-derived buccal epithelial cells. – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22331240

    Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling – http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749

    Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases – http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416

  • Larry G Maloney

    Dr. McDougall sez, “What, me worry?

  • Stella

    You’re neglecting the important effect on beneficial bacteria in the human biome. When the biome is disturbed it causes inflammation and intestinal permeability which allows toxins to enter into the bloodstream and to the rest of the body including the brain. This is how these sprayed crops cause autoimmune, gastrointestinal, nervous, endocrine, cardiovascular, etc disorders. You need to look at the whole picture.

    • bob

      The whole picture likely includes the reality that humans are actively and speedily increasing the genetic mutation of their own species (and most others)….and NOT in a good direction. Epigenetic changes CAN be inherited….??? But corporations will find a way to profit…so all is well?

  • Catherine J Frompovich

    Applause, applause, applause and thank you for finally exposing the real problems with GMO agriculture. Now, I think we ought to start a HUGE consumer class action lawsuit against Monsanto–how about a million concerned consumers for starters–for negligence and violating “truth in advertising” laws regarding Roundup and supposedly ‘safe’ genetically modified crops. Roundup contains much more than just glyphosate upon which Monsanto hangs their ‘safe’ label. Let’s also not forget to include the USDA, FDA, EPA and other alphabet agencies that approved GMOs.

    Just recently, Monsanto lost at court http://rt.com/usa/205079-monsanto-pays-wheat-farmers/ and has to pay wheat farmers $2.4 mn over the 2013 GMO-wheat scare.
    May I suggest that you please dig further into the GMOs, and thank you for what you do.

  • geeker

    I believe a link between lymphoma and roundup has been discovered. It lead to the field workers wearing protective gear during the spraying of the fields.

    • They wear protective gear because they are being exposed, through daily spraying, to doses vastly higher than anyone would every ingest. That just makes sense. Think of how many careers require protective gear of some kind. Xray technicians, for example. We can get our one xray and be fine. They would be exposed to dozens a day if not for shielding.

  • That Damn Hippie

    EPA limits for glyphosate residues as published in the Federal Register. – http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title40-vol23/pdf/CFR-2010-title40-vol23-sec180-364.pdf

  • Jeff and Karen

    The Paracelsus Axiom (i.e. the dose makes the poison) generally considers that the higher the dose the more likely the toxicity. However, when it comes to endocrine disruption this can work in reverse meaning that doses at parts per quadrillion can have an adverse effect on fetuses or children at certain developmental periods – kind of the dose makes the poison in reverse. There are about 80,000 chemicals that have not been sufficiently tested for safety that are ubiquitous in our environment which have also never been tested for safety in combination (i.e. their synergistic toxic effect). The few that have been tested for synergistic toxicity have been found to be more toxic in combinations. It is reasonable to assume that many of them if tested for combined toxicity would be more toxic and more of a health risk. That said, the idea that those being experimented on have to prove the unsafety of an activity or poison is the result of an upside down paradigm. Do we have the right as human beings to refuse to be experimented on? This is the idea behind The Precautionary Principle which makes the burden of proof of safety lie where it should – with the proponents of an activity. Clearly, if we are asking whether something is safe after the fact – in other words after we’re already part of the experiment, that in itself should be reason for real concern and in fact should not be the way safety is evaluated. A substance or an activity should be proven safe before it is allowed into use or into our environment. The opponents of genetically engineered substances were arguing this point at the advent of this technology – and many of them pointed out that the corporations that stood to profit mightily were pushing ahead of the science because profit was the motive not the health of people or the environment. It’s a form of what Edward Herman has called “producer sovereignty.” The producer reigns; consumers have to somehow defend themselves. That works domestically, too, as he pointed out. It’s not the responsibility, say, of chemical and pesticide industries to prove that what they’re putting into the environment is safe. It’s the responsibility of the public to prove scientifically that it’s unsafe, and they have to do this through underfunded public agencies that are susceptible to industry influence through lobbying and other pressures. The FDA and the USDA have had a revolving door with Monsanto executives and lawyers holding top positions with those agencies which are supposedly there to protect the public. Tom Vilsack who is the current head of the USDA is and was one of the biggest lackeys for Monsanto imaginable. In fact, he was called “Governor Monsanto” when he was governor of Iowa.

    • NoToGMOs

      Excellent points, thank you.

  • Kevin Folta

    Testis, placentas and other organs were not tested. These were on cells in a dish. These cells are rather sensitive. This is where the doctor’s interpretation goes bad. Can you generate changes based on adding roundup (glyphosate + adjuvants)? YES!! Let’s think about that. The surfactants added are essentially detergents. They are amphipathic molecules that allow things like glyphosate to penetrate membranes. In culture, at the levels used, detergents would disrupt cells and cause responses. That’s what was seen Note that no “surfactant only” control was performed. That would show likely the same effect, but that’s not so scary. The same cells would have done the same thing with distilled water, salt or copper (a heavily-used anti-microbial on organic crops) So while I appreciate the quality of these videos, I am troubled by a doctor that sort of shows an agenda and interprets data to a point that represents his assertions, and then implies industry collusion.

