GMO Myth: Farmers “drown” crops in “dangerous” glyphosate. Fact: They use eye droppers


As a farmer, I have to laugh sometimes; it’s all I can do when I run across this sort of misinformation supposedly telling me about how I run my farm. There are people out there who truly believe that we farmers douse, drown, drench or saturate our crops in chemicals, glyphosate to be more specific. Anti-GMO campaigners, organic activists and irresponsible news reports use those phrases all the time (see here, here, here, here). In graphic form it often looks something like this meme from GMOFreeUSA pictured above.


Does GMOFreeUSA actually think we load up big tankers of herbicide and drown our crops with the stuff? First, they don’t understand the meaning of the word drown; second, to really drench a crop we would have to use one of those big tanker airplanes they use to fight forest fires. The video in this link, for example, would qualify as a drenching, probably not a drowning. Sorry, that simply is not what we do on a modern farm.

In fact, it couldn’t be farther from the truth.

Anti-GMO meme

Anti-GMO meme

Planting season has arrived in Iowa, and I’ve been applying herbicides to prepare for planting. On our no-till ground—the most sustainable form of agriculture, and it’s been made possible by the use of GM crops—we use a combination of glyphosate, 2,4-D, and depending on crop either metalachlor for corn, or on soybeans it’s a pre-packaged mix of chlorimuron, flumioxazin and thifensulfuron. On our tilled ground, we leave out the glyphosate and 2,4-D, as it’s not needed because tillage kills the weeds that are present.

So, what about this drowning we’ve been reading so much about? On our corn ground, before planting we apply 16 ounces of Glyphosate, 8 ounces of 2,4-D, and 48 ounces of metalachlor per acre. To put that in perspective, it’s a little more than half a gallon of herbicide spread out over an acre, or roughly the size of a football field.

For soybeans, it’s even less. We start with the same 16 ounces of glyphosate and 8 ounces of 2,4-D,

Anti-GMO meme

Anti-GMO meme

but add 2.5 ounces of the pre-packaged mix. The pre-mix is a dry ingredient, so we’re putting on a pint and a half plus a couple tablespoons worth of herbicide on that same football field sized area.

In other words, per square foot, on the corn ground we apply what amounts to 1/3 of a drop per square foot. On soybean ground it’s approximately 1/12 of a drop per square foot. We’re not “drowning” plants in pesticides; we’re using what amounts to eyedroppers. What we do is a misting and not a “dousing”.

Let’s look a little closer at our goals. Believe it or not, most farmers try to minimize total herbicide use. Yeah, that’s right. We don’t have a special love for applying herbicides. They can be expensive, it takes resources of time and fuel to apply them, there are crop rotation issues for some herbicides and they are not sustainable, which is one of my big concerns and a concern farmers that I know.

To look at a specific example in our operation, we have two farms that we rented about 4 years ago. They has been used by another farmer who had raised continuous corn, applied liquid manure and used a minimum of two tillage passes between crops to loosen the soil, size and bury the residue and control weeds. That all changed when we took over the farms.

We started no-tilling, meaning we use not full-width tillage. Only the shanks of the nitrogen applicator and the planter disturb the soil. During the transition time, we aggressively managed weeds through herbicides. We made multiple passes, usually three per year, and used multiple modes of action. The goal was to eliminate weeds so they don’t have the ability to produce seed. Once the weed seed in the top several inches of soil have germinated and those weeds controlled, our job gets much easier.

Anti-GMO meme; No serious health issues have been linked to glyphosate according to the EPA and EU

Anti-GMO meme; No serious health issues have been linked to glyphosate according to the EPA and EU

Four years later, we are nearly at the finish line. We had some grass creeping in from the field edges that we needed herbicide to control, but as I planted that field, I could have pulled every weed in that field and fit them in one five gallon bucket. That’s over 120 acres and probably less than one weed per acre. No burn-down herbicide was needed, and we will likely only have to use one herbicide application to control weeds in that field this year.  On those farms, we will likely not use glyphosate even though we have glyphosate tolerant corn planted in that field this year.

A couple pints and a few spoonfuls of herbicide sure doesn’t sound like a drowning to me. Maybe GMOFreeUSA and other dedicated anti-GMO campaigners have a different idea, but they really need to get out and see what farmers really do. It’s not at all what they think.

So next time you’re at Dunkin Donuts or Starbucks picking up an extra large of your favorite coffee, that’s approximately the amount of herbicide we spread on a football field sized area of a field.

Dave Walton, a contributing columnist to the GLP, is a full-time farmer in Cedar County, Iowa growing GM and non-GM corn, soybeans, alfalfa and pasture on 500 acres of the world’s most productive soil. Follow him on twitter at: @waltonagseed.

  • RobertWager

    Facts not fear, Thank you

  • Anti-GMO organic activists think all farmers are stupid, and that they’ve been duped into blindly doing whatever multinational ag-corporations tell them to do, like wasting money “drowning” their crops in herbicides.

    Remember, the mantra of the organic industry is, “It isn’t what you spend, but what you don’t spend.” Of course what they leave out is the fact that all the money organic farmers don’t spend on crop inputs goes into certification fees and organic royalty payments.

    • Tim Taylor

      Farmers are stupid. I know. My dad sprays this stuff on everything as an industrial farmer. He hasn’t a clue as to what the impact is. And he doesn’t care because the system forces him to do so or lose his farm.

      • The system forces him to do so. You’re a rank moron, aren’t you Tim? You sound like a college freshman. The system… yeesh.

        • David Smith

          Why do you get so insulting when someone makes a comment you don’t like? Please don’t do it.

        • Tim Taylor starts his comment with “Farmers are stupid” and you say I’m insulting? Sorry then, YOU’RE the moron.

      • So your dad is stupid? I didn’t know people could forcibly make him farm a certain way. Shame. In Canada we have choices.

      • Randall H.

        Did you arrive at this conclusion using scientific methods?

        Your comments on this thread are not only unscientific, but downright juvenile.

        Your personal insults, especially when directed at your father, are not impressive whatsoever.

      • Judy Nonarchi

        “Farmers are stupid.”
        Sure hope YOU have something to eat other than what is raised by our “stupid” farmers.

  • mem_somerville

    It’s so refreshing to hear from farmers themselves on this.

    • David Walton

      Thanks mem. It’s why I joined the discussion.

      • RobertWager

        This debate needs far more farmer input.

    • Tim Taylor

      WTF does a farmer know about science or food safety?

      • Hmm… let me think. Oh yes… I know. EVERYTHING!

        • JOHN BISCIT

          Farmers know enough to know that they shouldn’t be poisoning our crops that consumers have to eat

          • You don’t know anything about the toxic poisons used in organic agriculture, do you John?

          • JOHN BISCIT

            You have been brainwashed into believing that since the government agencies approve more and more toxins to be included in the category of “organic” treatments that magically these toxins become organically safe.
            No a toxin, poison or non natural treatment is not true organic.
            Toxic poisons are not used in true organic agriculture.

          • You’re confusing synthetic processing aids which have recently been included on the NOP organic list (and which are not toxic by the way) with highly toxic natural substances like pyrethrins which have been used for decades as perfectly acceptable “organic” pesticides.

            It wasn’t a government agency which convinced the organic industry to accept pyrethrins. It was the other way ’round.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            “You’re confusing synthetic processing aids which have recently been included on the NOP organic list ”
            It is of no consequence either way- these are all noxious toxic poisons that have no place in organic farming. No matter which way you twist words and meanings around any subsatance humans manipulate to kill bugs or plants is not organic.
            And don’t forget the government is ultamately responsible for how regulations are decided. Ordinary farmers have little say. However big AG can and did influence the agencies to accept toxic poisons as organic susbstances. This was solely to ensure profits and business survival would continue.

          • I used to think like you my friend. But the world isn’t that simple. You can’t simply divide things into good and bad based on whether they’re natural or whether some federal agency approves of them or not.

            When you realize the millionaires running the organic industry are no better than the ones running government and corporations like Monsanto, that’s the day you’ll finaly be free.

            All the best.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            I don’t really know if you thought like me or not but the way I think now is the same way I thought 40 years ago. That is:
            I live in a democracy and I take advantage of that. Particularly, I am free to choose so I choose true organic farmers in my area with a small carbon footprint. I will not buy and therefore support those products from large corporations who do not care about the world’s hungry and are only out to make a profit.
            And yes I have and will always divide things into good and bad. I have that right and I stand by it.
            People chose between good and bad every day- if they are made aware of the difference. Unfortunately, they are not always able to do so since many unscrupulous companies hide what is really in thier food and lie about whether it is healthy and safe. The government agencies play a roll in this deception by allowing poisons to be passed off as organic. And I have divided this process into good and bad.
            I have the means to support my principles. Unfortunately many do not. That is why it is imperative for all consumers to be able to afford the cleanest and safest food possible.
            Many large AG have taken that right away through passing off cheap as healthy and safe. Make no mistake about it they aren’t. But what is worse is allowing food to be sold under a certified organic food when it is truly not.

          • One thing you can be guaranteed of is that true organic farmers in your area definitely do not have a small carbon footprint. If CO2 emissions are your only criteria, then stop buying local and stop buying organic. It’s that simple.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            You just made no sense whatsoever.
            That’s a formula to destroy farmers’ livlihoods and the environment as well.

          • I’m all for supporting local farmers John. But not because their CO2 are lower. They’re higher, which is fine by me. Much, much, much higher.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            No my sources do not have a high carbon footprint

          • I guarantee you they do, which, again, is fine!
            CO2 is not pollution.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            “I guarantee you they do”
            You are telling me something that you know nothing about?
            “CO2 is not pollution” ? Your credibility on this subject is sadly lacking.

          • Let me assure you John, this has nothing to do with my credibility. It’s about this little biological function called photosynthesis. Perhaps you have heard of it before?

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Never heard of it. Why don’t you explain it to me asshole

          • GMO Roberts

            Why so rude? Again someone is trying to educate you, because you don’t understand, or is it thank you can’t handle the fact that you are wrong?

          • hyperzombie

            Nothing says “Carbon Footprint” like an organic farmers flame weeder.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            None of my sources employ this procedure

          • hyperzombie

            Sure they dont.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            No they don’t

          • GMO Roberts

            Prove it Jonny, while you are at it tell us what kind of government we have.

          • joviss

            He’s not brainwashed, he’s money washed. Bought and paid spokesperson.

          • eddee

            What’s it like to be Forrest Gumps understudy?

          • GMO Roberts

            It has been explained to him, but his learning curve isn’t much.

          • It’s funny becuase I used to think like John. I was a USDA contract-organic inspector, and I believed all the propaganda against the “system.”

            But I now know the world is complicated, and that there are just as many jackasses running the organic movement as there are in the GMO sector.

          • joviss
      • Loren Eaton

        He knows if he’s “dousing” his crops.

      • Shelli

        Trust me, way, way, way more than you do! Many have degrees in agriculture ranging from crop science to herd health to bio security to Ag economics. What degree do you have?!

  • Neil

    Hey Dave, are those ounces by weight or volume? That is, are you spraying 16oz (453g) per acre? Or is that 16 fluid ounces of a concentrated solution of glyphosate? If the latter what is the concentration?

    • David Walton

      The glyphosate amount is in fluid ounces. The product we are using is re-branded (not Monsanto if it matters), and is considered by the trade to be a “4lb per gallon” product. So to translate, we are putting on the equivalent 1/2lb per acre of active ingredient during the burndown application.

      • Neil

        So, if I’ve done the math right, 0.5 lb/acre is about 5 mg of glyphosate per square foot?? Five milligrams?! That’s about a tenth of a grain of salt…that’s so low I think I’ve done the math wrong.

        It makes the statement “farmers use eyedroppers” an exaggeration.

        • David Walton

          5mg/square foot is correct. Not exactly drowning a crop, is it?

          • rick

            What population do you plant at? I assume if you are dryland you are in the range of 18-22,000 plants per acre, say 20,000. 16 oz / 20,000 = .0007272 ozs active ingredient / plant. (7.2 / 10,000 oz). While I won’t say that is or isn’t a lot, I do question characterizing that as dousing, etc” and is probably far less than most people envision.

          • David Walton

            We are rain-fed dryland, but your populations are way too low. We plant in the range of 34,000 up to 38,000 depending on yield potential of the field. Your point still holds true, but at a lower amount per plant.

          • rick

            Thanks. I am probably years behind on planting populations and am most familiar with western Nebraska planting populations.

          • rick

            Here is another question to put it in perspective — suppose you applied at a rate of 1/100th oz active ingredient per plant, (i.e a rate of 1 oz / 100 plants). At a population stand of 20,000 plants per acre, that would translate to 200 oz. active ingredient per acre (20,000 / 100). What would be the cost of the products purchased to apply glysophate at that rate?

        • Kevin Folta

          You have it right. It is about 83 mg per square meter, applied before plants flower and even if it all magically sequestered in the beans you’d have to eat three acres of them (>3500 kg) to achieve the LD50. The math really cleans up this issue.

          • David Walton

            It does get a little clumsy when we have to convert between imperial and metric, but glad we got the math right. Thanks Kevin!

  • David Smith

    If farmers are spraying so little Roundup, why is glyphosate showing up in urine and breast milk. Does this suggest that glyphosate is maybe more persistent than what was thought previously?

    • No it means detection methods are really really REALLY sensitive. To “show up” means it made an instrument say “Oh hey, I found a few nanograms”… it does not mean your body says “ARGH!!! I’M DYING!!!”.

      The *dose* makes the poison, not the presence. Anything is toxic in high enough dose. Everything is non-toxic in low enough dose. Table-salt can be used as a murder weapon, and is done so several times per year… while at the same time you walk around with mercury, lead, uranium and radioactivity in your body you whole life without feeling a thing from it because the dose is so low.

      The most toxic substance known on Earth – the botulin toxin – is used as a beauty treatment, while the most precious and safe substance – water – kills hundreds if people every year in water poisoning. The DOSE makes the poison, not the presence.

      Compare to someone putting a hand on your cheek gently… or sending it flying against it as a curled up fist.

      • David Smith

        In the Moms Across America report, breast milk was only tested from 10 mothers and the highest amount of glyphosate detected was 0.166 mg/L while the EPA sets a limit of 0.7 mg/L as the maximum contamination level for glyphosate in water.
        The EPA document lists “Kidney problems; reproductive difficulties” under “Potential Health Effects from Long-Term Exposure Above the MCL (unless specified as short-term)”.

        Compared to this, the levels of glyphosate in water in the Moms Across America report were nanogram amounts.

        So the higher levels in breast milk might either indicate a concentration effect or may be as a result of sampling environment.

        It is a pity that there is no historical data to track whether levels of glyphosate have gradually increased or remained the same over the last few years. There is also no current EPA data I could find on the amount of glyphosate sold in the USA since 2008.

        • A great point David. But the fact remains – as Michael put it – the dosage is what makes the poison. Paracelsus was the first to coin this phrase. What this means is that even if glyphosate levels have gone up in breast milk, it wouldn’t matter unless it reached a crucial level causing some sort of toxic reaction.

          • bible thumper

            Spoken like a true monsanto farmer

          • But I’m an organic farmer.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            If you are an organic farmer you don’t use “cides.

          • Really? So, Rotenone, pyrethrins and nicotene aren’t “cides”?

          • JOHN BISCIT

            They become ‘cides when humans intervene and manipulate nature. Until humans intervene, no, they are just plants minding their own business.

          • Farming itself is humans intervening and manipulating nature.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Yes true but that is fine as long as there is no long term damage to the environment.

          • A good rule of thumb I have always followed is that any farmer who’s been in business for his entire life is definitely NOT damaging his environment.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            You would have to expand on that premise in order for you to prove that point. How does that necessarily prove he is not damaging the environment? Do you mean just because he has always farmed on the same plot of land all his/her life?

          • Suffice it to say that it’s logically impossible for people who don’t farm to try judging whether or not farmers are friendly to the environment.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            You would have to expand on that premise in order for you to prove that
            point. How does that necessarily prove he is not damaging the
            environment? Do you mean just because he has always farmed on the same
            plot of land all his/her life?

          • Unlike most other businesses where the environment is external, farmers live, breath, eat and earn their living within their environment.

            I have seen a few farmers over the years who did damage to their environment for short-term gain, but it always caught up with them in the end. All such farmers go bankrupt sooner or later.

        • Kevin Folta

          David, there are a few things to consider. First, what is “detection”? With GC/MS it is possible to find molecules on the edge of existence. Homeowner or municipal use can show up there. However, I’m also inclined to disregard Moms Across America’s conclusions. Last year their “stunning corn comparison” used absolutely fake numbers that could not represent anything biological. They made the horrendous error of posting bogus data, and when I pointed that out they told me that they knew they were bad numbers but were not going to change them. When you consider the source, I’m not convinced they are measuring anything. When the claim is about breast milk and trying to freak out affluent mothers, that would be the place to say you found it. If the results were real and rigorous you’d see them in peer-reviewed journals.

          Actually, we could ask them to repeat their data using the same mothers. I can tell you now that they won’t do it. They didn’t want to do the corn experiment over either.

        • Guest

          Now, let me see if I understand this: The mothers milk had 0.166 mg/L of glyphosate and the EPA sets a limit of 0.7 mg/L as the maximum contamination level for glyphosate in water. Now you feel the 0.166 mg/L level of mothers milk is higher than the EPA limit for glyphosate in water? I hope I’m not understanding you.

          In my math class the teacher said 0.7 mg is bigger than 0.166 mg. What did your teacher say?

        • kurzweilfreak

          Excuse me if I don’t put much faith in the MAA report, since these people collected and sent in their own samples with absolutely no contamination protocols in place. For all we know, these women could have sprayed their backyards or driveways earlier in the week before sending in their self-produced samples. Or left them sitting out before sealing while someone else was spraying. Or 100 other possibilities that were not controlled for in this “self-reporting”.

          Or they actually could have simply made the data up wholesale, since it was never peer-reviewed or replicated.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Just like Monsanto does.

      • Your1Friend

        So comforting.

    • David, please take a chemistry lesson. With modern biometrics, EVERYTHING shows up in urine. Literally a thimble full of any chemical spilled into Lake Erie would show up a week later with today’s tests. Urine presence shows zero about bioaccumulation, and we know for certain that glyphosate does not bioaccumulate. It’s less dangerous than table sale in its LD profile.

      No peer reviewed study has shown glyphosate in breast milk by the way…that was a survey by VERY fringe GMO activists, as you well know. What they found in their unscientific review — the antithesis of real science — was miniscule traces in breast milk in unknown women (farm workers? suburbanites?) at 1/10 the level deemed acceptable by health officials, which itself 1/100 of the level that has been shown to cause reactions in lab animals exposed to glyphosate continuously for it’s already 1/1000 the level deemed potentially hazardous for CONTINUOUS exposure, which would really be about 1/1 millionth a level that could be dangerous to the average person. In other words, even this “review” found glyphosate perfectly safe, though the crack anti-GMO activists who tried to spin their own failed experiment would never admit it. On to the next bogeyman, David.

      • David Smith

        Jon, I’m assuming that when you refer to “modern biometrics” you simply mean chemicals including herbicides and pesticides? (I think that term is already in use to mean something else). And sadly you are probably right about Lake Erie being highly polluted.

        If all glyphosate ingested is supposed to exit the body in urine but is showing up in breast milk then where else in the body is it going to. And if it is confirmed to be in breast milk then it kind of debunks the whole issue of low cellular uptake!

        • Nope. Biometrics in this case is the ability to find vanishingly small and biologically meaningless traces of chemicals. You missed the point on Lake Erie…it could Lake Lucerne…the point is we can now find meaninglessly small amounts of chemicals. As for the breast milk claims: (1) there has never been a study (2) even if this survey was on to something, the levels are so low that it merely confirms glyphosate’s safety and (3) this says nothing about “cellular uptake” not would its presence breast milk. You keep posting stuff about which you have no science background on at all.

          • David Smith

            “You keep posting stuff about which you have no science background on at all.”
            You are right Jon. Unlike you I do not have any expert knowledge on pesticides except what I read about in scientific peer reviewed journals.
            You on the other hand (despite a “journalistic” background) seem to have a plethora of information on the safety of pesticides – why even Syngenta consulted you in their damage control strategy against the public concerns over atrazene (it’s amazing what documents can be found on the internet!) (see pg 3 and 4 on AEI and Jon Entine):

            Now I do wonder what that had to do with your defense of atrazene in your book “Crop Chemophobia” and “Scared to death” which also includes a defense of BPA.

            A publication by Hayes et al (2011), authored by 22 scientists from 16 institutions debunk the spin that atrazene is harmless:
            They conclude that “Atrazine is prevalent and persistent in the environment. There are many other documented reproductive effects of atrazine in laboratory rodents: induced abortion and impaired mammary development and the induction of reproductive and hormone-dependent cancers, and as well as other non-reproductive effects including impaired immune function (also observed in multiple studies across vertebrate classes) and and impaired neural development. Thus, with the additional the indirect effects of atrazine on habitats atrazine can have dramatic effects on ecosystems, environmental health and public health.

            On BPA, even the NIH and FDA have in 2013 started raising concerns of its effect: “However, on the basis of results from recent studies using novel approaches to test for subtle effects, both the National Toxicology Program at the National Institutes of Health and FDA have some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children.”

            But I’m sure you know best!

          • rogerston

            David, Kevin Folta addressed your original assertions, yet you seem keen on trying to play the shill card with Jon instead of continuing the actual points you originally brought up.

            Kevin is a molecular biologist by the way and very well respected in his field, so if you have any more genuine scientific/health concerns, he would be an honest person to get good answers from.

            I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are an intellectually curious and honest person, and not ideologically driven to just be a static voice of dissent, moving goal posts and topics, gish galloping with more of an interest in scoring debate points for onlookers than genuinely seeking answers from those in the know.

            With that in mind, do you have any more concerns about glyphosate specifically, do have some data from credible sources you need addressed, or are we done here?

          • David Smith

            I am not going to comment on every little issue you raise since in your own words it’s “gish galloping”!

            “Kevin Folta addressed your original assertions…”

            Actually I made no assertions! Instead I tried to raise questions regarding a report that I won’t dismiss out of hand because you already seem to have all the answers for without having the facts. What if the study is repeated and glyphosate is found in breast milk? Instead you rubbish it outright and thereby demonstrate your one-sided view of this issue. While Kevin offered a well-meaning opinion, it is only an opinion since he is not a toxicologist or an expert on pesticides.

            “..yet you seem keen on trying to play the shill card with Jon..”

            Your words not mine. I only raised some facts. The fact that he puts himself forward as an expert on pesticides is in itself a deception. Despite publishing books on pesticides, he has no scientific education in pesticides apart from links to the pesticide industry.

            “With that in mind, do you have any more concerns about glyphosate specifically, do have some data from credible sources you need addressed, or are we done here?”

            That seems like quite a juvenile response – but yes I have several concerns that remain unanswered regarding glyphosate. Please note that all studies used glyphosate below NOAEL:

            Benedetti et al. (2004).The effects of sub-chronic exposure of Wistar rats to the herbicide Glyphosate-Biocarb. Toxicology Letters 153(2): 227–232
            Conclusion: “The object of this study was to analyze the hepatic effects of the herbicide Glyphosate-Biocarb® (as commercialized in Brazil) in Wistar rats. Animals were treated orally with water or 4.87, 48.7, or 487 mg/kg of glyphosate each 2 days, during 75 days. Sub-chronic treatment of animals starting from the lowest dose of glyphosate induced the leakage of hepatic intracellular enzymes, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST), suggesting irreversible damage in hepatocytes. We observed the increase of Kupffer cells in hepatic sinusoid of glyphosate-treated animals. This was followed by large deposition of reticulin fibers, composed mainly of collagen type III.”

