The two ingredients work together to “limit breathing of the cells, stress them and drive them towards a suicide,” Seralini said.
The research was funded in part by France’s Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering, a scientific committee that investigates risks associated with genetically modified organisms. One of Roundup’s primary uses is on crops that are genetically engineered to be resistant to glyphosate.
Monsanto scientists argue that cells in Seralini’s study were exposed to unnaturally high levels of the chemicals. “It's very unlike anything you'd see in real-world exposure. People's cells are not bathed in these things,” said Donna Farmer, another toxicologist at Monsanto.
Seralini’s team, however, did study multiple concentrations of Roundup. These ranged from the typical agricultural or lawn dose down to concentrations 100,000 times more dilute than the products sold on shelves. The researchers saw cell damage at all concentrations.
Monsanto scientists also question the French team’s use of laboratory cell lines.
“These are just not very good models of a whole organism, like a human being,” said Dan Goldstein, a toxicologist with Monsanto.
Goldstein said humans have protective mechanisms that resist substances in the environment, such as skin and the lining of the gastrointestinal tract, which constantly renew themselves. “Those phenomena just don't happen with isolated cells in a Petri dish.”
But Cox, who studies pesticides and their inert ingredients at the Oakland environmental group, says lab experiments like these are important in determining whether a chemical is safe.
“We would never consider it ethical to test these products on people, so we're obliged to look at their effects on other species and in other systems,” she said. “There's really no way around that.”
Seralini said the cells used in the study are widely accepted in toxicology as good models for studying the toxicity of chemicals.
“The fact is that 90 percent of labs studying mechanisms of toxicity or physiology use cell lines,” he said.
Most research has examined glyphosate alone, rather than combined with Roundup’s inert ingredients. Researchers who have studied Roundup formulations have drawn conclusions similar to the Seralini group’s. For example, in 2005, University of Pittsburg ecologists added Roundup at the manufacturer’s recommended dose to ponds filled with frog and toad tadpoles. When they returned two weeks later, they found that 50 to 100 percent of the populations of several species of tadpoles had been killed.
A group of over 250 environmental, health and labor organizations has petitioned the EPA to change requirements for identifying pesticides’ inert ingredients. The agency’s decision is due this fall.
“It would be a big step for the agency to take,” said Cox. “But it’s one they definitely should.”
The groups claim that the laws allowing manufacturers to keep inert ingredients secret from competitors are essentially unnecessary. Companies can determine a competitor’s inert ingredients through routine lab analyses, said Cox.
“The proprietary protection laws really only keep information from the public,” she said.
This article originally ran at Environmental Health News, a news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.
See what we're tweeting about
93 Comments
Add CommentJust see what it feels like to drive down a highway and have a crop duster fly over and spray near you and then tell me this stuff is perfectly safe. What kind of dorks would only test one ingredient and then claim safety? But I bet that the pro-life crowd will remain silent on this even though it probably kills more fetuses than any abortion clinic ever could.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEveryone should read the book by Rachel Carson, "Silent Spring". It's scary we are still so dumb, naive, profit driven and careless of life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDecades ago I was told by a crop duster that all of the banned pesticides in the USA found a big client in Mexico and all countries south of the border. We need to regulate this industry like never before.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCrop dusters are for insecticides. Whole different issue. And pesticides banned in the US are not made in the US either. We don't control what other countries do, and shouldn't try.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe don't have to control what feed killers other country's use, but we don't have to allow their produce to the unsuspecting public either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is amazing. And though I don't know, I'd be willing to bet that this stuff doesn't break down in the environment too quickly either meaning it is probably making its way into our drinking water.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is different from crop dusting in that it is an herbicide and not an insecticide, however, the testing procedures that were used on this chemical are probably similar to those used on chemicals used in crop dusting.
To say that we shouldn't try to control what other countries do is a little ridiculous (we do it all the time), especially in the environmental realm. Without an international effort the ozone hole would be growing and we'd still have a big problem with acid rain. If other countries are polluting our ground water, we need to do everything we can to stop that now. Same goes for the pollution of the oceans as it ends up polluting our food sources.
Subtitle is interesting: "the weed killer Roundup contains an ingredient that can suffocate human cells in a laboratory". I would imagine most chemicals can suffocate human cells in a laboratory. I'll bet the same thing could be said of olive oil. This seems like a contrived issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, Silent Spring (written in 1962) predicted the demise of the robin among many other bad things which never happened. If anything, since then the use of chemicals has become much more widespread and the robin still thrives. This book was nothing more than a bunch of baseless hysterics. It led to the banning of DDT which had tremendous consequences for poor people around the world. Millions of children in third world countries have died because DDT can no longer be used to control mosquitos in malaria plagued areas. Many informed individuals are calling for the resumption of DDT production. It is scary that anyone takes that book seriously anymore.
Stevengenille,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're right about glyphosate not breaking down in the environment too quickly. I worked as an extractionist in an agricultural testing lab for several years, and my main task was testing grains for glyphosate. It was in MOST of the samples I tested, and these were food products being shipped internationally. That's one of the scariest qualities of this particular herbicide - it just hangs around in your driveway, and lawn (and fields) for years, not to mention your liver.
Its frustrating when Monsanto says things like "well, these tests are not at realistic concentrations..." Frustrating because there are whole organs in our bodies that act as filters, which end up accumulating the toxins that the body doesn't know what to do with. The concentration in ones lawn may not be dangerous, but what about the concentration in your liver or kidneys?
Anyway, don't want to start a flame war with any lawn-care enthusiasts, but I wont touch that stuff. Weed-pulling is a good excuse for me to get outside. :P
Actually, while I consider myself more of a nerd than a dork, the people who register Roundup formulations have a variety of data packges on the "inert" ingredients as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe bottom line on Seralini is very simple- his two previous publications in the same area have been reviewed by the Europeans already, and have been found wanting. This is scientific junk at its politically motivated worst.
Roundup products contain an active ingredient (glyphosate) which has extremely low mammalian toxicity as well as a surfactant (detergent) to help penetrate the waxy plant cuticle. It thus comes as no surprise that other components are more toxic to animals than glyphosate- so are table salt, aspirin, and caffeine. All soaps and detergents dissolve fats- that is what makes them work. Naked cells in the bottom of a petri dish are protected only by the cell membrane- made of fats- and guess what- if you put detergent on them, they don't do so well. Monsanto has replicated Seralini's work with a bit more care and variety of materials. While Seralini measures a variety of outcomes (like hormone production) in cell lines chosesn more for political value than scientific merit, the bottow line is that detergents disrupt cellular energy production by destroying membrane integrity.
The reality check here is that we all use soaps and detergents all the time- hair shampoo, liquid soaps, laundry detergents, diswashing soaps, etc. Exposure estimates indicate that LESS THAN 1% OF SURFACTANT EXPOSURE COMES FROM PESTICIDE RESIDUES- all the rest of it you are pouring on your dishes, in your washing machine, and over the top of your babies.
Not a problem?? Not a surprise- last I looked you were probably NOT a collection of naked cells living at the bottom of a petri dish and waiting for Dr. Seralini to puor on the Roundup. All those soaps, detergents, and sanitizers are, among other uses, INTENDED to kill those nasty, unprotected lower organisms that thrive on household surfaces!!
Daniel A. Goldstein, M.D.
Director, Medical Sciences and Outreach
The Monsanto Company
Interesting that Cosmic uses this story to bash the "pro-life crowd". To equate killing 49 million babies in the last 36 years in the US alone to the use of this herbicide borders on lunacy. Let's stick to real science here. I use Roundup according to the directions for residental applications, so do the farmers all around me and we have no evidence of ill effects. We have no information on how the other countries are using it, possible incorrectly. Studies show Roundup's glyphosate breaks down into carbon dioxide with a half life of 32 days. If however it is well proven that it is dangerous to be used as directed it should be eliminated as have other products. The POEA derived from natural animal fat linked to killing cells is doing what almost any surfactant (read soap) will do in a dish with bare cells. It breaks down the surface of the cell, doing exactly what we want it to do when we wash our hands.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat most people do not understand is how many lives are saved each year because the US outputs more food than any other country in the world. We feed people who would otherwise starve to death. We do so through use of herbicides and pesticides that would otherwise devastate crops. Our farm output would drastically drop if all of the chemicals were eliminated causing worldwide starvation and wars over food. Those who think that will not happen may also believe their food simply comes from the grocery store and we don't need farms.
By the way, "Silent Spring" was debunked long ago as junk science containing dubious statistics and anecdotes. It's outcome caused the death of millions of third world people from malaria.
We should however be very concerned about food coming from other countries as the recent debacles from both China and Mexico have proven. Let's go after the right things.
I live in farm country and the pro-life crowd SHOULD be worried about the pesticides but it is easier to worry about what someone else is doing than what you are doing yourself. Also please read about what happens when you export food. You kill local markets. Something with a half life of 32 days would last in the environment in significant amounts for months and the farmers spray several times a season.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo that is not true. All pesticides are crop dusted. Fungicides, insecticides and herbicides. Our country pays contractors to spray herbicides in various areas across the globe as part of the war on drugs. Children exposed to pesticides used in homes have a greater risk of childhood cancers. Herbicide use and hog production are associated with a rise in lymphoma. Corn production in an area increases stomach cancer cases in the region. Parkinson’s disease has also been linked to pesticide exposure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot really. Have you ever done any cell culture work?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo Mr. Goldstein, aka dagtox
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The bottom line on Seralini is very simple- his two previous publications in the same area have been reviewed"
Please state "Europeans" concerns, cause all you have otherwise is an invalid argument.
"While Seralini measures a variety of outcomes (like hormone production) in cell lines chosen more for political value than scientific merit, the bottom line is that detergents disrupt cellular energy production by destroying membrane integrity."
Please state why you feel cell lines were "chosen more for political value than scientific merit" rather than "chose because they reacted" or whatever.
"The reality check here is that we all use soaps and detergents all the time- hair shampoo, liquid soaps, laundry detergents, diswashing soaps, etc" etc
Household "soaps" do not come with the other ingredients present in Roundup. All surfactants are not created molecularly identical. Has Roundup been tested as it is sold, ie have all ingredients, together, in proportion, and at various levels of exposure been tested for problems? If yes are the protocols and data available?
I like http://americanatural.com/products/disease-weed-controls/phydura.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiskills in 24 hours and is organic. What's not to love?
Insects were already getting resistant to it when it was banned.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother thing the good man from Monsanto doesn't mention is the synergistic effects --Roundup is rarely used alone but in combination with other herbicides and this cocktail has not been proven safe. He also claims it becomes carbon dioxide and yet if you look at the formula it contains nitrogen and phosphorus. Since when have those been in carbon dioxide? Only a dork would come on this forum and lie.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccording to Mr. Monsanto "This is scientific junk at its politically motivated worst. " That is so funny! Mosanto has a PAC and they have given to to pro-pesticide politicians in my district. I imagine he lives in a city and is far removed from the damage his companies products do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis expose', reminds me of my exposure to spraying of DDT when I was a child in a Santa Clara, California orchard, and of all the deaths of people that had been around while the spraying was going on, -- my dad's employer Bill Lester, who came out to see the DDT mixed and ready for tanker spraying; Mary, his daughter; Manuel the foreman; Little Jimmy a long-time coworker of my Dad's in the orchard; the company secretary, whose office was just around the corner from the place where they mixed the DDT, my Dad, my Mom. They all came down with, and died from, cancer, possibly related to being around the mixing and spraying of this deadly poison, DDT.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt killed everything else in the orchard -- the silence, the lack of birdsong the morning after the spraying was incredible -- all the little moths and golden-eyed lacewings died, of course --WHY did scientists ever believe humans were safe? How presumptuous of people in this thread who didn't have relatives and friends killed on account of a lethal pesticide to "pooh pooh!" the warnings now that both ample scientific evidence, plus anecdotal evidence like this, has long since emerged! Why is your head up your _ _ _?
Now, as to this "Roundup" -- we devise a chemical that kills everything it touches -- why do we feel we're magically immune?
This expose' reminds me of my exposure to spraying of DDT when I was a child in a Santa Clara, California orchard, and of all the deaths of people that had been around at the time: My dad's employer Bill Lester, who came out to see the DDT mixed and ready for tanker spraying; Mary, his daughter; Manuel the foreman; Little Jimmy a long-time coworker of my Dad's in the orchard. Both Manuel and Jimmy took turns driving the red tankers through the orchard as I watched from afar, then ran into the house... The company secretary, whose temporary office was just around the corner from the place where they mixed the DDT; my Dad, who shooed me away from the DDT -- "Get back! Go home, this stuff is poison!" And my Mom. They all came down with, and died from, cancer, possibly related to being around the mixing and spraying of this deadly poison, DDT. It is an unexplainable cluster of cancer cases unless one considers the DDT exposure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt killed everything else in the orchard -- the silence, the lack of birdsong the morning after the spraying was incredible -- all the big white moths and golden-eyed lacewings died, of course, and the butterflies were gone. This was shocking from a child's perspective, a child that loved the world around him.
WHY did scientists ever believe humans were safe? How presumptuous of people who didn't have relatives and friends killed on account of a lethal pesticide to "pooh pooh!" the warnings now that both ample scientific evidence, plus anecdotal evidence like this, has long since emerged.
Now, as to this "Roundup" -- we devise a chemical that kills everything it touches -- why do we feel we're magically immune, as we touch it or inhale it? Or, as our children or pets do, days, weeks later?
Oops, sorry... I don't see a "delete" or "edit" button anywhere... this is my first time here... I didn't see there was a 2nd page of comments & when my comment didn't show up, I posted a revised 2nd comment. PLEASE DELETE / IGNORE my first comment & leave the 2nd one. Sorry!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat smooth pure-green lawn is a desert to a honeybee. Leave some dandelions. And I read one data point where Roundup kills honeybees.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy late wife used to blame Roundup for a lot of her problems. She previously had radiation therapy for cancer in 1994, and this weakened her immune system. About 10 years ago a neighbour two doors up stole a large drum of concentrated Roundup from his government employer, then sprayed it undiluted on the yard of the house he rented from the same employer. It turned everything in the yard black. A short while later all our tropical fish died. Then my wife felt so weak in the muscles she was not able to walk too far. Over the next few years she progressively got worse and became a total invalid, needing a wheelchair to move around in the house. I have used Roundup with no adverse effects to myself. But by the same token, when I was a kid I carried a piece of lead around in my mouth while bicycling because I didn't have any pockets. When I pulled it out an hour or two later it was considerably reduced in size from me sucking on it. But I never felt any adverse effects, it probably went straight through me, being metallic rather than a lead compound. I think everybody in Australia was exposed to asbestos in the 1950s through the fibroboard they used in house construction, but not everybody dies from it. Some people are more resistant to things than others, and sometimes it is the form you are exposed to. So, it is hard to use oneself as an anecdotal example of a substance not doing harm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI say let the Monsanto scientists allow their children to play in the stuff. If they are OK with that, then I would hope the chemicals are OK.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy wife and I suffered a miscarriage in 2002, a period when I was using large quantities of glyphosate for pest plant control.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnecdotal, I know, but makes me think ...
Tim.
My wife and I suffered a miscarriage in 2002, a period when I was using large quantities of glyphosate for pest plant control.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnecdotal, I know, but makes me think ...
Tim.
> It's scary we are still so dumb, naive, profit driven and careless of life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit's not "we", america.
I don't know about inerts in Roundup, except to say that it is hard to imagine that a surfactant made of animal fat is any more dangerous than sodium stearate (soap). As for the glyphosate ... In 1980 I was bitten on the finger by a small Redback spider (read "Black Widow" in the Northern Hemisphere) and I still remember the severe ache up my arm that could only be relieved by placing it in water as hot as I could stand. Along with the sweating in that limb (only), it led me to believe that what I was feeling was the effect of a neurotoxin. Fast forward 15 years to a glyphosate concentrate spill on my hand, which I did not wash off as quickly as I should have. Along came that same kind of ache, milder but instantly recognisable. Years later still, I looked up the formula for of Glyphosate, and what is it but an organophosphate, a distinction it shares with the nerve gases sarin, soman and tabun, along with who-knows-how-many insecticides. Glyphosate may be non-carcinogenic, have low hepatic toxicity and, for all I know, be good to drink, but I wonder if anyone has checked it for neurological effects.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems, Mr. Goldstein, that you are protesting too much and like a true spin doctor of Monsanto are naturally obliged to vilify and belittle ethical scientists. Your counterparts in South Africa provide hilarious entertainment whenever they open their mouth and are living proof that the consumption of GMOs inevitably leads to the Pinocchio syndrome. In fact, Mr. Goldstein, based on intensive research and solid evidence, I am laying the sharp rise in HIV infections and multi-drug- resistant diseases in my country solely at Monsanto's feet. Based on my own findings conveyed to the Institute of Science in Society, the latter already published the results of their own investigation titled " New Evidence links CaMV 355 Promoter to HIV transcription" http://www.i-sis.org.uk/CaMV35Spromoter_and_HIV.php
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding the alleged safety of Roundup, are you in all seriousness denying the relevations in the Journal of Pesticide Reform/Fall 1998-Vol.18,No.3. Herbicide Factsheet6on Glyphosate (Roundup) stating: "Given the marketing of glyphosate herbicides as benign, it is striking that laboratory studies have found adverse effects in all standard categories of toxicological testing. These include medium-term toxicity (salivary gland lesions), long-term toxicity (inflamed stomach linings), genetic damage (in human blood cells), effects on reproduction (reduced sperm counts in rats; increased frequency of abnormal sperm in rabbits), and carcinogenicity (increased frequency of liver tumors in male rats and thyroid cancer in female rats).
Glyphosate has been called "extremely persistent" by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and half lives of over 100 days have been measured in field tests in Iowa and New York. Glyphosate has been found in streams following agricultural, urban, and forestry applications. The report states further that adverse effects have been identified in each standard category of testing (subchronic, chronic, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and reproduction). The publicly available studies of glyphosate's ability to cause cancer were all conducted by or for its manufacturer. In 1991, EPA alleged that Craven Laboratories, a company that performed studies for 262 pesticide companies including Monsanto, had falsified tests. "Tricks" employed by Craven Labs included "falsifying laboratory notebook entries' and "manually manipulating scientific equipment to produce false reports. " A detailed summary of the toxicity of glyphosate: http://www.dontspraycalifornia.org/Glyphosate%20Factsheet%201.htm
To clarify a few issues-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) I did not say that glyphosate becomes CO2. I have been accused of lying on this issue, but said nothing on the topic whatsoever.
2) Glyphosate is an organophosphonate, not an organophosphate, although both classes MAY inhibit cholinesterase as do the "O-P" insecticides and war "gases" (liquids, actually). However glyphosate formulations do NOT inhibit cholinesterase and do NOT exhibit O-P insecticide symptoms even with large ingestions.
3) Glyphosate does not "kill everything in sight"- it kills plants. It has no enxyme target in animals as it interferes with the production of amino acids via a pathway not present in mammals (we get them via diet). The implication that an herbicide must be equally harmful to humansis simply incorrect. (It also has low toxicity for bees)
The topic of interest is the question of synergy. Pesticide FORMULATIONS are tested for acute toxicity. This is required for every regulatory agency, and gives us a bead on possibile interactions of components.
The fundamental issue of testing COMBINATIONS in the laboratory (as opposed to FORMULATIONS) is what combinations to test. If ham is safe and cheese is safe, is ham and cheese safe? What about mustard? What if you add mustard AND mayo? You can test ham+cheese, ham+ mayo, etc. If you want a toxicology test of eveything you are exposed to combined with everything else you are (or could be) exposed to, you cannot possibly manage the cost, the animals, etc. So we do two things- 1 is to test the actual commercial FORMULATION, and the other is to work with large "safety margins" (technically, uncertainty factors) to keep human exposures well below levels which have no demonstrable effect in test animals.
As far as kids playing with products as a safety criterion- bad idea. Short of ingestion, I am confident nothing major would happen with consumer Roundup formulations. You want your kids to test diswasher detergent?, drain cleaner?, bleach? How about playing with onions? Bad concept.
Dan Goldstein
Monsanto
>>I would imagine most chemicals can suffocate human cells in a laboratory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are misinterpreting the usage of the word "suffocate" in this context. Cells do not breathe. The article does not expound upon exactly what is meant by its use here, but my educated guess would be that the authors are using it to mean interference with cellular functions necessary for the cell to survive.
>>Silent Spring (written in 1962) predicted the demise of the robin among many other bad things which never happened.
They didn't happen because we banned DDT and other organochlorines, thanks to Ms. Carson's work. Had we not done so we might have lost more than the robin. We lost much in waiting too long to ban some of them.
>>This book was nothing more than a bunch of baseless hysterics.
Rachel Carson had an undergraduate degree in zoology, a masters in genetics from Johns Hopkins, was one of few scientists to be invited to work at Woods Hole, and worked as a biologist for the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife. To call her writing "baseless hysterics" is to expose your own ignorance.
At the time of Silent Spring's publication, the Monsanto company started a smear campaign against her. It is hard to believe today, but the fact that she was a woman was their main argument against her.
>>Millions of children in third world countries have died because DDT can no longer be used
Carson did not entirely oppose use of DDT to control disease. More recently, DDT is increasingly suspected to be more strongly carcinogenic in humans than was previously thought. There is not enough information about many of the chemicals we commonly use, but a body of information supporting more cautious use of these chemicals is growing. Additionally, most of those children died because of the lack of cheap medicines due to lack of political will to distribute them properly.
<Many informed individuals are calling for the resumption of DDT production. It is scary that anyone takes that book seriously anymore.>
"Many informed individuals?" Who?
It would be stupid not to take Carson's work seriously. Its science is now old and it all needs to be taken in context, but it's guiding principles are sound. Concern for the natural world and desire to protect and preserve it at least somewhat intact are valid. Carson bravely flew in the face of powerful commercial interests, ones that had the power to successfully smear her image with libelous and distorted publicity campaigns. How telling that your comment echoes the twisted rhetoric of those slanderous efforts.
>>I would imagine most chemicals can suffocate human cells in a laboratory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are misinterpreting the usage of the word "suffocate" in this context. Cells do not breathe. The article does not expound upon exactly what is meant by its use here, but my educated guess would be that the authors are using it to mean interference with cellular functions necessary for the cell to survive.
>>Silent Spring (written in 1962) predicted the demise of the robin among many other bad things which never happened.
They didn't happen because we banned DDT and other organochlorines, thanks to Ms. Carson's work. Had we not done so we might have lost more than the robin. We lost much in waiting too long to ban some of them.
>>This book was nothing more than a bunch of baseless hysterics.
Rachel Carson had an undergraduate degree in zoology, a masters in genetics from Johns Hopkins, was one of few scientists to be invited to work at Woods Hole, and worked as a biologist for the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife. To call her writing "baseless hysterics" is to expose your own ignorance.
At the time of Silent Spring's publication, the Monsanto company started a smear campaign against her. It is hard to believe today, but the fact that she was a woman was their main argument against her.
>>Millions of children in third world countries have died because DDT can no longer be used
Carson did not entirely oppose use of DDT to control disease. More recently, DDT is increasingly suspected to be more strongly carcinogenic in humans than was previously thought. There is not enough information about many of the chemicals we commonly use, but a body of information supporting more cautious use of these chemicals is growing. Additionally, most of those children died because of the lack of cheap medicines due to lack of political will to distribute them properly.
<Many informed individuals are calling for the resumption of DDT production. It is scary that anyone takes that book seriously anymore.>
"Many informed individuals?" Who?
It would be stupid not to take Carson's work seriously. Its science is now old and it all needs to be taken in context, but it's guiding principles are sound. Concern for the natural world and desire to protect and preserve it at least somewhat intact are valid. Carson bravely flew in the face of powerful commercial interests, ones that had the power to successfully smear her image with libelous and distorted publicity campaigns. How telling that your comment echoes the twisted rhetoric of those slanderous efforts.
A few additional points:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Glyphosate is firmly bound to humic soils and transport to water supplies is not an issue.
2) Glyphosate is not persistent in the environment. NCAP will tell you otherwise.... and they are right.... sort of.... in ARCTIC PERMAFROST it can persist much longer 'cause all those little microbes are frozen!!
3) A pet peeve- Contrary to popular belief, EVERY COUNTRY HAS A PESTICIDE REGULATORY SYSTEM- These are often based on US EPA or, more commonly, the EU systems or designed off of model programs from WHO/FAO. All have strict data requirements. Decisions and consequnetly registration of various agents varies from place to place, and decisions are based on health protective criteria. I certainly will not claim that these are all perfect- but I cannot buy into the commonly expressed idea that the US needs to go out and tell the rest of the world to "get a regulatory system". They have one, thanks....
Dan Goldstein
Monsanto
So how many litres (or gallons) would a person have to drink in order to have the same concentration in his or her body in order to have a concentration high enough to produce these results?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not think we should swim in this stuff but spraying it on a crop is much different that having our cells swim in it.
How much would you have to drink to replicate the experimental effects is a tough call. This is done in protein free media, and proteins in the plasma and body fluids bind to chemicals, especially things like long chain surfactants, and moderate their toxicity. For glyphosate, toxicity testing showed effects at 1%, i.e. 1 gram per 100 CC. A 70 kg adult has about 50,000 CC of body fluid (50 liters)- so you need about 500 grams of glyphosate, or 1.2 Liters of a 41% concentrate product- or at 2%- the concentration typically sprayed, 20 times as much. So for glyphosate alone, no surfactant, assuming 100% absorption of the spray solution, 24 liters would just about do the trick. (The water, however, would kill you for sure!!)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe surfactant containing solutions are (unsurprisingly) more toxic- remember glyphosate has no target enzyme) and concentrations for toxicity assays vary accordingly. If you go down to .01% instead of 1%, 240 CC of spray solution might do the trick- but we have no idea what fraction is absorbed and how much protein and other factors will protect the living intact organism.
The BETTER (REAL LIFE- PRACTICAL) ANSWER is that for the 41% concentrate solution in adult humans, it takes about 150 CC to "reliably" make someone ill (5 ounces of concentrate). I have yet to see anyone get ill from the fully diluted formulation ready for spraying- you just can't drink enough to get sick. (I did not say it would take 150 cc for everyone- significant illness may occur in some patients down to the 50CC dosing range.
150 CC of 41% concentrate has about 60 GRAMS of glyphosate and perhaps 1/3 as much surfactant (formulations are not all the same).
For comparison, you can get seriously ill and may well die with a dose of around 10 grams of aspirin or acetaminophen [Tylenol(tm)].
At a final concentration for spraying of 2%, you would be up to about 3 quarts of water- far more than I have ever seen a suicidal patient ingest (I am a clinical toxicologist). This is getting into the range where lethal water intoxication is going to get you before the herbicide formulation does.
These ingestions do not produce organophosphate symptoms and the vast majority of patients ingest less than 100 CC of concentrate (3 oz plus) and recover uneventfully. No long term sequellae are recognized.
Dan Goldstein
Monsanto
Mr. Goldstein,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile not exactly unpredictable, it is nonetheless amusing and ironic that as a representative of the Monsanto company you would attempt to discredit this author.
First of all your reference to "the Europeans" is vague and misleading.
Second, if the conflict of interest weren't enough to pretty much invalidate anything you might say here, your calling this article "scientific junk at its politically motivated worst" is so far over the top as to call everything else you say into question. It also smells of tactics your company has used before - perhaps most notably to discredit one of your original scientific critics, the learned and esteemed Rachel Carson.
Third, any work Monsanto may do to try to discredit this author is suspect. The conflict of interest is huge and glaring. Monsanto needs to get the heck out of the way and let uninterested third parties prove or disprove these allegations. Making a group of unsupported statements as you do in your comments may tend to fool uneducated people, but the scientifically educated among us who read your fundamentally weak defense of your company's product will understand that you are taking everything completely out of context and misrepresenting the research process.
Luckily for you, many who read your comments will be fooled by your very aggressive posture. People want to believe that companies have the public good in mind, whether or not that is true. They also would love to be able to believe that the crap they have been spraying all over their lawns and gardens is benign. Especially since many of them handle said crap carelessly, and tracking into their houses and spreading it on their children. Nobody wants to think they have been harming their families. Many will willingly remain blind in order to keep believing they have not, regardless of the truth.
Unluckily for you and your company, more people are seeking scientific education and being taught the fundamentals of critical thought, and will therefore be less likely to have the wool pulled over their eyes by weak and fallacious arguments such as you present here.
Why do I say the endpoints are politically chosen?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real issue here is not endocrine disruption or death of embyonic (or in related work, testicular or placental) cells- you can kill any cell with detergents in the test tube. Cells from placentas or reproductive tissue are chosen for impact- not fundamental biology. You take any cell that makes a hormone and kill it (or make it sick) and it stops making hormone- as well as doing anything else.
If the authors wanted a fundamental understanding of the underlying cellular mechanisms and wanted to determine how their model relates to real life exposures in regards to risks of low level exposures, there are a series of useful experiments which can be undertaken to address these basic issues. The authors appear far more intent on making noise about a specific product (Roundup) than about a chemical (there are LOTS of other brands out there from various providers) than on making scientific headway.
At the most basic level, the surfactant systems in these products are not the same, and the authors have made no apparent effort to sort this out, adjust for differences in concentration, or standardize their results to actual concentrations.
This is, in my personal opinion and as I have noted, poorly done science (which is tolerable if less than ideal.. no experimetn is perfect) positioned and (over)interpreted inappropriately for reasons that can only relate to other agendas.
True Science_1,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all, we do not feed the world. Our foreign "aid" policy and practic is so problematic and convoluted as to render the word "aid" completely inaccurate in describing what we do. For one thing we do not give humanitarian gift aid. Every groat we send elsewhere is tied to political and economic advantage for our country. The fact that we deal with local ruling elites worldwide means that a large proportion of what we "give" never reaches its intended recipients.
Second, crop yields were to some extent made larger by the green revolution technologies. However those very technologies are rendering soil infertile and farming families unable to stay on the ever-faster-moving treadmill of ever more expensive inputs and machinery. More and more farms are owned lock, stock and barrel by ag companies who dictate the farmer's every move.
Many of those technologies are needed because monocropping, too-aggressive tillage, destructive over-irrigation and other poor farming practices have ruined the soil and opened crops up to greater vulnerability to a wide variety of insects and other attackers.
Lastly, "Silent Spring" has never been "debunked." It's author was a serious scientist and wrote in good faith from concern about what she observed in her own environment, supported by the best science of her day.
Careful, Mr. Monsanto.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you trying to imply your pesticide is safe?
You create an analogy between ham & cheese, saying"If ham is safe and cheese is safe . . . " but to do so is to liken it to your product. Are you saying Roundup is safe?
There are specific herbs that deter mosquitos; it is kindness from individuals that encourages them to grow these specific herbs, harvest them and provide them to those that live in said conditions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat type of " "cide will chemical companies come up with next to weaken their own chem-superbugs?
Soccerdad,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are specific herbs that deter mosquitos; it is kindness from individuals that encourages them to grow these specific herbs, harvest them and provide them to those that live in said conditions.
What type of " "cide will chemical companies come up with next to weaken their own chem-superbugs?
Okay, I've read this entire discussion. There appears to be a lot of "science" here and not so much logic. First of all, anybody who sprays anything anywhere with the expectation that the spray will kill something, yet assumes that spray to be harmless to people must certainly be a moron. Secondly, I agree that testing targeted at a specific product amid a plethora of similar products probably has roots somewhere other than pure scientific inquiry. However (thirdly) it makes little or no sense for anyone - company representative or otherwise - to attempt to resolve the issue to his satisfaction in a public forum like this. This can only be resolved by REAL investigation by multiple independent labs. If Monsanto believes their product to be safe, they should be eager to encourage and invite such testing WITHOUT reaching into their corporate wallet to ensure the outcome. I see no such invitations. Nor (fourthly) do I see an appeal by Seralini's group for other researchers to verify their findings before calling for additional restrictions on the specific product they tested on specific types of cells under some specific set of conditions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe bottom line of this, as I see it, is that two opposing factions have brought their argument to the public with little regard for proper scientific practice on either side. This makes neither argument credible, and only serves to raise the question about the relative safety of these herbicides, not answer it. I await the much-touted university studies (the nearest thing to independent researchers we have in this country) to provide some real science and real answers.
I recently used a glyphosphate product on my driveway and on some aggressive ivy. So I was very interested in the article and the discussion. I appreciate that the Monsanto toxicology guy Dan Goldstein took the time to respond thoughtfully.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo me, his strongest argument is "Naked cells in the bottom of a petri dish are protected only by the cell membrane- made of fats- and guess what- if you put detergent on them, they don't do so well. "
On the other hand, I think it is also true as the article reports: "Seralini said the cells used in the study are widely accepted in toxicology as good models for studying the toxicity of chemicals. The fact is that 90 percent of labs studying mechanisms of toxicity or physiology use cell lines, he said.
The bottom line for me is to be extremely careful using this stuff (and all commercial toxins). I will probably use less glyphosphate in the future.
As a former FDA reviewer, I know that regulatory approval does NOT guarantee safety. It usually guarantees no disaster. But sometimes that's not even true (e.g. Vioxx). So we just have to be very careful.
I agree cell lines ARE useful for determining toxicologic MECHANISMs. They are, however, of very limited utility in determining parameters of safe use. Someday we have enough knowledge to extrapolate- but not yet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOther items:
1) I didn't spend 4 years in evil medical school to be called Mr. Monsanto...... (just kidding! some opportunities you just can't pass up)
2) The individual who implies that I have made a claim of complete safety (which is both incorrect and impermissible as a matter of advertising law, the FAO guidelines, my mother,etc.) is the same person who put the words in my mouth about CO2. If someone has a truth problem here, it does not seem to be me.
3) Neither ham nor cheese are "safe"- i.e.- incapable of causing harm under any circumstances. You can die from milk allergy, pick up e-coli, get fat, aggravate your hypertension, etc. Glyphosate can be used safely, and products should always be used in accordance with label instructions.
4) I have said nothing about these authors at all. I have criticised the quality of the work and the appropriatness of the interpretation thereof.
5) Unfortunately, academics and government researchers also have ulterior motives and conflicts of interest. I made my employment clear at the outset. My own individual actions have far less impact on the company (and my personal success- financial or otherwise) than the actions of an academic can have on their own career. I make no statement regarding these authors- just point out that conflict of interest is not restricted to industry. (Taxpayers want to pick up the tab... feel free to write a check any time!)
6) Science by press release hardly seems the best approach- but Monsanto did not choose the venue. We DID choose to further investigate and understand the problem in conjunction with academic investigators. We did pay for it- but then nobody else seems to stepping up with a checkbook. The work was presented in a scientific absract and I have personally presented the results with medical toxicologists on 3 continents (Mr. CO2 will now accuse me of presenting the same data 3 times..... these were CLINICAL review presentations regarding herbicide formulations, no claim of original content was made.
It's interesting that this entire conversation seems to have veered away from the crux of the issue presented by this article. While glyphosate may present a limited threat under certain circumstances, the fact remains that a specific "inert" compound (eg, polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA) presents a very serious risk in all circumstances due to its nature as a tension-reducer. POEA happens to be a part of Monsanto's proprietary formula for Roundup and is thus unlikely to be found in other commercial herbicides. This is why Roundup specifically is receiving this attention.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, the writers weren't calling for an outright recall / cease of production for Roundup (although after learning some of things I have here I wouldn't blame them for doing so), but for more thorough EPA testing guidelines to prevent the kind of infiltration this dangerous chemical has made into the market. Anybody who wants to question a drive like that either has some serious issues regarding the value of life or else a complete lack of ability to see past the next fiscal report.
polyethoxylated POEA is a natural organic surfactant found in the enviroment and many "safe" products. I'm not sure why Monsanto's glyphosate was fingered in this article and comments as the science was about POEA
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The research was funded in part by Frances Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering, a scientific committee that investigates risks associated with genetically modified organisms."
Maybe the outcome was paid for up front by someone with an agenda.
The article appears to me to be anti Roundup/Monsanto and not about real scientific investigation.
To correct a couple of items.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPOEA, or polyethoylated tallowamine, is not naturally occuring. The tallow is of course naturally occuring (animal fat). It is attached to an amine moity and "polyethoxylated" i.e.- repeated O-CH2-CH2- units are attached to it, typical of many surfactants.
If you want to see surfactants, read the back of your shampoo bottle next time you are in the shower-
Not all Roundup formulations contain POEA. Surfactant systems vary with the product. It is certainly not unique to Roundup or to glyphosate formulations, or even to Monsanto products.
Dan Goldstein Monsanto
Roundup is applied via aerial spraying.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRoundup is applied via aerial spraying.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDan Goldstein, we aren't talking ham, cheese and mayo sandwiches. It's pesticides, "inert" ingredients, amplifying ingredients, and synergistic effects. How can you seriously make such a comparison? Perhaps you are not serious...I think the court case in New York alluded to the dangers of inert ingredients--without implicating delis!
Interesting article. I've successfully used Roundup occasionally in my yard for years with no problems...until this spring. I used Roundup Extended around the long fence line in my yard--a task I did VERY carefully to make sure I didn't get it on me, and immediately took a hot shower, and changed clothes as soon as I was done. Yet a couple hours after doing the spraying, my right hand (the one controlling the spray wand) lost all motor control--I couldn't hold a pen, couldn't make the fine motions to write, and my thumb was extremely palsied. I was shocked. That effect has now disappeared, but I would not use Roundup Extended ever again. Very scary. I should note that the day was sunny and calm, and to my knowledge, I got none of the spray on me. Evidently, however, there was enough mist or something from the wand to affect my neurological control of the hand operating the spray wand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNatural is the best way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyone seen the movies-The Handmaidens Tale or Children of Men= we continue allowing the chemical industry, producers of herbacides and insecticides and the all loving and knowing and manipulated EPA to lie to us and cover up what these dangerous chemicals are doing to us and the environment we will be right in the gripe of what those movies say. Death to the sperm and egg as we know it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am noticing a lot more Junk Science in what used to be more reputable Science Magazines. It seems to be a trend since Holtzbrinck via The Macmillan Group took control of the publication. Sensationalism sells. This article was particularly misleading, because the title seems to indicate that there has been some breakthrough discovery as to the toxicity of glyphosate, while the research was all bogus invitro studies about the detergent stickum being toxic to cells in culture. SciAm will have to change it's name to National Science Enquirer, if they keep up this kind of reporting. How about some REAL Science folks? Or has J.Q. Everyman Public become too stupid to do the math? And perhaps too unwilling to do the critical analysis required. As with Politics, they seem to prefer their Science spoon fed, and not too complicated. Do your homework! GIGO is still the rule. You can't draw effective conclusions from tainted data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes Dan the yes man, all the chemicals and gm seeds your company produce are poison. It will be a fine day on the farm and at the grocery store when all the large ag. compamys belly up. I am tired of being feed the lies and garbage your company pretends is safe, hiding and slanting any study that says they are unsafe. Have you read the label on any of your products lately? Probably not, nor would you know what the ingredients are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat exactly defines "scientific junk?" Or Who? The person or group who benefits from discrediting any work that calls into question the validity of its own work and position.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.defendingscience.org/upload/Daubert-The-Most-Influential-Supreme-Court-Decision-You-ve-Never-Heard-Of-2003.pdf
"Well-funded by corporate backers, Huber and the Manhattan Institute promoted the
phrase “junk science.” The term “junk science” has no real meaning. In his widely
publicized and distributed book, Galileo’s Revenge, Huber offers only a broad-ranging
“I know it when I see it” description of “junk science” rather than a definition:
“Junk science is the mirror image of real science, with much of the same form
but none of the substance….It is a hodgepodge of biased data, spurious inference,
and logical legerdemain…..It is a catalog of every conceivable kind of
error: data dredging, wishful thinking, truculent dogmatism, and, now and
again, outright fraud.”11
The term “junk science,” like pornography, seems to be in the eye of the beholder.
Simply stated, junk science usually seems to be science whose results or methods the
user of the phrase disagrees with. Predictably, researchers who are funded by the
tobacco industry, (which also helped fund the “junk science” movement) are never
labeled junk scientists by Huber and his colleagues.
In Galileo’s Revenge, Huber attacked the environmental and occupational sciences in
particular, leveling factually inaccurate charges against many scientific endeavors that
might appear to threaten corporate interests. Following the publication of his book
in 1991, Huber gained unprecedented influence among judges and policymakers.
In the case of Castellow v. Chevron USA, for example, the court rejected all of the
plaintiff ’s experts because it did not believe in the methodologies used by one of
them.17 In this case, Dr. Levy was to have testified regarding the strong association
between exposure to benzene and development of acute myelogenous leukemia
(AML), as he had in a deposition. In his trial testimony, he would have stated that
benzene has been shown to cause AML and that, specifically, the plaintiff ’s exposure
to benzene more likely than not caused him to develop this disease.
Another expert, a senior industrial hygienist, testified in a deposition about the exposure
assessment he prepared that used an exposure model to estimate the plaintiff ’s
exposure to benzene.
“The judge excluded both the industrial hygienist’s modeling testimony and my testimony..."
"If used as directed" should be a red flag when discussing garden products. The real question is, if a one year old rolls around on the grass after it had been applied and then sucks his thumb, is that bad for him?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If used as directed" should be a red flag when discussing garden products. The real question is, if a one year old rolls around on the grass after it had been applied and then sucks his thumb, is that bad for him?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you think Silent Spring is "just a bunch of hysterics" then you're an idiot. Yes, DDT is banned by the WHO, and many people are calling for its use in Africa, where it can be used to contain mosquitos that transmit malaria. Thats a simple case of benefits outweighing the risks. But to insinuate that there are no risks with widespread use of DDT is irresponsible. And "Silent Spring" has not been "debunked as junk science." Not by any credible environmental toxicologist. Maybe on "JunkScience.com" where the author is in fact a paid consultant of several chemical companies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDDT has benefits - its cheap, can be produced in vast quantities, and is effective. It also has its negatives - its a persistent organic pollutant (long half-life), its an endocrine disruptor (especially on birds, but also mammals), it bioconcentrates, and insects (the ones you're trying to kill) develop resistance over time.
i can see why farmers might use herbicides to exterminate any form of (plant) life that might compete with their crop monoculture and reduce their profits, but why on earth would people spray it on gardens, parks and schools?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissurely gardeners and parks would want to increase plant biodiversity, not decrease it. and would schools not be better spending money on textbooks etc rather than poison??
I personally have seen the results of glyphosphates on an ornamental garden around a pond and on the fish in the pond. Pretty scary.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe person spraying it refuses to believe that it is responsible for the deformed foliage, blossoms and fish.
You see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear.
I personally observed the deformation of ornamental plants, their blooms, fish in the pond which the plants surround, and the problem persists long after the application. The plants included native hibiscus, day lilies, roses, irises among many others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fish showed discoloration in the form of depigmentation and the beginnings of deformation of fins.
I have seen this cycle twice now yet cannot convince the pond owner to cease applying it. I will not, however, eat any produce grown any where near the area.
Produce all the studies you like, I will believe my eyes.
Deborah
I would only note that Roundup products are generally not recommended for aquatic applications and will definitly kill aquatic plants. Fish toxicity is limited, but killing algae and plants produces an oxygen depleted environment (from all the organic load) and fish death secondary to increased biological oxygen demand from the dead matter is well known. (Glyphosate products for aquatic use are available, but are not in the Roundup brand family and are properly labeled for that use.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to whether I have seen the labels on our products lately and have any idea what is in our products. I approve every commercial formulation and incoming material related to our products, and provide updated formulation data on our products to the poison center which services our customers and to the central data source of all of the poison centers annually. Do I know what is in our products? Is the Pope Catholic?
Are our products poison? Paracelsus said it best: All substances are poisons, there is none which is not. It is the dose alone that makes the poison....
DDT is still manufactured and used for malaria control. See http://allanschapirablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/article-on-malaria-control-published.html DDT enthusiasts for whatever reason have developed these conspiracy theories, when the facts are that many countries who have signed on to the Stockholm treaty are authorised to use DDT under controlled circumstances and many countries are not signatories. One cannot, however, simply bathe their persons and surroundings with DDT any longer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMonsanto has an unnerving degree of control and power in the world of agriculture and agricultural chemicals that I believe is a threat to our way of life.
Fun experiment: do a Google search on
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMonsanto Agent Orange
You know what they say about history...
Also do some research on Roundup-Ready genetically modified crops. I have to admit, these guys are geniuses at making money...
The Silent Spring book did not cause the ban on DDT. The fact that we were going to lose our national symbol, the bald eagle, caused the chemical to be banned. It was proven that DDT was causing the egg shells of the bald eagle in particular to thin making the eggs break in the nest. You aren't really paying attention, are you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn an example, the study below looked at the effect of the surfactant on amphibians.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisApril 1, 2005
Roundup(r) Highly Lethal to Amphibians in Natural Setting, Finds University
of Pittsburgh Researcher Some species totally eliminated PITTSBURGH-The
herbicide Roundup(r) is widely used to eradicate weeds.
But a study published today by a University of Pittsburgh researcher finds
that the chemical may be eradicating much more than that.
Pitt assistant professor of biology Rick Relyea found that Roundup(r), the
second most commonly applied herbicide in the United States, is "extremely
lethal" to amphibians. This field experiment is one of the most extensive
studies on the effects of pesticides on nontarget organisms in a natural
setting, and the results may provide a key link to global amphibian
declines.
In a paper titled "The Impact of Insecticides and Herbicides on the
Biodiversity and Productivity of Aquatic Communities," published in the
journal Ecological Applications, Relyea examined how a pond's entire
community -- 25 species, including crustaceans, insects, snails, and
tadpoles-responded to the addition of the manufacturersÿ recommended doses
of two insecticides: Sevin(r) (carbaryl) and malathion, and two herbicides
Roundup(r) (glyphosate) and 2,4-D.
Relyea found that Roundup(r) caused a 70 percent decline in amphibian
biodiversity and an 86 percent decline in the total mass of tadpoles.
Leopard frog tadpoles and gray tree frog tadpoles were completely
eliminated
and wood frog tadpoles and toad tadpoles were nearly eliminated. One
species of frog, spring peepers, was unaffected.
"The most shocking insight coming out of this was that Roundup(r),
something
designed to kill plants, was extremely lethal to amphibians,"
said Relyea, who conducted the research at Pitt's Pymatuning Laboratory of
Ecology. "We added Roundup(r), and the next day we looked in the tanks and
there were dead tadpoles all over the bottom."
Relyea initially conducted the experiment to see whether the Roundup(r)
would have an indirect effect on the frogs by killing their food source,
the
algae. However, he found that Roundup(r), although an herbicide, actually
increased the amount of algae in the pond because it killed most of the
frogs.
"It's like killing all the cows in a field and seeing that the field has
more grass in it-not because you made the grass grow better, but because
you
killed everything that eats grass," he said.
Previous research had found that the lethal ingredient in Roundup(r) was
not
the herbicide itself, glyphosate, but rather tApril 1, 2005
Roundup(r) Highly Lethal to Amphibians in Natural Setting, Finds University
of Pittsburgh Researcher Some species totally eliminated PITTSBURGH-The
herbicide Roundup(r) is widely used to eradicate weeds.
But a study published today by a University of Pittsburgh researcher finds
that the chemical may be eradicating much more than that.
Pitt assistant professor of biology Rick Relyea found that Roundup(r), the
second most commonly applied herbicide in the United States, is "extremely
lethal" to amphibians. This field experiment is one of the most extensive
studies on the effects of pesticides on nontarget organisms in a natural
setting, and the results may provide a key link to global amphibian
declines.
In a paper titled "The Impact of Insecticides and Herbicides on the
Biodiversity and Productivity of Aquatic Communities," published in the
journal Ecological Applications, Relyea examined how a pond's entire
community -- 25 species, including crustaceans, insects, snails, and
tadpoles-responded to the addition of the manufacturersÿ recommended doses
of two insecticides: Sevin(r) (carbaryl) and malathion, and two herbicides
Roundup(r) (glyphosate) and 2,4-D.
Relyea found that Roundup(r) caused a 70 percent decline in amphibian
biodiversity and an 86 percent decline in the total mass of tadpoles.
Leopard frog tadpoles and gray tree frog tadpoles were completely
eliminated
and wood frog tadpoles and toad tadpoles were nearly eliminated. One
species of frog, spring peepers, was unaffected.
"The most shocking insight coming out of this was that Roundup(r),
something
designed to kill plants, was extremely lethal to amphibians,"
said Relyea, who conducted the research at Pitt's Pymatuning Laboratory of
Ecology. "We added Roundup(r), and the next day we looked in the tanks and
there were dead tadpoles all over the bottom."
Relyea initially conducted the experiment to see whether the Roundup(r)
would have an indirect effect on the frogs by killing their food source,
the
algae. However, he found that Roundup(r), although an herbicide, actually
increased the amount of algae in the pond because it killed most of the
frogs.
"It's like killing all the cows in a field and seeing that the field has
more grass in it-not because you made the grass grow better, but because
you
killed everything that eats grass," he said.
Previous research had found that the lethal ingredient in Roundup(r) was
not
the herbicide itself, glyphosate, but rather the surfactant, or detergent,
that allows the herbicide to penetrate the waxy surfaces of plants. In
Roundup(r), that surfactant is a chemical called polyethoxylated
tallowamine. Other herbicides have less dangerous
surfactants: For example, Relyeaÿs study found that 2,4-D had no effect on
tadpoles.
"We've repeated the experiment, so we're confident that this is, in fact, a
repeatable result that we see," said Relyea. "It's fair to say that nobody
would have guessed Roundup(r) was going to be so lethal to amphibians."
It's been said that it's next to impossible to get a person to criticize a product that is damaging or dangerous when their income depends on the sale of that product. So I have to say that we can't expect any clear, straight answers or truth from anyone who is getting their paycheck from Monsanto. Mutanto, now, since they are the cause of many mutations in amphibians and they are also making a lot of mutant seeds that can resist application of roundup.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI couldn't agree more... the most thoughtful reply I've read so far... the one below is ridiculous (olive oil makes for a wonderful natural anti-inflammatory, though!# Every time we rinse our produce, these are going down the drain & back into our water... Triclosan is used in anti-bacterial handsoap pumps--- GO GREEN GO NATURAL!!! ALL of this is affecting our ecosystem/nature's balance... Read about how chemicals cause toxemia #blood poisoning# when cells are deprived of oxygen--- CANCER... the fact that these things were ddemed non-cancer threats is ridiculous... the facts have been in scientific/medical circles for decades... Farm output would INCREASE... #The same way anti-biotics kill ALL the bacteria in our digestive tracts (use probiotics afterwards! the same applies to the balance of micro-organisms in the soil, earthworms, frogs are especially senstiive to chemicals... no frogs=more bugs=more need for pesticides, more pesticides=beneficial insect deaths= more messing up nature's balance... the junk science is the science which is paid for by large profit-driven corporations... "natural animal fat" how naive are you??? POEA is allowable on
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCERTIFIED ORGANIC (vegan) PRODUCE in America?!
Did you READ the article? The animals are eating the pesticide laden animal feed crops, the cows pass it into the milk, the milk is consumed by pregnant women... greater than 1/25 children now suffer developmental delays... childhood cancer rates are ever increasing/tragically high--- yet science has already proven that chemicals/depriving oxygen to cells/toxemia/blood-poisoning/synthetics don't break down/cant be stored by liver/kidneys/CAUSE CANCER (along with radiation) People have been CURED of multiple sclerosis, cancer, and other terminal illnesses using RAW ORGANIC FOODS, and other therapies... Our "health care system" will continue to be a sick joke, until the EPA, FDA, &
USDA are GUTTED/REVAMPED/oversight committees/checks/balances... laws are strengthened, quality/safety/standards/human health are put before
commercial/industrial/political profits... THE END.
"Going after the right things"... hmmm- THE SAFETY AND WELL BEING OF THE FUTURE OF OUR NATION? OUR CHILDREN. Clean, safe water (free of perchlorate, nitrate run-off from industrial-agri-business, pesticides, heavy metals, etc. herbicides, etc.), Clean air, Clean soil... Healthy
eco-system, healthy natural balance IN & OUTSIDE OF OUR BODIES, IN & OUTSIDE OF OUR HOMES... It's all connected.
Butterfly wings/domino effect... Read about organic farming
success!
DDT was found in fish tissue this year (30 years after the ban) ===so much for the purported "shelf-lives", eh?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1/25 or more children suffer from developmental delays,
"regressive Autism", ADD, ADHD, seizures, cancer, diabetes,
multiple sclerosis... skyrocketing childhood illness, infertility, miscarriage rates.... We ALL know someone suffering from or alongside someone with life-altering illness/pain/suffering... Chemicals (depriving cells of oxygen causes cancer)... One "new fangled" study (we don't live in a lab, only being exposed to one chemical at a time) showed that consuming a diet coke, and a bag of Doritos (MSG, Aspartame, & 2 food colorings/chemical dyes) was enough to kill brain cells! Aspartame is allowable currently as a "Natural flavor", Triclosan (a pesticide) is in anti-bacterial hand-soap, the coal-fired electricity is releasing methyl-mercury (neurotoxic), the fish in the oceans are polluted with mercury, DDT, who knows what else... all the pesticides & herbicides are invisible to the eye... children play on the ground, in the mud, and in the puddles (maybe another reason boys are more affected/afflicted with regressive autism? ) surrounded by hard plastics (PCBs, PBAs, Brominated flame-retardant pajamas, foam nursing pillows, plastic play-yards, chemicals in the diapers, the wipes, the soaps, the shampoos... then the cosmetics industry is unregulated--- mercury in the mascara, thimeserol (mercury) in teh saline solution, lead in the lipstick.... Grandma's kisses & perfume & Grandpa's job at the chemical
company caused panic attacks/allergies in Mom, Chem lawn and pesticides in suburbia growing up... years of accumulated toxins... no warnings, no diagnostic tests... then immunize a baby 12 hours after being born (even though he had jaundice--- look that up and tell my WHY that's not considered ill? (not supposed to immunize sick children) preservatives, colorings, detergents, fragrances, dryer sheets with "scent beads" that emanate all through the day/;public spaces... pesticide residues on the foods/baby foods- children accumulate more pesticides/herbicides/toxins because of their body weight vs. the amount of food they have to consume (more than an adult) A U.S> born infant 02009
(what a year, dear Lord!) was found to have 287 industrial chemicals in his bloodstream AT BIRTH... And any of you have the audacity to say that "it's O.K./perfectly safe?"
I'd tell you where to go, but unless you change your color/tune/attitude/make some sort of human/conscientious effort to atone/clean up -no need.
To reiterate a previous comment, Anything that comes out of Dr. Goldstein's mouth on this subject is carefully crafted language to create doubt, cast aspersions and to discredit the source of the information that is potentially damaging to the financial viability of Monsanto. All of the major chemical companies involved in producing PVC were proven to have direct knowledge of the carcinogenic nature of exposure to PVC and decided together to withhold this information because it would jeopardize their profits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRachel Carson is an American hero who spoke truth to power. The fact that someone on here calling themselves "Soccerdad" says that "Silent Spring" is irrelevant has either been well trained by right-wing talk radio (Rush Limbaugh et al) or is posing as a soccer dad and in fact is also representing Monsanto and the like.
Pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides are applied at frighteningly high levels around our country and the EPA frequently relies on the Company's own data to make a determination on its safety. This, without ever taking into consideration the synergistic effects of different chemicals acting together to damage or destroy people or animals whose role in the web of life are critically important.
The production and further use of PCB's was banned in 1972, yet their use in electric transformers continues until those transformers fail... often explosively, spewing PCB's into the environment. In fact there are fish consumption advisories in Maryland for Striped Bass, Bluefish, Sea Trout and Speckled Trout for PCB's. Where are they coming from if their use and production was banned 25 years ago?
I am not an environmental toxicologist, but people who are need to speak up. People need to know the truth about everyday products that they assume are safe. Only those of you who know the truth can force it into the public. Please do so. You can make a difference! Speak up!
~Fish_hed
wow Ingrid! That's some amazing information that I plan to use. I live in an area where approximately 60% of the land is in grain production and many of these plants are genetically modified or "roundup ready" Therefore when we eat chicken that have been fed "roundup ready" corn, there may be a little bit more in that chicken than we bargained for....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's an epidemic of miscarriages on Kauai, Hawaii's westside where Syngenta, Monsanto, and Pioneer bath the population in the stuff. The local doctors are too afraid to report it as such and local regulatory agencies are beholden to Agri-business. Interesting that Pioneer's Dr. Cindy Goldstein shares the same spin as Monsanto's Dr. Dan Goldstein. Wonder if they're related? Help support our efforts of pesticide legislation and read our blog. http://maluiawcms.blogspot.com/.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn case you didn't read all the way to the bottom of my previous post, the conclusion below you may not have understood. This is regarding the effect of Roundup on amphibians: "Previous research had found that the lethal ingredient in Roundup(r) was not the herbicide itself, glyphosate, but rather the surfactant, or detergent, that allows the herbicide to penetrate the waxy surfaces of plants. In Roundup(r), that surfactant is a chemical called polyethoxylated tallowamine. Other herbicides have less dangerous surfactants: For example, Relyea's study found that 2,4-D had no effect on tadpoles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"We've repeated the experiment, so we're confident that this is, in fact, a repeatable result that we see," said Relyea. "It's fair to say that nobody would have guessed Roundup(r) was going to be so lethal to amphibians."
Bottom line? NEVER use this stuff around water or where runoff is evident such as down a driveway into a street drain.
Monsanto dumped mercury and PCBs in rivers and creeks for 40 years in anniston alabama. People got cancer and gave birth to deformed babies. Monsanto knew the effects and did it anyway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.ewg.org/reports/anniston
But we had seen deformities before. When we dumped Monsanto's agent orange, thousands of people were born looking like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Agent-orange-deformities-vietnam.jpg
You can find them at the Tu Du Hospital in Vietnam, otherwise known as the "Monsanto Clinic"
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-02/05/xinsrc_886062032ffc4fad964ca77a709e5c7c_viet2hai.jpg
Anniston Alabama and Viet Nam are not the only places Monsanto has struck.
In the UK, they dumped thousands of tons of toxic waste into landfills, which contaminated drinking water and soil to this day.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/12/uknews.pollution1
But Roundup is certainly safe. I mean, after all, Monsanto says it's safe, and I highly doubt they would lie just to make a profit.
Nevermind that farmers in India drink it to commit suicide, after Monsanto crops ruin their farms.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/1500-farmers-commit-mass-suicide-in-india-1669018.html
Nevermind it shortens the growth of earthworms. Nevermind the face that it kills frogs, kills fish. Nevermind that it causes lesions on the salivary glands of rats. Nevermind that it causes genetic damage in mice and human blood cells.
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Roundup-Glyphosate-Factsheet-Cox2.htm
Nevermind the fact that they've genetically engineered all their crops to withstand enormous applications of roundup, and they sue any family farmer who gets in their way.
It's possible Monsanto is the largest, most organized, criminal organization on the planet.
We as a country have more to worry about than just herbicides and pesticides. The big soap companies and chemical companies have made the EPA useless with their lobbyists getting laws passed that enables them to put any chemical in their products they want, even if it is a known carcinogen. Since World War 2 over 50,000 new chemicals have been developed. Only a small handful have been tested as to their safety. In Europe the EPA has banned about 1000 chemicals. In the USA the EPA has banned 8 chemicals. The USA is now a Third World Country. Did you know that American products like Tide and all the other national brands laundry detergent, Head and Shoulders etc hair shampoo, Right Guard etc deodorant, Dawn etc dish detergent, and just about every product that we use to wash anything with including our bodies and children contains known carcinogens and many chemicals classified under federal law as toxic waste. Almost all American Products mentioned above are illegal to sell in Europe because they contain banned chemicals. The EPA is supposed to protect the people of the USA. This is just one small example of how the US government has been purchased by big business. The sad thing is they could make healthy alternatives and still make huge profits, they just don't feel like it. Here is a link with more info and some products that are totally non toxic and work better than their toxic counterparts and save money at the same time. http://www.greenvirginproducts.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAttentive farmers who have used Round-Up or its knock-off generics have known that this product does not degrade as advertised. It has been beneficial in controlling weeds and respray for weed control so no one has complained. It is coming home to roost now with so much diseased corn in the mid-west this year that any farmer can earn up to an additional 35% for his corn if it is disease free or close to it. Read "Seeds of Destruction" by Wm Engdahl if you want to know the "rest of the story". It is not about feeding the world. It's about depopulating the world that needs feed. Why would the same people who make this herbicide, N1H1 vaccine laced with Mercury and squalene, enslave seed producers to buying their transgenic germplasm based foundation seeds for hybridization be the same folks who are scouring the planet for uncontaminated seeds of virtually every known plants on the planet and storing them in a secured island in the north Atlantic?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll the comments are missing the mark including those of the good doctor who needs to find out who he is working for or reread his oath if he took one. My best is to refer all to "Seeds of Destruction" by Wm. Engdahl.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen talk to your country cousins about the corn crop diseases this year. It is a lot bigger than adjuvants. It's not about feeding the people of the world. It's about depopulating the world to be feeding. We are talking about the same people and money that have given us transgenic foods, H1N1 vaccine laced with squalene and Mercury, monopoly power over the seed industry including in Iraq under Order 81, who are busily scurrying around the globe gathering non-contaminated seeds for storage on a secured island in the North Atlantic. They have a holocaust in mind that very few are seeing coming at us from all angles.
Sir, you should be ashamed of yourself. Monsanto has known about increased infant mortality and birth defects from exposure to Roundup since at least the early seventies. It was blamed for the marked increase in still births and in leg/foot birth defects in area of East St, Louis, IL, where the product is manufactured.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour employer Monsanto has known about increased infant mortality and birth defects from exposure to Roundup since at least the early seventies. It was blamed for the marked increase in still births and in leg/foot birth defects in area of East St, Louis, IL, where the product is manufactured.
As to your diversional tactic of discussing surfactants as sole agents of damage, please have some dignity. You sound like a tobacco lobbist disscussing in detail how increadibly minute are the concentrations of the trace chemicals in second hand smoke while completely glossing over the primary carcinogens.
The article clearly states that the presence of surfactants aids in absorbtion of the offending chemicals; not as the harmful agent itself.
Please go douse your own children (no doubt living on the Missouri side of the river) with Roundup if you feel it is so safe.
Nope! Pro-lifers pay attention too! No one better to look after the health of the next generation than moms like us. The guys promoting these new technologies will die before we feel the full effects that our choices will have on our children and grandchildren. We must find solutions that will be sustainable and promote health if we care about our future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I see the response to Palin (a known choice of the elite who have designed holocausts like Roundup and GM frankenfoods) from Tea Baggers of the Pro-Life camp I don't hold out much hope for sustainability or hope for the USA. Totally deluded communities are filling the pews. I am please to announce a huge increase in the number of farms that will NOT be planting GM seeds in 2010 or using Roundup. Monsanto's balance sheet is already showing the exodus. The problem is the Roundup and other generic glyphosates are not degrading in a fashion that even remotely resembles the data we have been fed. The results are insidious and being exposed on a regular basis. What is missing is the technology for abatement in the soils so that it stops finding its way into the food chain and human bodies. But let's realize WHO the enemy is folks. He has deceived even the well-meaning in the sciences. The Enemy of ALL men is about His business and doing quite well with all the help He gets from us. There is no doubt that the unablement to "Eat any deadly thing and it will not harm you" is the promise we WILL walk in or we WILL die at the hand of the Enemy. After I had been rendered totally intolerant of yellow dent corn grown in the USA in 2006, I sat at my Thanksgiving Day dinner table and knew for certain that a day was approaching when our plates would be full, but their was nothing on it that was fit to eat. We're getting closer to what I heard everyday at an ever-accelerating pace.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy neighbour has sprayed weedkiller all over his land, which surrounds my vegetable patch, turning everything yellow and brown, even the grass. My area is still green, but is it safe to harvest vegetables from my garden with so much poison around ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEat sparingly along the edges where the herbicide was applied. It was excreted from the roots (25% of the chemical) into the soil where the veggies are growing amidst the weed roots. What was the wind direction from the neighbor> if it drifted your direction, you will get some in your veggies. It will chelate minerals in your diet. We take colloidal trace minerals everyday even here in China to counteract the effects.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a retired water pollution control chemist. Gross Amounts of herbicide have been applied to the local American Legion Grounds on at least two separate occasions, resulting in kills of white clover and blue grass.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was also applied to the bare soil of the athletic field where young female athletes breathe in this dust.
Legion Officials are unconcerned and the State Water Control Board referred me to another State Agency.
My instincts are telling me that these posions are going to have long term detrimental effectsd on eco-systems and humans but I lack the means to do anything constructive about this situation. Wallace Icenhour Chase City, Va.
Oh fiddlesticks. Gilles-Eric Seralini is a recognized nut case who is funded by Greenpeace to produce all sorts of pseudoscience which then gets published in non-reviewed journals. He is also responsible for several claims about GMOs that don't hold up under critical review. Anything published by this loon has zero credibility. I am amazed that SciAm is taken in by this well-know abuser of the scientific process. 25 years of work, thousands of studies and one fringe result from a suspect source invalidates everything? I DON'T THINK SO.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour claim that farmers in India committed suicide by drinking RoundUp is clearly a lie. How much else of your posting is equally false?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSoccerdad, how about you tell my old high school environmental science teacher about how harmless DDT is. Before you do I should mention that unlike the rest of his older siblings he is sterile. He also has no younger siblings. His father worked at a DDT manufacturing plant between his last older siblings pregnancy and his.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMonsanto may be the primary means to cull over 6.5 BILLION humans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt didn't surprise me to learn that EPA, USDA, FDA, and Poison Centers were reluctant to track all sources of poisoning, both acute and long-term. My exposure occurred increasingly over four years and had me in the VA ER in June 2009. Over Memorial Day weekend, I sprayed 3.5 gallons with a hose end sprayer over 4 acres of land.
My Lipase and Amalyase were beyond normal limits for over 6 months. My Red Blood Cells were destroyed prematurely. My platelets fell to a low of 106,000. My heart rate dropped to a low of 46 bpm. My spleen was enlarged to the point the VA considered removing it. I cough more than normal these days and I quickly become short of breath. My depression was considerably worse with recent research identifying neurotransmitters as an intended target. The Cytochrome P450 Pathway is the primary target of Glyphosate-POEA. This is the main path your liver activates to eliminate toxins and antioxidants from the body. It is also involved in metabolism - nothing like gaining weight while you're trying to lose.
THANKS MONSANTO!
Nothing will be done about the poisoning of America's food supply. France is being a self-protective weenie as usual, though leading the way. The EU has now approved use of Roundup with GMOs soon to follow.
High Fructose Corn Syrup slams you with liver-killing fructose AND the poisons of Monsanto. How can you possibly take another sip of your soda?
A key question: Should you embrace Jesus as author and perfecter of your salvation and deliverance, or give allegiance to a world system that targets 92% of the population for a slow death?
I am using a variety of herbs and adaptogens to restore my health. If you have been adversely impacted, contact me at dwhv3@yahoo.com.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMonsanto researchers have no credibility when it comes to scrutinizing this research. They are clearly not objective. It is fair to quote them but this fact should be noted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"This clearly confirms that the [inert ingredients] in Roundup formulations are not inert,” wrote the study authors from France’s University of Caen."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, this clearly confirms that the study's authors do not understand the specific nomenclature of the product they tested.
"Active Ingredients" are those which perform the intended activity (in this case, herbicidal action). "Inert Ingredients" are everything else, including surfactants, diluents, odor masks, emulsifiers, solvents, etc. "Inerts" can be methylene chloride (paint stripper), kerosine, MEK, xylene-range aromatics, etc. Inert, in USEPA/Pesticide meaning, is essentially everything else not an "active ingredient". These materials are not necessarily chemically, physically or biologically inert as one would understand something like distilled water to be.
This is the same research group that published that bogus study claiming GMO corn causes cancer. They did not even use statistical analysis in that paper. It is quite incredible and shameful that Scientific American would write an article giving credit to those people. There is a reason all these "GMO's are bad" studies are not from American scientists, it's because researchers in those other countries are so politically motivated that are incapable of conducting real science! Unbelievable!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince this is supposed to the Scientific American, why do we still have references to the Seralini study? Hasn't it been fully discredited as the best example we have of how NOT to do a statistically significant study? Where is the editor?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this