Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

Glyphosate -whats the story with gm crops?


Recommended Posts

Not sure if it belongs here.

One Australian state (Victoria) has decided to investigate the regulation of Glyphosate because  there are reports of (3?) successful court action in the US linking Glyphosate to cancer. I have seen the reports but there are no details.

My concern is that genetic modified crops (soybean & corn) have been modified to resist Glyphosate, which can be used to control other weeds and can be applied broadly (aerial spraying?). The modification means that the resultant crops will have higher residues of Glyphosate. (I think the maximum residues were increased to allow these crops).

Is there any discussion in the US regarding this subject?

Perhaps someone in one of the US jurisdictions could fill us in on what the current thinking is. (good or bad)

Opinions are fine but I for one am a bit short on facts.

 

Be kind first.

Be nice.

(If you don't know the difference then you need to do some research)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this journal article help?

 

Here's the lede:

Quote

The safety profile of the herbicide glyphosate and its commercial formulations is controversial. Reviews have been published by individuals who are consultants and employees of companies commercializing glyphosate-based herbicides in support of glyphosate’s reapproval by regulatory agencies. These authors conclude that glyphosate is safe at levels below regulatory permissible limits. In contrast, reviews conducted by academic scientists independent of industry report toxic effects below regulatory limits, as well as shortcomings of the current regulatory evaluation of risks associated with glyphosate exposures. 

 

"There is no sincerer love than the love of food."  -George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman, Act 1

 

"Imagine all the food you have eaten in your life and consider that you are simply some of that food, rearranged."  -Max Tegmark, physicist

 

Gene Weingarten, writing in the Washington Post about online news stories and the accompanying readers' comments: "I basically like 'comments,' though they can seem a little jarring: spit-flecked rants that are appended to a product that at least tries for a measure of objectivity and dignity. It's as though when you order a sirloin steak, it comes with a side of maggots."

 

"...in the mid-’90s when the internet was coming...there was a tendency to assume that when all the world’s knowledge comes online, everyone will flock to it. It turns out that if you give everyone access to the Library of Congress, what they do is watch videos on TikTok."  -Neil Stephenson, author, in The Atlantic

 

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." -Galileo Galilei, physicist and astronomer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here's an article from today's Guardian.

 

Quote

Monsanto’s own emails and documents reveal a disinformation campaign to hide its weedkiller’s possible links to cancer

 

  • Thanks 1

"There is no sincerer love than the love of food."  -George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman, Act 1

 

"Imagine all the food you have eaten in your life and consider that you are simply some of that food, rearranged."  -Max Tegmark, physicist

 

Gene Weingarten, writing in the Washington Post about online news stories and the accompanying readers' comments: "I basically like 'comments,' though they can seem a little jarring: spit-flecked rants that are appended to a product that at least tries for a measure of objectivity and dignity. It's as though when you order a sirloin steak, it comes with a side of maggots."

 

"...in the mid-’90s when the internet was coming...there was a tendency to assume that when all the world’s knowledge comes online, everyone will flock to it. It turns out that if you give everyone access to the Library of Congress, what they do is watch videos on TikTok."  -Neil Stephenson, author, in The Atlantic

 

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." -Galileo Galilei, physicist and astronomer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a big huge issue in the US.  It strikes at the core of Big Agra & Big Pharma. Messy world of food production. A friend who still owns the family farm in the Midwest talks about the trains of agricultural chemical shuddering through town. Garden centers typically label or post about whether the chemical was used. We tend to generically refer to it by the product name" "RoundUp"And of course we have this bit of lunacy as an adjunct.   https://newrepublic.com/article/122441/corn-wars

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The debate is obviously more mature in the US. It may gain some traction here as well, though the use of GM crops (and the subsequent use of Roundup on them) is not widespread. Roundup is readily available and used by homeowners.

Thank you Alex & Heidih for those links.

The first article noted by Alex is a little misleading in its scope. Facts and Fallacies in the debate on Glyphosate Toxicity probably should have been titled Facts and Fallacies in the commentary of Samsel and Seneff on Glyphosate Toxicity.

Well it certainly discredits the 5 commentaries (and probably  rightly so) but the article seems to be fundamentally about discrediting those commentaries rather than providing any evidence for or against debate on Glyphosate Toxicity. I do realize that the article is about the debate (not the toxicity) but it seems to me as an outsider it could well be construed as an attempt to discredit one side of the debate.

 

The second article on the manipulation of the media I found unsurprising. Its what any good public relations firm does. Just because we do not like the outcome does not mean we should condemn the practices, if its legal its OK. An argument may be made about the ethics of the publications / journalists but that is an entirely different debate (Fake news anybody?) Remember the Tobacco industry? If they broke the law then prosecute them or if they did not but they acted improperly but you think it should be illegal , change the law to reflect the communities standards. If they lied and it had some ill effect then sue them.

 

The third article pointed to by Heidih is a really interesting debate for outsiders (outside the US). Patents & copyright laws were originally designed to encourage inventors by allowing inventors to commercialize their work and recover  their development cost before others could take advantage of their work. That is why Patents in most countries have a finite time limit. What has developed in this field though is that patents are more & more being used to suppress innovation. A classic example is allowing the patents on the genes of the human genome is a classic example of attempting to suppress research in the hope that the restriction itself can be commercialized, rather than the actual use of the gene itself. (you need to pay us a license fee to do research on "our" gene)

I find it interesting that China does not intrinsically recognize patents or copyright. Their view is that it stifles innovation.

 

I find the use of the FBI and other government agencies (indeed the judiciary) to obviously attempt to protect a commercial imperative by changing its name to National Security is very similar to the manipulation of the media in the Monsanto article above. You can do many bad things in the name of "National Security", after all that is exactly the same as what China is doing. What is the moral argument for not allowing the increase in food production in a world increasingly short of food?

 

  • Like 1

Be kind first.

Be nice.

(If you don't know the difference then you need to do some research)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without speaking to the safety of roundup, I will say that a judge and jury do a lousy job of determining scientific truth.  

 

Legal standards for truth are softer than those demanded by science. 

 

And In court, there are legal tricks that may obscure the truth and in general the best-presented (as opposed to the best) argument wins esp before a jury.  Recall OJ Simpson. 

 

All this is to say that a court determining that glyphosate is dangerous holds no weight with me. I look to the opinions of regulators eg FDA and USDA who have scientists that are rigorous about it. 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and WHO - when publishing their "may cause" findings -  ignored data/reports they commissioned that disputed the claims, because it had not been published for at least six months.  one is free to question the motives of their timing and the agendas of the people leading the charge.

 

it is not uncommon in USA for juries to award spectacular trillions in awards which evaporate on appeals when companies force the issue of real facts and real data, not just what the plaintiff presents.

 

another 50-100 years we will probably find out what is true and what is imagined.

 

altho I'm not  big pesticide fan, given the amounts of RoundUp used commercially and by homeowners, if it caused cancer we'd be seeing tens of thousands of cases.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Home gardeners are NOT allowed to use RoundUp in Metro Toronto, Canada.

 

The city of Richmond, California, has banned the use of glyphosate (RoundUp). "WHEREAS, there is documented evidence that exposure to glyphosate causes birth defects, fetal deaths, cancer, DNA damage, and other serious illnesses;"  City of Richmond Pesticide Ban

 

In the midwest US, soil treated with RoundUp is deemed safe once it has dried.

 

Monsanto (makers of RoundUp) are very influential, so FDA and USDA may not be using only "science" to come to their decisions. 😧

 

See https://rounduprisks.com/glyphosate-pdf-library/

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by TdeV
Clarity (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TdeV said:

Home gardeners are NOT allowed to use RoundUp in Metro Toronto, Canada.

 

The city of Richmond, California, has banned the use of glyphosate (RoundUp). "WHEREAS, there is documented evidence that exposure to glyphosate causes birth defects, fetal deaths, cancer, DNA damage, and other serious illnesses;"  City of Richmond Pesticide Ban

 

In the midwest US, soil treated with RoundUp is deemed safe once it has dried.

 

Monsanto (makers of RoundUp) are very influential, so FDA and USDA may not be using only "science" to come to their decisions. 😧

 

See https://rounduprisks.com/glyphosate-pdf-library/

 

 

The final ink is formatted wrong it actually opens this topic

It should be https://rounduprisks.com/glyphosate-pdf-library/

One of the things I find really annoying is organizations like this, who say what they are, give a PQ box and no real details.

There was/is a "Canberra Taxpayers Association" (Canberra is the national capital of Australia). Sounds legit & good. Inquiries reveal it has only ONE member, of this so called "Association". Looked impressive in the news until you realize it was just some Bozo trying to legitimize his inflated sense of his own importance.

The IRT may be legitimate. Before trusting any information I would want some independent verification that they are not just a crackpot anti Roundup Group. When the verification comes only from claims on their own website or websites associated with the founder then I take anything with a grain of salt. Most of the articles are anecdotal in nature of from authors that sell anti gm books or anti Monsanto on the subject rather than independent commentators.

 I vaguely remember the FDA was lobbied successfully to increase the allowable residual of Glyphosate in corn that was necessary to make the general use of the chemical with their GM corn. There is nothing wrong with this provided there is independent research and testing.

So far as I can tell so far from the answers is that there is a great deal of misinformation on both sides of the argument. There does seem to be some independent concern but it is so mixed with hysteria and counter claims, to the point I am not certain of getting any real truth.

I think I will avoid using it on food crops and avoid GM food specifically designed to be resistant to Glyphosate, which are more likely to have higher residues.

  • Like 1

Be kind first.

Be nice.

(If you don't know the difference then you need to do some research)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...