            El-Shenawy. (2009). Oxidative stress responses of rats exposed to Roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 28(3): 379–385
            Conclusion: “Treatment of animals with Roundup induced the leakage of hepatic intracellular enzymes, ALT, AST and ALP suggesting irreversible damage in hepatocytes starting from the first week. It was found that the effects were different on the enzymes in Roundup and glyphosate-treated groups. Significant time-dependent depletion of GSH levels and induction of oxidative stress in liver by the elevated levels of LPO, further confirmed the potential of Roundup to induce oxidative stress in hepatic tissue. However, glyphosate caused significant increases in NO levels more than Roundup after 2 weeks of treatment. Both treatments increased the level of TNF-α by the same manner. The results suggest that excessive antioxidant disruptor and oxidative stress is induced with Roundup than glyphosate.”

            Romano et al. (2012). Glyphosate impairs male offspring reproductive development by disrupting gonadotropin expression. Archives of Toxicology 86(4): 663-673.
            Conclusion: “Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the effect of gestational maternal glyphosate exposure (50 mg/kg, NOAEL for reproductive toxicity) on the reproductive development of male offspring…. These results suggest that maternal exposure to glyphosate disturbed the masculinization process and promoted behavioral changes and histological and endocrine problems in reproductive parameters.”

            Chłopecka et al. (2014). Glyphosate affects the spontaneous motoric activity of intestine at very low doses – In vitro study. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 113:25–30
            Conclusion: “The gathered data suggests that glyphosate impairs gastrointestinal strips’ motility at concentration that are noticed in human exposed to non-toxic doses of glyphosate.”

            Roustan et al. (2014). Genotoxicity of mixtures of glyphosate and atrazine and their environmental transformation products before and after photoactivation. Chemosphere 108: 93–100
            Conclusion: “In the present study, in vitro experiments showed that the genotoxic impact of pesticides greatly depended on their physico-chemical environment, and that pesticide mixtures could reveal genotoxic properties at concentrations which were far lower than those of the individual molecules. As a consequence, they pointed out the limits of usual testing strategies to efficiently estimate environmental risks, and suggested that the Directive Standards for Pesticides in Drinking Water should be re-evaluated according to these under-estimated factors of risk.”

          • bible thumper

            Monsanto robot.

      • bible thumper

        I think you should start testing on your children to find out just what it does…wait, if you let your kids eat that poison you are.


        When chemical agriculture blankets millions of acres of genetically engineered corn and soybean fields with hundreds of millions of pounds of glyphosate,
        it’s not a surprise babies are now consuming Monsanto’s signature
        chemical with breast milk and infant formula,” said Ken Cook, president
        and co-founder of Environmental Working Group. “The primary reason
        millions of Americans, including infants, are now exposed to this
        probable carcinogen is due to the explosion of genetically engineered
        crops that now dominate farmland across the U.S.”

  • Tim Taylor

    This is a propaganda web site. I am a scientist and you are being wildly deceitful in most articles I see on here. How is this site funded? What ties do you have to other organizations? My dad is a farmer and I was too until I went away to college. How much Roundup is used annually in this country? Do tell.

    If you think they are using eye droppers and Roundup is safe, why don’t you come over to my house for a little tea. I’ll drink organic green tea and you can have an eye dropper full of 2,4D.

    • David Walton

      I’m pretty sure I’ve ingested 2,4D in my lifetime and I’m still here to tell about it. The eyedropper analogy is an attempt to get others to understand the small amount of glyphosate we use, not the drowning that GMOFreeUSA and others attempt to convince their followers that we use.

      • Tim Taylor

        Ignorant answer. Wildly ignorant. Anti-scientific. Dumbed-down. Anecdotal nonsense.

        I have a simple question for you. Nature has rules. It has set up those rules over billions of years. Nature does not break its own rules. When anyone does, nature is pathological. If anyone breaks its rules, the consequences are merciless. Need I cite examples?

        Never in the history of the world has anyone broken those rules. That is, until now. So, we have two species. Let’s take GMO corn as an example. One species is a grass. The other is a bacteria. Monsanto uses techniques to literally force nature to break its rules by forcibly making bacteria part of the corn’s DNA. Yet nature has resisted this comingling of disparate species,

        What are the consequences of this action? What are the consequences of breaking nature’s laws? You are clueless. So are GMO scientists. No one knows the consequences. No one can tell me GMO foods are safe. Especially someone who tells me he ingested 2,4D and has lived to tell about it. That is so completely ignorant and lacking in scientific rigor that it’s completely laughable.

        • David Walton

          You know that Bt occurs in nature. Right? You know that it’s widely used in all sorts of vegetable production. Right?

          • (David, he’s doing it again. Tim Taylor thinks “Nature” has rules that have already been discovered and that can’t be changed. He’s stuck in the past. Shh… I don’t want him to hear me tell you this.)

          • Judy Nonarchi

            Including organic.

        • raaaaaaah

          U used a computer,wear clothes etc
          none of them were set up by nature.
          why aren’t you dead yet

          • johnnygeneric


        • Mrzyphl Moon

          We cant’ help but violate nature. Just by cutting down trees and tilling the land we destroy whole ecosystems by planting crops… any crop.

        • Kevin Folta

          Are you on a natural computer, or are you breaking nature’s rules?

        • Steven Alexander Shaver

          Tell that to the emerald sea slug? What about viruses that carry 20% of not their own DNA so that it can survive? Ferns are transgenic too… Nature has no rules.

    • Jon Entine

      Actually this is an independent web site supported by independent philanthropies. (Searle, Templeton, Winkler Family Trust). There are no “ties” to any organization other than George Mason and the independent Center for Health and Risk Communication. We carry articles in major publications and blogs from all sides of many issues on human and agricultural genetics. We run a variety of viewpoints and contributing columnists, including from an organic farmer who is sometimes quite critical of the biotech industry:

      David Walton is an independent contributor who writes based on his experiences with no editorial control or influence from anyone at the GLP.

      In fact, the GLP is so independent, I invite YOU to write for this site. If you can produce a coherent, non-ideological article–in other words free of the attack verbiage you used here–focusing on issues and empirical evidence–I will gladly post it, and future articles as well. So…if you are a thoughtful person and genuinely embrace science and dialogue, demonstrate it–please don’t just spout nonsense. Be constructive.

      • Tim Taylor

        These posts are nonsense and ideologicial drivel. There is no scientific rigor on this post. Nor is there one with the Yale neurological professor I just read. He obviously doesn’t even appreciate science, scientific falsification and what constitutes theory versus fact. I am a thoughtful person. That is why I am attacking this nonsensical bulloney on here.

        I see enough in the fact that Searle backs this site that money and conflict of interest are a part of your anti-scientific meme.

        • Jon Entine

          Yes, Tim, you are smarter and better informed and more scientifically rigorous than an independent neurology (you got the spelling wrong alas) professor. As for Searle, the foundations are independent of the company and are among the largest supporters of science prizes and independent educational research in the world, including the globally respected Searle Scholars Program. Obviously you are unfamiliar with the science and educational world or would know that. It appears that you have no interest in science but are a typical troll who spouts but won’t engage actual empirical data. Perhaps you should get your science from GMO Watch or Sustainable Pulse or some similar venue where you can get your prejudices confirmed independent of evidence, as appears to be your desire.

          • Tim Taylor

            Give me the credentials of the neurologist and his scientific falsification and rigor to make a statement that breaking nature’s laws has no consequences and is safe. You can’t. He can’t. So, his remarks are simply driven by some conflict of interest or ego-motive.

            Science in this nation is collapsing because of the conflict of money, corporations and ignorance that has hijacked it.

            Umm, because I didn’t use my spell checker means what? I am very familiar with science. I am a scientist. Are you? Answer my question below about the forced DNA change in corn created by Monsanto. You are wildly ignorant and wildly prejudice against science and in favor of voodoo and belief systems.

          • Jon Entine

            You sound like no scientist I’ve ever come across in my life–ever. More like a spoiled child. Please send a link to your university affiliation and your list of publications. I’ve been unable to locate you on the net so I assume you are using a pseudonym. As for my credentials, I’ve written 7 books, 2 on genetics and 2 on chemicals, and more than 2000 articles. I have two think tank affiliations, one liberal and one conservative. I have no axe to grind other than to support diverse viewpoints. If you’d like to share your “informed” views rather than just rant, than please be constructive and embrace my offer to write, independently, for this site. I’ve called your bluff.. Otherwise, anyone reading this exchange would rightfully conclude you are not a serious person. Reminder if you continue to be abusive in your posts, they will be removed. We guarantee our readers constructive dialogue–you have crossed that line for the last time.