    I also like to draw attention to the fact that there are lots of cell lines researchers can use. Why do these folks only use testicular and placental cells? Is it because they scare you more? Hmmm. Plus, keep in mind that if you consumed 20 mg/kg glyphosate, the highest levels measured, your testicles and placenta would never see these concentrations. So the data from in vitro experiments are interesting and a starting point, but they are not very good evidence of harm from these chemicals. In actual animal toxicity trials they have no effect until does thousands of times higher than can be achieved by eating food with the most residues.

    • AA

      Maybe Testes Tissue isn’t complete proof, but here is something to think about:

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24762670
      The above free meta analysis shows the association between lymphoma and roundup and other agricultural chemicals. So after seeing the video above and reading this why not eat organic. Even if we don’t have absolute proof isn’t it better to play it safe?

      • Kevin Folta

        Play it safe? You mean return to old herbicides? That paper is interesting but does not get me too excited. It is a meta analysis of world use, and the associations are not huge with glyphosate. They even call it an “organophosphate” which it is not. I guess chemically it might be an organophosphonite, but who’s counting?

        Organic has its own problems an limitations. If you can’t use a safe spray of glyphosate weeks before harvest, you have to bring in bus loads of Mexican workers to hand-weed the crops. It is horrible work, expensive work, it costs more and ultimately has a larger carbon footprint. I’m much more comfortable with an innocuous chemical.

    • R2

      Hi Kevin,
      I completely agree with your point that a surfactant only control would likely show the same effect. In fact many people use surfactants (Triton, Tween, SDS,..) as a positive control (e.g. to induce cell death) in viability assays as they will easily kill cells in a dish by completely disrupting membranes. A small amount of shampoo or soap would do the same, and we still use those to clean ourselves :-).
      Your point about the cell lines is also spot on.. one could take a malignant line, observe the same effect and go around saying they now have a new drug for treating cancer!

    • I love you, Kevin Folta. Have followed your work for a long time and love reading your analysis and commentary. I value Dr Greger’s videos and have learned a lot from him, but as with anyone I know there can be blind spots, especially in areas outside their expertise. Have you watched any of the other (many) videos here?

      • Kevin Folta

        I haven’t. If you’ve found them useful, I’ll take a look. Life should be all about correcting blind spots, just make sure to correct them with quality information. That’s the trick! Thanks.

        • I have found many of them useful, yes. They’ve been influential in changing my diet to a 95%+ plant based diet, though I don’t feel guilt if I depart from it occasionally. I feel the evidence is pretty strong to support the general principles, even if certain specific conclusions might be debatable.

        • dogctor

          Aww, Isn’t that cute. One pesticide salesman congratulating another sockpuppet pesticide salesman. Anyone who believes the lies either of you spread all over the internet — is an idiot.

          • Kevin Folta

            Thank you Ena, I do appreciate your comments more than you can imagine. Talk to you soon!

  • This description of how wheat in the USA is harvested after being doused in round=up to wither the weeds making the harvester machines work better, true?
    http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/real-reason-for-toxic-wheat-its-not-gluten/

    • Benjamin Edge

      No, it is not true. Roundup (glyphosate) is used to kill weeds in wheat prior to harvest on a *very limited basis* in the US. It is done to save time when planting the next crop, so that farmers don’t have to harvest the wheat, spray the weeds, and then wait for the weeds to die before they can plant the following crop. They still must apply the glyphosate at least a week before harvest. Most of the chemical lands on the leaves and glumes (protective covering around wheat kernels) and is not translocated to the grain, because the seed has reached physiological maturity. Some chemical may land on the seed through gaps in the glumes, but most is removed when the glumes are removed during threshing. This practice is more common in northern environments, such as Canada and northern Europe, and is done primarily to control perennial weeds that spread by rhizomes.

      http://www.glyphosate.eu/system/files/sidebox-files/clarification_of_pre-harvest_uses_of_glyphsate_en_0.pdf

      Read this article from the wife of a farmer that uses this practice in Canada:

      http://www.nurselovesfarmer.com/2014/11/the-truth-about-glyphosate-and-wheat/

    • Any other responses to this post? If this is true, there is good reason to avoid all non-organic wheat-containing products in the USA. Below, Benjamin Edge references a site called http://www.glyphosate.eu and a farmer’s wife’s defense of the practice of spraying Round-up on non-GMO wheat before harvest. It would seem that wheat harvested in this manner would have the same round-up issue as do GMO Round Up resistant crops.

      • DanielFaster

        Not just wheat, also pecan trees are sprayed with roundup to get them to drop their nuts. Probably many other crops as well.

  • Ray Tajoma

    The supposed purpose of animal testing is to eliminate new drugs, foods and products that are unsafe at stage one. If the new products are proven safe for animals, then at stage two, further tests are conducted on humans to make sure that the products are safe for human consumption as well.

    If massive failure is detected at stage one, (rats develops tumors), then that is a huge red flag at stage one that proves the product is extremely dangerous.

    If animal testing is irrelevant and does not matter, then why test on animals to begin with ?

    • VeganGMO

      Let us also stay sensitive to the animals who will suffer by junk science with an anti-GMO agenda. http://www.vegangmo.com/?p=1426

      • Ray Tajoma

        Junk science is on BOTH side, but only one side has huge financial incentive to lie, distort & twist science and armed with multi-billion dollar advertising and lobbyists.

        • VeganGMO

          Point me towards the junk science on the pro side please. And yes, BigOrganic IS the industry with huge financial interests willing to spread fear to fuel their imposed anti-GMO labeling scheme. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/10/31/genetic-literacy-project-infographic-is-labeling-really-about-our-right-to-know/

          • Ray Tajoma

            I guess you did not watch the video because he explained both the animal study (resulting in abnormalities in rat testicles) and human studies after failure on animal/rat studies. There should be no human testing allowed if animal testing fails. But the tests continued. My point is that we need an impartial JUDGE (FDA for example) with SAME RULES for EVERYONE – not just a subjective rule for Monsanto because they contribute to Congressman’s vacation home in France.

          • VeganGMO

            Citation to human trials please.

          • Ray Tajoma

            ask your employer “Monsanto” – they have it buried in their safe deposit box.

          • VeganGMO

            You cannot back up your fallacious claims with evidence so you attack my character with an ad hominem. None of us have any financial interests or ties to biotech or Monsanto. This is not conducive to a constructive dialog on GMO.

          • Ray Tajoma

            I can quote 100000 web links too, but don’t get paid for it & don’t have time to waste with someone that is paid to do this crap to brain wash masses with LIES & false advertising propaganda. The fact is that if you watch the video (which you have not, even though this discussion is about the above video) it tells you that animal testing FAILED (rats became impotent or abnormality in rat’s testicles). That is PROOF that it is not safe.

          • Warren Lauzon

            In other words, you are just making up claims with nothing to back them up. You reverted to the Shill Gambit sooner than most, so you must not have much.

  • wellnab

    It seems to me that the take-away from this video, in conjunction with the last two, is not that GMO crops are unsafe per se (at least, they are not provably so to date). Rather, the problem is that 1) the bulk of GM crops are modified to withstand pesticides, and 2) the pesticides that are dumped on the crops (particularly Round-Up) cause them to be potentially unsafe. I think this is an important distinction, as direct genetic modifaction of food crops as a technique can potentially have beneficial outcomes – see The Golden Rice Project: http://www.goldenrice.org/.

    • Ray Tajoma

      I think the burden of proof is on GMO manufacturers – not the public at risk. We don’t have to “prove” that GMO is unsafe. Even if it was supposedly “Safe”, it has to be “Better” than natural food with same amount of vitamins, nutrients and minerals. If it lacks any of the nutrients of natural raw organic fruits and vegetables, then it should say so prominently on the “Label” that this banana is “Fake” and lacks certain nutrients and vitamins that normal bananas do.

      • VeganGMO

        Safety is only defined by lack of harm. Genetic engineering is as safe if not safer. See the graph here:
        More Frankenfood Paradox! | Illumination

        If GMO wasn’t better customers wouldn’t buy it. The market corrects for that, it’s called capitalism.

        Funny you should mention the banana as it’s a cultivar. What makes the traditionally cloned Cavendish any more real than say, a GMO Black Sigatoka-resistant banana?
        Scientists in Uganda Testing Black Sigatoka-Resistant Bananas

        • Ray Tajoma

          False. GMO’s are SECRET. If they were labeled no one would buy them. It’s NOT capitalism (unless you call corruption capitalism). You are entitled to your subjective opinion (for example that the Earth is Square) but you are not to FORCE it down the throat of others. That’s what is going on right now, a bunch of corrupt congressmen forcing CENSORSHIP down public throats.

          • VeganGMO

            Nope, farmers know about GM products and buy them because they work. Ask them!

  • Curious

    I read Seralini’s study on rats. I found it interesting that the Roundup was placed in the drinking water of the rats. Hard water will dissociate Round-up so that it is ineffective. For this reason, applicators will usually add some form of nitrogen fertilizer to condition the water for greater efficacy. If the pH is neutral, such as in distilled water, RoundUp is not as effective and can still dissociate. So if the Roundup was fully effective in the rats’ drinking water, what kind of water conditioners were added and what effect might those have on the health of the rats?

  • Fangorn

    I posted this on another article about glyposate as well; apologies for that. This article suggests that the main reason why “gluten intolerance”/celiac is on the rise is the increased use of Roundup as a dessicant just before harvesting wheat. The authors suggest that this practice has started some 10-15 years ago, and that it has become extremely widespread. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/
    Any comments?

  • Susan

    Glyphosate is the labeled ingredient in Roundup, but there are misnamed inerts, adjuvants all of which are more toxic than the labeled ingredient. Those that helped editor Caroline Cox research the files at the EPA uncovered many of the proprietary secret ingredients in Roundup. Go to: http://www.pesticide.org/get-the-facts/pesticide-factsheets/factsheets/glyphosate

    Read what Purdue University Department of Agriculture retired professor Don Huber has to say about Glyphosate: http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/may10/consequenceso_widespread_glyphosate_use.php. He has also said that it is THE most chronically toxic herbicide ever permitted (registered) by the U.S. government and should never have been permitted in the first place. When Monsanto tested the product they only tested for the acute effects, not the long term chronic effects.
    Glyphosate herbicides are used on playgrounds, office exteriors, school grounds, golf courses, rights of way, lawns and gardens, as well as in food. There are many ways that people and animals can be exposed to Glyphosate or Roundup. And those effects all add up.

  • Joe
  • Susan

    Commercial glyphosate contains what the law calls “inert” ingredients. These ingredients are not chemically, toxicologically, or biologically inert. They are proprietary secrets and only the public and our physicians are kept in the dark. Other chemical companies can use reverse engineering to learn what is in the product, I’ve been told.

    When I was accidentally poisoned with a pesticide in 1982, I gradually learned that what was labeled, was what the corporation wanted labeled. It was not necessarily the most toxic ingredient, and the government did not require synergistic effects of how the chemicals worked together in our bodies or in the environment to be tested or even studied. Furthermore, what was considered as the “active” ingredient in one pesticide, was considered to be an “inert” in other pesticides. Some pesticides used the labeled active ingredient also as an inert. Everyone was kept in the dark about which chemical(s) were the greatest poison.

    Some of the so-called Inert ingredients in Glyphosate herbicides include:
    5-Chloro-2-methyl 3(2H) isothiazolone which caused genetic damage and allergic reactions in laboratory tests.
    Glycerine caused genetic damage in tests with human cells and laboratory animals. It also reduced fertility in laboratory tests.

    Light aromatic petroleum distillate ( CAS# 64742-95-6) reduced fertility and growth in newborns in laboratory tests.

    Propylene glycol caused genetic damage, reduced fertility and anemia in laboratory tests/

    Sodium sulfite caused genetic damage in tests with both laboratory animals and human cells.

    Sodium benzoate caused genetic damage in tests with human cells and laboratory animals. It also caused developmental problems and reduced new-born survival in laboratory tests.

    Sodium salt of o-phenylphenol is a skin irritant. It also caused genetic and cancer in laboratory tests.

    Myriad studies demonstrated a link between non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in men. A 2003 review of three earlier studies of Midwestern farmers showed Glyphosate exposure was associated with significantly increased risk of Non-Hodgkins lymphoma.

    Glyphosate exposure has been linked to increased risks of miscarriages (SPONTANEOUS ABORTIONS). In a study of Ontario, Canada farm families, glyphosate use 3 months prior to conception was associated with increased risk of late (12th and 19th week of pregnancy) miscarriages. The study was carried on by Health Canada and Carleton University in Canada,

    Glyphosate herbicides have also caused pregnancy problems in laboratory rats.

    Source cited at: http://www.pesticide.org/get-the-facts/pesticide-factsheets/factsheets/glyphosate

    Genetically engineered corn has caused pregnancy problems in livestock, according to Don Huber, Ph.D. retired professor of soil and plant pathology and microbiology at Purdue University. Bt corn is not only corn genetically engineered to contain Bacillus Thuringiensis in every cell of the plant (which is not the same as spraying the bacteria as sustainable farmers have done. In addition, Bt corn is also genetically engineered to be resistant to Roundup and an antibiotic used with Roundup, according to Thierry Vrain, Ph.D. retired from Agriculture Canada and now a whistle blower against GMOs. Listen to the podcast at: http://foodintegritynow.org/2014/05/08/dr-thierry-vrain-former-gmo-scientist-speaks/
    All these studies have likely disappeared from the various governmental libraries since 2006/

  • Easton

    See this might be relevant if Glyphosate was a pesticide. The funny thing is…IT ISN’T!!!. Glyphosate is a herbicide not a pesticide. It shuts down the shikimate pathway of plants, and has no measurable effect on humans. In fact, to humans the chemical is less toxic than table salt. I am no fan of big GMO companies, but if we are to be taken seriously as a voice in the debate, we must do a better job of know what the heck we are talking about.

  • Susan

    GLYPHOSATE IS the generic term for the so-called “active” ingredient in Roundup. But Roundup also contains many other highly toxic chemical compounds, including, but not limited to:
    those that are causing genetic damage in people and other animals as seen only by a percentage on the label under “inert” ingredients. See page 2 of 6 at the fact sheet on Glyphosate at:
    http://www.pesticide.org/get-the-facts/pesticide-factsheets/factsheets/glyphosate

    There are many more formulations of both glyphosate and Roundup now than there were when this fact sheet was assembled. But, I doubt that we will be able to learn what they are since the studies, EPA documents on pesticides all disappeared and the chemical library was closed during 2006 when Bush and Cheney reigned over the deregulation of the U.S. during the red and orange terrorist alerts, which allowed the terrorists within the Administration and the industries to keep the public controlled and ignorant.

    ALL EPA STUDIES HAVE DISAPPEARED not only from the EPA, but the National Library of Medicine/Institutes of Health, Library of Congress, even the World Health Organization’s International Agency for the Research on Cancer. This is compliments of the Greedy Ole Party and the corporations who raised money for it in order to remove any study they did not like from the EPA library…compliments of Bush and/or Cheney.

    Meanwhile, read:

    Scientist raises concerns about GM crops and glyphosate
    http://www.producer.com/2012/12/scientist-raises-concerns-about-gm-crops-and-glyphosate/#comment-24623
    Is glyphosate the cause of diseases seen in plants, micro organisms, including beneficial nematodes, livestock, and the people or animals who eat them????

  • Kawaii
  • jeff swanson

    People are bad so we need a few people to dictate laws to other people.
    Govt is bad so we need more govt.
    Who is the largest polluter in the world?
    What are civil liberties?
    Who’s going to invent cold fusion? Govt, or the private sector?
    Revolving door of politics: http://www.Geke.US
    Every federal act, every law enacted is an erosion of your personal liberty.
    A person is intelligent; people are stupid.
    Mobs can do horrendous things under a virtuous guise.
    Stop being a sheep (in the year of).

  • mihn

    Michael Greger whose side are You on !?
    You sound like a pro-gmo

    • Joseph Gonzales R.D.

      He is pro-science! I don’t think he is pro GMO at all. Check out my above comments. Let me know if you have further questions?

      Best regards,
      Joseph

      • If he’s a man of science, he should be pro-GMO, since the science is fully behind that conclusion, much as he has no problem with fluoride in water since it can conclusively be shown to cause no harm. The anti GMO crowd is noisy and pushes pseudoscience and fear mongering, and typically shows a woeful lack of understanding of the technology, how it used, by whom, for what purpose, etc. One of the more heartening moments last year was when science advocate Bill Nye, who had previously been on the fence-leaning-anti GMO, had an about-face on the issue after actually visiting Monsanto research facilities to see the work they do, and took the time to understand the technology better.

        No, I’m not a paid shill. Just like with nutrition, I choose to believe the evidence, not the hype. Anti GMO rhetoric is the Atkins Diet of the environmental movement.

  • Neil

    Dr. Greger,

    Have you seen the most recent lawsuit against Monsanto?
    http://www.march-against-monsa

    The suit claims that glyphosate IS toxic to humans, specifically to our gut flora.The suit seems to be based on information discussed in this article by
    Stephanie Seneff–perhaps the suit was even spurred by this article:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm

    The gist of the suit, and article, is that glyphosate robs us of critical gut
    bacteria and the nutrients they create. This is from the article:
    “Glyphosate suppresses 5-enolpyruvylshikimic acid-3-phosphate synthase (EPSP synthase), the rate-limiting
    step in the synthesis of the aromatic amino acids, tryptophan, tyrosine, and
    phenylalanine, in the shikimate pathway of bacteria, archaea and plants (de
    María et al., 1996). In plants, aromatic amino acids collectively represent up
    to 35% of the plant dry mass (Franz, 1997). This mode of action is unique to
    glyphosate among all emergent herbicides. Humans do not possess this pathway,
    and therefore we depend upon our ingested food and our gut microbes to provide
    these essential nutrients. Glyphosate, patented as an antimicrobial (Monsanto
    Technology LLC, 2010), has been shown to disrupt gut bacteria in animals,
    preferentially killing beneficial forms and causing an overgrowth of pathogens.”
    She cites an article showing celiac-like symptoms in fish exposed to glyphosate:
    “Thus, the evidence from this effect on fish suggests that glyphosate may interfere with
    the breakdown of complex proteins in the human stomach, leaving larger
    fragments of wheat in the human gut that will then trigger an autoimmune
    response, leading to the defects in the lining of the small intestine that are
    characteristic of these fish exposed to glyphosate and of celiac patients.“

    Your videos, as far as I know, do not discuss this possible impact of glyphosate. In fact, the video above indicates that
    glyphosate is not toxic to human tissue; it is the cocktail of chemicals in RoundUp that is toxic. Perhaps a video on this gut flora angle is warranted?

    Also, I discovered via the article in question that glyphosate is used pre-harvest to dessicate, i.e., dry out, soybeans, corn, all types of grains, sunflower seeds, etc. This apparently increases yields by reducing moisture that causes rot, fungus, and sprouting. Here is an article by Monsanto
    on it. See page 22: http://www.monsanto.com/produc

    See also:
    http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs
    file:///C:/Users/review/Downloads/GRDC_FS_Pre-harvest%20herbicide%20pdf.pdf

    Snopes.com doubts some of the claims made by Seneff in her article, specifically how often glyphosate is used to desiccate:http://www.snopes.com/food/tai

    So glyphosate is sprayed on living, Roundup ready crops, to kill surrounding weeds. Because it is a systemic chemical, it is absorbed by the RoundUp-ready plants, and accumulates in their tissue. Then, once these Roundup-ready crops are done growing, the glyphosate is sprayed on the “dead” seeds to reduce moisture content. We’re getting a double dosing it seems. We eat these plants directly, or indirectly by way of processed oils, sugars (cane and corn syrup); processed foods in general; and by eating animal products from livestock and fish fed these grains and legumes.

    Is there a connection with the widespread use of glyphosate/RoundUp and the explosion of some illnesses within the last few decades? Monanto patented glyphosate in 1970, and began marketing RoundUp around 1974. Asthma, autism, celiac disease, gluten intolerance, etc., have soared. Stephanie Seneff believes so, as do others. There does seem to be some correlation with the use of glyphosate and recent illnesses.
    http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/13070
    http://people.csail.mit.edu/se

    In sum, perhaps you can address the claims made in the suit and the Seneff article regarding glyphosate.

    Best,

    Neil

    • Joseph Gonzales R.D.

      I cannot link a few resources you listed (the first cannot open, the last link, and the cdn and C://files – 4 total). Dr Greger is always careful not to report on animal studies, as they cannot translate to humans. I think that is why he cannot say with certainty this stuff is harmful. It is always a good idea to take precautions if the science is not 100% conclusive. No one needs GMO soybeans in their diet, or RoundUp/glyphosate. It’s just not needed. How harmful it really is, I am not sure? I think taking notes from other countries who ban the stuff may be wise. If we can grow veggies without pesticides and eat more organic than why not? Please relink the Seneff study and I’ll take a look. Perhaps others are more up-to-date on this issue and can weigh-in? I would appreciate everyone’s take on the subject (providing research studies for extra points), as it’s a hot topic.

      • Neil

        Joseph, I recently re-posted this post, with complete links, in Dr. Greger’s latest video discussion. You responded to that post a day or two ago.

        The links should be complete here:

        Dr. Greger,

        Have you seen the most recent lawsuit against Monsanto? http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/monsanto-hit-with-class-action-lawsuit-for-false-advertising-heres-how-you-can-join/

        The suit claims that glyphosate IS toxic to humans, specifically to our gut flora.

        The suit seems to be based on information discussed in this article by Stephanie Seneff–perhaps the suit was even spurred by this article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/#CIT0193

        The gist of the suit, and article, is that glyphosate robs us of critical gut bacteria and the nutrients they create. This is from the article:

        “Glyphosate suppresses 5-enolpyruvylshikimic acid-3-phosphate synthase (EPSP synthase), the rate-limiting step in the synthesis of the aromatic amino acids, tryptophan, tyrosine, and phenylalanine, in the shikimate pathway of bacteria, archaea and plants (de María et al., 1996). In plants, aromatic amino acids collectively represent up to 35% of the plant dry mass (Franz, 1997). This mode of action is unique to glyphosate among all emergent herbicides. Humans do not possess this pathway, and therefore we depend upon our ingested food and our gut microbes to provide these essential nutrients. Glyphosate, patented as an antimicrobial (Monsanto Technology LLC, 2010), has been shown to disrupt gut bacteria in animals, preferentially killing beneficial forms and causing an overgrowth of pathogens.” She cites an article showing celiac-like symptoms in fish exposed to glyphosate: “Thus, the evidence from this effect on fish suggests that glyphosate may interfere with the breakdown of complex proteins in the human stomach, leaving larger fragments of wheat in the human gut that will then trigger an autoimmune response, leading to the defects in the lining of the small intestine that are characteristic of these fish exposed to glyphosate and of celiac patients. “

        Your videos, as far as I know, do not discuss this possible impact of glyphosate. In fact, the video above indicates that glyphosate is not toxic to human tissue; it is the cocktail of chemicals in RoundUp that is toxic. Perhaps a video on this gut flora angle is warranted?

        Also, I discovered via the article in question that glyphosate is used pre-harvest to dessicate, i.e., dry out, soybeans, corn, all types of grains, sunflower seeds, etc. This apparently increases yields by reducing moisture that causes rot, fungus, and sprouting. Here is an article by Monsanto on it. See page 22:http://www.monsanto.com/products/documents/glyphosate-background-materials/agronomic%20benefits%20of%20glyphosate%20in%20europe.pdf

        See also:

        http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/28429.pdf

        file:///C:/Users/review/Downloads/GRDC_FS_Pre-harvest%20herbicide%20pdf.pdf

        Snopes.com doubts some of the claims made by Seneff in her article, specifically how often glyphosate is used to desiccate:http://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/roundupwheat.asp

        So glyphosate is sprayed on living, Roundup ready crops, to kill surrounding weeds. Because it is a systemic chemical, it is absorbed by the RoundUp-ready plants, and accumulates in their tissue. Then, once these Roundup-ready crops are done growing, the glyphosate is sprayed on the “dead” seeds to reduce moisture content. We’re getting a double dosing it seems. We eat these plants directly, or indirectly by way of processed oils, sugars (cane and corn syrup); processed foods in general; and by eating animal products from livestock and fish fed these grains and legumes.

        Is there a connection with the widespread use of glyphosate/RoundUp and the explosion of some illnesses within the last few decades? Monanto patented glyphosate in 1970, and began marketing RoundUp around 1974. Asthma, autism, celiac disease, gluten intolerance, etc., have soared. Stephanie Seneff believes so, as do others. But there does seem to be some correlation with the use of glyphosate and recent illnesses.

        http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1307044/

        http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/Swanson_et_al_2014.pdf

        In sum, perhaps you can address the claims made in the suit and the Seneff article regarding glyphosate.

        Best,

        Neil

        • Joseph Gonzales R.D.

          Okay I read through her paper a bit. Thanks for reposting. Her claims are backed by many references and although she cites many animal studies there are a few human studies she lists. My interpretation of Dr. Greger’s video was not that glyphosate/RoundUp is harmless, but that there are many inconsistencies. When I read the transcripts he says:

          “But pure glyphosate isn’t sprayed on crops, Roundup is, which contains a variety of adjuvants and surfactants meant to help the glyphosate penetrate into tissues. And indeed when the study was repeated with what’s actually sprayed on GMO crops, there were toxic and hormonal effects even at doses smaller than the 1 or 2% concentration that’s used out on the fields.” He goes on to say…. “However, this inconsistency between scientific fact and industrial claim may be attributed to the huge economic interests involved.”

          I recommend avoiding pesticides and herbicides whenever possible. I don’t use RoundUp in my small garden and I am not waiting around for the “okay” from Monsanto that their products are safe for humans.

          • Neil

            I read the transcript differently. To me, it clearly it clearly states that there is no evidence that glyphosate is dangerous to human health…by itself. “Why not use human tissue? Women are having babies every day—why not just experiment on human placentas, which would otherwise just get thrown away and in 2005 researchers did just that. And despite all the negative effects in rodents, glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup didn’t seem to have much of a toxic effect on human cells even at high doses…”

            It is the cocktail that it is mixed with, which makes up RoundUp, which makes it one of the most toxic pesticides tested: “It took until 2014, but 8 out of 9 pesticide formulations tested were up to one thousand times more toxic than their so-called active ingredients, so when you just test the isolated chemicals you may not get the whole story. Roundup was found to be 100 times more toxic than glyphosate itself. Moreover, Roundup turned out to be among the most toxic pesticide they tested.”

            It goes without saying that we should avoid fungicides, herbicides, and pesticides whenever possible. And you don’t have to wait for Monsanto to tell us that RoundUP, specifically glyphosate, is safe for humans. They state that on RoundUp packaging, which is the focus of the lawsuit!

            Therefore, I think that it is important to discover whether glyphosate is indeed dangerous! In the same respect it was important to discover DDT and dioxin were dangerous, which resulted in the government eventually limiting and banning the chemicals. The patent for glyphosate has long expired. Glyphosate is used by a multitude of companies now, for a multitude of purposes. Dessication of crops being just one of those purposes. Glyphosate use has skyrocketed from 49,000 tons to 128,000 tons annually (2002-2012), in the US alone!!! It is ubiquitous. It invariably seeps into our lives, whether we try to avoid it, as you say, or not.

          • Joseph Gonzales R.D.

            Studies I have found that provoke caution when considering using glyphosate include, Glyphosate poisoning with acute pulmonary edema. And this study (in vitro) mentioning “The combination of high use of both herbicides and antibiotics in proximity to farm animals and important insects, such as honeybees, might also compromise their therapeutic effects and drive greater use of antibiotics.”

            I know there are many more. Have you read thru all of the other citations Dr. Greger lays out?

            Thanks for the links and bringing up this important topic.

          • I would be cautious about accepting anything by Seneff. Her conclusions and studies have been widely debunked and her credibility is pretty much laughable among serious researchers. This is a woman who claims by 2025 50% of children will be autistic due to glyphosate. Here’s a take down.: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/12/31/oh-no-gmos-are-going-to-make-everyone-autistic/

      • SageThinker

        Joseph, i can lead you to many more papers on this subject if you’re interested. I’ve been studying this subject, and i have experience as a microbial ecologist at Harvard’s OEB, designing experiments in microbial evolution. I have been studying glyphosate and it is differentially toxic to microbes in at least three classes — those most sensitive (like B subtilis), those moderatly affected but moderated by presence of aromatic amino acids from outside (E coli), and those not affected or even helped by glyphosate (like Pseudomonas). The amounts in our food are relevant to the hypothesis that glyphosate affects our gut microbiome, and it’s not been tested yet because the industry doesn’t want to turn over any stone they don’t have to by law. And they know it’d probably show an inconvenient truth. We need independent laboratory testing of this. Seneff is a generalist computer-science person. I can direct you to the more central science about glyphosate, from Jaworski’s 1972 paper onward.

        • Joseph Gonzales R.D.

          Great! Please just cite them and post away that would be helpful for all who like to study this complex topic. Thanks, Sage.

          • SageThinker

            Here’s one — Greim (2015) review article is an industry-aligned (lying) article but the data it reprints from the unpublished 1990 Monsanto study of 240 rats (and i am sorry for animal studies of this kind, which are loathesome) shows that glyphosate appears to cause pancreatic and thyroid tumors. Some of the thyroid tumors are c cell carcinomas. The pancreatic tumors are islet cell adenomas. The industry got a “waiver” in a 1991 EPA memo that supposedly explained this away but the data does not lie. I find it concerning and so did the IARC.
            http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e6d99f68687a1ea71673eda8b8b214ce6d816ca2cd5eca63dfc4e7d1913ab768.png

  • darrylrobida

    Thieery Vrain has a nice video on youtube about how Roundup was developed, how it works, and why there is concern.

  • Will Fagg Rn

    I do think labeling for GMO’s would be good, although I doubt eating GMO’s is bad for you why not let the consumers at least know what they are eating ? I am concerned about the pesticide issues. Why not ask Monsanto to invent a washing system that removes almost all of the roundup and make that process mandatory for all farmers using pesticides. Unfortunately it is just not an economic reality to think all Americans can buy or even afford organic produce :( Until that happens we have to find ways to mitigate or even eliminate the current threat levels to consumers who can’t afford anything else. Monsantao has the money, let Monsanto really fix this problem, not just with fancy lobbyists but by actually improving our food.

    • SageThinker

      Roundup (glyphosate) cannot be washed off. It is integral in the plant. It goes everywhere upon translocation into the plant after spraying. It’s in the entire soybean and corn kernel. There is a lot less in processed oils but otherwise it’s pretty much integral to the foods made from the crops.

      • R.Lauren

        It may be part of the protein molecule as it seems like they say that it can cause a protein to be modified and or incorporated into the protein.

  • R.Lauren

    I have a level of trust with Dr. Gregor and trust his analysis. Recently I cam across some information on YouTube that the presenter Dr. Stephanine Seneff (( See her Site at MIT http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff for Power Point or PDF versions of her presentations))

    For her opinion on this and the breadth of the issue, I have looked at several of the video’s that she has done and two that give you an understanding that she is a scientist with lots of science to back her opinion.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7iUlTWpKB4
    —– 44:40
    Ep.15 – Stephanie Seneff, PhD: Cholesterol Sulfate’s Critical Role in Optimal Health Part 1 of 2

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQCY-4a0nNc
    —– 42:17
    Ep.16 – Stephanie Seneff, PhD: Cholesterol Sulfate’s Critical Role in Optimal Health Part 2 of 2

    One of the things that I found that glyphosate chelates or isolates and prevents from absorption into the body thereby causing ‘ ‘ ‘ magnesium deficiency ‘ ‘ ‘ which can cause any of the following according to Dr. Axe…

    1.) Headaches
    2.) Muscle Cramps
    3.) Osteoporosis or weak bones
    4.) Diabetes or unbalanced blood sugar
    5.) High blood pressure
    6.) Insomnia
    7.) Anxiety or Depression
    8.) Muscle Pain or Fibromyalgia

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pI3nT-_kW8
    — 6:21
    8 Warning Signs of Magnesium Deficiency

    I have been trying to do organic and non-GMO so it didn’t concern me and I was going to file the information as interesting when I saw that they use in as a descant on Wheat and then that water is being contaminated with Glyphosate.

    Then I hear – Glyphosate inhibits an enzyme in the ‘shikimate pathway’ that is used in the synthesis of tyrosine, tryptophan and phenlylalanine which is created by your gut bacteria that does have this pathway. Glyphosate kills the GOOD bacteria and allows for the BAD bacteria to thrive in the body. Glyphosate is patented as an antimicrobial agent.

    Glyphosate contributes to Autism with an R = 0.9972 . . . . leads to shortages in critical neurotransmitters and she indicates leads to Alzheimer’s.

    That last one got me. I do not want to loose my mind.

    How serious is Glyphosate to our life and with the seriousness of the potential of 1 in 2 babies in 2032 is their anything we can do?

    I sure would like an update on this as if it is to the point that it is contaminating our water supply,

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/01/10/herbicide-poison-groundwater-supply.aspx
    http://www.ewg.org/tap-water/chemical-contaminants/Glyphosate/2034/

    All of this is especially disconcerting since Glyphosate bio-accumulates

    http://permaculturenews.org/2012/11/01/why-glyphosate-should-be-banned-a-review-of-its-hazards-to-health-and-the-environment/

    With all the described toxic effects of glyphosate, it becomes imperative to assess the level of contamination of the water supplies, our source of drinking water. Recent research in Catalonia, Spain, revealed widespread contamination of their groundwater [103]. In the US, glyphosate has been detected in rain and air samples [104].

    Research recently performed in Germany detected glyphosate in the urine of all tested Berlin city residents, including one person who had been eating organic food for over 10 years [105]. Levels reached 5-20 times the established permitted level in drinking water in the EU. Even those who live away from farming areas are not protected. Glyphosate was previously found in urine samples of farm workers at concentrations shown to have caused endocrine disruption.

    Too much information for me to go through and filter.

    1) It is BAD
    2) It can cause serious problems.
    3) Monsanto is motivated by money

    Is it possible that Dr. Gregor can contact Dr. Seneff and provide a new update on this product?

  • But, isn’t the pesticide residue on the soybean shell? Who eats that? Or on the corn leaves? Who eats that?

    A real world test would test the edible food part for pesticide residue after light washing.

  • Ginger

    Since this video aired, Glyphosphate has been added to the list of cancer-causing chemicals by the World Health Organization. That’s just plain gyphosphate. Roundup, as Dr. G. notes, is even more toxic than glyphosphate alone.
    And, as we stand today (July 3, 2016) the Senate, next week is intending to vote on the Roberts-Stabenow bill that will not require significant notification of GMO’s in our foods and, further, will overturn Vermont’s law requiring labeling of GMO products in food. Our “representatives” at work . . .

  • joe

    I’d like to mention another important part of the puzzle; the human microbiome. It is becoming well documented and well understood that this ecosystem of bacteria we live with called the human microbiome plays an enormous role in our health. Enormous. The fact is, we are mostly bacteria, and most of these are good, helpful bacteria. The trouble is, we are harming our good bacteria in a number of ways, which is resulting in one disease after another. That’s right, damage to this ecosystem of bacteria is being connected with a long list of diseases. It is the hottest area of research in medicine.

    So, we are harming our good, beneficial bacteria. Roundup is one of those ways, it actually harms our good bacteria.

    Antibacterial hand soaps and other products are another way. Mouthwash has antibacterial properties too. Have a look at toothpaste (it isn’t even regulated by the FDA). The emulsifiers in processed foods cause inflammation in the microbiome of the gut. Whenever we take antibiotics, they wreck havoc on the ecosystem of good helpful bacteria, killing off species and disrupting normal balances. Sugars are feeding our bad bacteria.

    We are making a number of mistakes, and Roundup is one of them. We have ignored the elephant in the room, this ecosystem of bacteria that keeps us healthy. Instead, we have unwittingly waged a war against it, and we pay the price in a number of different ways.

    Further damage to this ecosystem must be stopped. Already, the average American has lost 40% of the diversity of this ecosystem. 40% That a huge crowd of species already lost. We have to stop the carnage to this ecosystem. Our health depends on it.