From: Spilling the Beans
To: kris.johnson@ecunet.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 11:32 AM
Subject: Monsanto's Roundup Triggers Over 40 Plant Diseases and Endangers Human and Animal Health

Please forward this to your email list, to newspapers and other media, and to farmers. Please put Secretary Vilsack�s email address, AgSec@usda.gov, in the CC line each time.

The following article reveals the devastating and unprecedented impact that Monsanto�s Roundup herbicide is having on the health of our soil, plants, animals, and human population. On top of this perfect storm, the USDA now wants to approve Roundup Ready alfalfa, which will exacerbate this calamity. Please tell USDA Secretary Vilsack not to approve Monsanto�s alfalfa by using the sample letter on our website here.

To share this article via Facebook please click here. Permission is granted to publish and post freely.
View this article on our website.

by Jeffrey M. Smith
Monsanto�s Roundup Triggers Over 40 Plant Diseases and Endangers Human and Animal Health
While visiting a seed corn dealer�s demonstration plots in Iowa last fall, Dr. Don Huber walked passed a soybean field and noticed a distinct line separating severely diseased yellowing soybeans on the right from healthy green plants on the left (see photo). The yellow section was suffering from Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS), a serious plant disease that ravaged the Midwest in 2009 and �10, driving down yields and profits. Something had caused that area of soybeans to be highly susceptible and Don had a good idea what it was.

The diseased field on the right had glyphosate applied the previous season. Photo by Don Huber
Don Huber spent 35 years as a plant pathologist at Purdue University and knows a lot about what causes green plants to turn yellow and die prematurely. He asked the seed dealer why the SDS was so severe in the one area of the field and not the other. "Did you plant something there last year that wasn�t planted in the rest of the field?" he asked. Sure enough, precisely where the severe SDS was, the dealer had grown alfalfa, which he later killed off at the end of the season by spraying a glyphosate-based herbicide (such as Roundup). The healthy part of the field, on the other hand, had been planted to sweet corn and hadn�t received glyphosate.

This was yet another confirmation that Roundup was triggering SDS. In many fields, the evidence is even more obvious. The disease was most severe at the ends of rows where the herbicide applicator looped back to make another pass (see photo). That�s where extra Roundup was applied.

Don�s a scientist; it takes more than a few photos for him to draw conclusions. But Don�s got more�lots more. For over 20 years, Don studied Roundup�s active ingredient glyphosate. He�s one of the world�s experts. And he can rattle off study after study that eliminate any doubt that glyphosate is contributing not only to the huge increase in SDS, but to the outbreak of numerous other diseases. (See selected reading list.)

Sudden Death Syndrome is more severe at the ends of rows, where Roundup dose is strongest. Photo by Amy Bandy.
Roundup: The perfect storm for plant disease

More than 30% of all herbicides sprayed anywhere contain glyphosate�the world�s bestselling weed killer. It was patented by Monsanto for use in their Roundup brand, which became more popular when they introduced "Roundup Ready" crops starting in 1996. These genetically modified (GM) plants, which now include soy, corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets, have inserted genetic material from viruses and bacteria that allows the crops to withstand applications of normally deadly Roundup.

(Monsanto requires farmers who buy Roundup Ready seeds to only use the company�s Roundup brand of glyphosate. This has extended the company�s grip on the glyphosate market, even after its patent expired in 2000.)

The herbicide doesn�t destroy plants directly. It rather cooks up a unique perfect storm of conditions that revs up disease-causing organisms in the soil, and at the same time wipes out plant defenses against those diseases. The mechanisms are well-documented but rarely cited.

a.. The glyphosate molecule grabs vital nutrients and doesn�t let them go. This process is called chelation and was actually the original property for which glyphosate was patented in 1964. It was only 10 years later that it was patented as an herbicide. When applied to crops, it deprives them of vital minerals necessary for healthy plant function�especially for resisting serious soilborne diseases. The importance of minerals for protecting against disease is well established. In fact, mineral availability was the single most important measurement used by several famous plant breeders to identify disease-resistant varieties.
a.. Glyphosate annihilates beneficial soil organisms, such as Pseudomonas and Bacillus bacteria that live around the roots. Since they facilitate the uptake of plant nutrients and suppress disease-causing organisms, their untimely deaths means the plant gets even weaker and the pathogens even stronger.
a.. The herbicide can interfere with photosynthesis, reduce water use efficiency, lower lignin , damage and shorten root systems, cause plants to release important sugars, and change soil pH�all of which can negatively affect crop health.
a.. Glyphosate itself is slightly toxic to plants. It also breaks down slowly in soil to form another chemical called AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid) which is also toxic. But even the combined toxic effects of glyphosate and AMPA are not sufficient on their own to kill plants. It has been demonstrated numerous times since 1984

Glyphosate with sterile soil (A) only stunts plant growth. In normal soil (B), pathogens kill the plant. Control (C) shows normal growth.
that when glyphosate is applied in sterile soil, the plant may be slightly stunted, but it isn�t killed (see photo).

a.. The actual plant assassins, according to Purdue weed scientists and others, are severe disease-causing organisms present in almost all soils. Glyphosate dramatically promotes these, which in turn overrun the weakened crops with deadly infections.
"This is the herbicidal mode of action of glyphosate," says Don. "It increases susceptibility to disease, suppresses natural disease controls such as beneficial organisms, and promotes virulence of soilborne pathogens at the same time." In fact, he points out that "If you apply certain fungicides to weeds, it destroys the herbicidal activity of glyphosate!"

By weakening plants and promoting disease, glyphosate opens the door for lots of problems in the field. According to Don, "There are more than 40 diseases of crop plants that are reported to increase with the use of glyphosate, and that number keeps growing as people recognize the association between glyphosate and disease."

Roundup promotes human and animal toxins

Photo by Robert Kremer
Some of the fungi promoted by glyphosate produce dangerous toxins that can end up in food and feed. Sudden Death Syndrome, for example, is caused by the Fusarium fungus. USDA scientist Robert Kremer found a 500% increase in Fusarium root infection of Roundup Ready soybeans when glyphosate is applied (see photos and chart). Corn, wheat, and many other plants can also suffer from serious Fusarium-based diseases.

But Fusarium�s wrath is not limited to plants. According to a report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, toxins from Fusarium on various types of food crops have been associated with disease outbreaks throughout history. They�ve "been linked to the plague epidemics" of medieval Europe, "large-scale human toxicosis in Eastern Europe," oesophageal cancer in southern Africa and parts of China, joint diseases in Asia and southern Africa, and a blood disorder in Russia. Fusarium toxins have also been shown to cause animal diseases and induce infertility.

As Roundup use rises, plant disease skyrockets

When Roundup Ready crops were introduced in 1996, Monsanto boldly claimed that herbicide use would drop as a result. It did�slightly�for three years. But over the next 10 years, it grew considerably. Total herbicide use in the US jumped by a whopping 383 million pounds in the 13 years after GMOs came on the scene. The greatest contributor is Roundup.

Over time, many types of weeds that would once keel over with just a tiny dose of Roundup now require heavier and heavier applications. Some are nearly invincible. In reality, these super-weeds are resistant not to the glyphosate itself, but to the soilborne pathogens that normally do the killing in Roundup sprayed fields.

Having hundreds of thousands of acres infested with weeds that resist plant disease and weed killer has been devastating to many US farmers, whose first response is to pour on more and more Roundup. Its use is now accelerating. Nearly half of the huge 13-year increase in herbicide use took place in just the last 2 years. This has serious implications.

As US farmers drench more than 135 million acres of Roundup Ready crops with Roundup, plant diseases are enjoying an unprecedented explosion across America�s most productive crop lands. Don rattles off a lengthy list of diseases that were once under effective management and control, but are now creating severe hardship. (The list includes SDS and Corynespora root rot of soybeans, citrus variegated chlorosis (CVC), Fusarium wilt of cotton, Verticillium wilt of potato, take-all root, crown, and stem blight of cereals, Fusarium root and crown rot, Fusarium head blight, Pythium root rot and damping off, Goss� wilt of corn, and many more.)

In Brazil, the new "Mad Soy Disease" is ravaging huge tracts of soybean acreage. Although scientists have not yet determined its cause, Don points out that various symptoms resemble a rice disease (bakanae) which is caused by Fusarium.

Corn dies young

In recent years, corn plants and entire fields in the Midwest have been dying earlier and earlier due to various diseases. Seasoned and observant farmers say they�re never seen anything like it.

"A decade ago, corn plants remained green and healthy well into September," says Bob Streit, an agronomist in Iowa. "But over the last three years, diseases have turned the plants yellow, then brown, about 8 to 10 days earlier each season. In 2010, yellowing started around July 7th and yield losses were devastating for many growers."

Bob and other crop experts believe that the increased use of glyphosate is the primary contributor to this disease trend. It has already reduced corn yields significantly. "If the corn dies much earlier," says Bob, "it might collapse the corn harvest in the US, and threaten the food chain that it supports."

A question of bugs

In addition to promoting plant diseases, which is well-established, spraying Roundup might also promote insects. That�s because many bugs seek sick plants. Scientists point out that healthy plants produce nutrients in a form that many insects cannot assimilate. Thus, farmers around the world report less insect problems among high quality, nutrient-dense crops. Weaker plants, on the other hand, create insect smorgasbords. This suggests that plants ravaged with diseases promoted by glyphosate may also attract more insects, which in turn will increase the use of toxic pesticides. More study is needed to confirm this.

Roundup persists in the environment

Monsanto used to boast that Roundup is biodegradable, claiming that it breaks down quickly in the soil. But courts in the US and Europe disagreed and found them guilty of false advertising. In fact, Monsanto�s own test data revealed that only 2% of the product broke down after 28 days.

Whether glyphosate degrades in weeks, months, or years varies widely due to factors in the soil, including pH, clay , types of minerals, residues from Roundup Ready crops, and the presence of the specialized enzymes needed to break down the herbicide molecule. In some conditions, glyphosate can grab hold of soil nutrients and remain stable for long periods. One study showed that it took up to 22 years for glyphosate to degrade only half its volume! So much for trusting Monsanto�s product claims.

Glyphosate can attack from above and below. It can drift over from a neighbors farm and wreak havoc. And it can even be released from dying weeds, travel through the soil, and then be taken up by healthy crops.

The amount of glyphosate that can cause damage is tiny. European scientists demonstrated that less than half an ounce per acre inhibits the ability of plants to take up and transport essential micronutrients (see chart).

As a result, more and more farmers are finding that crops planted in years after Roundup is applied suffer from weakened defenses and increased soilborne diseases. The situation is getting worse for many reasons.

a.. The glyphosate concentration in the soil builds up season after season with each subsequent application.

b.. Glyphosate can also accumulate for 6-8 years inside perennial plants like alfalfa, which get sprayed over and over.

Wheat affected after 10 years of glyphosate field applications.
c.. Glyphosate residues in the soil that become bound and immobilized can be reactivated by the application of phosphate fertilizers or through other methods. Potato growers in the West and Midwest, for example, have experienced severe losses from glyphosate that has been reactivated.

d.. Glyphosate can find its way onto farmland accidentally, through drifting spray, in contaminated water, and even through chicken manure!
Imagine the shock of farmers who spread chicken manure in their fields to add nutrients, but instead found that the glyphosate in the manure tied up nutrients in the soil, promoted plant disease, and killed off weeds or crops. Test results of the manure showed glyphosate/AMPA concentrations at a whopping 0.36-0.75 parts per million (ppm). The normal herbicidal rate of glyphosate is about 0.5 ppm/acre.

Manure from other animals may also be spreading the herbicide, since US livestock consume copious amounts of glyphosate�which accumulates in corn kernels and soybeans. If it isn�t found in livestock manure (or urine), that may be even worse. If glyphosate is not exiting the animal, it must be accumulating with every meal, ending up in our meat and possibly milk.

Add this threat to the already high glyphosate residues inside our own diets due to corn and soybeans, and we have yet another serious problem threatening our health. Glyphosate has been linked to sterility, hormone disruption, abnormal and lower sperm counts, miscarriages, placental cell death, birth defects, and cancer, to name a few. (See resource list on glyphosate health effects.)

Nutrient loss in humans and animals

The same nutrients that glyphosate chelates and deprives plants are also vital for human and animal health. These include iron, zinc, copper, manganese, magnesium, calcium, boron, and others. Deficiencies of these elements in our diets, alone or in combination, are known to interfere with vital enzyme systems and cause a long list of disorders and diseases.

Alzheimer�s, for example, is linked with reduced copper and magnesium. Don Huber points out that this disease has jumped 9000% since 1990.

Manganese, zinc, and copper are also vital for proper functioning of the SOD (superoxide dismustase) cycle. This is key for stemming inflammation and is an important component in detoxifying unwanted chemical compounds in humans and animals.

Glyphosate-induced mineral deficiencies can easily go unidentified and untreated. Even when laboratory tests are done, they can sometimes detect adequate mineral levels, but miss the fact that glyphosate has already rendered them unusable.

Glyphosate can tie up minerals for years and years, essentially removing them from the pool of nutrients available for plants, animals, and humans. If we combine the more than 135 million pounds of glyphosate-based herbicides applied in the US in 2010 with total applications over the past 30 years, we may have already eliminated millions of pounds of nutrients from our food supply.

This loss is something we simply can�t afford. We�re already suffering from progressive nutrient deprivation even without Roundup. In a UK study, for example, they found between 16-76% less nutrients in 1991, compared to levels in the same foods in 1940.

Livestock disease and mineral deficiency

Roundup Ready crops dominate US livestock feed. Soy and corn are most prevalent�93% of US soy and nearly 70% of corn are Roundup Ready. Animals are also fed derivatives of the other three Roundup Ready crops: canola, sugar beets, and cottonseed. Nutrient loss from glyphosate can therefore be severe.

This is especially true for manganese (Mn), which is not only chelated by glyphosate, but also reduced in Roundup Ready plants (see photo). One veterinarian finds low manganese in every livestock liver he measures. Another vet sent the liver of a stillborn calf out for testing. The lab report stated: No Detectible Levels of Manganese�in spite of the fact that the mineral was in adequate concentrations in his region. When that vet started adding manganese to the feed of a herd, disease rates dropped from a staggering 20% to less than �%.

Veterinarians who started their practice after GMOs were introduced in 1996 might assume that many chronic or acute animal disorders are common and to be expected. But several older vets have stated flat out that animals have gotten much sicker since GMOs came on the scene. And when they switch livestock from GMO to non-GMO feed, the improvement in health is dramatic. Unfortunately, no one is tracking this, nor is anyone looking at the impacts of consuming milk and meat from GM-fed animals.

Alfalfa madness, brought to you by Monsanto and the USDA

As we continue to drench our fields with Roundup, the perfect storm gets bigger and bigger. Don asks the sobering question: "How much of the hundreds of millions of pounds of glyphosate that have been applied to our most productive farm soils over the past 30 years is still available to damage subsequent crops through its effects on nutrient availability, increased disease, or reduced nutrient of our food and feed?"

Instead of taking urgent steps to protect our land and food, the USDA just made plans to make things worse. In December they released their Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on Roundup Ready alfalfa, which Monsanto hopes to reintroduce to the market.

Alfalfa is the fourth largest crop in the US, grown on 22 million acres. It is used primarily as a high protein source to feed dairy cattle and other ruminant animals. At present, weeds are not a big deal for alfalfa. Only 7% of alfalfa acreage is ever sprayed with an herbicide of any kind. If Roundup Ready alfalfa is approved, however, herbicide use would jump to unprecedented levels, and the weed killer of choice would of course be Roundup.

Even without the application of glyphosate, the nutritional quality of Roundup Ready alfalfa will be less, since Roundup Ready crops, by their nature, have reduced mineral . When glyphosate is applied, nutrient quality suffers even more (see chart).

The chance that Roundup would increase soilborne diseases in alfalfa fields is a near certainty. In fact, Alfalfa may suffer more than other Roundup Ready crops. As a perennial, it can accumulate Roundup year after year. It is a deep-rooted plant, and glyphosate leaches into sub soils. And "Fusarium is a very serious pathogen of alfalfa," says Don. "So too are Phytophthora and Pythium," both of which are promoted by glyphosate. "Why would you even consider jeopardizing the productivity and nutrient quality of the third most valuable crop in the US?" he asks in frustration, "especially since we have no way of removing the gene once it is spread throughout the alfalfa gene pool."

It�s already spreading. Monsanto had marketed Roundup Ready alfalfa for a year, until a federal court declared its approval to be illegal in 2007. They demanded that the USDA produce an EIS in order to account for possible environmental damage. But even with the seeds taken off the market, the RR alfalfa that had already been planted has been contaminating non-GMO varieties. Cal/West Seeds, for example, discovered that more than 12% of their seed lots tested positive for contamination in 2009, up from 3% in 2008.

In their EIS, the USDA does acknowledge that genetically modified alfalfa can contaminate organic and non-GMO alfalfa, and that this could create economic hardship. They are even considering the unprecedented step of placing restrictions on RR alfalfa seed fields, requiring isolation distances. Experience suggests that this will slow down, but not eliminate GMO contamination. Furthermore, studies confirm that genes do transfer from GM crops into soil and soil organisms, and can jump into fungus through cuts on the surface of GM plants. But the EIS does not adequately address these threats and their implications.

Instead, the USDA largely marches lock-step with the biotech industry and turns a blind eye to the widespread harm that Roundup is already inflicting. If they decide to approve Monsanto�s alfalfa, the USDA may ultimately be blamed for a catastrophe of epic proportions.

Please send a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, urging him not to approve Roundup Ready alfalfa, and to fully investigate the damage that Roundup and GMOs are already inflicting.

International bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology. His first book, Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating, is the world's bestselling and #1 rated book on GMOs. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, documents 65 health risks of the GM foods Americans eat everyday. To help you choose healthier, non-GMO brands, use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide.

-------------------------------------------------

To ensure you receive updates from ResponsibleTechnology.org in your inbox (not to bulk or junk folders), please add webmaster@responsibletechnology.org to your address book. You have received this email through your subscription to this campaign's email list. If you did not subscribe, or would no longer like to receive email updates unsubscribe here.

To update your email address or change your subscription details, click here.

It questions why our protective legislation, laws and agencies are not enforced to the letter. The responsibility lies with the producing corporation to produce test results and justification for the product. It is historically proven that 'after the fact' is too late to reverse the detrimental impacts. Worse yet is the responsibility is not accepted or blame laid. Self-regulation does not work.

In my brief scan of the entire post it seems it is more than anything, someone's rant against, "the man", I'll review it carefully later if time permits.

I think it's clear in my post that I did not WRITE the article so I did not substantiate every statement. My first statement indicated that I copied it from a BRIX discussion group. If the expectation is that people will validate all claims when copying information from another source before posting it, I wasn't aware of it. In fact, I can't personally substantiate any of the harmful effects of glyphosate. I have information that Monsanto sent to me directly (because I asked for it) that would negate a lot of these claims. So who is right? What is the truth?

If I have to know for certain that something is factual before posting it, that's a pretty high standard to meet and one that I don't think many people follow based on my 10 or so years of participating on forums. In the end, you have to make your own judgment.

Caveat Emptor

I live out in farm spray country and yes, the spraying saves a lot of cultivation, fuel, compaction, and time..and weeds are much rarer than yesteryear. On the other hand, We do not know of the safety factor. I tend to believe that the Roundup cup may hold some unpleasant dregs.

The truth often is out there and difficult to obtain, on the other hand, it is easy to put together agenda/ideology based drivel and make it appear ligit.. It is unfortunate when folks do that because it takes energy out of the search for accurate answers to excellent questions.

I certainly agree that much of the information we get is agenda driven from both/all sides. As I think I mentioned, I also got info from Monsanto but, short of being a soil/plant scientist, it's nearly impossible for us commoners to sort all this out accurately.

Ironically, I left another organic gardening discussing forum because I posted something and (i)specifically asked that we NOT debate the merits/dangers of Roundup(/i) relating to my post. Of course, one person couldn't help herself and had to lecture me that I should educate myself about evil Roundup! I've been exposed (literally and figuratively) to Roundup since it first came out and probably have more experience than she does.

I'm still not certain about this product. I have never used it in my garden - no need when a little weed pulling will suffice - but have not eliminated it from other uses.

Thanks for your followup,

Brad

I find the use of herbicides unnecessary in my gardens as they are set up to weed easily with a stirrup hoe and a wheel hoe. I also use drip irrigation and mulch over the drip lines, on the drier years there just isn't much to do in the way of weed control. Then there are the wet years!

Just for the fun of it I'm going to try a 50# bag of corn gluten meal this Spring and early Summer on the crabgrass in the lawn and see what happens, haven't ever used any herbicides there either.

Glyphosate was first patented by Stauffer Chemical Co as a metal chelator in 1964, patent no. 3.160.632. Later it was discovered to have herbicidal properties and Monsanto received a "use patent" as such. It's mode of action is to chelate (tie up) manganese and disrupts 11 other enzymes so that it weakens the plant to the point where it allows pathogens to kill it. Anderson says that glyphosate is actually a "broad spectrum chelator of most cationic minerals from calcium to nickel." Other quotes from his presentation:

* within minutes of application, glyphosate is exuded from the roots and into the surrounding soil oxidizing nutrients, promoting pathogens, killing beneficials and directly deactivating via chelation and and all cations it contacts
* 22.5 year half life (not what we've been told for many years)
* binds to soil mineral complexes effectively disappearing from detection NOT bioremediation
* It is found in animal and bird manures, compost, eggs and meat
* test results showed 0.36 - 0.75 ppm. The normal herbicidal rate is 0.5 ppm
* is fully absorbable via trunks of trees and stems of perennials
* citrus blight, according to Dr. Huber, is caused by its use

Coincidentally, I had my garden soil tested by the Texas Plant and Soil Lab and my soil was deficient in Mn. I use this lab because they use the CO2 extraction method which replicates how nutrients are available to the plant. I'm checking into this to see if the purchased garden soil was sprayed with glyphosate and possibly caused the Mn to be low or if it's coincidence.

Brad

I don't think he specifically answered your question but he did say that concentrations higher than the label rates have been found. I don't have my notes with me to give a better answer than that. I think his stance was "just don't use it" so there would not have been a tolerance level. I believe the concentration of the product has gone up over time but I don't know if that's because of resistant weeds or what.

Brad

Authors: Zobiole, L. H. S.; Kremer, R. J.; Oliveira, R. S., Jr.; Constantin, J.

Authors affiliation: Center for Advanced Studies in Weed Research, State University of Maringa, Parana, Brazil.

Published in: Journal of Applied Microbiology (2011), 110(1), pages 118-127.

Abstract: "Aims: Glyphosate-resistant (GR) soybean prodn. increases each year because of the efficacy of glyphosate for weed management. A new or 'second' generation of GR soybean (GR2) is now com. available for farmers that is being promoted as higher yielding relative to the previous, 'first generation' (GR1) cultivars. Recent reports show that glyphosate affects the biol. and ecol. of rhizosphere micro-organisms in GR soybean that affect yield. The objective of this research was to evaluate the microbiol. interactions in the rhizospheres of GR2 and GR1 soybean and the performance of the cultivars with different rates of glyphosate applied at different growth stages. Methods and Results: A greenhouse study was conducted using GR1 and GR2 soybean cultivars grown in a silt loam soil. Glyphosate was applied at V2, V4 and V6 growth stages at three rates. Plants harvested at R1 growth stage had high root colonization by Fusarium spp.; reduced rhizosphere fluorescent pseudomonads, Mn-reducing bacteria, and indoleacetic acid-producing rhizobacteria; and reduced shoot and root biomass. Conclusions: Glyphosate applied to GR soybean, regardless of cultivar, neg. impacts the complex interactions of microbial groups, biochem. activity and root growth that can have subsequent detrimental effects on plant growth and productivity. Significance and Impact of the Study: The information presented here will be crucial in developing strategies to overcome the potential detrimental effects of glyphosate in GR cropping systems."

I.E. iron chlorosis can be a a real problem on calcareous soils when the pH is about 7.5 or above. Applying Sequestrene 330, a sequestered iron, to the soil can be very effective in delivering iron to some crops in those mentioned soils where Fe deficiency is a problem.

If memory serves me correctly (not certain about this) organic matter serves as a chelator in at least some soils.

It's not black and white, good or bad, just better or worse in my opinion. My interests are in growing as healthful plants as I can.

As Wayne 5 stated, I'm sure both sides overstate their case to gain influence but that just leaves the rest of us in limbo when it comes to whatever truth there may be. In any case, THANKS for your response!

I certainly have no answers. Coincidentally, I left another forum when I tried to ask a question and specifically requested that we leave the whole Roundup question OFF THE TABLE for my question. One of the first responses suggested that I "educate" myself on the subject and, when I fell off the no anger wagon because they completely ignored my request, others came to that person's defense because they were more of a known entity there... so I left.

Hopefully, we can always openly share information and each of us can take it with however big a grain of salt we feel appropriate.

Peter Goldsbrough, director of the Purdue's plant pathology department said Huber declined to provide evidence supporting his claims or the names of his research partners.

Huber said he started his research at Purdue and continued it in collaboration with other scientists in the Midwest, Florida, Brazil and Canada after retiring in 2006. He declined to name the other scientists, saying they asked to remain anonymous because the attention would distract from the research.

************
Saying trust me, I'm a scientist" doesn't work on other scientists very well. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", said Carl Sagan. And Don Huber is showing absolutely no evidence at all.

"Residual glyphosate has only just been detected in the last year so it's really difficult to extrapolate that that's going to affect future crops, but there could be a potential," he said

Dr Kremer presented the findings of the study 'Glyphosate relationship with soil biology in glyphosate resistance crops' to farmers at the WANTFA spring field day in Cunderdin last week."

--------------------------------
Dr. Kremer is a USDA scientist.
http://grist.org/article/usda-downplays-own-scientists-research-on-dan ger-of-roundup/

Monsanto did not make any of those diseases.

Without the superior products produced by Monsanto we would not be able to feed our over populated world.

Is that what you anti-Monsanto want?

Be honest, you really don't even know what you want.

So do any of you KNOW First HAND about this or are you all believing it, just because you want a bad guy."

Great point.

In this case the "bad guy" is Monsanto- Not over population.....

My first post- This was not talking about any of the diseases the OP listed. I just wanted to say that for the record.

Posted by TheMasterGardener1 5B (My Page) on Thu, Sep 20, 12 at 10:25

This is all wrong.
Monsanto did not make any of those diseases."

[I won't link to it here because latimes.com has a pay wall and some cannot access it.]

http://www.birc.org/MarApr2011.pdf

William Quarles, Ph.D., is an IPM Specialist, Executive Director of the Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) in Berkeley, California, a non-profit organization that researches pesticide alternatives and educates the public about them. He is also the Managing Editor of the IPM Practitioner. He can be reached by email, birc@igc.org.

He is on the Advisory Council of The Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) which is the national nonprofit organization that determines which input products are allowed for use in organic production and processing (OMRI Listed��"or approved��"products may be used on operations that are certified organic under the USDA National Organic Program).

http://www.omri.org/omri-advisory-council

I first became familar with the writings of Dr. William Quarles when he was in charge of the rose garden at the Brookyln Botanical Gardens.

How many people believe, that we can believe anything we are being told by gov't, corporations, universities, and the media news outlets they own?

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/09/gmo-corn-rat-tumor

Some History on the Monsanto Corporation

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8308903.stm

In one study or "normal lifespan - where you just feed the rats a balanced diet for their normal lifespan and see what happens - after two years, 86% of male and 72% of female rats had developed tumors of the sort described by S�ralini.

In other words, the "treated" rats developed as many tumors as expected for this particular strain of rats allowed to live to their natural lifespan and in fact the control groups arguably had an unusually low incidence of tumors.

So I could feed them the purest of organic foods, nothing but organic fruits, grains and nuts for 24 months, and they would still get large numbers of tumors. Thereby proving that organic food causes cancer, or that vegan diets are bad, or something.

Here's one take
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2012/09/why-i-think-the-seralini-gm-feedi ng-trial-is-bogus/

Simply by chance, if we draw 10 rats from a population in which 72% get tumors after 2 years, we have anywhere from 5 ("t2″) to 10 ("t1″) rats in a treatment group that will develop tumors. That's equally true in the control group ... to show any real differences they would need far larger groups in the control and the trial groups. 50 per group per sex is the minimum recommended.

“Letters to the Editor will be limited to comments on contributions already published in the journal; if a letter is accepted, a response (for simultaneous publication) will be invited from the authors of the original contribution. All Letters to the Editor should be submitted to the Editor in Chief, A. Wallace Hayes at the following address: awallacehayes@comcast.net. ”
The above quote is from: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/237/autho rinstructions#N10BB9

------------------------

Why are so many “experts” apparently not willing to utilize the accepted scientific procedure to address concerns about published papers by others? The following link may provide insite to this question:

http://independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-ra t-study-roundup/

(Please note the number of signatures in the link.)

-----------------------------------

Also, please see:

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14306-nine-criticisms-of -seralini-study-answered-by-co-author

"Their claim is that the rats fed GM corn and Roundup got more such tumours earlier than the control group. The criticism of this finding is that the control group was simply too small to allow such an observation to be made with any certainty. And they have not conducted, or at least not presented, the standard statistical tests which would allow they or us to determine whether the results were the outcome of pure blind chance."

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/09/anti-gmo-researchers-used-scien ce-publication-to-manipulate-the-press/
"Any journalist that wanted to receive an advance copy was required to sign a non-disclosure agreement before receiving one. That agreement prohibited the outlet from sharing the results with any outside experts before the embargo lifted. In other words, if a press outlet wanted to be one of the first to cover the story, it would have to run the story without having any experts sanity check the paper."

"The embargo lifted during a live press conference from the researchers, hosted in London in cooperation with the Sustainable Food Trust. The SFT conveniently had a press release prepared; a release claiming that the research was "supported by independent research organization, CRIIGEN." However, this neglected to note that the paper's lead author, Eric Seralini, is on the CRIIGEN board."

Conflict of interest, and keeping the newspapers from doing any fact checking before publication ... that's not accepted protocol.

https://embargowatch.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/stenographers-anyone-gmo -rat-study-co-sponsor-engineered-embargo-to-prevent-scrutiny/
" One of the main reasons for embargoes �" if you take many journals at their word �" is to give reporters more time to write better stories. Part of how you do that is talking to outside experts. And scientists �" ones interested in science, anyway, not those interested in spin and political points �" should welcome that kind of scrutiny."