Agitators, regulators and predators on the prowl

They’re going for a knockout and jackpot on a farm chemical, a corporation – and science

Guest essay by Paul Driessen

Legal and scientific ethics seem to have become irrelevant, as anti-chemical agitators, regulators and trial lawyers team up on numerous lawsuits against Monsanto. They’re seeking tens of billions of dollars in jackpot justice, by claiming a chemical in the company’s popular weed killer RoundUp causes cancer.

A key basis for the legal actions is a March 2015 International Agency for Research on Cancer ruling that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen.” A previously little known agency in the World Health Organization (WHO), IARC has gained infamy in recent years – as critics slammed it for manipulating data and altering or deleting scientific conclusions to advance extreme anti-chemical policy agendas.

Although it is funded by US and European taxpayers – and is at the forefront of controversial policy, legal and regulatory actions – IARC insists that its deliberations, emails, draft reports and all other materials are its private property. Therefore, the agency claims, they are exempt from FOIA requests and even US congressional inquiries. IARC stonewalls all inquiries and advises its staff to talk to no one.

Its 2015 ruling became the primary justification for California listing glyphosate as carcinogenic under Proposition 65, a European Parliament vote to ban the chemical, and a European Commission committee proposal to give it only a five-year extension for further use in the EU. These actions, in turn, have given trial lawyers the ammo they need for their lawsuits – and other legal actions they are already preparing.

Glyphosate is an herbicide. It kills weeds. Used in conjunction with genetically modified RoundUp-Ready crops, it enables farmers to practice no-till farming – wherein a couple of soil spray treatments eliminate the need to till cropland to control weeds. That preserves soil structure and organisms, moisture, organic matter and nutrients; improves drainage and soil biodiversity; reduces erosion; and permits the high-yield farming humanity must practice if we are to feed Earth’s growing populations without having to plow under millions more acres of wildlife habitat. It also reduces labor and tractor fuel consumption.

Banning it just in Britain would cost the UK $1.2 billion a year in reduced crop yields and farm incomes.

Moreover, as UK science writer Matt Ridley points out, coffee is more carcinogenic than glyphosate. So are numerous other foods and beverages that we consume every day, adds cancer expert Bruce Ames. Of all dietary pesticides that humans ingest, 99.99% are natural, Ames notes; they are chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves against fungi, viruses, insects and other predators.

Indeed, every other regulatory agency and reputable scientific body, going back some 40 years, have universally found that this RoundUp chemical does not cause cancer! The European Food Safety Authority, European Chemicals Agency, German Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), US Environmental Protection Agency and even other WHO experts have all studied glyphosate carefully. They have all said it is safe, non-carcinogenic or “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans.”

And yet IARC villainizes glyphosate. In a way, that’s not surprising. Out of 900 chemicals the agency reviewed since it was formed, it found only one was not carcinogenic. Many other chemicals, and even GMO foods, may soon be branded the same way, especially now that America’s tort industry senses more jackpots from “cooperating closely” with IARC and putting more agency advisors on its payroll.

The latest tactic is to claim the chemical is being detected in some foods and in people’s urine. We can detect parts per trillion! (1 ppt is two teaspoons in 660 million gallons.) But where does actual riskbegin?

And how did IARC reach conclusions so completely different from nearly every other expert worldwide, whose studies confirmed glyphosate poses no cancer risk? That’s where this story gets really interesting.

IARC is linked inextricably to Linda Birnbaum’s National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences, which gets millions in US taxpayer money. The NIEHS funds and works with Italy’s junk-science factory, the Ramazzini Institute, and is allied with radical elements in US and EU government agencies. One of the most prominent and recurrent names on the list is Dr. Christopher Portier.

According to investigative journalists David Zaruk (Risk-Monger) and Kate Kelland (Reuters), Portier worked for years with Birnbaum at the NIEHS. He has also been a principal US government liaison to IARC, was paid as its only “consulting expert” on the working group that demonized glyphosate as carcinogenic, and did so while also being paid by the US National Institutes for Health – and while simultaneously being paid by the rabidly anti-pesticide group Environmental Defense. Portier has also received over $160,000 as a consultant to law firms that are suing Monsanto and other companies!

Equally outrageous, Portier admitted that, before he was hired as an “expert” on IARC’s glyphosate panel, he “had not looked at” any of the scientific evidence and had no experience with the chemical. He signed his lucrative deal with the lawyers within a week of finishing his work on the panel – but later admitted that he had been working with them for two months: while he was consulting for IARC!

Portier, IARC and the predatory lawyers all worked diligently to keep these arrangements – and major conflicts of interest – a secret. As Ms. Kelland explained in another article, IARC was equally diligent in securing a “guilty verdict” on glyphosate – by ignoring or altering multiple studies and conclusions that exonerated the chemical. That scientific and prosecutorial misconduct was revealed when Kelland compared IARC’s draft and final report, and found numerous indefensible changes and deletions.

In multiple instances, she  discovered, the IARC panel simply removed scientists’ conclusions that their studies had found no link between glyphosate and cancer in laboratory animals. In others, the panel inserted a brand new statistical analysis, “effectively reversing” a study’s original finding. Other times, it surreptitiously changed critical language after scientists had agreed to earlier language that made precisely the opposite point from what appeared in the final Monograph 112 report on glyphosate.

One animal pathology report relied on by the US EPA clearly and unequivocally stated that its authors “firmly” and “unanimously” agreed that glyphosate had not caused abnormal growths in mice they had studied. The published IARC monograph simply deleted the sentence.

Overall, Reuters found ten significant changes between the critical draft chapter on animal studies and IARC’s final published monograph. Every one of them either deleted key statements that the Monsanto chemical did not cause tumors, replaced them with assertions that it did cause tumors, or (six times) claimed IARC “was not able to evaluate” a study because of “limited experimental data” included in it.

In addition, IARC panelist Charles Jameson said another study was excluded because “the amount of data in the tables was overwhelming,” and possibly because it may have been submitted an hour late. Dr. Jameson also claimed he didn’t know when, why or by whom any of the changes had been made.

Zaruk’s meticulous and eye-opening analysis of IARC’s swampy, shoddy, deceptive practices, collusion with anti-chemical zealots, blatant conflicts of interest – and six reasons why agency director Christopher Wild should be fired – is must reading for anyone concerned about cancer research and scientific integrity. His discussion of “hazard” versus “risk” assessment is particularly enlightening and valuable.

Many would call this saga blatant corruption, manipulation and fraud. All funded by our tax dollars! It is uncomfortably similar to what we have seen over the years with IPCC and other work on climate change.

The lawyers hope that years of anti-chemical activism, carefully stoked public fears, doctored studies and silencing or marginalizing of contrary voices will bring them a huge jury jackpot – akin to what their brethren recently received in an absurd talcum-powder-causes-cancer case (which was also based on IARC pseudo-science), before the suspect evidence, verdict and award were tossed out on appeal.

It’s likely that the EU and WHO will do little or nothing about this cesspool. Thankfully, the US Congress, particularly Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and Lamar Smith (R-TX), is digging into it. We can only hope that they and their committees will issue and, more importantly, enforce subpoenas. If Portier and other IARC staffers, panelists and hired guns refuse to comply, Chaffetz and Smith (and judges in the Monsanto cases) should arrest and jail them, until they open their mouths, books and deliberations.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of books and articles on energy and environmental policy.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 30, 2017 5:50 am

So these idiots want to live in the “wild,wild west?
A little “wild west ” justice would perhaps enlighten them.
Trespassers will be shot ( twice )

Ted Beacher
Reply to  nottoobrite
October 30, 2017 6:07 am

Chaffetz resigned from Congress some months ago. More unfortunately, because the IARC and its officials enjoy immunity from national laws, both criminal and civil (just like the UN), Congress or the US can’t arrest them–all it can do is cut off US funding. Congress should also cut off all US funding to any UN or other international orgs that do not immediately implement a real and effective Freedom of Information process for all.

Bryan A
Reply to  Ted Beacher
October 30, 2017 10:26 am

Perhaps an alteration to the Law is in order. Since this is being handled (by preditory lawyers) as a Class Action Lawsuit, the law should be changed so that ALL Lawyer fees are paid as a member of the class instead of 33% of the settlement.
If Monsanto looses or settles for $100,000,000 and there are 1,000,000 people in the class, Typically the Lawyers would get $33,000,000 and the class members would get $66.00 each. But if lawyers were only paid as members of the class in class action suits, all parties (lawyers included) would receive $100.00 each.

Reply to  Ted Beacher
October 30, 2017 11:04 am

Chaffetz has not resigned from Congress. He has announced that he will not seek re-election to Congress in 2018. There is a huge difference between your statement and reality.

NW sage
Reply to  Ted Beacher
October 31, 2017 5:42 pm

Chaffetz DID resign from Congress and is now a Fox News ‘contributor’. His stated reason – made on air – for leaving was that he couldn’t do his job (as head of the oversight committee) because Congress has no way to go directly to court to compel action. The only way open to congress is to refer a matter to the Department of Justice to obtain court orders and it was his experience that such referrals, where the subject was the FBI or the Justice Dept, were ignored!

Reply to  Ted Beacher
November 1, 2017 10:45 am

Freedom of information is not necessarily a part of the genetically modified products industry, et al.

Genetic Fallacy: How Monsanto Silences Scientific Dissent

Curious George
Reply to  nottoobrite
October 30, 2017 7:34 am

Jackpot justice? They are searching for a willing Judge Lynch.

Reply to  Curious George
November 13, 2017 8:55 pm

A willing judge shouldn’t be too hard to find..

GM Watch Review 385

EU governments reject Commission push for glyphosate

European governments have refused to support a European Commission plan to grant a 5-year renewal without safety restrictions for glyphosate, Europe’s most widely used weedkiller, which has been linked to cancer and environmental harm.

The Great Glyphosate Rebellion continues

This is the European Commission’s 7th failed attempt to get glyphosate renewed. And the rejection of this latest bid for a 5-year renewal was an even worse result for the Commission than the vote on its previous 10-year proposal. That renewal bid had the backing of 16 countries but only fourteen voted in favour of the 5-year renewal, with as many either voting against, or, like Germany, abstaining from voting.

Breakdown of the glyphosate vote

The breakdown of how member states voted reveals that the governments not backing the renewal represent far more of the EU’s population:
• 14 Member States (representing 36.95% of EU population) CZ, DK, EE, IE, ES, LV, LT, HU,
NL, SV, SK, FI, SE, UK voted in favour.
• 9 Member States (32.26% of EU population) BE, EL, FR, HR, IT, CY, LU, MT, AT opposed
• 5 Member States (30.79% of EU population) BG, DE, PL, PT, RO abstained.

The qualified majority necessary to grant a new EU licence requires support from countries representing at least 65% of the total EU population, but the countries that voted for renewal represent less than 37% of the population.

A post-Brexit EU leaves glyphosate supporters an even smaller minority
The UK, which is one of the most committed glyphosate supporters, is preparing to leave the EU. As it has nearly 13% of the EU’s population, with the UK out of the equation post-Brexit, the states currently voting for glyphosate renewal would represent less then a quarter of the EU’s population!

EU Parliament votes to ban glyphosate

On 24 October MEPs at the European Parliament voted to ban glyphosate altogether. There were 355 votes in favour of banning glyphosate, 204 against and 111 abstentions. The MEPs called for restrictions on its use from 2018 and a full ban by 2022.

What happens next on glyphosate?

The EU Commission will next take its proposal for a 5-year renewal licence for glyphosate to an appeals committee. However, Corporate Europe Observatory points out that the Commission’s proposal:

• Has no backing from member states, with only 37% of the population supporting it
• Contains no restrictions on use, contrary to EU Parliament’s demands
• Would expose EU citizens to more glyphosate than now, since the proposal allows a 66%
increase in permissible daily intake
• Contains no credible legal mechanism to implement the EU Parliament’s and many member
states’ demands for a phase-out and leaves the door open for future renewals.

The Commission’s proposal is expected to fail to gain enough support in the appeals committee. Thereafter, the Commission has the power to adopt its own proposal without the backing of European governments.

Re-authorization of glyphosate is illegal – lawyer

According to a legal opinion from the Paris law firm Huglo Lepage, the procedure for renewing the authorization of glyphosate is “illegal”. The European Commission is preparing to propose to the European states to renew the license of the product for five years.

Reply to  nottoobrite
October 30, 2017 2:44 pm

This is a real foreign collusion. California Democrats have colluded with a UN agency to violate American sovereignty, intimidate farmers, and rob American taxpayers.

Reply to  Leo Goldstein
October 31, 2017 10:54 am

Energy Regulation Quarterly, (ERQ), November, 2016

‘An Overview Of Provincial Climate Change Policies Across Canada And Their Impact On Renewable Energy Generation’

Re: Role regulation plays in renewable energy generation.


‘Global Climate Solutions Declaration’, October 2, 2009, California

Re: Gov. Schwarzenegger and the ‘Governors’ Global Climate Change Summit 2′, October, 2009, California.

Signed Document: Signatories from across North America. Also includes UN, Australia, UK.

More information on this topic online.

Reply to  Leo Goldstein
October 31, 2017 11:25 am


View: Year 2009 > link to ‘Global Climate Solutions Declaration’, October 2009

Reply to  nottoobrite
October 30, 2017 2:48 pm

BTW, such lawsuits are frequently funded by multi-billion hedge funds. The productive citizens should be able to sue them back to recover their damages. In fact, some RICO counter-suits have been recently filed against predatory lawyers.