          • Tim Taylor

            HAHAHAHAHA. Think tanks are paid off bureaucrats who use propaganda to convince humanity of a point of view that others wish us to believe for their own self-interested evils. That’s how you get corporations to fund this drivel on here.

            Written books on genetics? Now that’s rich. But you aren’t a scientist. So, if you aren’t a scientist what exactly did you write about in those books? Warm, fuzzy belief systems.

            Ohhh, I have crossed the line. I’m worried. I threaten your ignorance is what you really mean. Removing my posts allows you to continue a false meme. Freedom of speech is dead. And so is science. At least on here. Good riddance.

            Btw, you will lose. GMOs will lose. It’s just a matter of what the consequences will be before that happens.

          • David

            I absolutely adore it when an ignoramus tries to claim he’s a scientist and is so ignorant he doesn’t realize he can’t fake people out. Here’s a hint Tim – scientists don’t say things like “breaking nature’s laws with no consequences”. That’s straight out of a new age crackpot ideology and is the same type of thing vaccine deniers say.

          • Quite right David. Poor Tim Taylor is so overcome with self-righteous indignation he doesn’t even realize that the whole point of science is to “break” what we assumed were nature’s laws. Scientists do so by discovering new laws.

          • David Smith

            Jon, Since you raise the issue of credibility, I think it is important to bring the following to attention. You are not a scientist. You are a good writer – but not a scientist. I looked up you publications ( and they are impressive for a writer. However, you also must admit that almost none of your articles are peer reviewed.

            Two of your books “Crop Chemophobia: Will Precaution Kill the Green Revolution?” (2010) (J Entine editor and contributor) published by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the other “Scared to Death: How Chemophobia Threatens Public Health” (J Entine) was published by the American Council on Science and Health

            The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) is worth noting because its mantra is “Science. Not Hype.”. The same ACSH published another book “The effects of nicotine on human health” (2013) (Dr. Murray Laugesen) in which it is stated ““Cigarette smoke causes cancer, but nicotine does not”. The ACSH is clearly out to spread disinformation since several studies prior to the 2013 publication clearly demonstrate that nicotine itself causes cancer. I will provide the references if necessary.

            So what is your agenda?

          • Judy Nonarchi

            Thank you, Jon. Tim shows the petulant schoolyard name-calling behavior that, in adults, is considered part of classical narcissism. I too would appreciate your removing his ad hominem attack posts, if they do not ask specific questions or contribute to the discussion.

          • TZena

            Wow… brilliant post!

          • rogerston

            “Breaking natures laws” – what kind of scientist talks like this? Which “laws of nature” are being broken here precisely?

            You don’t just shout shill at the science that doesn’t confirm your beliefs. That’s what climate change denialists do You supply a proper critique of the science or provide better science that refutes it and you give weight to the consensus in the literature.

        • TZena

          Thank you….it is appreciated!

        • johnnygeneric

          So far, it’s is easy to say you have said nothing thoughtful. Why don’t you take up the challenge that has been posed to you and write an article?

          I think sites funded by anti-GMO environmentalists have a conflict of interest, too. There is no way to get around “conflicts of interest”. It is a stupid, small-minded “card” thrown down by people who really do NOT want to argue.

          Write an article for the website!

          • Judy Nonarchi

            Anti-GMO “environmentalists” (I put that in quotes because the environmental effects of GE crops are superior to alternative methods) have a great conflict of interest; fear that people will get over THEIR fear factors and will start eating GE foods and stop paying twice as much for organic food. So it very much pays them directly to keep ramping up the GE fear factor.

      • David Smith

        You are wrong Jon,

        Searle and Templeton are not “independent philanthropies”.

        They have been linked to “…funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations” in a peer reviewed paper by Brulle (2014) in Climate Change (impact factor of 3.634)

        In fact the AEI think tank you are a member of ( is listed in the same paper as a “climate counter-movement” organization.

      • bible thumper

        I have to use attack verbiage because I don’t have time to argue with Monsanto’s shrink the population, control the worlds food freaks. I couldn’t help it.
        Hear is the deal. By the time this arguing gets over and all the collateral damage brings science to admit they need to ban this garbage the damage will already be done.

    • TZ

      Awesome…so true, these biotech trolls lie and manipulate as a rule to accomplish their greedy corporate agendas!!! Jon Entine has admitted to getting paid by Biotech, to in my best estimation, help them deceive the American people! They are void of a conscience or anything that resembles integrity!

    • rogerston

      Do you have any credible sources to refute any of this article, or are you here just to make baseless ad hominem attacks because it doesn’t fit your ideology?

    • Judy Nonarchi

      Tell you what, smartie. You can have “organic” tea made from manure-infested leaves anyday. I don’t think I’ll drink an eye dropper of 2,4D but I sure as heck have no probs with that, or glyphosate, as properly applied (understand that?) on crops.

  • Interesting article. Good to hear the point of view of a farmer, too, as scientists often tend to look at best/worst case, not use-case. I understand that this is not a ‘scientific’ contribution, but it doesn’t have to be to have merit.

    I’m critical of pesticides, but not against their use. Maybe a good analogy is; I don’t particularly like cars, but I appreciate ambulances. I would like less polluting alternatives, but not at the cost of derailing society and resulting human suffering. Cars get better every day, too and soon will be emission-neutral. Banning cars now would halt all that progress. The same sortof applies to pesticides and GMO.

    Farmers are likely the first to notice if something slipped by the testing, if only because they see yield, are on the field day by day, and would notice dead butterflies, to coin one concern. I also believe that since farmers are the first to lose their livelihood if things go seriously wrong, they have a vested interest in safety.

    Organic farming has many flaws, but it holds a great ‘sympathy’ factor for me. I think it has a lot of good ideas wrapped in outdated science.

    It is sad to see how often dialogue derails thanks to bystanders with an agenda, or holy fire good intentions. Good people, with great intentions can do the most harm.

    From a layperson who has been struggling through papers, articles and safety sheets just to try and form an independent opinion, thank you. All the best with your farm. I hope it thrives, and I hope you keep bringing your positive attitude to the debate.

    • David Walton

      Thanks for your thoughts, David, and glad to hear this was helpful to you. I’m trying to take some of the rhetoric in the Ag debate and put it in practical terms and at the same time debunking those bits of misinformation that are all to common.

      Herbicides are necessary in our operations, but we do the best we can to reduce the use, and use the options that provide the highest level of environmental safety.

      You mentioned that Farmers would be the first to see anything that could slip through the cracks in research prior to release. That is true. There have been several incidents of that over the years, but it’s usually in the realm of crop safety or carryover concerns. The off-target effects are usually well known and chemical formulations are adjusted, or application recommendations are changed before the product goes to market.

      • Food safety and availability is of such major importance that we cannot debate this without asking those who actually keep us all alive, thank you for your clarifications. 🙂

        I have seen the effects of bad diet and food scarcity first hand, I lived in a developing country. I have read the posts below this article, and I despair at the negativity. If you’ve seen a child with severe malnutrition, really, you’ll be thankful for an apple with some negligible amounts of –icide on/in it MAYBE, because it sure as **** beats the alternative of NO apple. 😉 All that passoin going into paranoia rather than constructive debate. That’s why I replied.

        All the best,

  • TZ

    Nothing but lies and propaganda! Sickening!

  • stevenally

    The “eyedropper of chemicals” amount is meaningless. You could kill hundreds of people with an eye dropper of nerve gas.

    • I’ll make it more meaningful: an eye dropped if glyphosate which has one of the lowest toxic chemicals of any known agrichicsk, is nit carcinogenic, does not bioaccumulate and is not biodegradable. In other words anti-GMO ideologues who use thus “drenching” imagery are promoting ignorance and fear. Is that more meaningful?

      • stevenally

        That is the conventional view. Which is essentially shaped by the manufacturer. Here is a summary of the alternative view:

        • Judy Nonarchi

          “Suggested” ?? That is not science. That is mere armchair speculation. Means nothin.’

        • Benjamin Edge

          Interesting, the abstract for your second link there says “Our review found no evidence of a consistent pattern of positive
          associations indicating a causal relationship between any disease and
          exposure to glyphosate.”

        • kurzweilfreak

          Are you really trying to say that the multi hundred billion dollar a year organic industry has neither the incentive or money to fund the real independent tests to provide the evidence for the claims that they constantly trot out? You would think that an organization like that would be tripping all over themselves to make that happen if it were actually true. That they are not says everything: they know they’re full of shit.

          • stevenally

            Well, Kuzweillfreak. See what the man himself has to say….

          • JoeFarmer


            Seriously? You’re linking to a site that markets “longevity products”?

          • kurzweilfreak

            I’m very familiar with everything Kurzweil has written, thank you. Congratulations, you’ve discovered that not even Ray Kurzweil is immune to his own forms of quackery when they suit his bias, especially when they help to promote his products.

          • stevenally
    • Kevin Folta

      83 mg square meter active ingredient, applied before plants flower. I appreciate the author’s use of ‘eyedropper” to make the amounts approachable. At this rate it is hardly nerve gas. If all of it magically ended up in the beans you’d need to eat 3 acres of them to achieve an LD50 dose. Again, not quite nerve gas!

    • First Officer

      It’s a good thing it’s not nerve gas then, isn’t it? Your statement is like saying you shouldn’t drink a cup of coffee cause the same amount of botulism as there is caffeine would kill hundreds.

    • Randall H.

      Exactly! I really appreciate the comment, and the understanding that there are different toxicities of chemicals.

      You can then understand why I’d rather spray 2 qts Roundup per acre than 1 pint of Atrazine.

      This also means that you understand that while herbicide spraying isn’t necessarily going down in lbs/acre, it is REALLY going down in toxicity per acre.

      This is precisely why GM crops are better for the environment, instead of spraying with an “eye dropper” of “nerve gas,” we are now spraying with “two eye droppers” of “table salt.”

  • johnnygeneric

    Very, very enlightening.

  • rogerston

    Do you have credible sources to refute any of this, or are you here just to make baseless ad hominem attacks because it doesn’t fit your ideology?

    • David Smith

      See my response above.

  • bible thumper

    One in 80 kids that were born in 2001 have autism. It has been clearly linked to glyphosate usage. It shows up in mothers milk and urine samples. Experts predict because of the continued and excessive mount of round up ready crops GMO the autism rate will continue to rise exponentially. Check out “Moms across America” for great studies and resources. Why the farmers turn a blind eye to the detriment of humanity is beyond me. The need to grow a conscience.

    • Judy Nonarchi

      Oh yeah, bible thumper? (huh?) The Autism Society makes no such claim nor do scientists. I’ve read that hype article about autism doubling, because of glyphosate; that’s just pure speculation, and isn’t even good correlation, much less causation. (do you have any idea what I’m referring to here? Oh yeah; you’re a bible thumper. Never mind.)

      • bible thumper

        Judy, your not informed or qualified to comment on this subject. If you want to know the truth check out this link.

        • kurzweilfreak

          Jeffery Smith is neither informed nor qualified to comment on any science subject, since he is not a scientist at all and has absolutely no scientific training in any field. So why do you keep posting his “institute” website as if it is some kind of authority? You do know who he is, right?

        • Good4U

          Thumper, you probably know by now (embarrassed much?) that the Smith character that you referred to above is just a wacked-out, wild-eyed animalistic aberration, some sort of protohuman; sort of like those ISIS characters that have taken over parts of the Middle East. The term ‘institute’ associated with him is particularly apt, as he certainly belongs in an institute (as in ‘institution’).

  • David Corpus

    Was “drowning” the crops ever the issue? This sounds like a straw man. In the USA, roundup is applied at over 180 million pounds annually. It may look like an eyedropper to each square millimeter per application, but that is hardly the point. Some quick notable issues that I am aware of regarding roundup are:
    1. The scientists who invented roundup had advised that farmers retain a specific percentage of their adjacent farmland to NOT use roundup. This was for the purpose of weed pollination to not create roundup resistant weeds. (Guess how that turned out.)
    2. Ecological effects. Studies have shown that glyphosate has significant adverse impacts upon bees, amphibians, fish, beneficial insects and nitrogen fixing bacteria. Glyphosate is not selective in the plants it kills, either. The endangered shrub, Pimelea spicata, has had entire metapopulations endangered by glyphosate applications intended to eradicate bitou bush. As it reaches lakes and oceans, the half-life of glyphosate jumps up from 5 days in soil to 49 days. It severely impacts plankton growth and is detrimental to coral.
    3. Human heath risks. In a Minnesota study of 1537 children, parental exposure to glyphosate was correlated with increased birth defects.

    • Guest
    • David Corpus

      Why was my comment jammed in the middle of an 8-month old conversation instead of being placed chronologically?

    • hyperzombie

      1. The scientists who invented roundup had advised that farmers retain a specific percentage of their adjacent farmland to NOT use roundup.

      They issue the same advice for all herbicides, Oh, you think that there is just one not 100s.

      2. Ecological effects. Studies have shown that glyphosate has significant adverse impacts upon bees, amphibians, fish, beneficial insects and nitrogen fixing bacteria.

      Nope, it is pretty much harmless to everything but plants.

      Glyphosate is not selective in the plants it kills, either.

      Duh, that is the whole point. like WTF?

      Pimelea spicata, has had entire metapopulations endangered by glyphosate applications intended to eradicate bitou bush

      tell the applicators to only spray the brush that they want to kill, problem solved. Glyphosate doent kill anything that it is not sprayed on.

      As it reaches lakes and oceans, the half-life of glyphosate jumps up from 5 days in soil to 49 days. It severely impacts plankton growth and is detrimental to coral.

      It is the other way around 5 days or so in water and 49 days on land. Glyphosate also does not leach, it binds tightly to the soil.

  • bible thumper

    Farmers are a bunch of Monsanto’s sellouts, accomplices to rising cancer and desiese. GMO, Pesticides and chemical fertilizers are killing people.
    Farmers will sell own children for a buck. I think they should have to ware a signs that say what we produce is carcinogenic and is detrimental to your health.

    • hyperzombie

      The cancer rate is DOWN 15% since the introduction of GMOs, got anything else?

      • bible thumper

        Truth is people are becoming more aware since the Monsanto’s GMO plants,animals and pesticides have taken over. The health food industry is booming. Organic growers and home gardens are on the rise. So don’t chalk up the success to round up ready gmo crops and round up…that would be stupid.

        • hyperzombie

          The health food industry is booming. Organic growers and home gardens are on the rise.

          Well, the with the Europeans it is even more popular, yet their cancer rate is not going down as fast as it is in North America (and it is higher overall).
          I by no means am saying that either GMOs or Roundup lower the cancer rate, but is sure isn’t causing cancer.

          • bible thumper

            You say heal food is even more popular with Europeans, but they have a huge disadvantage
            with governmental restrictions on non pharmaceutical healthy supplements and treatments. There are lots of deceases that are on the rise that are contributed to round up ready crops. Cancer isn’t the only thing to look at. Every time Science tries to improve on nature something bad happens. They introduce a fish into a new habitat and all of a sudden it ruins the echo system. How much damage are they doing reengineering plants and animals that will affect the gene pool for ever. I personally don’t want to see all the corn in the world be a genetically modified monsanto corn or beets or soybeans or wheat. It is like watching the mass extinction of plants that have feed humans for thousands of years. I say there are some things that science shouldn’t do.

          • hyperzombie

            There are lots of deceases that are on the rise that are contributed to round up ready crops

            Like what?

            Every time Science tries to improve on nature something bad happens.

            I didnt know that the wheel and cellphones were a huge failure?

            They introduce a fish into a new habitat and all of a sudden it ruins the echo system.

            When did scientists put fish in a new ecosystem?

            How much damage are they doing reengineering plants and animals that will affect the gene pool for ever.

            Hmmm, all crops are engineered by humans for humans…There is no wild corn, wheat, barley and most other crops. Spend some time thinking about this in the wild fields of seedless watermelon…

            I personally don’t want to see all the corn in the world be a genetically modified monsanto corn or beets or soybeans or wheat.

            None of these crops exist in Nature, they were bred by humans for humans.

            It is like watching the mass extinction of plants that have feed humans for thousands of years

            No plants are going extinct because of GMOs,,, GMOs are just traits, not a species.

          • bible thumper

            I think the GMO corn has gone to your brain. You cant be serious. These crops all exist in nature. Man didn’t event corn. It was a wild plant that man cultivated to sustain life. Now man is changing the DNA in food. This is irreversible.

            Here is an interesting study.
            Tissues including meat of chicken who had eaten only genetically engineered Bt corn were found to contain pieces of DNA from this food. The problem however is that every cell in plant GE foods contain genetically unstable DNA from the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV) promoter. This DNA is suspected to be cancerogenic. Moreover the CaMV is related to human viruses that cause serious diseases (AIDS and Hepatitis B). The corn grains on one cob of GE corn contain hundreds of millions of such CaMV DNA.

            This is just one of several studies that have established that the genes in the body may take up potentially harmful, patogenic viral DNA from GE food. It has not been proven that it is safe to ingest large amounts of such dangerous virus genes. Still the GE foods containing them has been approved for sale and are found on the shelves all over the US and other countries.

          • hyperzombie

            These crops all exist in nature. Man didn’t event corn

            Think about that while wondering around the wild corn fields of France,,,,Oh You cant because there is no wild corn…. Corn cant even reproduce without humans.

            Now man is changing the DNA in food.

            Yep, It is called plant breeding and we have been doing it for 1000s of years.

            If you are worried about Bt, you should not consume any Organic food. They use 1000s of times more than GMO farmers as a per acre rate.
            Bt is totally harmless to humans and it has been used in Ag for almost 100 years now…Back in the 30s salesmen ate it right out of the box.

          • JoeFarmer

            You are an idiot.

          • Good4U

            Thumper, you are quite out of touch with reality. You should seek education on the facts pertaining to genetics, and more importantly on biochemistry. You should also look into the actuarial statistics on human diseases such as cancer, which as the other commenters have correctly stated, are decreasing in North America (but not worldwide). Life expectancies in the industrialized countries of the world are increasing, and have continued to increase ever since modern agricultural techniques were adopted, especially genetic modification of certain food crops to make them safer and which have prevented unnecessary waste of natural resources that would otherwise have occurred without GMOs. A fear based approach to life has never been productive. Good luck on your educational path. Let us know in about 10 years how you are doing. Meanwhile, you should refrain from making wild statements such as you have done above.

          • bible thumper

            More simplistic approach to GMO and chemicals.

            There is a great scientist that has been studying the autism spike in kids, after six years of research she thought it was brought on by vaccines because of the correlation between the vaccines and the children beginning to show signs of autism. She is finding glyphosate to be the major factor, although vaccines do seem to trigger the decease. According to the graph of children contracting this decease the number of will continue to rise. Right now it is one in 80 children.

            This is some good reading for those that care to know whats up

            10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs

            1. GMOs are unhealthy.
            The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how genetically modified (GM) food can leave material behind inside us, possibly causing long-term problems. Genes inserted into GM soy, for example, can transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside us, and that the toxic insecticide produced by GM corn was found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses.

            Numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others are on the rise. Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that GMOs are a contributing factor, doctors groups such as the AAEM tell us not to wait before we start protecting ourselves, and especially our children who are most at risk.

            The American Public Health Association and American Nurses Association are among many medical groups that condemn the use of GM bovine growth hormone, because the milk from treated cows has more of the hormone IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1)―which is linked to cancer.

            2. GMOs contaminate―forever.
            GMOs cross pollinate and their seeds can travel. It is impossible to fully clean up our contaminated gene pool. Self-propagating GMO pollution will outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. The potential impact is huge, threatening the health of future generations. GMO contamination has also caused economic losses for organic and non-GMO farmers who often struggle to keep their crops pure.

            3. GMOs increase herbicide use.
            Most GM crops are engineered to be “herbicide tolerant”―they deadly weed killer. Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide.

            Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in “superweeds,” resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.

            4. Genetic engineering creates dangerous side effects.
            By mixing genes from totally unrelated species, genetic engineering unleashes a host of unpredictable side effects. Moreover, irrespective of the type of genes that are inserted, the very process of creating a GM plant can result in massive collateral damage that produces new toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and nutritional deficiencies.

            5. Government oversight is dangerously lax.
            Most of the health and environmental risks of GMOs are ignored by governments’ superficial regulations and safety assessments. The reason for this tragedy is largely political. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for example, doesn’t require a single safety study, does not mandate labeling of GMOs, and allows companies to put their GM foods onto the market without even notifying the agency. Their justification was the claim that they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially different. But this was a lie. Secret agency memos made public by a lawsuit show that the overwhelming consensus even among the FDA’s own scientists was that GMOs can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects. They urged long-term safety studies. But the White House had instructed the FDA to promote biotechnology, and the agency official in charge of policy was Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, later their vice president. He’s now the US Food Safety Czar.

            6. The biotech industry uses “tobacco science” to claim product safety.
            Biotech companies like Monsanto told us that Agent Orange, PCBs, and DDT were safe. They are now using the same type of superficial, rigged research to try and convince us that GMOs are safe. Independent scientists, however, have caught the spin-masters red-handed, demonstrating without doubt how industry-funded research is designed to avoid finding problems, and how adverse findings are distorted or denied.

            7. Independent research and reporting is attacked and suppressed.
            Scientists who discover problems with GMOs have been attacked, gagged, fired, threatened, and denied funding. The journal Nature acknowledged that a “large block of scientists . . . denigrate research by other legitimate scientists in a knee-jerk, partisan, emotional way that is not helpful in advancing knowledge.” Attempts by media to expose problems are also often censored.

            8. GMOs harm the environment.
            GM crops and their associated herbicides can harm birds, insects, amphibians, marine ecosystems, and soil organisms. They reduce bio-diversity, pollute water resources, and are unsustainable. For example, GM crops are eliminating habitat for monarch butterflies, whose populations are down 50% in the US. Roundup herbicide has been shown to cause birth defects in amphibians, embryonic deaths and endocrine disruptions, and organ damage in animals even at very low doses. GM canola has been found growing wild in North Dakota and California, threatening to pass on its herbicide tolerant genes on to weeds.

            9. GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world.
            Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ 2009 report Failure to Yield―the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield.

            The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, authored by more than 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, stated that GM crop yields were “highly variable” and in some cases, “yields declined.” The report noted, “Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable.” They determined that the current GMOs have nothing to offer the goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability.
            On the contrary, GMOs divert money and resources that would otherwise be spent on more safe, reliable, and appropriate technologies.

            10. By avoiding GMOs, you contribute to the coming tipping point of consumer rejection, forcing them out of our food supply.
            Because GMOs give no consumer benefits, if even a small percentage of us start rejecting brands that contain them, GM ingredients will become a marketing liability. Food companies will kick them out. In Europe, for example, the tipping point was achieved in 1999, just after a high profile GMO safety scandal hit the papers and alerted citizens to the potential dangers. In the US, a consumer rebellion against GM bovine growth hormone has also reached a tipping point, kicked the cow drug out of dairy products by Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Dannon, Yoplait, and most of America’s dairies.

            The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to achieve a tipping point against GMOs in the US. The number of non-GMO shoppers needed is probably just 5% of the population. The key is to educate consumers about the documented health dangers and provide a Non-GMO Shopping Guideto make avoiding GMOs much easier.

            Please choose healthier non-GMO brands, tell others about GMOs so they can do the same, and join the Non-GMO Tipping Point Network. Together we can quickly reclaim a non-GMO food supply.further research she as evidence that the

          • hyperzombie

            There is a great scientist that has been studying the autism spike in kids,

            Who is this Great scientist?

            If you are going to copy and paste anything from another site at least give them credit.

          • Probably Vandana bloody Shiva.

  • bible thumper

    For more info for responsible technology check out this link.

    • hyperzombie

      Yes it is always best to get your science info from a “Flying Yogic” instructor…..all the best in that regard.

  • That link goes to a site of Jeffrey Smith. It is not an institute. Smith is a member of the anti-science Maharishi cult. He is considered a quack and is his site. Here is some background:

  • kurzweilfreak

    This is why every time I hear some anti talk about how they drench/drown crops in glyphosate, I ask them to tell me specifically what they think that means, in ml/acre or whatever other measurement they would like to use. I have never, not once, had one of them answer me with any kind of measurement.

    Because they simply don’t have the first clue. Imagine that.

  • Can I comment? Or Have you totally disabled this critic?

    • Sterling Ericsson

      Your comment is here, so clearly you can comment.

  • remistevens

    Dousing/drowning isn’t the issue, all that equates to is how much water you’ve added. Its the chemicals that matter. A microscopic drop of the right chemical can kill someone in no time- or give them cancer 20 years later.

  • Susan Linkletter

    All that proves, is that tiny amounts of those poisons are deadly. So the fact that trace amounts of it are found on the food I consume every day is even more worrisome.

    • JoeFarmer


      Try reading the USDA’s Pesticide Data Program if you are concerned about residues in your food.

      • Susan Linkletter

        You state that 1 cup of this pesticide is all that it takes to kill every plant in a football sized field. Then you try and tell me it’s OK to consume trace amounts of this same pesticide. Well, I would rather not.

        • JoeFarmer

          You haven’t proved your claim, “All that proves, is that tiny amounts of those poisons are deadly.”

          All you’ve done is to express an opinion that is most likely not grounded in science.

          Are you familiar with the first law of toxicology? Probably not, based on your statements so far.

  • Baker

    I’m from Cairns in Qld Australia. We are one of the only countries in the world that hasn’t banned endosufan unless the crop is within range of export meat, then it’s a no no. We have farmers spaying this onto fruit until the entire suburb stinks of the stuff. They farmer is driven by commercial gain, forget the fact that it’s killing the reef or poisoning the human “stock” in the area.

    I also work as a podiatrists and have seen practice managers set quotas for orthotic prescriptions. It’s apsolutly scientifically proven that orthotics are non scientific and there is no science on why they work. But medical professionals will turn their back in pursuit of money.

    Point is, most humans are driven by money, they cannot be trusted.

    This site is pro GMO. It can’t be trusted.

  • flump2010

    This issue represents the small tip of a very large iceberg, to understand how everything fits together I recommend ‘the mental health debacle’, by Matthew Martins

  • Danny

    Cancers seem to follow the same trajectory, and Alzheimer’s, and…


    “The requests keep coming in,” Ben Winkler, laboratory manager at
    Microbe Inotech Laboratories in St. Louis, told Gillam. Winkler said his lab is getting several testing requests a week since the announcement by the WHO, up from three to four requests a year for glyphosate, Gillam Reported.

    “People should be concerned,” Cook said. “If a few lab tests have
    found glyphosate in honey, soy sauce, baby formula and breast milk, it’s a fair bet the herbicide is in a number of other products most
    Americans are consuming or in contact with daily.”

    According to press reports, food companies have submitted a number of products, including breakfast cereals, for testing. Many mainstream
    cold cereals are made with genetically engineered ingredients, including GMO corn where the bulk of glyphosate is used.


    Toxic Weed Killer Glyphosate Found in Breast Milk, Infant Formula
    Contact: Shannon Van Hoesen Friday, April 10, 2015

    Washington, D.C. – The widely-used herbicide glyphosate, now classified as probably carcinogenic to humans by the
    World Health Organization, has been found in a number of items,
    including honey, breast milk and infant formula, according to media reports.

    “When chemical agriculture blankets millions of acres of genetically engineered corn and soybean fields with hundreds of millions of pounds of glyphosate, it’s not a surprise babies are now consuming Monsanto’s signature chemical with breast milk and infant formula,” said Ken Cook, president and co-founder of EWG. “The primary reason millions of Americans, including infants, are now exposed to this probable carcinogen is due to the explosion of genetically engineered crops that now dominate farmland across the U.S.”

    “Through their purchasing power, the American consumer is fueling
    this surge in GMO crops and the glyphosate exposure that comes with it,” added Cook. “It’s time the federal FDA require foods made with GMOs be labeled as such so the public can decide for themselves if they want to send their dollars to the biotech industry that cares more about profits than public health.”

    According to a report by Carey Gillam of Reuters, laboratories are receiving a surge in requests to have everything from food to urine samples tested for glyphosate in the aftermath of last month’s announcement by the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer that the weed-killer is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

  • Why doesn’t the US government regulate glyphosate?

    The FDA is accused of corruption in refusing to regulate.

    The same corporations stand accused of corrupting the EPA.

    Scientists at the USDA claim they are harassed for telling
    the truth.

    The US government did issue a patent for glyphosate as a broad scale antibiotic, but it hasn’t been used for that because, while it kills most symbiotic gut bacteria, it doesn’t kill botulism or salmonella, so those diseases increase in animals dosed with it.

  • Kim Hanna

    BS, we know for a fact glyphosate is in our food supply and food tests show elevated glyphosate levels in our food and we know that glyphosate damages the gut lining and causes disease.

    • Kim, there is no empirical evidence that glyphosate damages the “gut lining” and absolutely no evidence that suggests that glyphosate as used in farming causes ANY diseases in those who consume foods where it is used. Zero evidence to that effect, including in recent IARC study. Need to find another bogeyman, I guess, or another anti-science website.

      • Kim Hanna

        Widely Used Herbicide Linked to Cancer

        The World Health Organization’s research arm declares glyphosate a probable carcinogen. What’s the evidence?
        Monsanto Glyphosate Roundup Herbicide Triggers Autism in Children.
        MIT Scientist. A senior scientist at MIT has declared that we are facing
        an epidemic of autism that may result in one half of all children being
        affected by autism in ten years.

        Dr. Stephanie Seneff, who
        made these remarks during a panel presentation in Groton, MA last week,
        specifically cites the Monsanto herbicide, Roundup, as the culprit for
        the escalating incidence of autism and other neurological disorders.
        Roundup, which was introduced in the 1970’s, contains the chemical
        glyphosate, which is the focal point for Seneff’s concerns. Roundup was
        originally restricted to use on weeds, as glyphosate kills plants.
        However, Roundup is now in regular use with crops. With the coming of
        GMO’s, plants such as soy and corn were bioengineered to tolerate
        glyphosate, and its use dramatically increased. From 2001 to 2007,
        glyphosate use doubled, reaching 180 to 185 million pounds in the U.S.
        alone in 2007.

        If you don’t consume corn- on- the -cob or
        toasted soybeans, however, you are hardly exempt from the potential
        effects of consuming glyphosate. Wheat is now sprayed with Roundup right
        before it is harvested, making any consumption of non- organic wheat
        bread a sure source for the chemical. In addition, any products
        containing corn syrup, such as soft drinks, are also carrying a payload
        of glyphosate.

        • What drivel. No farmer would take the time and expense to spray right before harvest. It would simply be a loss of his profits for no reason whatsoever. Glyphosate requires a few days to soak in and kill the weeds. If you are about to harvest the weeds can do no further damage.

  • theresa

    On the other hand, my father who is a farmer , has a much different perspective. ..and think about it folks, weeds will grow ANYwhere…so if this is soil that even WEEDS refuse to grow in, do we really want our food grown in it?

  • Borsk Fey’lya

    And glyphosates are so safe that we should consume even more of them.

    • That is correct. They displace much worse chemicals previously used. Or maybe you long for the good old days when DDT was found in breast milk?

  • Liz Wilson

    So, with this logic in mind… Does that mean if someone only sticks the tip in when they rape you that it’s not considered rape?

  • Liz Wilson

    So, with this logic in mind… Does that mean if someone puts in just the tip when he rapes you then it’s not considered rape?

    • Yes, in the case of raping weeds. Not crops.

  • Donald Davis

    An international group of scientists, however, released a study last week, connecting the long-term intake of Monsanto’s herbicide (glyphosate), even in very small doses, as being linked to kidney and liver damage…

    “More than 250 million pounds of glyphosate are used each year in the United States, and the science is clear that it’s a threat to public health and countless wildlife species,” said Dr. Nathan Donley, a staff scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity.