I needed to disable self sign-ups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type accounts. Thanks.

DiscussionLet's talk about it: The science of itGlyphosate and AMPA, the modern D …

Please to create posts and topics.

Glyphosate and AMPA, the modern DDT and DDE

#1 · April 14, 2024, 6:23 pm

Quote from David on April 14, 2024, 6:23 pm
My hope is that those that don't think glyphosate is a serious issue have never read Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" from 1962:
https://library.uniteddiversity.coop/More_Books_and_Reports/Silent_Spring-Rachel_Carson-1962.pdf

When I read "Silent Spring" I thought that:
-If this book had been updated for our times it could very well have been about Glyphosate instead of DDT.

There are some important differences between Glyphosate and DDT like that Glyphosate is water-soluble as opposed to DDT which is fat-soluble.

From reading "Silent Spring" [especially the earlier parts of the book] the historical similarities of a general non-chalance of using of a plant killing chemical in massive amounts all over the world are eerie to me. It feels like human history repeating its self all over again:
-Only because some scientists have said that Glyphosate can only acutely affect plants and not humans, it fine for general use everywhere. As if only acute human harm is the only important safety concern for any new chemical.

The real horror is that we don't even know many of the real implications of the present major use of Glyphosate though it is know that the mayor metabolite (break-down product), AMPA (AminoMethylPhosphonic Acid) is about 25x as acutely toxic as glyphosate by itself in cell studies. See the quote below which is about acute toxicity from the 2016 review article:
"Glyphosate: environmental contamination, toxicity and potential
risks to human health via food contamination"
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7425-3 (available at sci-hub)

"Worst case exposure causing acute poisoning in adult humans has been reported to be 125 and 5 μg kg−1 day−1 for Glyphosate and AMPA, respectively (Williams et al. 2000). Fatalities caused by exposures of that order have occurred in 3.2 % of cases, with a median time to death of 20 h, mainly due to cardiorespiratory toxicity (Roberts et al. 2010)."

A Glyphosate metabolite being the main lingering problem, even more so than Glyphosate itself, sort of like DDT and its main metabolite DDE.

Though there are more things than pure Glyphosate that is important, like the assumed low toxicity due to low absorption of Glyphosate and AMPA through cell membranes, but don't worry the emulisfiers/surfactants in Roundup® 400 and 450 fixes that amplifies Glyphosate's toxicity. See the continuation of the previous quote:

"Rat oral and dermal LD50 are reported to be much higher at >5000 mg kg−1
bw, although there is also a lower LD50 value reported (>2000 mg kg−1 bw) (Greim et al. 2015). Importantly, the reported values may differ as a result of using different formulations of glyphosate. Most commercial formulations of glyphosate contain surfactants to facilitate penetration of the active ingredient and increase efficacy. As a result, recent research tends to focus on the toxicity of the formulation rather than the active ingredient (Currie et al. 2015). For example, neat glyphosate had the least toxicity (~2 g L−1) in vitro, whereas Roundup® 400 and 450 had the highest toxicity (~0.001 g L−1) (Gasnier et al. 2009)."

There doesn't need to be acute toxicity to heavily affect living things. Glyphosate is now known to be neurotoxic for zebra fish at low doses (both 0.3 µg /L and 3 µg /L) they used these environmentally relevant doses, since there didn't exist similar studies. Expensive long-term studies on chronic toxicity are not good for the chemical companies' profits and everyone they obviously pay-off to go along with their indifferent attitude to everything but themselves. The 2021 study is called:
"Glyphosate targets fish monoaminergic systems leading to oxidative stress and anxiety"
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106253

"While recent studies have increased the concern about the potential neurotoxicity of glyphosate, most of them used environmentally unrealistic concentrations of this compound, so the relevance of this effect for aquatic organisms and human health is still unclear. In this study we exposed adult zebrafish for 2 weeks to two environmentally relevant concentrations of glyphosate, 0.3 and 3 μg/L, and changes in an ecologically relevant apical endpoint, behavior, were analyzed.
...
While the precise mechanism by which glyphosate produces the observed behavioral phenotype remains unknown, the effects induced by glyphosate on adult zebrafish behavior are highly ecologically relevant since they affect predation risk, foraging efficiency and other variables important for survival (Kellner et al., 2016).
...
Another of the most relevant results found in this study is the altered antioxidant status and the presence of lipid peroxidation in the brain of glyphosate-exposed fish, especially for those exposed to the highest concentration. In mammals, the metabolism of DA to DOPAC is mediated by the monoamine oxidase isoforms MAO-A and/or MAO-B and, as such, linked to the production of free radicals with one H2O2 molecule for each molecule of dopamine metabolized (Casarejos et al., 2013, Hermida-Ameijeiras et al., 2004). Therefore, the increased dopaminergic activity in the anterior brain of zebrafish exposed to 3 μg/L glyphosate should lead to an increase in reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation, an effect consistent with the observed increase in the oxidative stress found in their brains. However, the potential involvement of additional mechanisms of ROS generation, such as the inhibition of the mitochondrial complex enzymatic activity (Pereira et al., 2018) or the glutamate excitotoxicity (Cattani et al., 2014), should not be discarded."

Personally I believe Glyphosate is some sort of toxicity modifier, making other toxicities several times worse with Glyphosate as opposed to without Glyphosate. Perhaps it because of the inhibition of the P450 enzymes but I might just as easily believe it is because Glyphosate's ability to damage the microbiome to which neurological problems are directly conected to each other through the Gut-Brain axis.

A 2013 cell study about how certain bacteria are more sensitive to Glyphosate than other bacteria, see attached table [MIC = Minimal Inhibitory Concentration of Glyphosate].
"The effect of glyphosate on potential pathogens and beneficial members of poultry microbiota in vitro"
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-012-0277-2 (available at sci-hub)

"Most of beneficial poultry microbiota as E. faecalis, E. faecium and B. adolescentis are highly sensitive to glyphosate (Table 2). However, these concentrations did not inhibit growth or BotNT [Botulinum type A and B neurotoxins] production of C. botulinum type A and B. It is worthy to mention that enterococci are able to suppress growth and toxin production of C. botulinum. The loss of most enterococci from the GIT [GastroIntestinal Tract] microbiota may lead to an increase of BotNT production in animals [27]."

@tim-2
@alexm

My hope is that those that don't think glyphosate is a serious issue have never read Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" from 1962:
https://library.uniteddiversity.coop/More_Books_and_Reports/Silent_Spring-Rachel_Carson-1962.pdf

When I read "Silent Spring" I thought that:
-If this book had been updated for our times it could very well have been about Glyphosate instead of DDT.

There are some important differences between Glyphosate and DDT like that Glyphosate is water-soluble as opposed to DDT which is fat-soluble.

From reading "Silent Spring" [especially the earlier parts of the book] the historical similarities of a general non-chalance of using of a plant killing chemical in massive amounts all over the world are eerie to me. It feels like human history repeating its self all over again:
-Only because some scientists have said that Glyphosate can only acutely affect plants and not humans, it fine for general use everywhere. As if only acute human harm is the only important safety concern for any new chemical.

The real horror is that we don't even know many of the real implications of the present major use of Glyphosate though it is know that the mayor metabolite (break-down product), AMPA (AminoMethylPhosphonic Acid) is about 25x as acutely toxic as glyphosate by itself in cell studies. See the quote below which is about acute toxicity from the 2016 review article:
"Glyphosate: environmental contamination, toxicity and potential
risks to human health via food contamination"
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7425-3 (available at sci-hub)

"Worst case exposure causing acute poisoning in adult humans has been reported to be 125 and 5 μg kg−1 day−1 for Glyphosate and AMPA, respectively (Williams et al. 2000). Fatalities caused by exposures of that order have occurred in 3.2 % of cases, with a median time to death of 20 h, mainly due to cardiorespiratory toxicity (Roberts et al. 2010)."

A Glyphosate metabolite being the main lingering problem, even more so than Glyphosate itself, sort of like DDT and its main metabolite DDE.

Though there are more things than pure Glyphosate that is important, like the assumed low toxicity due to low absorption of Glyphosate and AMPA through cell membranes, but don't worry the emulisfiers/surfactants in Roundup® 400 and 450 fixes that amplifies Glyphosate's toxicity. See the continuation of the previous quote:

"Rat oral and dermal LD50 are reported to be much higher at >5000 mg kg−1
bw, although there is also a lower LD50 value reported (>2000 mg kg−1 bw) (Greim et al. 2015). Importantly, the reported values may differ as a result of using different formulations of glyphosate. Most commercial formulations of glyphosate contain surfactants to facilitate penetration of the active ingredient and increase efficacy. As a result, recent research tends to focus on the toxicity of the formulation rather than the active ingredient (Currie et al. 2015). For example, neat glyphosate had the least toxicity (~2 g L−1) in vitro, whereas Roundup® 400 and 450 had the highest toxicity (~0.001 g L−1) (Gasnier et al. 2009)."

There doesn't need to be acute toxicity to heavily affect living things. Glyphosate is now known to be neurotoxic for zebra fish at low doses (both 0.3 µg /L and 3 µg /L) they used these environmentally relevant doses, since there didn't exist similar studies. Expensive long-term studies on chronic toxicity are not good for the chemical companies' profits and everyone they obviously pay-off to go along with their indifferent attitude to everything but themselves. The 2021 study is called:
"Glyphosate targets fish monoaminergic systems leading to oxidative stress and anxiety"
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106253

"While recent studies have increased the concern about the potential neurotoxicity of glyphosate, most of them used environmentally unrealistic concentrations of this compound, so the relevance of this effect for aquatic organisms and human health is still unclear. In this study we exposed adult zebrafish for 2 weeks to two environmentally relevant concentrations of glyphosate, 0.3 and 3 μg/L, and changes in an ecologically relevant apical endpoint, behavior, were analyzed.
...
While the precise mechanism by which glyphosate produces the observed behavioral phenotype remains unknown, the effects induced by glyphosate on adult zebrafish behavior are highly ecologically relevant since they affect predation risk, foraging efficiency and other variables important for survival (Kellner et al., 2016).
...
Another of the most relevant results found in this study is the altered antioxidant status and the presence of lipid peroxidation in the brain of glyphosate-exposed fish, especially for those exposed to the highest concentration. In mammals, the metabolism of DA to DOPAC is mediated by the monoamine oxidase isoforms MAO-A and/or MAO-B and, as such, linked to the production of free radicals with one H2O2 molecule for each molecule of dopamine metabolized (Casarejos et al., 2013, Hermida-Ameijeiras et al., 2004). Therefore, the increased dopaminergic activity in the anterior brain of zebrafish exposed to 3 μg/L glyphosate should lead to an increase in reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation, an effect consistent with the observed increase in the oxidative stress found in their brains. However, the potential involvement of additional mechanisms of ROS generation, such as the inhibition of the mitochondrial complex enzymatic activity (Pereira et al., 2018) or the glutamate excitotoxicity (Cattani et al., 2014), should not be discarded."

Personally I believe Glyphosate is some sort of toxicity modifier, making other toxicities several times worse with Glyphosate as opposed to without Glyphosate. Perhaps it because of the inhibition of the P450 enzymes but I might just as easily believe it is because Glyphosate's ability to damage the microbiome to which neurological problems are directly conected to each other through the Gut-Brain axis.

A 2013 cell study about how certain bacteria are more sensitive to Glyphosate than other bacteria, see attached table [MIC = Minimal Inhibitory Concentration of Glyphosate].
"The effect of glyphosate on potential pathogens and beneficial members of poultry microbiota in vitro"
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-012-0277-2 (available at sci-hub)

"Most of beneficial poultry microbiota as E. faecalis, E. faecium and B. adolescentis are highly sensitive to glyphosate (Table 2). However, these concentrations did not inhibit growth or BotNT [Botulinum type A and B neurotoxins] production of C. botulinum type A and B. It is worthy to mention that enterococci are able to suppress growth and toxin production of C. botulinum. The loss of most enterococci from the GIT [GastroIntestinal Tract] microbiota may lead to an increase of BotNT production in animals [27]."

@tim-2
@alexm

Uploaded files:

Deleted user has reacted to this post.

#2 · April 14, 2024, 7:55 pm

HI @david,

My father was an avid outdoorsman and hunter in the 1950s - 70s. We had a farm in Saskatchewan when I was young.

My dad told me that in the 1950s the forests were filled with birds, predator birds with many species of songbirds. After the introduction of DDT in ~ 1960 almost all bird species effectively became extinct. Only the crows and magpies survived. He said that the forests turned silent and never recovered.

Yes, Glyphosate is DDT 2.0, and I suspect that it’s probably much worse.

I’m quite interested in this topic. Do you have information on where people can get more involved?
Thanks.

Janelle525, David and Deleted user have reacted to this post.

#3 · April 14, 2024, 11:14 pm

Quote from tim on April 14, 2024, 11:14 pm
@david

My hope is that those that don't think glyphosate is a serious issue have never read Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" from 1962

You aren't distinguishing the difference between questioning something that has consensus in alternative health circles vs believing the opposite of consensus. Questioning does not imply belief.

Even though it's difficult because it's a toxin in our food it's important to unemotionally look at the evidence critically. Because it's such a hard toxin to completely avoid it's important to try to understand exactly how bad it is. If you care about doing that you could start by responding to the article I posted that refutes key claims made by Seneff who is a loud scientific voice against glyphosate.

One of the 'facts' that has been discussed here about glyphosate in the past is that it substitutes for glycine and that gelatin is high in glyphosate. This appears to be false (see reference in other thread). Including some gelatin in the diet is a healthy thing but there was fear about it being riddled with glyphosate. I ate less gelatin due to this 'fact'. That's why it's important to take the devils advocate rather than just uncritically post the worst information one can find on it.

It's not even necessarily taking the devil's advocate though when you realise that something worse may replace glyphosate once it is phased out, that Bayer does not hold a patent for it and that there is probably much commercial interest in phasing it out for newer competing patented herbicides.

In many countries DDT is still widely used indoors for malaria control. DDT was patented in 1940. Pesticide and herbicide patents expire after about 20-30 years. Public concern occurred around DDT after the patent expired. Same thing with glyphosate whose patent expired in 2000. It's perhaps not when the patent expires that matters to agrichemical companies. Maybe it's when competing manufacturers take a significant percentage of market share. When that happens to very popular herbicides and pesticides a big campaign is needed to switch to something else. That doesn't mean claims made about glyphosate aren't true but it's an influence to be aware of.

@david

My hope is that those that don't think glyphosate is a serious issue have never read Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" from 1962

You aren't distinguishing the difference between questioning something that has consensus in alternative health circles vs believing the opposite of consensus. Questioning does not imply belief.

Even though it's difficult because it's a toxin in our food it's important to unemotionally look at the evidence critically. Because it's such a hard toxin to completely avoid it's important to try to understand exactly how bad it is. If you care about doing that you could start by responding to the article I posted that refutes key claims made by Seneff who is a loud scientific voice against glyphosate.

One of the 'facts' that has been discussed here about glyphosate in the past is that it substitutes for glycine and that gelatin is high in glyphosate. This appears to be false (see reference in other thread). Including some gelatin in the diet is a healthy thing but there was fear about it being riddled with glyphosate. I ate less gelatin due to this 'fact'. That's why it's important to take the devils advocate rather than just uncritically post the worst information one can find on it.

It's not even necessarily taking the devil's advocate though when you realise that something worse may replace glyphosate once it is phased out, that Bayer does not hold a patent for it and that there is probably much commercial interest in phasing it out for newer competing patented herbicides.

In many countries DDT is still widely used indoors for malaria control. DDT was patented in 1940. Pesticide and herbicide patents expire after about 20-30 years. Public concern occurred around DDT after the patent expired. Same thing with glyphosate whose patent expired in 2000. It's perhaps not when the patent expires that matters to agrichemical companies. Maybe it's when competing manufacturers take a significant percentage of market share. When that happens to very popular herbicides and pesticides a big campaign is needed to switch to something else. That doesn't mean claims made about glyphosate aren't true but it's an influence to be aware of.

#4 · April 15, 2024, 1:23 am

@tim-2 @david here is one paper about glyphosate causing autistic behaviours which isn't a hypothesis

Maternal glyphosate exposure causes autism-like behaviors in offspring through increased expression of soluble epoxide hydrolase

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32398374/#:~:text=These%20findings%20suggest%20that%20maternal,offspring%20after%20maternal%20glyphosate%20exposure

And here is another one from Seneff where she goes much deeper into the mechanisms of how glyphosate exposure can cause autism

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379401750_Is_Autism_a_PIN1_Deficiency_Syndrome_A_Proposed_Etiological_Role_for_Glyphosate

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10972278/ -Exposure to Environmental Pesticides and the Risk of Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Population-Based Case-Control Study:

"The prevalence of ASD was significantly higher in regions with extensive pesticide use, particularly among males, suggesting a potential link between pesticide exposure and autism. These findings underscore the importance of further research and awareness regarding the potential connection between pesticide exposure and ASD."

#5 · April 15, 2024, 1:30 am

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24636977/ Mechanisms underlying the neurotoxicity induced by glyphosate-based herbicide in immature rat hippocampus: involvement of glutamate excitotoxicity

Here is another one that isn't a hypothesis but was demonstrated on a rat showing how glyphosate can cause glutamate excitotoxicity which is one of the main features of autism.

#6 · April 15, 2024, 4:16 am

Quote from tim on April 15, 2024, 4:16 am
The more I look into this the more compelling it becomes to me that the phasing out of glyphosate is not due to health risks.

4 reasons agriculture needs to phase out reliance on glyphosate

But even if no conclusive evidence emerges about glyphosate’s health risks, it is time to bite the bullet and start a process in conjunction with the agriculture industry to diversify our herbicides away from reliance on a single chemical for four key reasons.

Weeds are genetically adapting and building resistance to glyphosate

A new generation of precision herbicide application could further improve yields

Australia is well placed to economically benefit from new herbicides

The precautionary principle should apply given the potential health risks.

1. If weeds are building resistance farmers will stop using glyphosate anyway.

2. If farmers want to try others out they can do that anyway.

3. Doesn't benefit farmers or consumers.

4. There are thousands of problematic chemicals in our air, food and water but they suddenly want to be cautious about this one after decades of use.

As the world’s population has soared from 3.5 billion in the late 1960s to today’s 7.6 billion, glyphosate has underpinned massive increases in crop yield, helping to feed the world.

So withdrawing glyphosate is going to contribute to food shortages.

Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide that controls weeds by inhibiting the production of aromatic amino acids. Its principal use in Australian agriculture has been to control weeds during the fallow period allowing the sowing of new crops without the need for tillage. This has saved billions of tonnes of precious, productive top soil by removing the need to cultivate for weed control.

Invasive soil tillage is the major cause of soil erosion by removing surface cover and breaking down soil structure. This causes devastating losses of soil by wind and surface water runoff.

So withdrawing glyphosate will cause big environmental issues.

Its use has increased dramatically since it was removed from the patent register. In 2000 when Monsanto’s patent expired, global glyphosate use was about 193.5 million tonnes a year. By 2014, usage had hit 825.8 million tonnes. It is now a generic herbicide able to be produced cheaply all over the world.

Agrichemical corporations are not financially benefiting from glyphosate anymore.

Last year the European Union narrowly voted to grant the herbicide a further five-year lease, despite a petition signed by 1.3 million Europeans calling for it to be banned.

European farmers threatened to revolt if the lease was not renewed.

The farmers know how important it is.

A recent court case in California awarded culpable damages of $US289 million to a school groundkeeper who had contracted cancer and who had used glyphosate for herbicide treatment. At the time Reuters reported that Monsanto was facing more than 5000 similar lawsuits across the US.

Lawsuits to convince the public of its toxicity and need to be phased out.

The Sydney Institute for Agriculture believes we should anticipate glyphosate restrictions and the prospect of bans in the EU, the US and eventually Australia.

Governments are keen to ban it.

However, we must tread carefully. An immediate worldwide ban would threaten world food supply. Any restrictions or ban will need to be phased in so as not to destabilise food security. This will also give the research and agriculture community time for alternative arrangements to be made.

We need to get to work on that immediately. We want our rural research community and development corporations to work together to prepare for agriculture after glyphosate. That will involve the development of alternative herbicides and different agricultural practices at an industrial scale.

There are huge economic benefits for Australia if we can help derive these new chemicals here and so prosper from the intellectual property rights. Now is also the time for research into agricultural techniques that leads away from the blanket use of glyphosate. This will involve the development of precision application of herbicides for fallows, alternatives to Roundup-ready crops and the use of other agents for killing off and desiccating crops so that they can harvested.

Moreover, the predominant farming concept of conservation tillage is 50 years old, we need to start developing new technologies to replace this approach. This is a huge challenge but it’s time to start.

The more I look into this the more compelling it becomes to me that the phasing out of glyphosate is not due to health risks.

4 reasons agriculture needs to phase out reliance on glyphosate

But even if no conclusive evidence emerges about glyphosate’s health risks, it is time to bite the bullet and start a process in conjunction with the agriculture industry to diversify our herbicides away from reliance on a single chemical for four key reasons.

Weeds are genetically adapting and building resistance to glyphosate
A new generation of precision herbicide application could further improve yields
Australia is well placed to economically benefit from new herbicides
The precautionary principle should apply given the potential health risks.

1. If weeds are building resistance farmers will stop using glyphosate anyway.

2. If farmers want to try others out they can do that anyway.

3. Doesn't benefit farmers or consumers.

4. There are thousands of problematic chemicals in our air, food and water but they suddenly want to be cautious about this one after decades of use.

As the world’s population has soared from 3.5 billion in the late 1960s to today’s 7.6 billion, glyphosate has underpinned massive increases in crop yield, helping to feed the world.

So withdrawing glyphosate is going to contribute to food shortages.

Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide that controls weeds by inhibiting the production of aromatic amino acids. Its principal use in Australian agriculture has been to control weeds during the fallow period allowing the sowing of new crops without the need for tillage. This has saved billions of tonnes of precious, productive top soil by removing the need to cultivate for weed control.

Invasive soil tillage is the major cause of soil erosion by removing surface cover and breaking down soil structure. This causes devastating losses of soil by wind and surface water runoff.

So withdrawing glyphosate will cause big environmental issues.

Its use has increased dramatically since it was removed from the patent register. In 2000 when Monsanto’s patent expired, global glyphosate use was about 193.5 million tonnes a year. By 2014, usage had hit 825.8 million tonnes. It is now a generic herbicide able to be produced cheaply all over the world.

Agrichemical corporations are not financially benefiting from glyphosate anymore.

Last year the European Union narrowly voted to grant the herbicide a further five-year lease, despite a petition signed by 1.3 million Europeans calling for it to be banned.

European farmers threatened to revolt if the lease was not renewed.

The farmers know how important it is.

A recent court case in California awarded culpable damages of $US289 million to a school groundkeeper who had contracted cancer and who had used glyphosate for herbicide treatment. At the time Reuters reported that Monsanto was facing more than 5000 similar lawsuits across the US.

Lawsuits to convince the public of its toxicity and need to be phased out.

The Sydney Institute for Agriculture believes we should anticipate glyphosate restrictions and the prospect of bans in the EU, the US and eventually Australia.

Governments are keen to ban it.

However, we must tread carefully. An immediate worldwide ban would threaten world food supply. Any restrictions or ban will need to be phased in so as not to destabilise food security. This will also give the research and agriculture community time for alternative arrangements to be made.

We need to get to work on that immediately. We want our rural research community and development corporations to work together to prepare for agriculture after glyphosate. That will involve the development of alternative herbicides and different agricultural practices at an industrial scale.

There are huge economic benefits for Australia if we can help derive these new chemicals here and so prosper from the intellectual property rights. Now is also the time for research into agricultural techniques that leads away from the blanket use of glyphosate. This will involve the development of precision application of herbicides for fallows, alternatives to Roundup-ready crops and the use of other agents for killing off and desiccating crops so that they can harvested.

Moreover, the predominant farming concept of conservation tillage is 50 years old, we need to start developing new technologies to replace this approach. This is a huge challenge but it’s time to start.

#7 · April 15, 2024, 6:02 am

Quote from Janelle525 on April 15, 2024, 6:02 am
@tim-2 You seem to understand that it isn't just glyphosate we need to be concerned about. Thanks for bringing it up that once the patent expired they seemed to not care about it anymore. I wrote this post on facebook 5 yrs ago:

"I am concerned that if Roundup was banned they would likely just use a different more toxic herbicide. We need to get at the heart of these chemical companies and call for strictly organic practices! That is the only way around this. These companies are the problem. They only care about profits. Even large scale organic growers are using shortcuts. Let's take a look at the biggest pesticides used in the US. Because it's not just Roundup we need to be aware of.

☠️Paraquat: kills weeds on contact and banned in the EU and even China! It is used by the millions of pounds still in the US. It is toxic to humans and animals due to its redox activity, which produces superoxide anions. It has been linked to the development of Parkinson's disease.

☠️Neonicotinoids: imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam are three of the most common and have been banned in the EU. These are still widely used on millions of acres of crops in the US and many researchers are finding they are toxic to bees. (plants you buy at garden centers are sprayed with this! find a native nursery instead)

☠️Atrazine: the second most used pesticide. It is found in 90% of drinking water. And turns male frogs female! This weed killer messes with hormones, affects the immune system and is linked to birth defects.

☠️ Chlorpyrifos: In agriculture, it is "one of the most widely used organophosphate insecticides" in the United States. In multiple studies, exposure during gestation or childhood has been linked with lower birth weight and neurological changes such as slower motor development and attention problems. Exposure to organophosphate pesticides in general has been increasingly associated with changes in children's cognitive, behavioral and motor performance. This one should have been banned a long time ago.

☠️2, 4-D: This one is flying under the radar but it could be even worse than glyphosate. They are combining it with Roundup because weeds are getting resistant to just Roundup. Laboratory studies suggest that 2,4-D can impede the normal action of estrogen, androgen, and most conclusively, thyroid hormones. Dozens of epidemiological, animal, and laboratory studies have shown a link between 2,4-D and thyroid disorders.

☠️Naled: the main insecticide used aerially for control of mosquitoes, which is actually the least effective method! It is an organophosphate which is neurotoxic. In lab tests exposure caused increased aggressiveness and a deterioration of memory and learning. It's breakdown product dichlorvos which is another insecticide interferes with brain development. It also is carcinogenic and has numerous effects on wildlife."

2,4-D seems to be the replacement for glyphosate right now. It's not better. It is similar to DDT. But it is also one of the oldest pesticides so I don't know how much money they make on it. I wonder what the newest chemical will be. It will probably be in combination with GMO's just like roundup ready corn and soy.

@tim-2 You seem to understand that it isn't just glyphosate we need to be concerned about. Thanks for bringing it up that once the patent expired they seemed to not care about it anymore. I wrote this post on facebook 5 yrs ago:

"I am concerned that if Roundup was banned they would likely just use a different more toxic herbicide. We need to get at the heart of these chemical companies and call for strictly organic practices! That is the only way around this. These companies are the problem. They only care about profits. Even large scale organic growers are using shortcuts. Let's take a look at the biggest pesticides used in the US. Because it's not just Roundup we need to be aware of.

☠️Paraquat: kills weeds on contact and banned in the EU and even China! It is used by the millions of pounds still in the US. It is toxic to humans and animals due to its redox activity, which produces superoxide anions. It has been linked to the development of Parkinson's disease.

☠️Neonicotinoids: imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam are three of the most common and have been banned in the EU. These are still widely used on millions of acres of crops in the US and many researchers are finding they are toxic to bees. (plants you buy at garden centers are sprayed with this! find a native nursery instead)

☠️Atrazine: the second most used pesticide. It is found in 90% of drinking water. And turns male frogs female! This weed killer messes with hormones, affects the immune system and is linked to birth defects.

☠️ Chlorpyrifos: In agriculture, it is "one of the most widely used organophosphate insecticides" in the United States. In multiple studies, exposure during gestation or childhood has been linked with lower birth weight and neurological changes such as slower motor development and attention problems. Exposure to organophosphate pesticides in general has been increasingly associated with changes in children's cognitive, behavioral and motor performance. This one should have been banned a long time ago.

☠️2, 4-D: This one is flying under the radar but it could be even worse than glyphosate. They are combining it with Roundup because weeds are getting resistant to just Roundup. Laboratory studies suggest that 2,4-D can impede the normal action of estrogen, androgen, and most conclusively, thyroid hormones. Dozens of epidemiological, animal, and laboratory studies have shown a link between 2,4-D and thyroid disorders.

☠️Naled: the main insecticide used aerially for control of mosquitoes, which is actually the least effective method! It is an organophosphate which is neurotoxic. In lab tests exposure caused increased aggressiveness and a deterioration of memory and learning. It's breakdown product dichlorvos which is another insecticide interferes with brain development. It also is carcinogenic and has numerous effects on wildlife."

2,4-D seems to be the replacement for glyphosate right now. It's not better. It is similar to DDT. But it is also one of the oldest pesticides so I don't know how much money they make on it. I wonder what the newest chemical will be. It will probably be in combination with GMO's just like roundup ready corn and soy.

tim has reacted to this post.

#8 · April 15, 2024, 7:35 am

@janelle525

Yes. Exactly.

The anti glyphosate concern is phony not because glyphosate is fine but for the reasons you just pointed out and what I've posted about. If they wanted to phase out any of the agrichemicals you just mentioned they could have a field day gathering horrific data about any of them.

I doubt we will be better off with glyphosate gone.

It's frustrating when I point out major issues with Stephanie Seneff's research and people here just ignore it. She appears to be blatantly wrong about the glycine substitution thing meaning that all the concern about gelatin may have been for nothing.

She appears to be another Sally Fallon or Sally Norton. Convincing to those that don't understand the science she is covering. A courageous and compassionate woman up against a corrupt system? Not buying it.

If one truly goes against the system (such as challenging the agrichemical industry) and one ignores the inevitable threats one gets to stop one will be suicided or silenced in some way. That's why any prominent public figure that is some kind of alleged crusader against the system is very suspect. It's just not how things work.

Glyphosate in Collagen

This is an article of hers published by WAPF. Let's just forget momentarily about what a criminal organisation she is associating herself with, one which participates in marketing rancid fish liver oil to the public. If you read the long winded article there is not one mention of an analysis of glyphosate in gelatin! She even claims that it's glyphosate contamination from gelatin used in vaccines that is causing autism. If that was the case chicken soup would be so contaminated it would be acutely toxic. The whole article is speculation presented as fact. The reason collagen analyses are not presented is probably because they would only show low ppb amounts similar to other foods thus destroying her whole glycine substitution narrative.

Janelle525, Deleted user and Andrew B have reacted to this post.

#9 · April 15, 2024, 10:04 am

@tim-2

Yeah I've had major doubts about Senef from the beginning. She seemed like a snakeoil salesman. Maybe disinfo. Plus as I've shown glyphosate isn't the only chemical being used on our food. Some pesticides are being used that are banned in other countries, why no mention of those? The modern DDT is 2,4-D not glyphosate.

tim has reacted to this post.

#10 · April 19, 2024, 9:23 am

Quote from tim on April 15, 2024, 7:35 am

It's frustrating when I point out major issues with Stephanie Seneff's research and people here just ignore it. She appears to be blatantly wrong about the glycine substitution thing meaning that all the concern about gelatin may have been for nothing.

@tim-2 You linked one study where someone tries to debunk her claims about glyphosate substituting glycine in the body but after reading it, it looks like it is open to interpretation and it isn't clear who is right and who is wrong. I am sure Seneff would have a response to his refutal. Anyway I'm not sure who is right and who is wrong about this theory but there are a whole bunch of studies about glyphosate causing health issues which have been proven.

Go on the website sciencebasedmedicine.org they try and debunk every health topic that isn't accepted by conventional medicine but they are mistaken about a lot of the topics they post.

Glyphosate and AMPA, the modern DDT and DDE

Share this:

Like this: