March Against Monsanto

[Greg Peterson]

The other drives humans off the face of this planet because we are all so destructive to all the "natural" flora and fauna. There are plenty of people who lean the latter direction.

I think this is an oversimplification and derogatory characterization of people who believe humans have over extended the natural systems of this planet. I don't know how one can defend forestry practices through the 20th century. Fishing practices have led to significant declines in fish populations. Do we have to learn every lesson the hard way?

This thread is a great illustration of something. It referred to Monsanto, but the subjects being used to support the marching have nothing to do with Monsanto. Its the same old desire to find a boogyman to campaign against.

I think quite a bit of the thread has remained focused on Monsanto, their technology and the potential unintended consequences.

The proof that has been posted here is ridiculous. The best proof is to look at the lifespans of today vs 50 or 100 years ago.

I'm not sure how life span is germane to this thread. Monsanto was not responsible for the development of improved sanitation, health care, access to clean water, immunizations. These several factors are what led to current life spans.

Not wanting to make this political but it's impossible to avoid to some extent. There is a well founded movement and party here now that uses this same human pathology to hold their power. Thankfully here, the system designed to work as checks and balances has prevented catastrophe.

I agree. A quick review of the Fortune 500 reveals many entities whose interests are parallel to Monsanto's. Follow the money indeed. History is full of products that knowingly were harmful yet remained on the market because someone with money was able to grease the gears. The Pinto story is a classic example of corporate devaluation of human life. Monsanto's behavior to date has done nothing to diminish the impression that they are more interested in creating a monopoly by forcing all farming to use their products and by default force everyone to have a diet based on their technology. Frankly, I'm stunned that people would practically cheer on this type of practice, seemingly out of spite for those they disagree with.

Since Monsanto is tampering with the very fundamental nature of our food supply, I think it prudent that every facet of the enterprise be fully examined, both short term and long term. Who is to say that twenty years down the road that there are irreversible negative consequences? Are we to take Monsanto's 'unbiased' word on the safety of their products?

Obviously the study was sparked by a pretty reasonable question. Do GE crops really reduce the use of RR? I think the doctor did a good job of analyzing the data. And the answer in this case is that RR GE crops do not decrease the use of RR.

We can question the hypothesis certainly. But, if in the end there is solid evidence to support the initial question, why vilify they person who conducted the study?

[Greg Peterson]

I can not access this peer reviewed study, but the author is a scientist with the USDA's Agricultural Research Service.

Here is the abstract:

"Current crop production relies heavily on transgenic, glyphosate-resistant (GR) cultivars. Widespread cultivation of transgenic crops has received considerable attention. Impacts of glyphosate on rhizosphere microorganisms and activities are reviewed based on published and new data from long-term field projects documenting effects of glyphosate applied to GR soybean and maize. Field studies conducted in Missouri, U.S.A. during 1997–2007 assessed effects of glyphosate applied to GR soybean and maize on root colonization and soil populations of Fusarium and selected rhizosphere bacteria. Frequency of root-colonizing Fusarium increased significantly after glyphosate application during growing seasons in each year at all sites. Roots of GR soybean and maize treated with glyphosate were heavily colonized by Fusarium compared to non-GR or GR cultivars not treated with glyphosate. Microbial groups and functions affected by glyphosate included Mn transformation and plant availability; phytopathogen–antagonistic bacterial interactions; and reduction in nodulation. Root-exuded glyphosate may serve as a nutrient source for fungi and stimulate propagule germination. The specific microbial indicator groups and processes were sensitive to impacts of GR crops and are part of an evolving framework in developing polyphasic microbial analyses for complete assessment of GR technology that is more reliable than single techniques or general microbial assays."

Perhaps someone here is a member and can access the full report?

Dr. Kremer, or I guess I should just say Kremer, is observing degradation of soils where Roundup is used. Superweeds, resistant to roundup, are a more important problem according to his boss at Agricultural Research Service, Michael Shannon. But Mr. Shannon acknowledges that soil degradation is also a concern.

"Michael McNeill, who has a Ph.D. in quantitative genetics and plant pathology from Iowa State University, advises large-scale corn and soy farmers on weed control and soil fertility. He's observing trends in the field that are consistent with Kremer's research. Here's Boulder Weekly:

McNeill explains that glyphosate is a chelating agent, which means it clamps onto molecules that are valuable to a plant, like iron, calcium, manganese, and zinc.…The farmers' increased use of Roundup is actually harming their crops, according to McNeill, because it is killing micronutrients in the soil that they need, a development that has been documented in several scientific papers by the nation's leading experts in the field. For example, he says, harmful fungi and parasites like fusarium, phytopthora and pythium are on the rise as a result of the poison, while beneficial fungi and other organisms that help plants reduce minerals to a usable state are on the decline. He explains that the overuse of glyphosate means that oxidizing agents are on the rise, creating oxides that plants can't use, leading to lower yields and higher susceptibility to disease."

Link

I do not care for the reporting, but these scientists are suggesting that roundup is not good for the soil. It's possibly choking off the nutrients and agents that break down the nutrients the plants require by attaching to the nutrients themselves.

Perhaps someone can find a peer reviewed study that refutes this study?

[David Weaver]

It depends on longer than what.

Longer than 80? Longer than 50? Longer than 45?

[jared herbert]

Steve, I don't think that's true. Somewhere in the last two weeks, I saw a study of the amount of glyphosate left in food that we're eating and it wasn't trivial. I think if you read literature about glyphosate, it claims that it breaks down in a very short period of time, but the reality is that the half life can be up to 200 days depending on where it goes. If it ends up in water on the surface of a field, or in runoff, it doesn't break down very quickly.

USDA doesn't test for it and neither does the FDA, but every independent test that I've seen has it showing up in vegetables and milk when it's actually tested. How much of it, I don't know, but enough to detect it.

As a consumer (and user) of the retail bottled glyphosate, the description on the bottle is interesting, it makes it out as if you spray it on a plant and then it just vaporizes after it does its job, but that's not reality...unfortunately.

ed
Glyphosate or roundup has no soil activity. It must be applied to growing, living, green plant material that contains chlorophyll to be effective. Once it hits the soil, it quickly breaks down into some of its components, which may or may not be able to be detected. It will not kill any plants that come up out of the soil after roundup is applied. I have personally sprayed roundup over a susceptable crop after it has been planted and before emergence with no affect on the seeds that were yet to emerge. It will not leach into the soil or be transported in water, the only way possible for it to be carried in water is if a large quantity of undiluted product was spilled into a water way. Any state university ag department would tell you the same thing. I am going out on a limb here but I do not believe it is possible to detect traces of roundup in a roundup ready crop after it has been sprayed. The growing plants metabolize the chemicals and it either kills the plant if it is not roundup ready or the plant continues to grow as if nothing has happened to it. Jared Herbert

[David Weaver]

http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html

Plants

• Glyphosate is absorbed by plant foliage and transported throughout the plant through the phloem.³ Glyphosate absorption across the cuticle is moderate, and transport across the cell membrane is slower than for most herbicides.⁴ Because glyphosate binds to the soil, plant uptake of glyphosate from soil is negligible.³
• Glyphosate accumulates in meristems, immature leaves, and underground tissues.⁴
• Very little glyphosate is metabolized in plants, with AMPA as the only significant degradation product.³
• Lettuce, carrots, and barley contained glyphosate residues up to one year after the soil was treated with 3.71 pounds of glyphosate per acre.^61,62
• Glyphosate had a median half-life of 8 to 9 days in leaf litter of red alder and salmonberry sprayed with Roundup®.⁴⁸

Water

• The median half-life of glyphosate in water varies from a few days to 91 days.¹
• Glyphosate did not undergo hydrolysis in buffered solution with a pH of 3, 6, or 9 at 35 °C. Photodegradation of glyphosate in water was insignificant under natural light in a pH 5, 7, and 9 buffered solution.^58,59
• Glyphosate in the form of the product Roundup® was applied to aquatic plants in fresh and brackish water. Glyphosate concentrations in both ponds declined rapidly, although the binding of glyphosate to bottom sediments depended heavily on the metals in the sediments. If chelating cations are present, the sediment half-life of glyphosate may be greatly increased.⁶⁰
• Glyphosate has a low potential to contaminate groundwater due to its strong adsorptive properties. However, there is potential for surface water contamination from aquatic uses of glyphosate and soil erosion.⁶
• Volatilization of glyphosate is not expected to be significant due to its low vapor pressure.⁶

Soil

• The median half-life of glyphosate in soil has been widely studied; values between 2 and 197 days have been reported in the literature.^7,48 A typical field half-life of 47 days has been suggested.⁴ Soil and climate conditions affect glyphosate's persistence in soil.¹ See the text box on Half-life.The "half-life" is the time required for half of the compound to break down in the environment.
  
  1 half-life = 50% remaining
  2 half-lives = 25% remaining
  3 half-lives = 12% remaining
  4 half-lives = 6% remaining
  5 half-lives = 3% remaining
  Half-lives can vary widely based on environmental factors. The amount of chemical remaining after a half-life will always depend on the amount of the chemical originally applied. It should be noted that some chemicals may degrade into compounds of toxicological significance.
  
• Glyphosate is relatively stable to chemical and photo decomposition.⁶The primary pathway of glyphosate degradation is soil microbial action, which yields AMPA and glyoxylic acid. Both products are further degraded to carbon dioxide.³
• Glyphosate adsorbs tightly to soil. Glyphosate and its residues are expected to be immobile in soil.⁶

What I gather from all of this is that quite a bit of it does or can remain in the soil, and is absorbed, especially by RR plants, and we eat it since the plants don't metabolize it.

The statement about the glyphosate existing in food grown a year after it was applied is contained in here, also. This appears to be from oregon state.

[Kent A Bathurst]

I don't know how one can defend forestry practices through the 20th century.

1. Pretty interesting thread.
2. "Lot of passion" is an understatement
3. The ability of modern technology to change every aspect of our lives is pretty well established, in every facet of daily living. GMO included.
4. To me, the use of herbicide for improved crop yields is long-established best practice. Using a product that degrades quickly seems pretty smart.
5. The ability to use no-till farming technology seems very important to me. Full disclosure: My Dad spent his career in the Soil Conservation Service, rising from your basic county agent to the top-most levels of the Service - a kid born in the depression-dust-bowl central plains. It seemed to me he had a pretty good focus on priorities.

Now then - Greg - your line quoted above:

Wha the ???? That relates how??

And, lastly - what do you mean? Are you saying modern forestry practices are, somehow, fundamentally, unsound??

[Greg Peterson]

Now then - Greg - your line quoted above:

Wha the ???? That relates how??

And, lastly - what do you mean? Are you saying modern forestry practices are, somehow, fundamentally, unsound??

Here is the quote and the sentences that followed it, which give it some context.

"I don't know how one can defend forestry practices through the 20th century. Fishing practices have led to significant declines in fish populations. Do we have to learn every lesson the hard way?"

Current forestry practices, 21st centruy, seem to be much better. Admittedly much of the true old growth was harvested in the 19th century, but 20th century practices left us with huge gaping holes in our forests where entire sides of hills were clear cut.

Fishing yields are on the decline after decades of over fishing and international competition for said resource.

Must we wait till we arrive at a point where we might discover that GE crops and the application of roundup is no better than soil erosion? Who says GE RR crops are better and sustainable? Evidence suggests that not only are super weeds becoming a concern, but more of the herbicide is required to be effective in areas where the super weeds have yet to be established. And then there is the matter of roundup suppressing the micro nutrient ecosystem the crops feed on. Albeit the best guess is 47 days, but even if it persists in the soil for five to seven days, does that not starve the plant for that duration?

Must we allow industry to bring a system to the edge of complete collapse before we address the matter?

[Art Mann]

The comment about forestry practices is puzzling in view of the fact that a much larger percentage of the nation is covered in forests now than at the beginning of the 20th century. For example, there are 1920's photos of the Great Smokey Mountain National Park that show the vast majority of the acreage was clear cut. That could never happen again. Is it the species you are referring to or what?

[Greg Peterson]

Forestry practices during the 20th century included clear cutting g and indiscriminate harvesting. To be fair, the industry started smplkykng sustainable practices in the 90's.

Clear cutting was cost effective but damaged fish habitat and caused extensive soil erosion.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

Ok, how about some pictures to add to the pretty interesting thread?



Second picture first as it clarifies the first: This is a shot of some RR beets that I took this morning. They have been froze 5 times so far this spring, and covered with a 6" of snow twice, so give their wimpy little butts a break, they are trying. I used wheat as a cover crop here (its the dead looking grass), striptilled into it and planted the beets. After the beets came up, and the wheat got tall enough to protect the beets from wind, I killed the wheat with RR.

The first picture shows how quickly RR stops working. This is the same field, in a place where one of the guys strung out some old bean seed. These are pintos and blacks, either of which would easily qualify as the easiest to kill with RR plant out there. They are not RR ready. The day after I sprayed the wheat these beans started to come through, the yellower ones are the youngest, they turn a darker green which a little sun. If you look closely enough, you can see the RR beets in a row through the beans.

Like Jared says, RR breaks down fast. Think of the beans as the canary in the mine. If there was any amount of RR there now, these wimpiest of all little plants would certainly have passed on.

David, careful with the studies, there are two different things to look at here. One is a spill, which is an accident and no one wants one of those, In that case, assuming that RR blended with water, like a stream, yes it would make a huge mess. Any chemical, fuel, most foods, and probably most anything else would. The breakdown and half life when analysed in water, are completely different than applied solution. Think of it this way, the chemical blend sitting in your tank will last a long time, but when sprayed and it touches soil, it's a whole different animal. The half life you mentioned is in solution. When applied to soil, it rapidly breaks down by binding to soil and deteriorated to carbon dioxide and something else that I don't remember off the top of my head. As you can see, it has no residual effect on plants growing through it.

I did see a study referencing detecting glyphosate residue in various vegetables. Clear down in the fine print, they noted that the glyphosate was applied at a rate that is so far off label (a legally binding document) that they ought to be ashamed.

Another thing, here is an interesting read if anyone cares to see some relative toxicities of some common chemicals and other things you may be familiar with. I'll paraphrase a bit, to get to a lethal dose, it takes so many mg of the chemical per kg of body weight, so listed are a few lethal doses, as noted in this University of Nebraska document- http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/epublic/...%20hazards.pdf

Sugar - 29,700
Ethanol - 9,000
Glyphosate (Roundup) - 5,600
Table salt - 3,000
Malathion (insecticide) - 1,375
Aspirin - 1,000
Ammonia - 350
Caffeine - 192
Nicotine - 1
Botulinum toxin - .00001

Shish, never thought posting a pic of a sugar beet would be relevant to a thread here...

[Steve Rozmiarek]

I think this is an oversimplification and derogatory characterization of people who believe humans have over extended the natural systems of this planet. I don't know how one can defend forestry practices through the 20th century. Fishing practices have led to significant declines in fish populations. Do we have to learn every lesson the hard way?



I think quite a bit of the thread has remained focused on Monsanto, their technology and the potential unintended consequences.



I'm not sure how life span is germane to this thread. Monsanto was not responsible for the development of improved sanitation, health care, access to clean water, immunizations. These several factors are what led to current life spans.




I agree. A quick review of the Fortune 500 reveals many entities whose interests are parallel to Monsanto's. Follow the money indeed. History is full of products that knowingly were harmful yet remained on the market because someone with money was able to grease the gears. The Pinto story is a classic example of corporate devaluation of human life. Monsanto's behavior to date has done nothing to diminish the impression that they are more interested in creating a monopoly by forcing all farming to use their products and by default force everyone to have a diet based on their technology. Frankly, I'm stunned that people would practically cheer on this type of practice, seemingly out of spite for those they disagree with.

Since Monsanto is tampering with the very fundamental nature of our food supply, I think it prudent that every facet of the enterprise be fully examined, both short term and long term. Who is to say that twenty years down the road that there are irreversible negative consequences? Are we to take Monsanto's 'unbiased' word on the safety of their products?

Obviously the study was sparked by a pretty reasonable question. Do GE crops really reduce the use of RR? I think the doctor did a good job of analyzing the data. And the answer in this case is that RR GE crops do not decrease the use of RR.

We can question the hypothesis certainly. But, if in the end there is solid evidence to support the initial question, why vilify they person who conducted the study?

Greg, I'm standing by the analogy, but I will accept a slight change in it. An alternate that may satisfy the people were talking about would probably be if human civilization were to regress to a non fire wielding spot somewhere far down the food chain. Seriously, if humans are responsible for killing the planet so many different ways, the only logical way to protect it from us is to eliminate us, right? Sounds a bit like a movie I watched recently...

I completely disagree with the premise that the earth is a worse place now than it was at any point in the past, so I fundamentally disagree with your argument involving forestry and fisheries. They also stand as a good point as to the wandering of this thread away from anything that Monsanto has anything to do with. If it doesn't specifically pertain to a chemical known by its brand name of Roundup, or it's common name of glyphosate, of to the GMO trait "Roundup Ready", it bears no relevance to this discussion, and supports my point of an attempt to find a boogyman.

As to the life span not being relevant, what other thing could be more relevant??? Of course all factors play into lifespan increases, but if we were killing ourselves sooner with glyphosate, it'd certainly show up.

As to the doctor's studies that you mentioned, any lame brained farmer on the planet could have answered that question. Think about it, its a ridiculous study and a completely idiotic premise to have one. Of course Roundup Ready crops didn't decrease Roundup use. It'd be pretty darn stupid to plant RR crops, and then not use the technology.

One last thing, Monsanto isn't forcing anyone to do anything. It is still possible to buy and use non RR seed. Because RR Ready works so well though, it'd be a very poor business decision to not use a better technology. Like Jared and I have said, there are many benefits to this technology.

On a lighter note, there is another GMO trait out there known as BT. It is a corn borer resistance in corn, and it has the effect of making the stalks a lot stronger because of less pests. I think that the BT corn stalk has serious potential as our next domestically produced hardwood...

[Greg Peterson]

Greg, I'm standing by the analogy, but I will accept a slight change in it. An alternate that may satisfy the people were talking about would probably be if human civilization were to regress to a non fire wielding spot somewhere far down the food chain. Seriously, if humans are responsible for killing the planet so many different ways, the only logical way to protect it from us is to eliminate us, right? Sounds a bit like a movie I watched recently...

I completely disagree with the premise that the earth is a worse place now than it was at any point in the past, so I fundamentally disagree with your argument involving forestry and fisheries. They also stand as a good point as to the wandering of this thread away from anything that Monsanto has anything to do with. If it doesn't specifically pertain to a chemical known by its brand name of Roundup, or it's common name of glyphosate, of to the GMO trait "Roundup Ready", it bears no relevance to this discussion, and supports my point of an attempt to find a boogyman.

As to the life span not being relevant, what other thing could be more relevant??? Of course all factors play into lifespan increases, but if we were killing ourselves sooner with glyphosate, it'd certainly show up.

As to the doctor's studies that you mentioned, any lame brained farmer on the planet could have answered that question. Think about it, its a ridiculous study and a completely idiotic premise to have one. Of course Roundup Ready crops didn't decrease Roundup use. It'd be pretty darn stupid to plant RR crops, and then not use the technology.

One last thing, Monsanto isn't forcing anyone to do anything. It is still possible to buy and use non RR seed. Because RR Ready works so well though, it'd be a very poor business decision to not use a better technology. Like Jared and I have said, there are many benefits to this technology.

On a lighter note, there is another GMO trait out there known as BT. It is a corn borer resistance in corn, and it has the effect of making the stalks a lot stronger because of less pests. I think that the BT corn stalk has serious potential as our next domestically produced hardwood...

I think we have over stressed the resources of the planet. We certainly don't have a very good track record of being good stewards of the planet.

You seem to be comfortable picking and choosing what is germane to the OP. Case in point, Monsanto has nothing to do with the growth in life spans. Life spans saw their relatively quick rise before Monsanto entered the picture. Introducing increased life span as a function of Monsanto is a stretch.

I don't think glyphosate has been in our food chain long enough to determine if it has any effect on human health. But there exists information outside the control of Monsanto that suggests that it is not the panacea we think it is. How many times have we been told this such and such is the miracle potion only to find out that it's the exact opposite? Asbestos was the wonder material in its day.

The study revealed that the use of roundup increased each year, not because of more GE crops were planted, but because the efficacy of roundup is diminishing. I don't think calling farmers names or misstating the findings of the study is constructive. It's an less convincing argument.

[David Weaver]

I think the page I provided describes the half life in soil. I think we're also confusing whether glyphosate is killing plants vs whether it is still in the soil being taken up by them.

The study I showed mentioned 3.7 pounds per acre 1 year prior. I agree the ld50 is very high, but it is again an issue of whether or not the consequences of an ongoing moderate dose has problems other than being immediately lethal.

[David Weaver]

On a lighter note, there is another GMO trait out there known as BT. It is a corn borer resistance in corn, and it has the effect of making the stalks a lot stronger because of less pests. I think that the BT corn stalk has serious potential as our next domestically produced hardwood...

Probably developed by a joint venture with combine tire manufacturers.

[Ole Anderson]

To those that decry the use of Roundup, what do you propose as an alternate that will solve the world's problem of providing an economical solution to feeding the world's population and also deal with the issue of massive runoff of topsoil into our rivers? To criticize without offering a plausible solution is an easy out.

It is like criticizing modern state of the art nuclear energy because of a "what if" when we know for a fact the massive impact fossil fuel energy continues to have on our planet.