Farmers are not forced to use GM products. They can make their own choices. If GM seeds are too costly or perform less well than other seeds, they won’t be used. The provision of insurance discounts for GM products is not “strong arming” farmers into doing anything, it is a just and rational reflection of perceived risk. For the same reason, it’s not “strong arming” to charge smokers higher health insurance premiums, either.

It is a false dichotomy to oppose the “diverse knowledge and practices of farming” and biotech as solutions to climate change. They are not mutually exclusive, and we’ll probably need both.

And third world farmers definitely don’t need self-appointed champions such as Kathy and Hope to protect them from themselves. Let them – and our own farmers in Australia - make their own choices about whether to use GM crops.

Bravo Rhian.

Oh, and Kathy and Hope, spare us the neo-religious drivel about climate change will you? The globe is not warming so you can shut your pious cake-holes now. Go off and gabble the rosary beads in a monkery, that would be just as mindless, but a good deal less fraudulent and fascist.

Kathy and Hope

The conservative Western Australian government and Premier, Barney Rubble, have recently succumber to pressures from Monsanto and GM crop trials will soon be carried out on secret farm locations despite the alarming revelations on Roundup (glyphosate):

“We have evaluated the toxicity of four glyphosate (G)-based herbicides in Roundup formulations, from 10(5) times dilutions, on three different human cell types. This dilution level is far below agricultural recommendations and corresponds to low levels of residues in food or feed. The formulations have been compared to G alone and with its main metabolite AMPA or with one known adjuvant of R formulations, POEA. HUVEC primary neonate umbilical cord vein cells have been tested with 293 embryonic kidney and JEG3 placental cell lines. All R formulations cause total cell death within 24 h, through an inhibition of the mitochondrial succinate dehydrogenase activity, and necrosis, by release of cytosolic adenylate kinase measuring membrane damage. They also induce apoptosis via activation of enzymatic caspases 3/7 activity.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19105591?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

And in simpler English:

“Residues of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide found in GM food and feed can cause cell damage and even death, even at very low levels. The authors of a study on the subject say their research "... points to undesirable effects which are currently masked or hidden from scientific scrutiny.

”Roundup herbicides are among the most commonly used in the world, especially on GM crops that are engineered to be Roundup resistant. Their residues are among the major pollutants, and they are authorized as residues contaminating GM foods and feed at the tested levels.

”The researchers studied toxicity mechanisms of four different Roundup formulations in human cells. The formulations were diluted at minimal doses (up to 100,000 times or more), but they still caused cell death within a few hours. The researchers also noted membrane and DNA damages, and found the formulations inhibit cell respiration.”

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/04/07/Monsantos-Roundup-Residues-in-GM-Food-Cause-Cell-Damage.aspx

“Control the oil, you control the nation, control the food, you control the people.”

Unfortunately another piece where well fed westerners want to tell poor third world framers how to farm.

Ron Herring discusses the activities of anti-GM NGOs in India in a recent paper. http://www.agbioforum.missouri.edu/v12n1/v12n1a02-herring.htm The relevant material for here is the image propagated by people like Kathy Jo Wetter and Hope Shand of the third world farmer as a gullible peasant. We have to believe that third world farmers are gullible peasants just waiting for someone to take advantage of them, otherwise there would be no role for Wetters and Shand to call for their protection. In fact framers in the third world, like farmers in the first world, are highly astute. The difficulty for farmers in the third world is lack of opportunity. Farmers in the third world use technology when it works for them. If seed is too expensive they won’t buy it.

Protagoras quotes “Residues of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide found in GM food and feed can cause cell damage and even death, even at very low levels…” Except that the compound in the Roundup formulation that causes the damage when cells are bathed in it is POEA, a surfactant. This experiment was the equivalent of bathing cells in dish washing liquid and then claiming that washing dished would be dangerous to you. In reality, there would be no POEA present as a residue in food because it doesn’t get absorbed by the plant and doesn’t get moved into the grain. The only way placental cells could be damaged by Roundup is if the placenta was bathed in it.

Sadly, this sort of misinformed drivel gets propagated all too widely round the internet.

Agronomist

I see an "AND" and an "OR" in the following paragraph which to my mind conflicts with your argument. In addition, "*All* R formulations cause total cell death............."

The formulations have been compared to "G alone" and with its main metabolite AMPA "OR" with one known adjuvant of R formulations, POEA. .........*ALL" R formulations cause total cell death within 24 hrs, through an inhibition of the mitochondrial succinate dehydrogenase activity, and necrosis, by release of cytosolic adenylate kinase measuring membrane damage. They also induce apoptosis via activation of enzymatic caspases 3/7 activity.”

You're not up to your usual industry greenwashing are you Agronomist?

protagoras,
reading a little more, which tends to make me think agronomists view isn't far of the mark:

"G provokes only apoptosis, and HUVEC are 100 times more sensitive overall at this level. The deleterious effects are not proportional to G concentrations but rather depend on the nature of the adjuvants."

apoptosis: "is the process of programmed cell death (PCD) that may occur in multicellular organisms." wiki.

Protagoras, I suggest you go back and read the abstract again. It uses the following abbreviations: 'G' for glyphosate (the active ingredient) and 'R' for the various brands of Roundup (the commercial formulation). All Roundup formulations contain surfactants, such as polyethoxylated tallowamine.

If you are in the habit of regularly bathing your internal organs in solutions of Roundup, then you have every right to feel concerned. Otherwise, I suggest you are just displaying your ignorance.

Thank you Rojo. The adjuvants which are claimed to be inert surfactants (by the manufacturers) in Roundup, are anything but inert:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/tx800218n

"G is claimed by the manufacturer to be the active ingredient,
and it is claimed to be not toxic for human cells but toxic for
vegetable ones when mixed with inert components. Our study
demonstrates for the first time that all products including AMPA
and POEA provoke SD and AK effects in human cells, and
thus mortality (Figure 3), but at different concentrations.

"Astonishingly, the supposed inert product POEA is the most
potent one. From 1 ppm, it begins to alter SD in HUVEC and
AK in 293 and JEG3. The mixture R is then more poisonous
than G or AMPA. The metabolite AMPA itself destroys the
cell membrane (AK release), whatever the cell type. This is
not observed with G, which is, however, 3-8 times more
inhibitory on SD than AMPA, with some differences between
cells.

"However, because the cell membrane damage is generally
more sensitive, the metabolite AMPA is finally more toxic than
G on human cells. POEA is the most toxic; if it was the only
adjuvant of R360, its maximal concentration would be around
1-24 ‰, according to the cells. Thus, POEA could be
considered as the active ingredient on human cell death and
more damaging than G. As R is more viscous than 1‰ POEA
plus G, it is obvious that other compounds are in the mixture."

Agronomist – there is little damage if in fact I am “ignorant” as you claim. Far better that I am ignorant than you who’s intent on flogging this stuff to unwitting nations around the planet. I suspect that researchers currently engaged in analysing G, R and adjuvants in the formula would be highly amused by your post.

However, I doubt the Vietnamese would find you amusing since some of the progeny of the progeny of the victims of Monsanto, who knowingly flogged Agent Orange to the US military, are still being born without eyes and gross deformities.

contd...

Protagorus, same paper. Nothing is changed, bathing cells in Roundup formulations has zero applicability to real world situations, unless you were going to drink the formulated herbicide or take it intravenously.

By the way, there is no AMPA in glyphosate formulations. AMPA is a metabolite of glyphosate that is mostly produced by microbes when glyphosate is in the soil. Legumes produce a bit, but most other plant species cannot metabolise glyphosate.

You are pretty quick on the draw aren’t you Protagorus? If I don’t agree with you, I must be evil huh?

For the record I don’t sell glyphosate. I am an agronomist (hence the moniker), I advise farmers about farming. I also take the time to keep up on agricultural research. So, no I don’t think those who study glyphosate would find my post particularly exceptional.

Protagoras, running short of time at the moment, a link to some discussion I've had on this topic recently, some good(and bad) links for and against Glyphosate. Just be aware who is writing the articles.

My take on Glyphosate is it should be respected as any farm chemical is, and when used accordingly is one of the safest chemicals out there.
Don't forget water is one of the most dangerous chemicals there is- ie drowning. Depends how you spin it.

The world can't afford to lose glyphosate, particularly if the campaign against it is based on rubbery science.

The current anti-glyphosate campaign seems to be a pseudo anti-GM push.

Hi Rojo

“Rubbery science?” Why are you and Agronomist obfuscating the evidence on glyphosate, published by reputable researchers over some three decades?

Agronomist’s pretence, that the information I provide is drawn from my own presumptions cannot conceal the scientific evidence emerging and re-emerging from different scientists, different nations, different eras and all with the same conclusions. I avoid peddling information from WHO which takes its advice from Monsanto et al.

Earlier independent scientific studies reveal:

Glyphosate is a candidate for evaluation as a toxic air contaminant by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Formaldehyde, one of glyphosate's breakdown products, is listed as a toxic air contaminant. (DPR 1994)

Between 14% and 78% of glyphosate applied as a ground spray drifts off site (Freedman 1990, 1991).

It has been documented to affect plants as far as 131 feet away, and residues have been detected 1,312 feet downwind (Marrs 1993; Yates 1978).

Glyphosate is highly persistent in soil, taking from 24 to 249 days for one- half of it to transform or biodegrade (Lappe 1996).

Glyphosate has been found in surface water as the result of agricultural run-off (Frank 1990; Edwards 1980) and in ground water (U.S.EPA 1992).

Roundup is highly toxic to fish and aquatic organisms (Product label). Juvenile fish are particularly sensitive to the toxic effects of Roundup. Physical and chemical factors such as temperature, pH and solute concentration in aquatic ecosystems influence the acute toxicity of glyphosate to aquatic organisms (Caltrans 1991).

Glyphosate was shown in one study to inhibit the growth of mycorrhizal fungi, organisms which are essential to ecosystems and enhance plant survival (Cummins 1991).

http://www.poptel.org.uk/panap/archives/glywb.htm

Scientific evidence in more recent years suggests that glyphosate formulations have the ability to cause multiple myeloma, lymphoma, miscarriages, endocrine disruption, ADD, nerve and brain disorders. I am not referring to those who have intentionally consumed this poison.

http://www.hindawi.com/getarticle.aspx?doi=10.1155/2009/308985&e=ref

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=932046

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14661781

Monsanto et al's "revolutionary" pesticides have fouled every ecosystem on the planet, maiming and killing off the planet's biodiversity and are held responsible for unknown numbers of human and animal mortalities and illnesses over 6 or 7 decades.

Protagorus, it is always important to look at the facts and not just accept the ones that support your previously decided point of view. It is also worthwhile mentioning sources when you cut and paste from the internet. Most of your post can be found word for word here http://www.alternatives2toxics.org/catsoldsite/round.htm and several other places. Many of the references you copied are actually not in the reference list given at any of the sites where the document resides, so I can’t work out whether they are right or not. A quick search of PubMed database fails to find many of these references either. However, the material that I can find does not fill me with confidence about the rest. Several are cited out of context. For example, glyphosate does persist in the soil for a long time (average half life 32 days). However, it spends that time tightly bound to divalent cations and so is not available to do anything. When it is released it is quickly broken down by fungi, which is why farmers can sow crops immediately after applying the herbicide.

The three papers you link to force fed large amounts of glyphosate to animals at up to 1 g per kg body weight (or in one case injected the herbicide into the animals). The amount of glyphosate consumed by these animals was the equivalent of a human drinking a cup (200 mL) of neat herbicide per day or 10 L per day of what a farmer would spray on their land. Clearly, this bears no relationship to real life exposure unless you were trying to commit suicide with Roundup.

Agronomist

Now you will have to prove to readers that the researchers in the scientific papers I have provided are all frauds (or idiots) in support of your innuendo. You will also need to tell us why the scientific community has not ostracised the scientists who have administered "inappropriate amounts" of glyphosate to trial animals to "fudge" the potential impacts on human health.

You will also need to tell us why you harp on glyphosate metabolites being tightly bound to soils when analytical surveys reveal that rivers around the planet are polluted with glyphosate and its metabolites (including areas which do not carry out aerial spraying.)

And since you are adamant that glyphosate formulations are harmless to biodiversity and human health (when used "according to directions") you will also need to supply evidence to support that claim.

While Monsanto and you maintain that Roundup is safe, many others disagree, including the New York State Attorney General. Based on a thorough investigation, the Attorney General’s office filed a lawsuit arguing that the company’s advertising inaccurately portrayed Monsanto’s glyphosate-containing products as safe and as not causing any harmful effects to people or the environment.

In another case, Monsanto paid a US$225,000 fine for having mislabeled Roundup containers, not once, but on 75 separate occasions.

No doubt you would have the same opinion of another "harmless" organophosphate pesticide, Fenthion, where the conclusive evidence in WA this week, revealed that hundreds of ibises, ravens, gulls, ducks and a pelican were found frothing and convulsing before dying from being contaminated with Fenthion?

Protagoras, you obviously assume Glyphosate alternatives are somehow safer. Check out sprayseed for hair raising.

Lets address "rubbery science"(although you didn't take it in the context it was delivered).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17988468
Does this case study suggest to you that flouride toothpaste should not be used, as evidently flouride can be fatal. If your answer is yes, then read no further.

Having established that chemicals in large enough concentrations can indeed be harmful we then have to address how we come in contact with them. Undiluted glyphosate will undoubtably cause eye irritation, and possible dermal reaction - probably why they state "use protective equipment" on the label. The rest of the commonly attributable symptoms are from ingesting large doses of product, which could occur for any chemical. Take aspirin, potentailly fatal at 30grams.



"Monsanto et al's "revolutionary" pesticides have fouled every ecosystem on the planet, maiming and killing off the planet's biodiversity and are held responsible for unknown numbers of human and animal mortalities and illnesses over 6 or 7 decades."

Lovely spiel, but we're talking about Glyphosate here, Roundup if you prefer. My guess is the above refers to PCBs and agent orange, references to which are commonly found on anti GM sites. Probably because they haven't found anything wrong with the GM products and can only attempt to insinuate that they are a timebomb.

Protagoras, like I said you need to look at the facts. There is nothing per se wrong with the research done in these three papers, except that the amount of exposure and type of exposure has no relationship to the real world. This is why regulatory agencies around the world discount studies like these.

And yes I can show you what is wrong with these studies in relation to real world situations. Lets take them one at a time:

The teratogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate-Roundup® in Wistar rats
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TCR-47WDB6R-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2ee88cf534a785731a4b7c49423a44a1

“Dams were treated orally with water or 500, 750 or 1000 mg/kg glyphosate from day 6 to 15 of pregnancy.”

1000 mg/kg is equivalent to an average person consuming 65g of glyphosate (or a cupful of concentrated Roundup) every day during pregnancy.

Effect of the Herbicide Glyphosate on Enzymatic Activity in Pregnant Rats and Their Fetuses
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WDS-458W6TK-32&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=03f56e365b620e58bc52a4d94809012f

“The rats were separated into three groups (eight rats/group); I, control group which drank tap water; II, group which drank glyphosate solution 0.5% w/v in tap water (dose: 0.2 ml glyphosate/ml water); and III, group which drank glyphosate solution 1% w/v in tap water (dose: 0.4 ml glyphosate/ml water).”

These rats were given a 5 or 10 g/L glyphosate solution to drink every day for 21 days during pregnancy. Using the US recommended 2.4L of water per day for women, 10 g/L would be 24g of glyphosate per day (or about a third of a cup of Roundup concentrate).

Clastogenic Effects of Glyphosate in Bone Marrow Cells of Swiss Albino Mice
http://hindawi.com/GetPDF.aspx?doi=10.1155/2009/308985

“A single dose of glyphosate was given intraperitoneally (i.p) to the animals at a concentration of 25 and 50 mg/kg b.wt.”

50 mg/kg body weight for an average person is like shooting up 3.5g of glyphosate (or 9 mL of concentrated Roundup).

All three are highly unrealistic levels of exposure. Of course the reasons these high levels of exposure were used in the experiments was because more realistic exposure does not produce effects.

Why should farmers in Australia listen to these two activists from the NGO ETC in Canada knocking GM crops? Canada is a GM exporting nation: Canada does not want opposition from Australia and Europe for its exports so funds ETC to prevent crop advancement elsewhere.

The best response to climate change is crop introduction, and not genetic diversity and local adaptation. Nearly all crops in Australia and North America are introduced from elsewhere and are adapted to the various `new' climates from the start.

ETC also has the nasty habit of preventing farmers in developing countries adopting GM crops. ETC believes that local crops are locally adapted: so they are, but to local pest and disease which they escape by being moved to other continents.

In trying to maintain diversity in local crops in developing countries such as Ethiopia, ETC projects are supporting huge reservoirs of crop pests and diseases. The wheat rust Ug99 is maintained by traditional diverse farming in Ethiopia: it is now a threat to wheat production globally. ETC should stop meddling with farming in other countries and stay at home.