October 30, 2017 6:16 am

This is interesting. The real carcinogenic herbicide was Agent Orange, used during the Vietnam war to strip the jungle of its double and triple canopy in an effort to ferret out the VC and NVA. Its major component is dioxin, which has a half life degeneration, in effect, never leaving your body.
The two active ingredients in the Agent Orange herbicide combination were equal amounts of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T), which contained traces of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD). The dioxin TCDD was an unwanted byproduct of herbicide production.
I don’t find Roundup to be very effective against some of the weeds in my lawn, such as plantain. It will bump off lady’s thumb, but the plantain, which I thoroughly soaked, did not die back at all. Instead, it is still thriving in the space between blocks of concrete in my sidewalk. The only thing that will kill the plantain is winter.
Monsanto’s been accused of a lot of things. I don’t know how much of it is real and how much is coming from the freak show antics of the Lefties, but Roundup does keep the weeds (e.g., bindweed and thistles) out of the corn and soybeans, which bumps up crop production considerably.
So what’s next from the Loony Legties? Lysenkoism? I read some place that Lysenkoism is beginning to generate a new fan club. God help us all if that crap starts up again for real.

Reply to  Sara
October 30, 2017 9:24 am

I use boiling water, 100% effective between concrete blocks.

Juan Slayton
Reply to  nc
October 30, 2017 10:36 am

+1, Been boiling them weeds for years. Cheapest herbicide on the market.

Roger Knights
Reply to  nc
October 30, 2017 5:49 pm

A propane torch is another way to deter weeds, although a couyple of passes are often needed. Here’s a Cool Tools review of a Big Boy (500,000 BTU) “Red Dragon” torch:

Reply to  Sara
October 30, 2017 11:57 am

The evidence to support the belief that Agent Orange is a carcinogen is almost as weak as the evidence in this case.

Reply to  MarkW
November 1, 2017 4:37 pm

10 things every Veteran should know about Agent Orange

Reply to  Sara
October 30, 2017 12:49 pm


I don’t know if Agent Orange was carcinogenic, but if it was, then dioxins were not the cause. You need extreme doses of dioxins to make it a carcinogen in rare cases, which were only found as result of accidents in factories (Seveso, Italy), where enormous quantities were produced and emitted. The highest doses in humans found was some 20,000-50,000 times background. See:

Studies showing more birth defects in Vietnam were said to be the result of dioxins in Agen Orange, but even that is questionable as the highest levels found in mothermilk (and thus woman’s fat) in average are/were in Belgium, far higher than in Vietnam, whithout increased levels of birth defects…

michael hart
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 30, 2017 1:42 pm

+1 Ferdinand.
Not only is the chemical industry and employment being driven out of the ‘West’, but so is any understanding of Chemistry. It is being replaced with fear, loathing, and unemployment.

Reply to  Sara
October 30, 2017 3:36 pm

Agent Orange would not have had dioxin at the levels it did or the levels of other contaminates it had if the Johnson Administration had not overruled the manufacturers. LBJ and McNamara wanted as much Agent Orange produced and shipped as quickly as possible. The manufacturers warned them that to meet the Administration’s schedule meant not having the time to remove all the by-products during the production process. They warned them the by-products were dangerous. The exact same active ingredients in Agent Orange, except properly “cleaned” were using in forestry and highway maintenance for decades before and after Vietnam. [After the Agent Orange Settlement I chaired public hearing in our state on the subject.]

October 30, 2017 6:29 am

Here comes the psuedoscience brigade….Never speak of glyphosate and science in the same sentence. It’s as imcompatible as climate and science. No point in sticking around for the bloodbath. Sigh.

Reply to  Sheri
October 30, 2017 6:57 am

This is a side door attack on GMOs.

Reply to  MarkW
October 30, 2017 7:59 am

And a very poor one at that. No glyphosate-tolerant “GMO”s are approved for cultivation in the EU (including the UK) and yet glyphosate is one of the most-used herbicides. The article quotes a source estimating that the UK alone would lose $1.2bn a year – all without growing any glyphosate-tolerant crops.

Simple fact is that glyphosate is an extremely efficient and environmentally-friendly herbicide as it kills almost all plants and degrades pretty quickly in the soil (especially in comparison to other herbicides). It’s only value as an attack target is that it is associated with Monsanto. For the greenies, Monsanto is “Monsatan” – the prime example of a (US) chemical company, and for the lawyers they are a potential massive pay-out.

Anything less related to human or environmental health would be hard to find.

Gunga Din
Reply to  MarkW
October 30, 2017 3:05 pm

For the greenies, Monsanto is “Monsatan” – the prime example of a (US) chemical company, and for the lawyers they are a potential massive pay-out.

I don’t remember the details I read in the first issue of “Classic Toy Trains” about the the origins of Lionel Smoke (a pellet you dropped in the smokestack of ’50’s era trains) but I do remember that it’s origin was a failed, for their purpose, Monsanto project.

PS I have a few of those old trains and a bottle of those old pellets. I always loved the smell. Takes me back.

Reply to  MarkW
November 2, 2017 12:47 pm

Thanks for clearing the GMO thing up. Thought these guys might have been on to something. Bon Appétit.

Mikko Akerman
October 30, 2017 6:30 am

This is one of those moments when I think WUWT should stay on its field of expertise, namely the climate science, and not go wandering wild with articles like this. Really.

Keith J
Reply to  Mikko Akerman
October 30, 2017 6:42 am

Pseudoscience is all the same. Same misuse of statistics, same yellow journalism.
Glad to see Bruce Ames mentioned. The man who upset the apple cart..Prop 65 is based on misuse of his test!!

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Keith J
October 30, 2017 6:54 am

I recall reading a portion of an interview with Dr. Ames. He was lamenting the misuse of methodology for wholesaling claims of carcinogenicity for a slew of chemicals.

Rod Everson
Reply to  Mikko Akerman
October 30, 2017 6:48 am

If the general public is first conned into thinking glyphosate (Roundup) is cancer-causing and later becomes convinced that the entire fraud was ginned up by dishonest scientists in cahoots with crony politicians and greedy trial lawyers, then maybe it won’t be so difficult to convince that same public someday that an even greater fraud has been ginned up by the global warming cabal.

People do stuff for money, some of it not so respectable, even in the science community.

Reply to  Mikko Akerman
October 30, 2017 6:58 am

Translation: Stop shinning a light on the bad doings of the people that I support.

Reply to  Mikko Akerman
October 30, 2017 7:10 am

So literally every agency around the world say the chemical isn’t a problem, but one agency claims it is, and it is then shown to have altered conclusions without justification.

What is your problem with this exactly?

Reply to  Mikko Akerman
October 30, 2017 10:04 am

“Mikko Akerman October 30, 2017 at 6:30 am
This is one of those moments when I think WUWT should stay on its field of expertise, namely the climate science, and not go wandering wild with articles like this. Really.”


What an absurd false strawman. Attack WUWT for posting an article, with links, that describes pseudoscience’s attack on Western Civilization and science.

Not a word regarding the article or the science discussed.

Which leaves your comment as pure opinion, false logical argument and vague ad hominem.

Leaving me to wonder, just where are these alleged ‘boundaries’ that so clearly demark “climate Science” from Agriculture”?
Is the science conducted differently?
Are observations recorded differently?
Are the mathematics used so drastically different between sciences?

One of the clear marks of bad science is falsification, erasure of inconvenient data, absurd claims without evidence, etc.; but don’t overlook that common failing of bad science practitioners,
circle the wagons defenses,
refusal to share information,
bad mouth,
slander and libel critics.

Guess which actions the proponents for ‘glyphosate as carcinogenic practice’?
Actually, try and find a negative anti-science attribute they fail to practice.

Care to comment on the science?


John W. Garrett
October 30, 2017 6:31 am

The ambulance chasers have done more to harm the U.S. economy (and the cost of healthcare) than any other group.

October 30, 2017 6:42 am

Sounds like US needs to “rendition” those running this little terrorist operation and seize a bunch of their computers. Lets us see just exactly who they are and what attacks they have planned.

Crispin in Waterloo
October 30, 2017 6:59 am

It would be helpful if a Supreme Court decision said that information originating from unreviewed and unreviewable sources must be discounted as evidence.

Any body, whether or not is has an “I” in front of its acronym, has to be subject to an accountable set of rules. The idea one can say, “Trust me, I am a scientist,” is vacuous.

On conflict of interest basis alone, their pronouncements on this chemical should be ignored. As it is, if the only way to bring accountability to the group is to cut off their funding and give it to a body which is accountable and honest, so be it.

It is surprising how many unaccountable groups are funded yet uncontrolled. I won’t bore you all with a list. Even the UN is accountable to its formation document – it is just that the document is signally weak.

There is another aspect to this which is that countries, including the US, fund organisations precisely to be able to influence their work. It is sort of like, “We are the good guys and we are paying, so we don’t want to see unpalatable outcomes.” If the process is ‘funded’ by one member then obviously there is concern about the outcomes. Pooled funding is far better, but there cannot be the sort of shenanigans described in the article: blatant conflict of interest and no open review of the workings. It is not science. It is not even a good example of politics.

Tom13 - the non climate scientist
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
October 30, 2017 7:37 am

Crispin “It would be helpful if a Supreme Court decision said that information originating from unreviewed and unreviewable sources must be discounted as evidence.”

They did that with Daubert v merrill Dow with an improvement to the Frye standard and Fed Rule 702. Unfortunately, the lower courts dont enforce the standard properly

Jaakko Kateenkorva
October 30, 2017 7:06 am

The governments of member countries approve UN secretariat mandates and nominate experts. IARC is no exception. The output quality is determined by input. IARC lists solar radiation and alcoholic beverages category 1 carcinogenic. (Category 3 is not classifiable).

October 30, 2017 7:07 am

Being a chemical and biological illiterate, I nevertheless tend to agree with most of this, but I am still troubled by the following :
It seems that glyphosate may become very dangerous once mixed with other stuff, here they depict some nasty consequences of its kelative properties. Somebody competent may shed some light onto this for me ?

Reply to  flynn
October 30, 2017 7:12 am

Glyophosate is toxic to plants because it works on pathways that re unique to plants. It is used in many, many areas with hard water without any problems.

Reply to  flynn
October 30, 2017 7:42 am

Don’t know about rice paddy farming in Sri Lanka. In my opinion the linked article speculative at best and alarmist at worst for the following reasons:

In chemical sense chelating agent binds a metal ion, usually converting both to a chemically inert form. Some metals are considered harmful (e.g. arsenic, mercury, lead) and some (e.g. calcium) are beneficial nutritional elements. Glyphosate seems to chelate calcium, magnesium, manganese, copper, and zinc. However, based on UN acute toxicity chemical hazard classification criteria, it is harmless to mammals even when ingested directly. Glyphosate degrades in contact with water or sunlight and, as such, is unlikely to persist in the environment.

Reply to  flynn
October 30, 2017 8:17 am


the LABEL on the container for the chemical have SPECIFIC instructions on how to apply the chemical,which is a legal requirement since applicators MUST have an applicator license to spread it commercially. They must attend classes regularly to maintain the license.

Homeowners buy the DILUTED mix,which are NOT supposed to be mixed with other chemicals. Just add water and mix according the formula on the LABEL.

Reply to  flynn
October 30, 2017 12:00 pm

How many products can you list that aren’t dangerous when misused?

Reply to  MarkW
October 30, 2017 1:39 pm

, @Sunsettommy … Sorry I think I failed to explain correctly what is at stake in the study : the glyphosate is not misused by the farmers. It goes into the soils, in presence of scale it binds to metals, drains in the groundwater, then the farmers drink it, their kidneys get damaged, and eventually they die. It seems to be a very high correlation between kidney sickness map and water hardness map.

@jaakkokateenkorva many thanks for this educated critic. I’ll follow this.

Reply to  MarkW
October 30, 2017 5:12 pm

Lots of metal in waters is bad on kidneys to begin with.
You need more than that to prove that glyphosate is at fault.

michael hart
Reply to  flynn
October 30, 2017 1:52 pm

Much of it is simply not not worth commenting on. It is garbage science, at best.

Glyphosate certainly does NOT have “unique metal chelating properties”. It has only modest or weak metal chelating properties, especially in the amounts used. Every day you imbibe compounds, like EDTA, in toothpaste and foods that do have truly “unique metal chelating properties”, yet you suffer no ill effects from it.

michael hart
Reply to  michael hart
October 30, 2017 2:16 pm

sp. One not or two, it matters knot.

Reply to  michael hart
October 30, 2017 2:33 pm

Thank you for this. I just made a little more homework and found this article witch I found well informed :
From this, it seems that nobody knows for sure where the problem comes from, it is multi-factorial, very probably related to calcium (hardness) + arsenic(fertilizer overused and bad quality) … probably not glyphosate’s fault after all.
What is frightening at this point, is how one dare to use such a dramatic situation for political reasons, and point research onto a wrong direction, meaning more misery and more death for these people.

October 30, 2017 7:21 am

What strikes me as suspicious about the linked article is that these unfortunate rice farmers are applying fertilisers that contain arsenic, cadmium, chromium, nickel, cobalt and vanadium. Who are they buying their fertiliser from? That cocktail won’t do good things for anyone who eats that crop.

Reply to  decnine
October 30, 2017 12:02 pm

The dose makes the poison. Since you don’t mention what the concentrations of these minerals are in the fertilizer it’s impossible to determine whether there is a problem or not.
Regardless, some of these are necessary trace nutrients.

Reply to  decnine
October 30, 2017 2:49 pm

I missed your answer at first, but it seems that you are right on it. Please look at my answer just above.

Tom Schaefer
October 30, 2017 7:49 am

Whether it is contributing to the explosion in childhood cancers or not is unknown, but it is a proven endocrine disruptor and should be removed from our diets. I’m with the Food Babe on this one.

Reply to  Tom Schaefer
October 30, 2017 8:04 am

Highly doubt it,since it is a long researched chemical,here is the Technical Fact Sheet for Glyphosate:

“Mode of Action:

Target Organisms

In plants, glyphosate disrupts the shikimic acid pathway through inhibition of the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate (EPSP) synthase. The resulting deficiency in EPSP production leads to reductions in aromatic amino acids that are vital for protein synthesis and plant growth.1,4

Glyphosate is absorbed across the leaves and stems of plants and is translocated throughout the plant.1,3 It concentrates in the meristem tissue.10

Plants exposed to glyphosate display stunted growth, loss of green coloration, leaf wrinkling or malformation, and tissue death. Death of the plant may take from 4 to 20 days to occur.4,10
The sodium salt of glyphosate can act as a plant growth regulator and accelerate fruit ripening.2

Non-target Organisms

The shikimic acid pathway is specific to plants and some microorganisms. The absence of this pathway in mammals may explain the low toxicity of glyphosate to non-target organisms.”

Reply to  Tom Schaefer
October 30, 2017 8:06 am

i am afraid you are mixing up your science-scares here, Tom. Glyphosate hasn’t been associated with the “endocrine-disruptor” meme and nothing – absolutely nothing – has ever been proved to be be an endocrine disruptor. This is a theory which has been variously buried and dredged up for many years based on anecdotes which have all ended up being discarded in the light of further analysis. Unlike CAGW, you can actually do experiments on this and they all fail to show any evidence of harm.

Reply to  Rob
October 31, 2017 5:47 am

Absolutely nothing is an endocrine disruptor? Guess you should tell people who transition from one sex to another by use of hormone mimetics contrary to their inherent endocrine system that they are just imagining all the different anatomical features they have gained.

Reply to  Tom Schaefer
October 30, 2017 12:02 pm

It’s known, and it’s not.

October 30, 2017 8:05 am

I agree with much of what Paul Driessen wrote in this article. However contra paragraph 5 glyphosate is only applied to the foliage and would be useless sprayed on the soil, it is claimed to be non residual and rapidly broken down by soil organisms.

Shoppers can decide between paying more for food grown to organic standards or opting for cheaper produce grown using agrochemicals. Maybe people should have to sign a waiver before they are allowed to buy conventionally grown food, saying that they accept the risks of consuming residues from the cocktail of agrochemicals used as long as they are within guideline maximum levels. There should be freedom of choice for the consumer and let market forces decide – which is a democratic indicator.

Some of the Members of European Parliament claim there are better pesticides in the pipeline than glyphosate and they are going to fund the development of replacements. If that is the case then there is no need for a ban as farmers will switch to a product which works better & safer for a similar price. Such a new product would out compete and drive glyphosate out of the market. However the MEPs provided no evidence that there was another product on the horizon. There is always a trade off, a balance of risks, a cost / benefit but apparently too many MEPs have forgotten this fact.

Maybe the politicians should have to hand weed a few acres of crops for a few years to see if that changes their mind about herbicides for perennial weeds such as couch grass, Elymus repens.

Reply to  Alex
October 30, 2017 1:40 pm

Europe is doing a “not invented here” and “invented by those evil Americans” act on this one. There are still some people over there (not many but enough) who resent that we were not also destroyed by WWII.

Keith J
Reply to  Alex
October 30, 2017 2:28 pm

Please read what Dr Ames has written with regards to agricultural chemicals. Plants evolved natural pesticides, herbicides and preservatives of which many are carcinogenic per the same test Dr Ames developed.
For example, citrus oil is one such chemical. It is a known positive in the Ames test and even the most organic fresh squeezed orange juice is a positive. Dr Ames realized his test has limits.

October 30, 2017 8:12 am

This sort of thing is why the greens get labeled the green blob. Regulatory bodies, especially international bodies, can get taken over by advocates, in this case liability lawyers, organic food marketers, and their supporting green zealots.

Dr. Bob
October 30, 2017 8:30 am

Unfortunately, Actions such as proposed against companies like Monsanto will only force them to move to other countries where tort laws protect them from such adventures. It will also cause funds that could be used to develop new chemicals to be used for wasteful purposes such as protecting themselves from frivolous lawsuits. Nothing good will come out of this other than unscrupulous lawyers becoming rich.
Just look at the fraud perpetrated against Chevron for supposed pollution in Bolivia by a NY lawyer. Such fraud is expected when billion dollar settlements are the goal.
Tort reform is needed, and the first step should be to have the party initiating the legal action pay all costs if they cannot prove their case.

October 30, 2017 8:31 am

Years ago I was required to assist the Rachael Carlson Society with a review of Altosid, methoprene. Methoprene is a juvenile hormone analogue used for mosquitoes and at that time grain storage. I refused to help but was finally ordered to do so but I did win several conditions. The Society was searching for literature. I sent them copies of what I had. In the end that is ALL they used, did no other literature search. I was suppose to have final review and comment and they were suppose to address all my comments in their final draft. They didn’t. Instead when I asked where the final draft was I received their published paper which drew conclusions that were impossible based on the literature. One paper in particularly on which they centered their conclusion was relative to frogs. At about that time frogs were suffering a major die off in the tropics and people were looking for a smoking gun [Note it turned out to be an air borne natural fungus.] The scientist had exposed frogs to ever increasing amounts of methoprene until he documented mortality. The Rachael Carlson staff didn’t bother to do the math. The scientist basically drowned the frogs in methoprene and concluded that at labeled rates methoprene had no effect. The scientist’s actual conclusions were totally ignored in the Rachael Carlson Society review paper as were the conclusions of all the papers they had reviewed. Note: when it comes to pesticides EPA is little better. When re-labeling was required by Congress EPA made it so expensive for several very long used pesticides that the manufacturers took them off the market. So today as mosquito born illnesses become more prevalent in developed countries we have far fewer tools. Irony there are pesticides in the wings the could be used during an emergency but they are more toxic than those forced out of the game.

Reply to  Edwin
October 30, 2017 9:23 am

Ha ha ha,

the Rachel Carson Society,following in the footsteps of a poor biologist,who blew the bogus DDT did it stupidity. It is not surprising they behave that way.

From Junk Science is this expose,

100 Things You Should Know About DDT

“II. ADVOCACY AGAINST DDT. DDT was demagogued out of use.

10.Rachel Carson sounded the initial alarm against DDT, but represented the science of DDT erroneously in her 1962 book Silent Spring. Carson wrote “Dr. DeWitt’s now classic experiments [on quail and pheasants] have now established the fact that exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction. Quail into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched.” DeWitt’s 1956 article (in Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry) actually yielded a very different conclusion. Quail were fed 200 parts per million of DDT in all of their food throughout the breeding season. DeWitt reports that 80% of their eggs hatched, compared with the “control”” birds which hatched 83.9% of their eggs. Carson also omitted mention of DeWitt’s report that “control” pheasants hatched only 57 percent of their eggs, while those that were fed high levels of DDT in all of their food for an entire year hatched more than 80% of their eggs.”

Carson lied like hell!

Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 30, 2017 9:25 am

DDT was banned on bogus grounds,was banned due to special interest:

“14. William Ruckelshaus, the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency who made the ultimate decision to ban DDT in 1972, was a member of the Environmental Defense Fund. Ruckelshaus solicited donations for EDF on his personal stationery that read “EDF’s scientists blew the whistle on DDT by showing it to be a cancer hazard, and three years later, when the dust had cleared, EDF had won.”

15. But as an assistant attorney general, William Ruckelshaus stated on August 31, 1970 in a U.S. Court of Appeals that “DDT has an amazing an exemplary record of safe use, does not cause a toxic response in man or other animals, and is not harmful. Carcinogenic claims regarding DDT are unproven speculation.” But in a May 2, 1971 address to the Audubon Society, Ruckelshaus stated, “As a member of the Society, myself, I was highly suspicious of this compound, to put it mildly. But I was compelled by the facts to temper my emotions … because the best scientific evidence available did not warrant such a precipitate action. However, we in the EPA have streamlined our administrative procedures so we can now suspend registration of DDT and the other persistent pesticides at any time during the period of review.” Ruckelshaus later explained his ambivalence by stating that as assistant attorney general he was an advocate for the government, but as head of the EPA he was “a maker of policy.” [Barron’s, 10 November 1975]

16. Environmental activists planned to defame scientists who defended DDT. In an uncontradicted deposition in a federal lawsuit, Victor Yannacone, a founder of the Environmental Defense Fund, testified that he attended a meeting in which Roland Clement of the Audubon Society and officials of the Environmental Defense Fund decided that University of California-Berkeley professor and DDT-supporter Thomas H. Jukes was to be muzzled by attacking his credibility. [21st Century, Spring 1992]

III. EPA HEARINGS. DDT was banned by an EPA administrator who ignored the decision of his own administrative law judge.

17. Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA administrative law judge occurred during 1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded that “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man… DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man… The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.” [Sweeney, EM. 1972. EPA Hearing Examiner’s recommendations and findings concerning DDT hearings, April 25, 1972 (40 CFR 164.32, 113 pages). Summarized in Barrons (May 1, 1972) and Oregonian (April 26, 1972)]

18. Overruling the EPA hearing examiner, EPA administrator Ruckelshaus banned DDT in 1972. Ruckelshaus never attended a single hour of the seven months of EPA hearings on DDT. Ruckelshaus’ aides reported he did not even read the transcript of the EPA hearings on DDT. [Santa Ana Register, April 25, 1972]

19. After reversing the EPA hearing examiner’s decision, Ruckelshaus refused to release materials upon which his ban was based. Ruckelshaus rebuffed USDA efforts to obtain those materials through the Freedom of Information Act, claiming that they were just “internal memos.” Scientists were therefore prevented from refuting the false allegations in the Ruckelshaus’ “Opinion and Order on DDT.”

Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 30, 2017 4:10 pm

Here is the rest of the story. I once was seated with several retired executives from the companies that made DDT and were there for the big DDT ban. DDT came up and they detailed their mistake. Because various problems with DDT that were not solvable, e.g., insect resistance to the overuse of DDT, it was difficult to market DDT any longer at the time simple because either it didn’t work or there were other more efficacious pesticides. Also they had pesticides in the pipeline that the wanted EPA to approve as quickly as possible. Losing DDT was part of the excuse to expedite labeling other products, primarily O-Ps and carbamates, fare more toxic to non-targets than DDT. So executive decision was to not fight very hard to prevent DDT from been banned. They said it was the worst mistakes ever made by the industry. They should have defended DDT to the last person. Most Americans do not appreciate that the proper use of DDT against malaria mosquitoes almost eliminated malaria. When the USA banned it other countries did as well. You can actually look at the graph of world-wide malarial cases before and after.

Reply to  Edwin
October 30, 2017 9:29 am

Surely with a name like Rachel Carson Society this must be an advocacy group, with ZERO credibility in the field of science. Sadly, advocacy now trumps integrity, to the point of demonizing any scientist who fails to do it.

October 30, 2017 8:42 am

Sounds like activists making up their own evidence as they go along to confirm their agenda. Should be treated the same as fixing football results or LIBOR.

Ed Zuiderwijk
October 30, 2017 9:35 am

Go for the shyster lawyers?

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
October 30, 2017 9:36 am

A RICO suit might be appropriate in this case.

October 30, 2017 9:44 am

I saw my first advertisement last night on TV that is searching for farmers and anybody that has worked for years such as yard care and landscapers that have used “Roundup”, that have had any non-hodgens (?) lymphoma cancers (?) that they may be able to compensation…bla bla bla…

This is how these lawyers build cases by getting lot’s of people to go after a company in court. They have done this to attack tobacco companies and medication and medical divice manufacturers. All products are required to place on their labels disclaimer information about possible issues that may occur…that nearly no body reads. Because someone somewhere or at sometime showed an effect or possible effect from a product or just a concern about it, the law requires such disclaimer information. These “Ambulance Chaser” law firms then see $$$,$$$,$$$.cc to go after those companies. If they can prove that just one (1) person was harmed by the product, they can win the case for all the rest of the people in on their scam.

Retired Kit P
Reply to  johchi7
October 30, 2017 11:14 am

I told my wife last night that I miss the good old days when it comes TV commercial. We had entertaining cigarette commercial and lawyers could not advertise.

I am a non smoker and never wanted a horse because of the Marlboro man.

October 30, 2017 9:55 am

Contraceptive hormones in drinking water have been linked to testicular cancer.

Will they ban The Pill?

Douglas James
October 30, 2017 10:10 am

Glyphosate is becoming ineffective as weed plants are becoming resistant. The weed killer is sprayed everywhere, globally, As a non-selective herbicide it is used to kill all plants before a cut block is replanted (forestry). It is used on all cereal crops to dry out the plants before harvest. It shows up in my county garden 200 m from where it is sprayed and causes malformed leaves until the plants recover 3 weeks later.

Reply to  Douglas James
October 30, 2017 12:26 pm

First you claim that plants are becoming resistant, than you complain that plants aren’t resistant.
Which is it?

Reply to  MarkW
October 31, 2017 6:17 am

Becoming More resistent doesn’t mean they are yet, nor does it mean you can just spray them with an even higher concentration to still kill them.

J Mac
October 30, 2017 10:20 am

Paul Driessen,
Thank You (!) for exposing this egregious UN non-science on WUWT! Placing this information in front of folks with science backgrounds is essential to ending this blatant deceit.

Retired Kit P
October 30, 2017 11:06 am

“the explosion in childhood cancers”

The ultimate in fear mongering.

I was surprised to hear that there was an ‘explosion’ since we have removed so many known environmental sources over the last 30 years.

So I checked, no explosion.

The good news is that survival rates have soared to about 90%.

It would appear that clean and water increases the childhood cancers.

Also checked, the CDC for statistics: comment image

The problem I have with fear mongering is that it diverts attention from deaths we can prevent.

October 30, 2017 1:50 pm

Congress needs to make clear to these cretins: “If you want one more dime of US taxpayer money, you will provide relevant documents when asked and allow full independent review of your actions. Any denial will result in a one year hiatus in US funding, any subsequent refusal will lead to a permanent ban.”

Of course I am dreaming, no one in congress has the guts to even propose that language added to the funding bills.

Geoff Sherrington
October 30, 2017 4:31 pm

Bruce Ames is a major player in “The Apocalyptics”, a studious look at man made cancer scares by author Edith Efron. Recommended reading, though several hundred pages of tight scholarship. Geoff.

October 30, 2017 5:57 pm

Glyphosate is safe to drink:

Gary Pearse
October 30, 2017 6:13 pm

re parts per trillion: 15 trillion is the number of centimetres from earth to the sun. A dollar bill is ~15cm so one trillion of them end to end would reach the sin. Imagine what a 20 trillion national debt is like:dollars laid out end to end would make ten return trips to the Sun.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 30, 2017 6:24 pm

And if you think 20 trillion in debt is a lot, just wait until the GOP Congress/Administration gives another tax cut to the rich!!!! Just like Dubya did.

Reply to  Mark S Johnson
October 30, 2017 6:44 pm

[SNIP One more comment like that using ugly sexual expletives, and you will find yourself banned. You are already on moderation, and have been warned – Anthony]

Reply to  Mark S Johnson
October 30, 2017 6:46 pm

Oh, and “dbya” did not give anyone anything. That was the Democrat Party that f*cked everyone, you stupid (SNIPPED) MOD

Reply to  Mark S Johnson
October 30, 2017 6:56 pm


Look at the actual data.

Bush’s tax cuts didn’t cause the debt to soar. The 2008-09 bank bailouts necessitated by the 1998 Clinton-Rubin-Dodd-Frank subprime slime-caused credit crisis did.

Even wars in Iraq and Afghanistan pale in comparison with the Democrat Wall Street rescue package.

Of course, then under Obama, the debt continued to soar by a trillion dollars per year.

To the extent that Trump tax cuts grow the economy, they might pay for themselves. But we’ll still run deficits until entitlements are cut. Don’t hold your breath for SS, Medicare and Medicaid to be slashed any time soon, but that’s the only way to balance the budget.

Patrick MJD
October 30, 2017 8:40 pm

I found RoundUp ineffective for certain applications. While it did kill the weed, and no matter how carefully I applied it to weeds, it always cleared a spot of grass around it that was quickly filled with more weeds (Damn that CO2). So I resorted to carefully digging the weeds out of the grass with great success. I don’t know about CA, but in New Zealand RoundUp is not banned. What should be banned in 1080 poison, dropped by the tonne, to control pests.

Terry Harnden
October 30, 2017 10:34 pm

The effect of Glyphosate is indirect and connected with its effect on the soil and the effect on the food grown in the soil . See below
Research and compiled by : Robert S Hardt
Independend Scientific Researcher A.E.N.T
Contact Information
PDF – Google Search
With the significant increase in genetically modified organisms or “GMO” crops (e.g., RoundUp Ready® crops),, the
wide-spread use of the herbicide glyphosate (i.e., RoundUp® herbicide) has raised concerns. Glyphosate may not
break down in the soil after contacting plants. The herbicide kills many types of soil microbes, including microbes
that make micronutrients plant-available. Glyphosate strongly chelates micronutrients in the soil, including selenium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, nickel, cobalt and zinc. Thus, the use of GMO crops can decrease
herbicide costs at the expense of plant health. Accordingly, and potentially, what these GMO crops (Corn, Soy,
Millet, Cassava, Rice, Sugar Cane Beets, Wheat and many others) when consumed by Mammals and Man are a
food source that is less nutritious and a biochemical chain reaction disaster, that binds, blocks and disrupts
essential micronutrient minerals, enzymes and hormones that provide metabolic energy and free radical protection
of the mitochondria of all our life giving cells!
Below is a visual chain reaction story of how this herbicide has potentially caused all neurologically related
diseases, autoimmune diseases, sleep disorders, depression, metabolic diseases and all forms of cancer….ever
since its exception and continued utilization!
In its most basic application, Glyphosate disrupts every enzymatic DNA and RNA function by chelating the most
essential minerals that we need for these functions…..copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, nickel, cobalt and
It also cuts off and effects the bioavailability of all B-Vitamins and the protein conversion amino acid Trytophan,
which then effects Serotonin and Melatonin synthesis….resulting in a cascade of neurological dysfunctions,
diseases and cancers.
Glyphosate chelation PDF Google Search Glyphosate chelation is not selective. … /The relation- ship between the
depletion of rat liver tryptophan pyrrolase haem … tryptophan depletion leads to serotonin and melatonin
depletion in the brain … heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease…..Oct 16,
2013 – Disrupted gut bacteria; Depleted serotonin supply; Deficiency in … Tryptophan ! serotonin !
melatonin … deficiency is linked to obesity, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, …. *
uploads/GMO-health.pdf … Glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor that promotes breast
cancer*….Widespread serotonin deficiency is at least partially responsible for the … rationale to explain common
age-related disorders such as depressed mood and … L-tryptophan serves as a precursor not only to serotonin,
but also melatonin and niacin. … diseases, and HIV infection are associated with tryptophan depletion,
even …hydroxytryptamine, 5-HT) and onwards to melatonin had been clarified and the … Whilst interest in the role
of tryptophan and serotonin to the autistic … development of the vitamin deficiency disease, pellagra (E52,
ICD-10) as a ….. It has been shown that a diet depleted of tryptophan is not beneficial for children with ASDs.
A deficient production of melatonin can result in anxiety and mood disorders, lowered … Phase Syndrome;
Immunological Disorders; Cardiovascular Disease; Cancer … Abnormalities of melatonin circadian function have
been closely linked to a …. 5HTP is intermediate in the tryptophan to serotonin/melatonin pathway…Serotonin
decreases due to enzymatic breakdown (14) which occurs with a … When a serotonin deficiency exists, sleep
disturbances (8, 9), anxiety, … L-tryptophan can no longer be converted into serotonin, melatonin, or be …. of
interferon-induced tryptophan catabolism in cancer, auto-immune diseases …melatonin, serotonin, and a
variety of KP products including … Tryptophan pathways in neurodegenerative disease. International Journal of …
their genesis partly through serotonin deficiency in turn mediated by tryptophan depletion from KP acti- vation
(see … ase (TDO) particularly in relation to the factors that can modulate …
In the present review we summarize the relationship between the amino acid, tryptophan, the neurotransmitter,
serotonin, and the indole, melatonin, with the rhythms of sleep/wake and the immune response along with the
possible connections between the alterations in these rhythms due to aging and the so-called “serotonin and
melatonin deficiency state.” The decrease associated with aging of the brain and circulating levels of serotonin and
melatonin seemingly contributes to the alterations of both the sleep/wake cycle and the immune response that
typically accompany old age. The supplemental administration of tryptophan, e.g. the inclusion of tryptophanenriched
food in the diet, might help to remediate these age-related alterations due to its capacity of raise the
serotonin and melatonin levels in the brain and blood. Herein, we also summarize a set of studies related to the
potential role that tryptophan, and its derived product melatonin, may play in the restoration of the aged circadian
rhythms of sleep/wake and immune response, taking the ringdove (Streptopelia risoria) as a suitable model.
Keywords: immune function, melatonin, serotonin, sleep-wake cycle, ringdove, tryptophan

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Terry Harnden
October 31, 2017 5:16 am
Reply to  Terry Harnden
October 31, 2017 5:11 pm

Now we have a conflict. I thought that CO2 caused all those maladies. sarc

Terry Harnden
October 30, 2017 10:39 pm

In simple terms it destroys your immune system and enriches big pharma.

Reply to  Terry Harnden
October 31, 2017 9:21 am

Pretty sure over use of antibiotics is having far more impact with concern to people’s immune systems being damaged.

Max Blancke
October 31, 2017 7:42 am

One aspect not discussed here is that the high yields of modern farming in the US are keeping a large number of the world’s poor alive. Everyone seems to feel that the end result of this would be a slight rise in the cost of goods in the supermarket. The real crisis will be when the costs of providing direct food aid and cheap exports to Africa and other parts of the world become untenable. The same issue come up when discussing the end of fossil fuels.
It is largely true that direct food aid is counterproductive, in that it contributes directly to overpopulation. But it is not something we can just stop, as it would certainly lead to humanitarian and environmental disaster.

Uncle Gus
October 31, 2017 12:22 pm

Go on. Let them ban all chemicals.

It will be fun watching them try to decide what the word “chemical” actually means! (And whether they’re going to have to actually ban *themselves*…)

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
October 31, 2017 7:14 pm

It appears that the whole discussion is to protect the interests of multinational companies!!! It is similar to warmists arguments on global warming and its impacts.

Roundup Ready seeds have what is known as terminator technology. Terminator technology is the genetic modification of plants to make them produce sterile seeds. They are also known as suicide seeds. Good for biotech companies, bad for farmers. They would no longer be able to save seeds to re-use from the harvest to the next.

In any technology, there are several issues to be understood before one accepts it. For example, environmental impact assessment provide the information on direct impacts and indirect impacts, additive, cumulative and multiplying impacts. Unfortunately the assessing agency with little knowledge on all these, simply talks of direct impacts, which is meaningless. In the case of locating Shamshabad Airport at the present site has a direct impact in reducing water flows in to Himayatsagar [drinking water reservoir] and contamination of drinking water. This is against a GO issued by the state government and Supreme Court order “Precautionary Principle”. The indirect impacts relate to developmental activities around the Airport. The add and multiply the impacts on the drinking water, so on. So also the case with Round-Up Ready seed technology.

Let me present two recent reports on BG seeds:

India used to have an excellent seed programme that helped the farmers. With the MNCs entering in to seed market, first they collected germplasm and put in their gene banks and they brought in Bt-Cotton a GM seed in 2002. GM with high subsidized fertilizer under irrigation increased multifold the area under cotton in five states in India, namely AP, Telangana, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Gujarat. This created farmers suicide a regular phenomenon with monsoon rains. With normal cotton the risk was low with no-suicide technology. With this government agencies are sub-serving the interests of these seed giants. This is openly seen from the following two recent reports on cotton.

Report 1:

The issue of smuggling and cultivation of bollgard III (BG-III or round-up ready flex — RRFlex) cotton seeds into country, including Yavatmal district, has come to fore. Multinational Monsanto, the seed giants, was to release the modified Bt cotton with an additional gene into India about six months back. But it withdrew its decision considering the anti-GM atmosphere in India. Speculations are that it is likely to come to India in 2020. However, history seems to repeat itself. Like how the first Bt cotton was brought to India illegally in 2000 from farmers in Gujarat, this time to the BG-III has made an entry into Vidarbha illegally.

According to sources, the BG-III has come to Yavatmal from Andhra Pradesh apart from Gujarat. KK Patil, a farmer from the district, told TOI that traders from Gujarat sold the illegal BG-III seeds by sending local unemployed youths to farmers’ homes from April to June. The exercise was conducted during night hours to escape attention. “About 5.5 lakh packets reached the district during this period. The youth were given a commission per packet. The seeds have been cultivated at least in 2.5 lakh hectares. There is a separate channel for this operation across the country. They sell these seeds by labeling them with the names of the variety that the farmer demands. The farmer is unaware of the actual variety he has grown. The packets were sold from Rs800 to Rs1,200 per 450 grams,” said Patil.

Kishor Tiwari, the chairman of the Vasantrao Naik Sheti Swavlamban Mission (VNSS) — the state task force on farm distress, claims that as much as 10 lakh hectares of land has been cultivated with BG-III. He also claims that this has led to an increased attack of all types of pests. “The government has completely failed to regulate the agriculture policies,” he said. It was Tiwari who apprised the agriculture department about the illegal cultivation of BG-III in Yavatmal. SS Jadhav, the director (extension) of Maharashtra agriculture department from Pune, told TOI that he was unaware of the issue. Strangely, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) was aware of the illegal use by farmers. It has directed the city-based Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR) to investigate and test the cotton crops for the presence of BG-III about a week back.

“The ICAR has asked us to check the crop for presence of the third gene, the herbicide tolerance gene (HT) in crop in farmers’ fields. We are yet to start the process. It is, however, too late to test as the plants have already reached the boll formation stage,” said Waghmare.


Bollgard II RRF is a proprietary technology owned by Monsanto, the world’s biggest seed maker, which last year withdrew its application seeking approval from the regulator, Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), for this variety. Monsanto applied for GEAC approval of Bollgard II RRF, known for its herbicide-tolerant properties, in 2007. Farmers in Andhra Pradesh have planted 15 percent of the cotton area in the state with Bollgard II Roundup Ready Flex (RRF), prompting the local government on Friday to form a panel of officials to “inspect the fields of farmers growing RRF”. The order, issued by senior Andhra Pradesh official B. Rajasekhar, did not say how the farmers accessed the unapproved variety of genetically modified (GM) cotton. Calls to his office went unanswered.

The illegal sale of the seeds violates India’s environmental protection rules, said C.D. Mayee, president of the South Asia Biotech Centre, a not-for-profit scientific society. Mayee, a former government scientist, estimated that 3.5 million packets of such seeds were sold this season. “Over the years, we have kept the regulators and key stakeholders apprised of the illegal usage of unapproved technology,” the Monsanto spokesman said. “Even as late as August 2017, we have sought their intervention on the gross misuse of patented and regulated technologies which may pose numerous other challenges to India’s cotton ecosystem.” A spokesman for the federal environment ministry was not immediately available for comment.

This is the way environment is being destroyed.

Governments are in the hands of MNCs.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Joe Crawford
November 1, 2017 3:34 pm

Just to stay balanced, and not let confirmation bias take over entirely, you might check out ‘Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases III: Manganese, neurological diseases, and associated pathologies’ written by Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff and published at

Two of the many interesting quotes from the article, the first is from the abstract, the second from the introduction:

“Manganese (Mn) is an often overlooked but important nutrient, required in small amounts for multiple essential functions in the body. A recent study on cows fed genetically modified Roundup®-Ready feed revealed a severe depletion of serum Mn. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup®, has also been shown to severely deplete Mn levels in plants.”

“In part because of shikimate pathway disruption, our gut bacteria are harmed by glyphosate, as evidenced by the fact that it has been patented as an antimicrobial agent.”

Terry Harnden
Reply to  Joe Crawford
November 1, 2017 8:06 pm

Yes I am familiar with the about . Nothing is simple. The problem with the remember everything understand nothing class (politicians, reporters, doctors, lawyers, PhDs) is that is so easy to atrophy their analytical skills and be brainwashed into thinking everything they remember is always right in every situation. In 1923 Rockefeller changed medicine and eliminated 4 years of diagnostics and substitute his patented chemicals to profit his oil and chemical empire . Always treat never prevent by diversion research hiding the real cause(s)

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights