General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMore joy from Monsanto .............
April 25 (Reuters) - Heavy use of the world's most popular herbicide, Roundup, could be linked to a range of health problems and diseases, including Parkinson's, infertility and cancers, according to a new study.
The peer-reviewed report, published last week in the scientific journal Entropy, said evidence indicates that residues of "glyphosate," the chief ingredient in Roundup weed killer, which is sprayed over millions of acres of crops, has been found in food.
Those residues enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease, according to the report, authored by Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Anthony Samsel, a retired science consultant from Arthur D. Little, Inc. Samsel is a former private environmental government contractor as well as a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body," the study says. ..................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/25/roundup-health-study-idUSL2N0DC22F20130425
no_hypocrisy
(46,202 posts)with the corporations controlling EPA, FDA, the Dept. of Agriculture, the House, and the Senate, I doubt it.
Jasana
(490 posts)so that you absolutely have to use roundup if you want the GMO crop to flourish? Or am not understanding that properly?
Regardless, I hate Monsanto. Imagine the nerve of them suing farmer because their GMO seeds infested their organic crops.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Roundup is a broad spectrum herbicide and kills a wide variety of plants, including most weeds and most agricultural crops. Roundup use on agricultural fields was limited to when the crop was not growing.
Farmers liked the idea of being able to spray just one herbicide on their crops to take out all weeds without harming their crops. As a result, a number of "Roundup Ready" crops were developed. Soybean was one of the first and most popular.
If you bought and planted Roundup Ready crops, you are not obligated to using Roundup; it simply makes Roundup an option when it was not an option before.
Unfortunately, the practice of repeated spraying of Roundup on a millions of acres of farmland had the predictable result of developing resistance in some weeds.
timdog44
(1,388 posts)A farmer can plant Roundup ready seeds and not spray roundup. The problem being at two fold. The genetic information is still transmitted to other plants. And two, Roundup ready seeds are very expensive and so no reason to plant them unless you are going to use Roundup.
The pot growers around where I live are very clever. They wait until the corn is planted, then wait some more until the first spraying of Roundup. That is when they hustle in a hundred rows or so and then plant their marijuana. The only problem is that at the end of the season when the corn is turning golden brown, the marijuana is still green and very visible from the air. A neighbor of mine had that happen to one of his fields and DEA spotted the pot and were in the field "harvesting" it. I wonder to this day if the 200 plants that were there if only 190 were destroyed.
Jasana
(490 posts)I'm starting to study this a little more in depth... just trying to find out what's happening with our food. I had a seven year case of permanent acid reflux disease and no one could figure out what was causing it. I began to view every food with the utmost suspicion.
I now have a (as yet) undiagnosed neurological condition similar to MS but my neurologist put on me Gabapentin to see if she could get rid of some of the nerve pain. Well the drug never touched the burning nerve pain on my outside skin but it did get rid of my seven year case of heartburn which I never even bothered to tell the neurologist about because I was more concerned over the fact that I couldn't stand up long enough to brush my teeth.
I have truly begun to believe that some of my long term problems have been caused by GMO foods. Of course belief is a long way from proof so I'm starting to study it.
Thanks for your post.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)see if it fiits your medication histrory
now about those GMO's that are round up ready and some say of no harm at all...............
Roundup Ready Crops (RR Crops) are genetically engineered crops that have had their DNA altered to allow them to withstand the herbicide glyphosate (the active ingredient of Monsanto's herbicide Roundup). They are also known as "glyphosate tolerant crops."
RR crops deregulated in the U.S. include: corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, sugarbeets, and alfalfa.
When planting Glyphosate Tolerant crops, a farmer can spray the entire crop with glyphosate, killing only the weeds and leaving the crop alive.
Yum
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roundup_Ready_Crops
Jasana
(490 posts)as this is all new to me and I have just started to look into it.
I had to look up what a "flourquinolone antibiotic drug" was and can safely say no I have never been given any of those drugs before.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)2) Are either of the authors medical doctors, heath scientists, medical science researchers or anything similar? No. Samsel is retired, and running down his expertise is challenging. Dr. Sensef is an computer and electrical engineer.
3) Was a direct link between Roundup and cancer, Parkinson's disease, and infertility demonstrated in this study? No. This was not original research, but a review of literature. The link between Roundup and these diseases is hypothetical and indirect.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=466210
glowing
(12,233 posts)Let me know how well you fair?
BTW, the wealthy people and politicians eat organic foods (which are much more costly for everyone else) because they know the rest of the crap is poison.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Feel better?
longship
(40,416 posts)I am not saying that this is bad research, but the post you responded to does point out some worrisome points with regards to the study cited in the OP.
Also, your strawman is a non-sequitur to the critique of the journal and expertise of the researchers.
If the research is biased, that is not good no matter what its conclusions are. Also, consider that, in science, one study almost never establishes new findings. As the critique points out, this isn't even new research; it's a review of previous research. Such reviews are ripe for cherry picked conclusions.
These things put this paper's conclusions in question, not a good thing. Again, no matter what its conclusions are.
That's just the way science works, my friend.
glowing
(12,233 posts)all of the related marine science and environmental science courses needed to complete my degree. Irrelevant of the article, not one person in their abusive manners of trying to belittle those who have not taken science courses into "shutting the hell up" about the massive amount of harmful chemicals we are polluting our world with is going to change my mind about the harm that it creates.
I have studied the effects of pollutants down to the benthic/ micro level. We are either going to speed up evolution process or just kill off the planet. We are losing biodiversity, we are killing off essential elements in the food chain process. The mess we have made of our oceans from global warming to pollutants to the nuclear disaster off the coast of Japan.
At this point, I would seriously suggest funding a worldwide NASA program on a monumental scale so that there is a manner in which we can escape to another planet when this one whithers from our stupidity.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416
Berlum
(7,044 posts)Mutant Research on Mutant Food Crap.
No one should trust the corporate crap research saying GMOs are safe.
That is a crock of Poo Poo (not woo woo, but poo poo).
Hardcore Scientific Materialists will just have to swallow that fact about their vaunted Poo Poo.
glowing
(12,233 posts)time table stops at 3 months. Honestly, its a miracle that our bodies are as resiliant as they are. So much crap to deal with bombarding us daily, weekly, yearly... (however, cancer isn't exactly going away, and some of the same companies are FDA regulated and controlled and are making oodles of money off of the sick people that our unhealthy world and lifestyles create).
longship
(40,416 posts)That would be cherry picking, a huge no-no in science.
You don't get to reject research based on conclusions. Also, you don't get to reject research based solely on funding source. Although the latter may flag the research for careful review, it is not fatal.
Again, single studies are not definitive. Reviews and meta-analyses are automatically highly suspect due to the ease with which conclusions can be cherry picked.
By only repeating research with tighter controls, etc. and with peer review can one be sure that a question is true or not.
This study, although interesting, needs to go through that process.
That's just the way things work in science.
Berlum
(7,044 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 27, 2013, 12:31 PM - Edit history (1)
as should anyone with common sense...
"Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research
longship
(40,416 posts)That would be equally incorrect.
Also, if corporate research is open to independent replication and review, there would be no reason to arbitrarily reject it.
But, I agree with you in principle about research that cannot be replicated and reviewed because it's proprietary.
But, the above cited research looks dodgy, at first glance.
Berlum
(7,044 posts)I would like to know what is in food so I can decide whether I want to eat it. But the GMO corporations have made that impossible, and they have polluted the knowledge base with their bought-and-sold CRAP 'science.' Thus, it makes sense to me to consider the science that raises questions about GMO food, since it just has not been proven safe over any long-term.
When it doubt, I choose the Precautionary Principle, not CRAP corporate 'science' -- aka 'Poo' (just as crap metaphysics is deemed 'Woo' by Scientific Materialists.
It's my body. I have right to know what is in my food. GMO goes totally OCCULT to thwart everyone's freedom to know and freedom to choose. It's freaking plug-ugly TOTALITARIAN (R).
longship
(40,416 posts)Again, no matter what the conclusions are.
Bad science in favor of a person's predetermined opinion is still bad science.
Note, I have not professed any opinion on GMO in my posts here. I am only addressing the problems with this paper which should make people question it regardless of its conclusions.
Bad science is bad science.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)MAD Dave
(204 posts)There is a list of pesticides and chemicals that are permissable for application on Certified Organic crops. It includes stuff like arsenic (insecticide), tobacco juice/nicotine(insecticide) and chrysanthemum blossom extract/permethrins(insecticide).
To say organic is the solution is folly too.
timdog44
(1,388 posts)between roundup and health conditions is sufficiently suspicious to investigate further and stop its use until then. It is sad in our society that our government lets corporations do the studies, and then have them accepted by the FDA or whatever government group is responsible for the safety of its people.
timdog44
(1,388 posts)on this kind of evidence, is that it certainly is to be looked at. And closely. But Just because a journal is not medical does not mean it is not correct. Also, medical doctors, health scientists and medical science researchers a lot of times have tunnel vision when it comes to their research. Postulations are made and then evidence is sought to prove them, not disprove them. Evidence is junked that is not wanted or even maliciously changed to support the position. There is not much in the way of pure research anymore. To much money is funneled into our universities by big pharma or ag or whoever. In my couple years of premed, I saw this happen, and am disenchanted with the way the research works. Solution? I don't know. More government oversight? Better ethics and morals? Probably. How to facilitate this? I do not have the answer.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Those studies are scrutinized as carefully as possible.
timdog44
(1,388 posts)I would disagree. That does not preclude the NIH being staffed by the revolving door of corporatists. I would also suggest that you are neglecting to include the health care research done in the universities around our country that are funded legally but unethically.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)If scientific research is not giving the results they want, they immediately blame the science, scientists, and research structure.
It's exactly the argument you're using. How the hell is it possible for corporations to own the research infrastructure for investigations into pesticide safety but they have absolutely no influence on the research into climate change?
The only common denominator is ignorance.
timdog44
(1,388 posts)calling me ignorant. You seem to get some joy from that.
Second, I am not a climate change denier. The big corporations tried to get their foot in the door on that research front but were slapped down. Besides, even though climate change is a proven thing, big corps are preventing anything from happening to mitigate the dangers of same.
Third, the majority of health care research is not pure research any more. There is a $$$$ agenda to it, brought to academia by big medical appliance makers, big pharma or big ag. I have spent too many hours digging into the research scientists and universities to only find big $$$ behind most of it.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)You're prepared to back that up, right? You've been part of the NIH peer review process? You know how the system works, and you can tell us how it's all agenda-driven and tied to the medical industry?
You are prepared to provide those specifics, right?
timdog44
(1,388 posts)I assume because you bring that up that you have been. And if so, you should be well aware that conflict of interest issues are something that has only just recently been addressed and is being attempted to be implemented by the NIH. And you can look that up yourself and report back with your own citations as I don't see any in your posts.
And as to your statement about the amount of money spent by the NIH on research, it amounts to about 28% of total research in America, per the NIH's own statement on their web page.
My blood also boils when I see people trying to convince DUers about the safety of medical "things" in general in America. Deregulation has lead to self reporting and oversight by these companies which is a formula to disaster.
I have to say that your not being nice is more of a bluntness that I am not used to and could be done more diplomatically. I am guilty of the same and apologize.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)We are destined to disagree on some finer points, and I can live with that.
timdog44
(1,388 posts)I think we have butted heads before. If we can be civil about it I have no problem. And I will try to put my sensitivity away. I have yet to meet anyone, myself included, who don't have some buttons that are easy to push.
One of the things I have a problem with on any blog site is anonymity. Nobody puts down on their profile who or what they are. Maybe I made a mistake doing that on mine, but I like people to know where I am coming from, at least a little.
watoos
(7,142 posts)MAD Dave
(204 posts)Agent Orange is 2, 4, 5-T. It is very similar to 2, 4-D. 2, 4-D is one of the oldest broadleaf herbicides. Agent Orange is a much stronger broadleaf herbicide.
Roundup is glyphosate. As mentioned above, is a broad range herbicide. If it is a plant and is green Roundup will kill it.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic_acid
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
Berlum
(7,044 posts)...so there is a great deal of similiarity there...
None of that scuzz belongs anywhere near the living earth, or food.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)timdog44
(1,388 posts)I fell into the same trap. But no more.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)Yesterday we moved a 10 year old Redbud.
Earlier this week we transplanted 4 Peonies, over 100 Jonquils and only a few of the lilies (so far).
Moving is so much fun.
timdog44
(1,388 posts)Deep mulch, and if anything grows through, it is not deep enough. The problem I had with all the mulch was it was a wintering over place for unwanted bugs, especially those that liked my watermelons and pumpkins.
Moving a 10 year old redbud. Hope you did not hurt yourself. And peonies are not easy to move either. Hope you have a good growing year.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)I hope so.
From '96 until a '08 we added hundreds of dollars worth of landscaping.
It broke me heart to leave it all behind when we were ponzied.
Some plants need to be rotated to avoid bugs left behind. Cantaloupes were tricky.
timdog44
(1,388 posts)that you would be heartbroken to have to leave it behind. We are in the process of trying to sell our place because it has become too much for my poor back to do anymore. I have spent several years turning two acres of grass into about 70% gardens. I have a 10 level back fusion and then to my pelvis and I just can not do it anymore and do it justice. So much joy. Hope to find a small place in town where I will have a clean pallet to start with. We will be leaving a sanctuary. Hoping to sell it to the local Forest Preserve as it abut their property. We shall see.
And about the rotating. It is something that was a hard lesson. The nice thing about gardening is that it is always a work in progress and always a learning experience. Good luck to you.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)Your smaller place in town will be beautiful also.
We had a wonderful day transplanting.
I even picked up petunias for the very small deck. The smell will be intoxicating.
Berlum
(7,044 posts)...and churning out cheap food that leads to chronic illnesses.
Disgustipating.
Brimley
(139 posts)mike_c
(36,281 posts)But here's the thing -- they made it up. Or, all but. They say, "We explain the documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease, and we show that glyphosate is a 'textbook example' of exogenous semiotic entropy: the disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins." Exogenous semiotic entropy! That sounds serious. Google it, though, and you find that those three words occur together in only place. This paper. They made it up. At first, I thought the whole thing was one of those jargon-laden academic hoaxes but, alas, it isn't.
more@link
on edit: The responses in this thread illustrate the worst sort of confirmation bias. Most respondents need to go back to school and learn how to think critically. How many of you actually read this paper? How many considered its arguments independently of its author's clear bias? Nada, I'm thinking. No wonder advertising is such effective behavior control. When you tell people made-up shit they just believe it. Sheesh.
Brainstormy
(2,381 posts)is a GMO apologist. For reasons unknown, she's all over the internet defending Monsanto's activities, GM salmon, etc. She's no scientist, either. And the fact that three words in a paper are not Google-able is hardly evidence that the whole thing was "made up," The author's define the expression clearly.
I'm going to read these papers, but IMO, her agenda is showing.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)Yet you find it necessary to attempt to discredit the author of these comments rather than thinking critically about the arguments presented, both by Tamar Haspel and by Samsel and Seneff. Seriously. That's messed up. It's sloppy thinking. You've dismissed her arguments out of hand because they conflict with your prior bias.
Brainstormy
(2,381 posts)I'm suggesting that she's a Monsanto shill. And yes, I have a prior bias. But I didn't dismiss her arguments "out of hand." I'm a food writer and researcher. I'd be delighted to be wrong to be wrong about Haspel.
thesquanderer
(11,993 posts)Overseas
(12,121 posts)were already evolving and popping up among these major food crops is really wildly reckless.
Endangering our food supply in a manner that allows the patenting and price manipulation on seeds for our basic food items just so that those food items will not die when sprayed with poisons that have killed weeds before
when we know that Roundup resistant weeds are already appearing
is such a clear example of profit motives being given precedence over public safety.
I am so sad that we did not return to being Old Democrats instead of "New" (Pro Corporate) Democrats, and increase government work in the public interest-- hiring more workers for OSHA to keep inspections going and prevent more industrial accidents, and hire more people at the USDA or EPA to work on less toxic ways to increase crop yields and reduce the numbers of poisons and genetic modifications required on our basic foods.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)was vert careless with Roundup. I will never believe it was the smoking.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)It used to be over 80 but has now skyrocketed.