Crops Are Drenched with Roundup Pesticide Right Before Harvest

Roundup Is Dumped On Crops Right BEFORE Harvest … to Save a Buck

Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide (technically known as “glyphosate”) has been linked to many diseases.

However, farmers appear to be dumping it on crops right before harvest.

Specifically, Monsanto International published a paper in 2010 touting the application of Roundup to kill crops right before harvest, in order to dry out the crops in advance and produce a more uniform and earlier harvest (starting on page 28):

Benefits of using glyphosate:

***

Uneven maturity and green tissue delays harvest. Spraying glyphosate desiccates green foliage & stems. The photograph (below left) shows the uniform dessication of sunflower by the use of glyphosate(Roundup Bioaktiv) applied by helicopter in Hungary (Czepó, 2009a). The photograph (below right) shows complete foliar desiccation of grain maize on the right side 14 days after application of glyphosate (Roundup Bioaktiv) at 0.54kg ae/ ha in 7 0L/ ha applied by helicopter using Reglojet nozzles and including Bandrift Plus at 0.1 % at 34% grain moisture in Hungary, with the untreated visible on the left-hand side.

Lower drying costs

Monsanto trials in Hungary on grain maize and sunflower clearly show the effect of the use of glyphosate on % grain moisture ….

At harvest glyphosate treated maize had moisture content some 4% lower than untreated maize. Glyphosate treated sunflower seed moisture was 10+°/0 lower than untreated sunflower. Treated grain was at 19 and 7% respectively in these trials.

The requirement to further dry the seed/ grain to 14-16% for stable storage of maize, or 8-10% for sunflower, was thus either reduced or eliminated.

***

Earlier harvest to get higher price

Harvest management is an important management technique enabling earlier harvest, particularly important for the ‘stay-green’ hybrids. Increased levels of ‘stay-green’ trait may result in such desiccation practice becoming ever more common in sunflowers (Larson et al, 2008). Some commercial trials on grain maize in Hungary, as above, commented on earlier harvest bringing a higher price. Work on sunflower in by North Dakota State University department of Plant Science show that glyphosate brought harvest earlier by 5-10 days (Howatt, 2007). Sunflower harvest was brought forward 2-3 weeks by glyphosate treatment in Hungary (Monsanto, 2009a).

***

By bringing harvest date forward 2-3 weeks growers can more often meet the optimum planting date for winter wheat establishment so maximising yield (Czepó, 2009b).

(Given that enough Roundup is applied to full-grown plants to completely kill them, much higher quantities of Roundup are obviously being applied than would be required simply to keep away weeds (while keeping the plants alive).

Similarly, the plants don’t have time to metabolize or otherwise get rid of the Roundup, and there is not time for rains to wash away the Roundup before harvest. Instead, Roundup is dumped on the plants to dry them out, and then they are quickly harvested … with high levels of Roundup still present.

Similarly, Monsanto literature regarding Roundup encourages Canadian farmers to apply dump Roundup applications on many crops – including wheat, feed barley, oats, canola, flax, peas, lentils, and dry beans – right before harvest:

Preharvest is the best time for controlling Canada thistle, quackgrass, perennial sowthistle, dandelion, toadflax, and milkweed. A preharvest weed control application is an excellent management strategy to not only control perennial weeds, but to facilitate harvest management and get a head start on next year’s crop.

And Manitoba Pulse Growers Association reports:

Desiccants (or harvest management tools) are used
worldwide by growers who are producing crops that
require “drying down” to create uniformity of plant
material at harvest. These products may also assist in
pre-harvest weed control. In Canada, products such
as diquat (Reglone) and glyphosate (Roundup) have
been used as desiccants in pulse crops in the past …

Big agribusiness may save a buck … but we may all be paying with our health.

H/t Dr. Stephanie Seneff.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Energy / Environment, Politics / World News, Science / Technology. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Jeff

    Herbicide … Roundup is an Herbicide, not a pesticide.

    • Robert

      Herbicides are a type of pesticide. Your comment is the same as saying cats are felines, not animals.

      • MCB

        Correct Robert. Everyone should read Taleb’s Antifragile…

  • farmer_luke

    “Given that enough Roundup is applied to full-grown plants to
    completely kill them, much higher quantities of Roundup are obviously
    being applied than would be required simply to keep away insects (while
    keeping the plants alive).”

    Obviously the author isn’t familiar with what she’s talking about. Roundup is never used “keep insects away (while keeping the plants alive).” Glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup) is a herbicide. It doesn’t keep insects away and doesn’t keep plants alive.

    “Similarly, the plants don’t have time to metabolize or otherwise get
    rid of the Roundup, and there is not time for rains to wash away the
    Roundup before harvest. Instead, Roundup is dumped on the plants to dry
    them out, and then they are immediately harvested … with high levels of
    Roundup still present.”

    These statements are “similar” to the previous paragraph in that the author makes more unsubstantiated claims on top of inaccurate information. The 2010 Monsanto paper she quoted specifically mentions waiting 14 days to harvest (rather than “immediately harvested”), and the plants obviously have “metabolized” the roundup or they wouldn’t be dead. “…with high levels of
    Roundup still present.” is another baseless assumption by the author.

    • debbie3554

      You didn’t read the sentence correctly or an error was corrected.

      • farmer_luke

        I see that the author did edit the sentence I quoted above. It used to say “keep away insects” and now reads, “keep away weeds”. Unfortunately this doesn’t make sense either. The corn and sunflowers that are being sprayed with Roundup are not RoundupReady. They cannot tolerate Roundup being sprayed on them at all. Also, the rate of Roundup required to kill the corn or sunflowers is not significantly different than the rate required to kill weeds of a similar size or maturity.

        It’s clear the author doesn’t have a firm grasp on what she has written about.

        • farmer_luke

          Maybe it’s Washington’s Blog whose grip on the subject matter needs strengthened. Initially I thought this was a post by Dr. Stephanie Seneff, but I see it’s actually just a hat tip to her.

          • kimyo

            you’re missing the point. people don’t care if you call it a herbicide or a pesticide, they simply don’t want roundup in their food. using glyphosphate pre-harvest to kill a crop is probably why we read things like: The study found glyphosate in all urine samples at values ranging from 0.5 to 2 ng glyphosate per ml urine (drinking water limit: 0.1 ng / ml).

            once the crop dies, the roundup is trapped inside. certain processes (eg: beer-making) probably result in concentrated doses of this toxin.

            (it’s toxic, yes? they are using it to kill crops, yes?)

          • So, there’s more glyphosate in urine than in clean water. My recommendation: don’t drink urine.

          • kimyo

            exactly. no budweiser. no miller lite. no corona. no newcastle.

            wine may not be free of toxins, but it’s likely to be much better than beer.

          • hyperzombie

            Really< you better seek out some info on the pesticides used in the grape industry.

          • t Meehan

            you can get organic wine and probably even beer now. Or at least beer brewed in a country that bans glyphosate and is stricter about chemicals in general.

          • kimyo

            aside from the glyphosate issue, i wonder if beer (concentrated grain) is a healthy substance for humans to consume. perhaps part of the reason the french have better health than the brits is that they drink less beer and more wine.

            regardless, even german beer contains unsafe levels of glyphosate: Cancer-linked pesticide found in popular German beer

            Fourteen different beers sold in Germany contain traces of a pesticide believed to be carcinogenic, a new study reveals.

            Small amounts of Glyphosate – a substance most commonly used for weed killing and supposedly carcinogenic – were found in fourteen of the most popular brews in Germany, a new study conducted by the Environmental Institute in Munich has shown.

            The highest amount of the pesticide – 29.74 micrograms – was detected in a liter of Hasseröder, while a liter of Bavarian Augustiner contained 0.46 micrograms, making it “the safest” of the brews tested.

            The allowable limit of glyphosate in drinking water is 0.1 micrograms per liter, according to Der Spiegel.

          • Peter Olins

            The scientific evidence for a significant increase in the incidence of human cancer caused by traces of dietary glyphosate is weak, at best.

            Assuming that your interest is cancer, alcohol is a known cancer agent, regardless of whether it is in beer, wine, or spirits. (I doubt whether the lower levels in bread or vanilla extract would be of concern, however).

            The link you mentioned was not a published scientific study, so I cannot tell whether the result was valid, but claiming an accuracy to four significant digits in an ELISA assay is either sloppy or naive. The actual values of glyphosate claimed (up to 30 parts per billion) seem high to me, but not implausible—and nothing I would personally be concerned about, relative to the thousands of other things we consume on a daily basis.

            The reference to the European permitted limit of 0.1 ppb in drinking water is deceptive, however: this is the limit assigned to ALL pesticides, and is not based on actual safety information.

            My advice, kimyo, if you enjoy them, drink wine or beer often, but not to excess. Life is short.

            Prosit.

          • Robert

            Yeah, I read that article on the German beer contamination. Apparently the Germans are FURIOUS – they have their strict “beer purity ” laws, which they take very seriously

          • Robert

            Actually there are already several EXCELLENT organic beers. Check out “Fish Tail “. – one of my personal favorites. Google organic beers – you’ll find quite a few

          • kimyo

            Cancer causing glyphosate herbicide now contaminating ORGANIC wines from California, says consumer group

            “The highest level of glyphosate detected was up to 28.4 times higher than the other wines at 18.74 ppb from a 2013 Cabernet Sauvignon from a conventional, chemically farmed vineyard,” reports Moms Across America.

            “The lowest level was from a biodynamic and organic vineyard, 2013 Syrah, which has never been sprayed according to the owner, with a level of .659 ppb. An organic wine from 2012 mixed red wine grapes, had 0.913 ppb of glyphosate.”

            Glyphosate usage in California vineyards is rampant. Of the estimated 57,000 pounds used in Napa County, more than 50,000 of them were used on vineyards, according to data from the Calif. Department of Pesticide Registry.

            The sampled wines were from Napa, Sonoma and Mendocino counties. Breast cancer rates in those counties are 10 to 20 percent higher than the national average.

          • Peter Olins

            MomsAcrossAmerica?

            Forgive me if I laugh, but given the debacles of her past “claims” about GMO nutrient content and glyphosate in mothers’ milk, I think we need to take this latest statement with a large shovel of salt.

            If you truly want to discuss California cancer incidence statistics and potential causes, you will have to be a bit more specific about what set of data you are using, and tell us more about what you believe the causes of any difference may be.

            (As an aside, I would love to see the assay validation that permitted Honeycutt to claim an accuracy of 4 significant digits).

          • J. Randall Stewart

            The Stunning Corn Comparison is the most entertaining “study” yet. Zen has the chutzpah to keep it on her site. I did notice that ProfitPro has washed themselves of it.

            That one is definitely a great test on the gullibility index.

          • Laurie Avenell Olson

            It has been found in mother’s breast milk too, and in baby formula. What do you say to moms?

          • “Mothers’ milk”?
            Evidence, please—what test was used, and what levels were found?

          • JH

            Are you a Monsanto shill? You seemed to admit the urine comment, why deny mothers milk?

          • No evidence? Nothing to discuss. If you have some actual information, please share.

            BTW I find that the “shill” accusation is a sign of desperation generally used when a person has nothing rational to offer. Feel free to offer actual evidence of your accusation. Even better, tell us who you are, tell us your own sources of income, and any relevant affiliations.

          • Sunnyday

            Ditto Mr Olins

          • Lance

            Its not a sign of desperation its a valid observation. one you dont want people to make. Have you ever taken money from Monsanto/Pfizer? Yes. so yea youre a paid shill asshole

          • jon

            why do you think the levels in mothers milk is bad, and how often do you think it occurs ?
            sure you can say any is risk, to which I say pretty poor answer.

          • Robert

            Testing used a common laboratory test called an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, or “ELISA”, to compare glyphosate levels to known standards. Findings were between 76-166 microgrammes per litre. This is 760-1,600 times higher than the current maximum level allowable under the European Drinking Water Directive of 0.1µg/L.

          • Peter Olins

            Hi Robert. Yes, I saw these claims from Zen Honeycutt, but from what I can gather, she is unwilling to show evidence that the assay was validated for measurement in milk. It would be unsurprising for an ELISA assay to have either false positive—or false negative—readings for complex materials such as serum, milk or food. This is why regulatory or scientific studies typically involve a multi-step extraction and detection methodology. It’s a terrible shame that these claims were made by an activist who does not have any scientific training, rather than an actual research scientist, since all these questions could have been addressed by a competent researcher, and could have resulted in a very interesting and important paper.

            Honeycutt’s “study” reported urine levels of glyphosate for several women, but I am puzzled why both urine and milk were not tested in the same female subjects.

            You may not be aware that Honeycutt and Kimbrell presented their data to the EPA—who politely offered them advice on how to do a real study.

            Robert, perhaps you know more about this work than I do, in which case, please feel free to share more information.

            Finally, I’m not clear what the European drinking water regulations have to do with this topic, but I’m not an expert on European environmental regulation.

          • Sunnyday
          • Sunnyday

            I have posted links so that you can inform yourself . And yet you choose to draw me into an argument. Who is doing the distracting? I find it interesting that you offer little to support your contrary position and yet question everyone who choses to share theirs. Educate and inform yourself. My opinions need no debate my good fellow. Cheers and here’s to the booming organic market!

          • Peter Olins

            I know of only one recent published scientific study on human milk, in which all levels were below the limit of detection. (Not necessarily zero, which would be meaningless—just undetected). If I missed something, please share.

          • Lance

            Ready to take the roundup challenge yet shill boy?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM

          • Sunnyday

            Google it my good fellow.

          • Peter Olins

            Congratulations for graduating from Google University—you, and 4 billion others.

            Now, do you have a point that you can make using your own words?

          • jon

            don’t worry. what would you say to moms about the risk at those low levels, and why ?
            in baby formula, give me a break lady.

          • JH

            This is insane. Having any herbicide in your urine is not good and your comment not humorous.

            Do you not remember agent orange and it’s deadly affects?

          • The kidney is the major organ for excretion of the thousands of substances that the body doesn’t require. This is a good thing. I am much more concerned about substances that the body cannot get rid of.

            I’m puzzled why you bring up agent orange: what has this got to do with the topic? I’d be glad to discuss this, too, but I don’t claim to be an expert. From what I can tell, this was a mixture of two herbicides, produced by a number of companies at the request of the US government. Glyphosate was not a component. Discussing the morality and politics of this military tactic is very important, but irrelevant to this thread. My sense is that you bring it up as a distraction.

          • Joe

            Regone as in Diquat mentioned in this article, is, I’ve read, similar to Agent orange, which I have been told by a cotton farmer is still used to defoliate the crop before harvest. Apparently nothing else will do the job, and cotton is not considered a food crop so it is legal. Cottonseed oil is widely used in many food products, just read a few labels.
            Anyone with a basic knowledge of our SHADOW WW11 history, specifically operation paperclip, will know beyond any SHADOW of doubt, that the elite’s long promised planetary genocide of the human species is well underway. As we watch our families and friends suffer and die around us, while steadfastly refusing to believe those of us who tell them why, as their doctors grease their way to the grave with more poison in exchange for their every last cent, that will end up in the pockets of the 0.00001%, whatever the “official” stats say, the world population must be falling by now. Add in ISIS and WW111 on the horizon and we may be back to the stone-age (at least in population levels) long before the end of the century.
            As for the accuracy of the details in this article, that is beside the point. That deadly toxic herbicides are being used as harvest tools is genocide in any language. Go organic or die is the lesson here.

          • Sunnyday

            I recently read an article on trials to ripen crops evenly with round up in other countries. Absent minded at the moment can’t remeber which countries grrrr. They were food crops. Desperate people do foolish things. Very sad.

          • Jeff McMahan

            Go organic or die is the lesson here. And NEVER surrender your RIGHT to bear arms!!!

          • Robert

            Peter Olins says – “I’m puzzled why you bring up agent orange: what has this got to do with the topic?”

            The topic is herbicides being used as a desiccant. The poster is referencing chemical residues in urine and making the comparison of two defoliate/desiccants – Agent Orange (2,4d and 2,4,5T ) and glyphosate.

            These chemical residues are termed the “chemical body burden” – the basis of the article. How do you not get the connection?

          • Peter Olins

            I’m sorry for still being confused, Robert. The article is about glyphosate, not Agent Orange. You’ll have to spell out you point in a little more detail. The only connection I can see is that Agent Orange was also a herbicide: is your concern about herbicides in general?

            (BTW the use of Agent Orange was shameful and unethical, but that’s a topic for a different thread).

          • t Meehan

            The use of Roundup is shameful and unethical, on the grounds that safety hasn’t been established. 20 years from now, we may well be referring to it the way we now refer to Agent Orange. The effects may be less obvious but when all is said and done, I strongly suspect we will find that millions of people have been made sick and many have died painful deaths. Unbiased research that is not corrupted by Monsanto is needed.

          • Peter Olins

            Several decades ago, a trace contaminant in Agent Orange was found to be more toxic than the herbicides used to spray Vietnamese fields and forests.

            On what basis do you extrapolate from this tragic, shameful, event to the substance which is currently the most widely used agri-chemical? Perhaps you’re right, but do you have any reason for thinking so, other than a “gut-feeling”?

          • hyperzombie

            Roundup has been around for 40 years now, Agent Orange was a weapon of war. Totally different.

          • Peter Olins

            There are few man-made substances that have had more scrutiny than glyphosate. More information is, of course, always useful. What do you think we need to know, and how should we gather this information?

            More generally, given that we are exposed to tens of thousands of substances every day, what process do you think we should use to decide which ones deserve more scrutiny?

          • Lance

            he does, Peter is a paid shill

          • Lance

            Peter is a shill, he does this every time you nail him down. he plays stupid, while trying to hide the fact that he sold his soul

          • Lance

            Peter is a paid shill. takes money from monsanto

          • Lance

            and you claim to be a doctor? o yea youre a paid shill

          • jon

            I think the bottom of the range is zero, obviously not everyone has it…..and detections do not mean significant risk, you have arsenic, and lead also. But people do interpret detections as bad..human nature.

        • t Meehan

          That doesn’t mean that the farmers do not normally use small amounts of roundup, NEAR their plants to keep weeds away while not killing the plants themselves. Obviously if they use it ON the non roundup ready plants, it will kill them.

          • farmer_luke

            My point was that what I quoted from the article didn’t make sense. The article is quoting a Monsanto publication detailing the use of Glyphosate to dessicate growing crops. You seem to be making a point about a different, but related, topic. Which is fine, but not really an appropriate reply to me and my post 🙂 .

    • Namma

      Please read and understand MONSANTO’s OWN document (instant pdf download) that can be found at; http://roundup.ca/_uploads/documents/MON-Preharvest%20Staging%20Guide.pdf

      You can see a link to the document near the bottom of http://roundup.ca/

      QUOTE from document:
      “If you plan on swathing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swather) your crop you can help prevent shattering (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shattering_(agriculture) in susceptible varieties by spraying near the 30% seed moisture stage. This will help seed heads mature uniformly, allowing earlier swathing to minimize shattering loss. If you straight cut, shattering losses are reduced with a preharvest application because the entire crop matures uniformly.”

      In other words, you will get an ENTIRE yield by spraying our poison right before harvest rather than suffering loss of any number of seeds, never mind that it’s poison included in the spray.

  • farmer J

    A defoliant is an herbicide like agent orange which the main ingredient in that banned defoliant is roundup. It kills plants and its not for killing bugs pesticides are for the bugs. The only crop around me that is sprayed to promote faster harvest are potato’s and this has been going on for over 40 years. It is one reason I like growing my own and they can tell me it not in the potato. We don’t plant gmo crops because we feed it to livestock. The corporation food people want gmo’s because the shelf life is longer which means more profit and the bugs leave it alone because they are looking for nutrition and gmo’s don’t have enough to peek there interest. Have you ever wondered why those tomato’s can set there for a month and look the same as the day you bought them (GMO) like perfect clones. MY PEOPLE ARE DESTROYED FOR A LACK OF KNOWLEGE quit supporting these outfits with your hard earned money and educate your selves. Start a victory garden and preserve it save you it can.

    • dan

      I think it’s more than shelf life and profit. They want cancer causing agent and sterilization on humanity for a great culling. the “G” in GMO is GENOCIDE. Open your eye’s and see that Monsanto is I.G Farben. This is Bio warfare against a lesser bloodline.

      • waraji

        Please stop. You aren’t helping. The “G” means Genetically. You make people aganst GMO’s sound like lunatics.

        I don’t like Monsanto OR GMO’s.

        • People against GMO’s ARE lunatics!

          • t Meehan

            That is not true. Genetically Modified food has the potential to be a good thing. However, in most cases, it is likely less healthy, if not dangerous. Unfortunately because some have been shown to likely cause illnesses, it has given a bad name to all of them. People who are opposed to GMO’s just want to know that what they are feeding their children is safe. They are not lunatics

          • Really? Which ones specifically have been shown to likely cause illness?

          • Lance

            Useful idiot or another shill? fed farmer have you taken money from the biotech industry or do you work for the gov?

          • Stupid, ignorant or just lazy? Google my nickname and realize how incredibly stupid you appear.

            That aside, my question still stands: Which ones have been shown to likely cause illness? The answer of course is, “None”.

    • farmer_luke

      Roundup is not an ingredient in Agent Orange. Agent Orange consists of a 1 to 1 ratio of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D. 2,4,5-T doesn’t breakdown quickly and is harmful to humans. Dioxin is even more harmful and was a contaminant produced in the manufacture of 2,4,5-T (especially when manufactured at higher temperatures).

      The corporation food people, as you call them, want all produce to have longer shelf-life, so they can ship them further, and yes, make more money. That’s not specific to GMOs. GMOs have more to do with controlling pest infestations (like root worm in corn) and weed problems (Roundup Ready crops).

      I do agree we should educate ourselves.

    • Michael McCarthy

      “Have you ever wondered why those tomato’s can set there for a month and look the same as the day you bought them (GMO)”

      well, that’s a pretty incorrect statement. The GMO tomato, the FlavrSavr was abandoned almost 20 years ago. Tomatoes found in supermarkets are picked green, go through a chemical shower to turn them red, and are then shipped to stores. Without refrigeration, they rot, just like any other piece of produce.
      You did manage to get correct that they spray potato fields to desiccate them. Although that wouldn’t really be in the potatoes, which grow underground.
      And, you were also correct that anyone that can plant a garden, should. Unfortunately, most people don’t really have that option.

      • t Meehan

        why would the chemicals not get in the potatoes if they are grown underground? Rainwater should bring the chemicals into the soil to be absorbed by the potato…in the same way that fertilizer laid on top of the soil gets to the roots of plants.

        • farmer_luke

          Some fertilizers and chemicals are not mobile in the soil. Nitrogen is very mobile and moves with water into the root zone and beyond if not utilized. Phosphorus is not mobile and stays where it is applied (which is why it’s not typically put above ground, but put underground, closer to the roots). Glyphosate, like phosphorus, is not mobile in the soil with rainwater.

    • Robert

      farmer J – please stop speaking on behalf of the non-GMO crowd, please. Almost every word of your statement is incorrect, on several levels. It’s posts like this that leave the GMO advocates thinking we’re ALL a bunch of idiots!

  • Ray

    Perhaps another possible reason for the practice of dessication is the reduced germination rates of the seeds.

  • kimyo

    drink wine!

    why?

    Barley and Beer – Some Facts

    The average American, drinking their 20 gallons of beer per year, consumes about 21 pounds of barley…..

    Pre-harvest glyphosate application to wheat and barley

    Trials in Scotland showed that pre-harvest glyphosate applied to weed-free crops reduced both grain and straw moisture contents in a range of circumstances in spring barley. Reduced sieving and threshing losses, as well as increased combine throughput were recorded. Overall, the effect enabled combining one day earlier

    budweiser, proudly brewed for maximal glyphosphate intake! (what could possibly go wrong?)

  • es
  • Horrifying. No wonder 1 in 2 American males are now being diagnosed with cancer. No wonder most people I know have become wheat intolerant. Monsanto should have been shut down years ago.

    • Sorry, but cancer incidence rates are remarkably constant. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html
      Prevalence of celiac disease (autoimmune reaction to wheat gluten) is about 0.7% of the U.S. population; no population data are available for non-celiac gluten sensitivity.
      I recommend that you read more and speculate less.

    • Laurie Avenell Olson

      Have you seen the recent information from Tyrone Hayes about Atrazine? This is a very good talk on the subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9NFPZGyDPg

    • angel

      I am wheat intolerant now any farmer that backs up using roundup on anything a human digests should be prosecuted and will pay for their disgrace in this life or the next..

      • Hi angel. Sorry to hear that you’re wheat intolerant (presumably, celiac disease or non-celiac gluten intolerance). I’m totally puzzled: what on earth has your unfortunate medical condition got to do with the topic of this article?

        • t Meehan

          There is another article about that states that many people who believe themselves to be gluten intolerant are actually reacting to the glyphosate on the wheat when farmers harvest too soon after dousing their fields. I personally have no more trouble with wheat now that I eat organic. Not sure why, but better safe now than sorry later, when all the data is in.

          • Peter Olins

            I have not come across ANY credible evidence of a connection between traces of glyphosate in wheat and celiac disease (autoimmune gluten intolerance). I’d be glad to discuss this further, if you wish. If you truly are not having problems with wheat, then it seems unlikely that you ever had celiac disease.

            Pre-harvest treatment of wheat is relatively rare in the U.S., but has recently become more common in parts of Europe. Celiac disease had already reached a plateau before this practice became more popular.

            Do yo have evidence of farmers applying glyphosate “too soon”, which could result in higher residues in the plants? In other words, do you know of any rogue farmers, or have you seen evidence of abnormal glyphosate levels in wheat?

          • Sunnyday
          • Peter Olins

            Thanks, Sunnyday.
            So why do you post this link? If you think it’s relevant, please tell us more.

          • Sunnyday

            Read it and learn something of your own accord my good fellow. Enjoy and enlighten yourself.

  • How much is “0.54kg ae/ ha in 7 0L/ ha” and since this product is soluble in water, can it not be washed off?

    • kimyo

      the only way you’re going to be able to tell how much glyphosphate ends up in our food is to test it. not just bread and beer and tofu, you also need to test chicken/beef/pork/salmon, as these are all fed ‘dessicated with roundup™’ corn and soy.

      the theory that it all washes off is clearly disproven by the presence of glyphosphate in human breast milk and urine.

      Glyphosate Testing Full Report: Findings in American Mothers’ Breast Milk, Urine and Water.

      In the first ever testing on glyphosate herbicide in the breast milk of American women, Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse have found ‘high’ levels in 3 out of the 10 samples tested. The shocking results point to glyphosate levels building up in women’s bodies over a period of time, which has until now been refuted by both global regulatory authorities and the biotech industry. The levels found in the breast milk testing of 76 ug/l to 166 ug/l are 760 to 1600 times higher than the European Drinking Water Directive allows for individual pesticides

      • Honestly, I was excited to finally read a peer-reviewed study on this subject, but alas you linked to a “study” done by two woo groups, not a scientist in the bunch!
        I call BS.

        • kimyo

          peer-review? like how all economists agree that only more stimulus will fix our ills? like how every cardiologist will dutifully instruct her patients to cut down on salt? the geologists who concur that fracking doesn’t cause earthquakes?

          we’re supposed to believe these people cause they wear gowns and funny hats? you must be quite the innocent. 1950 is calling, shall i transfer them through?

          we need open, independent studies because the fda has fallen to the communists. the stuff on the tray in the school cafeteria looks like food, kinda like the way a hollywood western movie set looks like dodge city on camera.

          but it’s not food. agribiz delivers calories and toxins. for nutrients, you need to look elsewhere.

          • ” the fda has fallen to the communists ”

            Oh, communists. You mean those whose political ideology embraces collectivism and hates capitalists?

          • I think you misunderstand what “peer review” means.

          • kimyo

            i understand how peer review is supposed to work. you fail to see that the process has been thoroughly corrupted.The Top 10 Retractions of 2014

            This year, stories about scientific retractions were dominated by big numbers — 60 at once in one case, 120 in one fell swoop in another — as well as the eyebrow-raising practice of researchers submitting fake peer reviews, often ones they themselves had written.

            It would be difficult to chronicle 2014’s key retractions without noting the two STAP stem cell paper retractions from Nature. Readers detected significant problems with the research, and Haruko Obokata, who led the studies, was ultimately unable to replicate the findings. Nature has defended its decision to publish the articles, saying editors couldn’t have detected the errors.

            Although this story technically broke last year, it was late enough not to make our 2013 list, and the retraction happened in 2014: A former researcher at Iowa State University (ISU) spiked rabbit blood samples with human blood to make it look as though his HIV vaccine was working. Dong-Pyou Han is now facing criminal charges, and ISU was forced to pay back nearly $500,000 of his salary—both rare events.

            Two major publishers were caught out after having published more than 120 bogus papers produced by the random text generator SCIgen.
            French computer scientist Cyril Labbé of Joseph Fourier University in
            Grenoble catalogued computer-generated papers that made it into more
            than 30 published conference proceedings between 2008 and 2013. Sixteen
            appeared in publications by Springer, and more than 100 were published
            by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE).

            So much for science in the public interest: Bowing to commercial pressure, the authors of a paper in the African Journal of Food Sciences on cassava yanked it after a company claimed the article was damaging to its business.

            Stem cell research popped up on Retraction Watch a number of times this year. In one significant case, Circulation retracted a 2012 study
            by a group of Harvard heart specialists over concerns of corrupt data,
            and the university is investigating. There has also been an expression of concern in The Lancet. The group was led by Piero Anversa, a leading cardiologist, who along with a colleague filed suit against the institution on the grounds that the inquiry was damaging to his career prospects.

          • The link you provided (then pasted) proves the system of peer review works!

          • Lance
  • mnp

    horrifying enough that Monsanto would encourage such, but given the title, I need links to information about how widespread the practice is. I’d like to know many farmers, which crops and where. Otherwise I may suspect this article is poorly researched, misleading and inflammatory, since the links provide no support for any assertion other than Monsanto encourages the practice.

  • Name

    More than 90% of our grains and cereals including rice (UK and abroad) are subject to a pre-harvest spraying of roundup herbicide – a new but insane practice started in 2003. This has massively increased residue levels to 100 PPM and more, of this noxious substance in our bread and cereal. Research has clearly shown that roundup/glyphosate is responsible for cancers, endocrine disruption and cardiac arrythmia. The american government which is in the pocket of the makers of glyphosate last year massively increased the permitted residue levels in farm produce anywhere from 2 times to 25 times depending on the food stuff. Now they want to force this noxious waste and their gmo waste on europe by way of TTIP that is, if you are not already eating this garbage and you easily could be. Are you one of the million+ people who in the UK have atrial fibrillation? Bread or cereal is very possibly the cause.

    • Where do you get your data on pre-harvest spraying, or all these terrible diseases that you claim are caused by this herbicide? Where do get the data for 100 ppm glyphosate in bread? These numbers are amazingly different from what I have read. Unless you can substantiate them, I can only conclude that you have a very fertile imagination.

  • Name

    Farmers today are dickhead poisoners who care more about their own wallets than the consumers health. It is not even that we are demanding this filth as our food. The stupid cunt farmers know that consumers want real food unadulterated with chemicals especially toxic ones. They know this and they have no right to force us to eat their shit. I hope they drop dead from inhaling their own sprays.

  • Orville J. Clutchpopper

    I like how the headline uses the word “drenched”. Really? “Drenched” in Roundup? It’s applied at the rate specified on the label. And what Roundup is not “consumed” by the plant dissipates. Otherwise you couldn’t spray Roundup and then plant the next day…

    • Good point. Most farmers either “douse” or “flood” their fields.

      • Orville J. Clutchpopper

        Oh, and the whole bit about using Roundup to speed drydown? That’s pushin’ it. Sure, maybe if you use some good accounting gimmicks (like the example given) you might be able to show saving money doing this (but I’m sure there was a lot NOT taken into consideration). I can also see perhaps doing something like this in situations where the weather just won’t cooperate. But seldom, if ever. No one around here does that to my knowledge; glad to see this is in a foreign country. Of course, most of our food comes from foreign countries anymore…

  • Kent Wagoner

    I think that no one should be allowed to use the phrase “drenched in Roundup” until they can demonstrate knowledge of what those words mean. For those of us who actually use Roundup, that is just the stupidest-sounding thing ever.

  • CrystalClearTruth

    Check the latest research – Roundup affecting humans has been scientifically proven. It kills gut bacteria causing many autoimmune diseases.

    • Peter Olins

      A hint: if you want to say “scientifically proven”, why not just post a link to the scientific evidence. Since you don’t give your name, you can’t simply expect people to take your word for it!

      Regarding gut bacteria, there’s some evidence for an effect on some bacteria—but at levels that are thousands of fold higher than we are exposed to. As I’m sure you know, all kinds of substances affect the growth of bacteria, and are even used as preservatives (e.g. salt, sugar, vinegar, alcohol).

      Regarding “autoimmune diseases”, you’ll have to be a bit more specific.

    • CrystalClearTruth

      Since I’m being accosted (already by the Monsanto shill) here is the latest research. Read it and be very, very scared.
      https://weedmanagementadvisory.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/glyphosate-off-the-streets-2015-report-steffan-browning-mp2.pdf

      • Peter Olins

        It was probably not a good idea for this “Green” politician to rely on someone with a Bachelor’s degree in Business (Jodie Bruning) to prepare a systematic review of a complex area of science, wouldn’t you agree? I find it almost impossible to believe that she actually read the material in her Gish Gallop, let alone, understood it.

        You do realize, crystalcleartruth, the difference between a scientific review and a piece of political propaganda, right?

        • CrystalClearTruth

          Your comment proves my point. Have you read the PEER REVIEWED scientific studies listed there? How about shutting your trap and stop attacking the messenger. How about disproving those studies and then you can comment intelligently.

          • Peter Olins

            Yes, I have read several, but certainly not all, of those studies! Is there a particular one that you think is most important, that you would like to discuss? (Just to save time, it would help if you would clarify whether YOU have just read just the title, or have delved into the content.)

          • CrystalClearTruth

            I wouldn’t link to them if I had not read them all. When you have, come back.

          • Lance

            ***Peter you work for monsanto /pfizer . you are a paid shill with an agenda. You are a tool for the devil and will definitely be going to hell. Nothing you say on the topic of gmo or vaccines should be taken seriously.

          • Peter Olins

            “…tool for the devil…”?!

            Sorry, I have no theological training, so I can’t help you there. Do you have something to discuss that’s relevant to the original topic? If not, you are most welcome to STFU.

          • Lance

            did i hit a nerve? you dont want anyone to know youve taken money from monsanto and other scum. you know you sold your soul. from youre profile pic it looks like they have a hand up your ass like a little puppet too.

          • Rickinreallife

            What a small mind you have

          • Lance

            ***Peter you work for monsanto /pfizer . you are a paid shill with an agenda, you sold you soul. No theology required.

          • Peter Olins

            Wrong.
            If you are going to present “information” to support a position or argument, how about being accurate?

            Most of my career has been involved in developing technologies for creating therapies for a wide range of human diseases, and I have been fortunate enough to collaborate with many talented scientists in a diverse fields, such as cancer, allergy, infectious diseases and autoimmunity.

            I am proud of the work I did in the human Healthcare division of Monsanto, which I left over 20 years ago.

            The phrase “selling your soul” is, however, somewhat appropriate: developing new human therapies is incredibly hard, and on average, it takes literally hundreds of person-careers to develop a successful new drug. So yes, many people sell their souls in an attempt to do something useful. Care to share what you have done, Lance?

            Do you actually have a point, or something useful to discuss, Lance? If not, I repeat, STFU.

          • Lance

            Having spent ” most of your career in the Pharmaceutical and Biotech industries, designing and developing drugs”, it comes as no surprise to the wise that you would ignore 2 main causes of Celiac disease; GMO’s and roundup. With 40+ patents (probably all totally useless and cause more problems), your goal is to sell drugs. If people eat organic natural foods, minus pesticide their gut bacteria thrives. We know roundup is antibacterial, people piss it out every day, the gut bacteria never gets a break, disease follows. So using baseless, biased, short term, junk, paid for science, created by monsanto to promote GMO safety all over the net, while acting as someone concerned with Celiac disease or health in general is rather disgusting. This type of conflict of interest should land you in prison.

          • JoeFarmer

            Lance, I hope you realize that by playing the shill card, you forfeit the discussion.

            It’s not a surprise that you resorted to that, btw.

          • Lance

            JoeFarmer have you taken money from monsanto or the gmo/vaccine industry like Peter?Unfortunately the only thing shills can do is twist the truth and flat out lie. I have not forfeited anything, however Peter has. Sold his soul. Idk about you, you might just be useful idiot. Can you prove you dont work for or take money from the gmo/vaccine industry.

          • JoeFarmer

            You’re a pathetic little twerp, but I still feel sorry for you.

          • Lance

            So have you taken money from the industry? Seems you want to dodge that. Little twerp? I’m thinking joe farmer is probably an out of shape pile of crap like his girlfriend Peter Olin .

          • Lance

            Joe Farmer, you are not denying that you took money from the gmo/vaccine industry. Going forward i will consider you a paid shill.

          • JoeFarmer

            Dimwitted, but not unexpected reply from you.

          • Peter Olins

            Please pick ONE study that you think is most relevant to the OT. I’ll gladly discuss.

          • CrystalClearTruth

            not interested in your games. You already said you’re not interested in researching. So what’s the point?

          • JoeFarmer

            Why don’t you post some of these supposed peer-reviewed studies, genius?

            Be prepared to take the heat for doing so, though.

          • Yes, and post some that we can actually read, not just the highlights. I mean if you’ve actually read the article, either you have access through a university or you paid to read them. “Potential toxic effects of glyphosate and its commercial formulations below regulatory limits” for example costs $35.95. So either you’re a paid shill for the chemical industry and therefore have access, or YOU (crystalcleartruth) didn’t read the articles!

          • JoeFarmer

            I think you responded to the wrong person…

            In any case that paper you reference is a real P.O.S., but if you know how to use Google Scholar you can read it for free.

            You’re welcome.

          • Did you by chance notice that I put the person to whom I was speaking in parenthese? I did indeed respond to your comment by agreeing, “Yes, and post some that we can actually read, not just the highlights.” The ‘yes’ was in response to your post to CrystalClear.
            I agree to your POS reference, and i know how to use google scholar, but it’s not my job to help him (attempt to) prove his point.

          • Pogo333

            Try using a college or university library. And I agree with JoeFarmer that you would be better served spending your time on other papers than that one. Especially for $35.95. However, Figure 1 is pretty awesome with its Vitruvian Man figure in the background. Seralini and da Vinci – what a great combo!

          • Peter Olins

            Seralini’s latest paper is available for free:
            http://biomar.ulb.ac.be/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Mesnage-et-al-2015.pdf
            Did you read it, FF?

          • Well, I tried. Not a real page turner though.
            What I don’t know is, does this chemical not wash off the fruit?
            I’m pretty sure it isn’t absorbed by the fruit, so can’t the paranoids just wash their fruit/veggies before eating them?

          • Peter Olins

            Thanks for the link. I look forward to reading Seralini’s latest paper (not really, given his history of deception, but I’m sure that someone will cite it as being the authoritative word on the topic, so I’ll do my best to read it objectively).

            As far as washing off fruit and veggies, since this is a herbicide, it’s hard to imagine why it would be present in significant levels on produce. Residues are more likely on corn, soybeans and sugar beets, but these are primarily animal feedstuffs or basic food ingredients, so I have little concern about these. As the original article points out, glyphosate is applied directly to cereal crops—not so much in the U.S., but more commonly in parts of the EU. While I have no reason to think that this poses a safety issue to the consumer, I personally question whether the benefits of this practice to the farmer outweigh any potential concern for the consumer.

            On the other hand, any concern here needs to be weighed against the possible risk of the literally hundreds of other pesticides and other substances in our food supply. I have no reason for concern, but I do think that there needs to be a general philosophy of reduction of exposure, especially when the risks will always be only partially understood. I suspect that most farmers would agree with the general principle.

          • Bruce__H

            And it is the farmers and farm workers themselves who benefit most by any reduction because they will always see higher exposures than the gereral public.

          • What struck me in that paper you linked to was this, “Glyphosate acts on the shikimate pathway in plants through the inhibition of the 5-nolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) enzyme (Boocock and Coggins, 1983), which is involved in the metabolism of aromatic amino acids. Inhibition of EPSPS by
            glyphosate causes protein shortage, and consequently plant death. Since this biochemical pathway does not exist in vertebrates, it is generally assumed that glyphosate is safe for mammals, including humans (Williams et al., 2012).”

          • CrystalClearTruth

            Here it is a week later and everyone can see for themselves. All these people wanted to do is attack me and attack the research without any cause. They didn’t bother to read the many scientific papers I provided and try to evaluate their contents. There’s no use in discussing with these type – they are just bullies. Don’t be afraid of them.

          • Peter Olins

            Just pick ONE study that you think is worth discussing, and I’ll gladly engage. If it’s outside my area of expertise, I have no problem in admitting my ignorance, and will defer to someone more knowledgeable.

            Bring it on.

      • hyperzombie

        Wow, you are insane. This is not research.

        • CrystalClearTruth

          Anyone who reads this exchange will see that you people are not worth the effort. There is no honest quest for knowledge with you people.

          • hyperzombie

            Well of course it will be a waste of time, because we know what we are talking about, unlike you. You mean your uneducated quest for disinformation?

          • Peter Olins

            “…uneducated quest for disinformation.”

            Great phrase, HZ.

            People come to the Internet to get their uneducation. This seems to be remarkably effective, given many of the comments that we read. Rather like something that would happen on a Bizzaro World.

          • I beg to differ, Sir. There’s tons of good information on the web. (Just not so much on FaceBook.)

    • JoeFarmer

      No, it doesn’t.

      But go ahead and link to where you read that, just for laughs, OK?

      • CrystalClearTruth

        I dare you – no double dare you – to go to the peer reviewed study in the list of many studies I linked to and disprove it. Show us it’s wrong. I’ll wait…..

        • JoeFarmer

          I don’t feel compelled to scour the thread and find your links. Repost them.

          Let me guess, though: Seralini?

    • Lance

      Roundup does destroy gut bacteria. Shills like Peter Olin will try to tell you otherwise. Even though we know that chemically it has an antibacterial effect.

      • CrystalClearTruth

        Thanks. And the list of peer reviewed studies I included shows this. Even though he dismisses them all because they were collated from a person he disagrees with. Inconvenient facts for him for sure.

      • hyperzombie

        Stop drinking Roundup out of the jug and your gut bacteria will be fine. This is a handy tip for all liquids that are not beverages.

        • Lance

          Crops Are Drenched with Roundup Pesticide Right Before Harvest. so eating them after theyve been DRENCHED with roundup also destroys gut bacteria. drinking poison from the bottle will kill you, putting it on your food, will also kill you. Zombiebrain can you use logic or just a shill?

          • hyperzombie

            LOL, wow your a moron. The application rate is 24 oz per acre, hardly drenched, less than a drop per square foot. Grow up and worry about real food issues like mycotoxins and E-coli.

          • Lance

            You admit roundup will kill gut bacteria. poison in small amounts adds up over time. Its been shown to be cancer causing. long term exposure to poison, even at small dose is unhealthy. I am also concerned with cancer causing mycotoxins . Huber suggested that Roundup Ready crops, treated with glyphosate, had higher levels of mycotoxins and lower nutrient levels than conventional crops. When consumed, the GM crops were more likely to cause disease, infertility, birth defects, cancer and allergic reactions than conventional crops. so yea…http://www.producer.com/2012/12/scientist-raises-concerns-about-gm-crops-and-glyphosate/

          • hyperzombie

            Nope, small amounts of poisons do not add up over time if your body gets rid of them. Salt is a poison, but you eat it everyday.
            Huber says a lot of things, he is a wingnut. Mycotoxins are an issue in insect damaged crops, and GMOs have less insect damage.

    • hyperzombie

      What? Coffee kills gut bacteria, same with vinegar, booze, and tons of other stuff. Gut bacteria reproduce very fast, you poop contains 25% of them every day.