Whats your take on the "GLYPHOSATE" Round Up Lawsuit in California

Hilljackoutlaw

Active member
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
393
Location
Southeast Idaho
Take a product called Esplanade for example purposes. This product had into the 20-30 million dollar range invested into before it ever hit shelves. This money is used on tests after tests after tests after tests for 10 plus years. To see what its effective on a what rates and to see if it causes any harm to the environment and if it does it must fix it, to see what potential risks it has to humans and animals and fix those, etc..

So it seems rather odd to me that these products go through such a rigorous gauntlet because of the EPA and other agency's yet it can cause cancer and it's still cleared for sale. If it causes me to fart we gotta fix it before it sells, but cancer...ehh no big deal.
 

bushman13

Active member
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
180
For a really crappy read go lookup Don Rumsfeld and his connection to Monsanto, Searle, and the FDA. This guy made millions pushing through brain cancer juice. Amongst other things.

Take a product called Esplanade for example purposes. This product had into the 20-30 million dollar range invested into before it ever hit shelves. This money is used on tests after tests after tests after tests for 10 plus years. To see what its effective on a what rates and to see if it causes any harm to the environment and if it does it must fix it, to see what potential risks it has to humans and animals and fix those, etc..

So it seems rather odd to me that these products go through such a rigorous gauntlet because of the EPA and other agency's yet it can cause cancer and it's still cleared for sale. If it causes me to fart we gotta fix it before it sells, but cancer...ehh no big deal.
 

neffa3

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
1,786
Location
Wenatchee
One of the things with this study is the dosage rates. Female rats (F0 generation) transiently exposed (25 mg/kg body weight glyphosate daily) . To get that dosage in humans you would have to eat a lot foods that contain a ton of glyphosate. Quaker Oats seems to the the highest I could find. 2,837 ppb which is 2.837 mg/kg, meaning you would have to eat 10 bowls of cereal daily to get to the levels they tested. European limits are 0.3 mg/kg/bw/daily, which means you are eating 9.5 times their allowable limit with one bowl. Conflicting information abound with this one.

There is so much conflicting information on Glyphosate.

FDA - https://www.fda.gov/food/pesticides/questions-and-answers-glyphosate

Detox Project - https://detoxproject.org/glyphosate-in-food-water/

Wheat foundation - https://wheatfoundation.org/the-truth-about-glyphosate-part-1-how-do-wheat-growers-use-glyphosate/

Ecowatch - https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-glyphosate-cheerios-2093130379.html

Who knows what it does or does not do.

I think it would be best for everyone to start a garden and start to grow more of their own food. That way you know where it is coming from.
Sure but you also have to look at the cumulative effects over time, not just the dosage, I can chainsmoke one pack a cigs in an hour and there's no ill effects, but it I do a couple a day for the rest of my life I'll definitely have an increased risk of cancer. Those rats didn't live a fraction of the duration we do. If specifically looking at the WSU research and the idea that it could be altering epigenetics, it could very well be a linear trend where the higher exposure (dosage x duration) creates more alterations. (I admit I may not be using the correct terminology, but I think the idea is sound). I know I really don't like the idea that I may in any way shape or form be harming my future grandchildren.
 

neffa3

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
1,786
Location
Wenatchee
So it seems rather odd to me that these products go through such a rigorous gauntlet because of the EPA and other agency's yet it can cause cancer and it's still cleared for sale. If it causes me to fart we gotta fix it before it sells, but cancer...ehh no big deal.
yes and no, depends who you ask. I'd say there's not nearly enough testing on products we use/consume as there should be, and most of the "research and reporting" is done either by the manufacturer or by a "third-party" they're paying. If you abide by the old adage, follow the money, then it's economically disadvantageous to find a product unhealthy. I personally think greed trumps all in these situations and would much prefer a Big Brother /research requirement before things get approved. Though I recognize that it would cost significantly more money, slow progress to a crawl, and may not actually address the potential issue, still I don't like someone who benefits from the approval of a product providing the data that a product should be approved.
 

ImBillT

Active member
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
552
I do lawn and landscape work and have been exposed to it for years. I have some swollen lymph nodes that the doctors are monitoring but not too worried about in the short term. After doing some reading around I began to think I’ve probably been exposed to more glyphosate through food than through work related exposure. I’ve switch to organic for all grains and potatoes, and for most other things depending on availability and price. There are a lot of reasons that lymph nodes can be enlarged other than lymphoma, but they have been shrinking since I made the switch.

I used to drink around a gallon of Coca-Cola per day. High fructose corn syrup is widely known to be unhealthy, and usually it’s the fructose that gets blames, but all fruits are loaded with fructose. Maybe it’s the glyphosate?

I don’t know. Take it for what you will.
 
Last edited:

bushman13

Active member
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
180
The caramel coloring in mainstream colas is carcinogenic

Aspartame in diet drinks breaks down to formaldehyde in the body, which is a carcinogenic as well.

And yes most foods contain glyphosate, even good ole beer. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/02/25/new-pirg-study-says-weed-killer-in-your-wine-beer/2943880002/




I do lawn and landscape work and have been exposed to it for years. I have some swollen lymph nodes that the doctors are monitoring but not too worried about in the short term. After doing some reading around I began to think I’ve probably been exposed to more glyphosate through food than through work related exposure. I’ve switch to organic for all grains and potatoes, and for most other things depending on availability and price. There are a lot of reasons that lymph nodes can be enlarged other than lymphoma, but they have been shrinking since I made the switch.

I used to drink around a gallon of Coca-Cola per day. High fructose corn syrup is widely known to be u healthy, and usually it’s the fructose that gets blames, but all fruits are loaded with fructose. Maybe it’s the glyphosate?

I don’t know. Take it for what you will.
 

TheDudeAbides

Active member
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
487
Location
Rio Verde, Wyoming
I work with it multiple times a week for the last 6 years. I'm still cancer free last I knew anyways. I feel it's all about money. Lawyers see $$$$ in turn convince clients to see $$$$ and oh look this is a multi billion dollar industry let's exploit them for $$$$. And they have I'd say 70% garbage under grad studies to back their claims. Either way we live in a world where everything causes cancer as long as that thing is a multi million dollar industry.
There is probably a definite monetary gain by those that appose it and for those that support it. I mean we use 300 billion pounds of the stuff annually.

As far as graduate studies, I mean they have to study something. Not all majors are good for jobs after four years. The thing to look for in the studies is bias or conflicting information. Studies are a lot easier to publish now then they were before. Money is an issue in the college game and the better studies that you can publish, then the more money you can get from grants to study more. So, there is politics involved.

One thing is to look at the study with a skeptics point of view rather than just accepting it because you agree with it or denying it before you disagree with it.
 

TheDudeAbides

Active member
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
487
Location
Rio Verde, Wyoming
Could not agree more with this statement. My grandparents all lived long healthy lives well into their 90s. My great-grandmother was 106. Her children all lived to be at least 92. Two of them crossed the century mark themselves. They ate lard like it was going out of style. But everything they ate was raised and processed on the farm. Nothing came from the outside. They even ground their own meal. And they worked hard daylight to dark. It may be hard work and good genetics, but I tend to think the fact that they avoided manufactured food, and all the associated chemicals and preservatives, has a lot to do with it. Sorry to get off topic slightly :)
Yeah, that would be great if I could do it.

One thing I am in the process of doing in my backyard is replacing the lawn with a permaculture food forest.

Deep mulch and plant a diversity of plants.

Due to the location here, most of what can grow as an edible are berries, fruits, and asparagus.

There are some advantages of a food forest.

- Less Water than Lawns due to the deep mulch holding the water in

- Food rather than typically inedible grass

- Improved soil

- Don't have to mow the lawn

- Don't have to use fertilizers

- I can grow medicinal plants like elderberry for my own flu/cold medicine.

Really, most of the work is the start up and after that it is harvesting, adding mulch where needed, and pruning after the harvest.

If you let it go, then it turns into a natural forest setting; but it is better to prune for better yields of crops.

It is something that everyone can do and is a lot less work than typical gardening, especially if you go with the no till back to eden or ruth stout method.

This is a how to series on youtube of starting a food forest. It is something that everyone can do. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-WIU6_H4uiTAZAc4jVec9pvgMIa41U4V

I think that everyone should start replacing their lawns and roll with a food forest due to the benefits of growing your own food, the less work of maintaining the system
 

TheDudeAbides

Active member
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
487
Location
Rio Verde, Wyoming
Sure but you also have to look at the cumulative effects over time, not just the dosage, I can chainsmoke one pack a cigs in an hour and there's no ill effects, but it I do a couple a day for the rest of my life I'll definitely have an increased risk of cancer. Those rats didn't live a fraction of the duration we do. If specifically looking at the WSU research and the idea that it could be altering epigenetics, it could very well be a linear trend where the higher exposure (dosage x duration) creates more alterations. (I admit I may not be using the correct terminology, but I think the idea is sound). I know I really don't like the idea that I may in any way shape or form be harming my future grandchildren.
Yeah, if you are worried about things that could potentially hereditary defects, teretogens, mutangens, or epigenetics. Then you probably want to stay in the house.

It is true some things are worse than others, but at the same time. The more you know the more you have to worry about.

Biologically, there is propbably not a linear trend. It would be more of a scatter plot trend and would probably be logarithmic in nature. The trend lines you would have would be based on ranges of values from statistical analysis. There will be outliers, like the people that smoke a pack a day and eat bacon sandwiches every meal and people who have never smoked and eat a well balanced diet. The average deviation and confidence interval will tell the story of 95% of the population. It is also very tough to compare what is done in rats to what is done in humans, because of the biological differences and not many people are going to sign up for a study to see whether or not their prosperity will have birth defects.
 

Trial153

Active member
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
694
Location
New York
We really have no idea what impact this stuff will have long term considering the amount of this crap we have pumped into our environment. When the studies are subsidized by the same entities that have profited by the products use...caveat emptor.
Why is that conservatives in America are anything but conservative when comes protecting our environment? The first rule should be that when your in doubt ....Do No Harm.
 
Last edited:

scubohuntr

Active member
Joined
Mar 30, 2018
Messages
149
Location
Montana
The problem with the "it causes cancer" studies is that there are no direct food=>cancer links. It's all statistics. As they say, figures don't lie, but liars figure. A study with a tentative statistical link between any consumer item and any cancer has great shock value, so it gets picked up and spread all over without any regard for context. There is little review of a lot of these studies, and enough wiggle room to always allow the researchers to say, "Well, we never said it CAUSES cancer, just that there is a statistical correlation." You could probably get a statistically valid correlation between Jenny Craig and strokes. Not because Jenny Craig causes strokes, but because the people most likely to be using it are the ones at most risk. Look at the deeply flawed studies on butter, eggs, sugar, nitrites, salt, MSG, and countless other common foods, going back nearly a century. Many of them were done for political purposes. They have all been accused of horrific health problems, and pretty much all been disproven. Of course, disproving a study doesn't sell clicks or papers, so nobody makes much noise about those studies.

It comes down to moderation in all things. Too much water can kill you. Use common sense and maintain balance.

Glyphosate is here to stay. It is one of the more benign herbicides on the market. Remember that by definition, pesticides and herbicides are poisons, so "one of the more benign" does not mean "harmless". If it didn't poison something, there would be no reason to spend money applying it. We have gotten used to cheap, abundant food. Our society would never accept the costs of discontinuing, or even significantly reducing, the use of pesticides. Not to mention that most of the commercial cultivars grown today would not survive in a natural environment. The price of dependence on commercially produced food is loss of control over what is done to it. Don't even get me started on the horrors that are marketed as "organic".
 

WesternRookie

New member
Joined
Apr 8, 2019
Messages
20
One thing I wonder....if roundup is toxic and is somehow passed onto the corn kernals, that go into the deer feeder, which is eaten by the deer, which is eaten by us........is Biomagnification delivering some more complex and potent carcinogen via the venison? Also, a different topic, but slightly related.... does roundup ready corn have something in the DNA that, because it is altered, has a tendency to do weird stuff as well? And does that morph into something else in the venison that is doing weird stuff in our bodies? Maybe the long term "study" will come out in 20 years........(kind of like cell phones that people carry around, are holding next to their heads, sleeping next to, or sitting on their crotch! I say the jury is still out....and we are all the guinea pigs now!)
 

dcopas78

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
1,356
Location
Decatur, OH
Dude, love the idea! I am fortunate to have apple, pear, peach trees, asparagus, strawberries, blackberries, raspberries, a large garden for corn, beans, cabbage, broccoli, melons, squash variants, cucumbers tomatos. I also have raised beds for salad type greens, radishes, carrots, onions. I have a good knowledge of some medicinal plants here as well. We have ginseng, yellow root (golden seal), wild elderberry, as well as assorted wild edible greens like stinging nettle, dandelion, sour dock, wild spinach, wild mustard, etc.. I just wish I'd paid more attention to Granny. She was a master at wild greens and medicines. I'd make a killin' off of publishing her old journals if I could find which relative thieved them when she passed away. I love getting my own food.....main reason why I love to hunt :)
 

WyoDoug

Active member
Joined
Apr 8, 2019
Messages
186
Location
Cheyenne, Wyoming
My first thought is California is overtaken by extreme versions of liberalism that nothing in California is valid on it's own merit. I am not a believer in the health articles on Round Up at this point. I think a lot more research needs to be done by the scientific community and not by those with an agenda.
 

TheDudeAbides

Active member
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
487
Location
Rio Verde, Wyoming
One thing I wonder....if roundup is toxic and is somehow passed onto the corn kernals, that go into the deer feeder, which is eaten by the deer, which is eaten by us........is Biomagnification delivering some more complex and potent carcinogen via the venison? Also, a different topic, but slightly related.... does roundup ready corn have something in the DNA that, because it is altered, has a tendency to do weird stuff as well? And does that morph into something else in the venison that is doing weird stuff in our bodies? Maybe the long term "study" will come out in 20 years........(kind of like cell phones that people carry around, are holding next to their heads, sleeping next to, or sitting on their crotch! I say the jury is still out....and we are all the guinea pigs now!)
Most of the time it is persisant in the gut with an acute exposure. With a chronic exposure from what I found. only 30% gets aborbed, the rest goes to urine or dung. Of that is absorbed 18% will be in the gut, 5% will be in the bone, 6% in the carcass, and 1% in the abdomal fat. It has a bio half life of 47 days in humans may be more or less in deer.

Bigger issue is it getting into water and killing fish and it killing pollinators such as bees and butterflies.

The pollinators being the most important, because it still takes a lot to kill fish.

Without the pollenators we will begin to lose some biodiversity in some areas, which in turn will effect the fauna and the soil, which can turn lush farmland into desert.

I get that we need food and this production for people, but I think it would be beneficial for everyone to grow some of their own food to help the local ecosystem.
 

TheDudeAbides

Active member
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
487
Location
Rio Verde, Wyoming
Dude, love the idea! I am fortunate to have apple, pear, peach trees, asparagus, strawberries, blackberries, raspberries, a large garden for corn, beans, cabbage, broccoli, melons, squash variants, cucumbers tomatos. I also have raised beds for salad type greens, radishes, carrots, onions. I have a good knowledge of some medicinal plants here as well. We have ginseng, yellow root (golden seal), wild elderberry, as well as assorted wild edible greens like stinging nettle, dandelion, sour dock, wild spinach, wild mustard, etc.. I just wish I'd paid more attention to Granny. She was a master at wild greens and medicines. I'd make a killin' off of publishing her old journals if I could find which relative thieved them when she passed away. I love getting my own food.....main reason why I love to hunt :)
This is legit. May have to try some of those greens, but I may have to get a green house or maybe I can create a microclimate like those dudes that grow oranges in Nebraska (
)

It is supposed to get cold again in the near future. Being in zone 4b limits my options when it comes to greens. I worry that a june snow storm will wipe out the crops.

The best part is that you are the master of your own domain.

Like hunting, you are making your own food.

It is also a good bit of fun.

I think everyone should do it, because the food grown yourself will always taste better than the food you buy from the store.
 

BigHornRam

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
5,961
Location
"Land of Giant Rams"
This place close to where I live has some interesting ideas. Industrialized agriculture is what it takes to feed the masses unfortunately. I think we will see a day when the camels back breaks, and methods like this will be the norm.

20190518_090939.jpg

 

IdahoPotato

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
70
This place close to where I live has some interesting ideas. Industrialized agriculture is what it takes to feed the masses unfortunately. I think we will see a day when the camels back breaks, and methods like this will be the norm.

View attachment 106474

Yikes. I hope we are prepared to give up hunting and fishing and wild places if we have to feed the country with places like this. With intensified farming practices we already take up huge amounts of land to feed 300+ million. These type of ag systems take up more land, more resources, and are less efficient at producing calories for humans, period. And we are only adding more humans and mouths to the heap as we go. I find it interesting that the well-off members of society seem to gravitate towards agricultural practices that are WORSE for out outdoor spaces.

Disclaimer: I am a scientist for one of the largest privately owned agricultural companies in the world.
 
Last edited:

375H&H

Active member
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
887
Location
Northern Wyoming
Yikes. I hope you are prepared to give up hunting and fishing and wild places if we have to feed the country with places like this. With intensified farming practices we already take up huge amounts of land to feed 300+ million. These type of ag systems take up more land, more resources, and are less efficient at producing calories for humans, period. And we are only adding more humans and mouths to the heap as we go. I find it interesting that the well-off members of society seem to gravitate towards agricultural practices that are WORSE for out outdoor spaces.

Disclaimer: I am a scientist for one of the largest privately owned agricultural companies in the world.
Yep.

That is one of the main reasons I am not very fond of “organic” foods at the store. The yield per acre is lower for organic farming resulting in more acres disturbed to produce the same amount of food. Result: less acres for wildlife.
 

TheDudeAbides

Active member
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
487
Location
Rio Verde, Wyoming
Yikes. I hope we are prepared to give up hunting and fishing and wild places if we have to feed the country with places like this. With intensified farming practices we already take up huge amounts of land to feed 300+ million. These type of ag systems take up more land, more resources, and are less efficient at producing calories for humans, period. And we are only adding more humans and mouths to the heap as we go. I find it interesting that the well-off members of society seem to gravitate towards agricultural practices that are WORSE for out outdoor spaces.

Disclaimer: I am a scientist for one of the largest privately owned agricultural companies in the world.
I would argue that an industrial sized scale of food forest would not be needed and that a backyard application is preferable. Having a backyard or front yard that grows food rather than lawn will be needed. Growing your food and not adding to the means of high production would be ideal. The same reason why I think residential solar is a good idea. Produce some of your own energy, so there isn't as much needed from the grid.

However, I would argue that it would also benefit wildlife.

Having a better soil structure produces more food, which in turn can give more habitat to animals. It starts with the worms, then the birds and squirrels, then the things that eat the birds and the squirrels, and then the deer and the things that eat the deer. It creates a more natural environment. Creating a better habitat for wildlife is a goal of conservation.

You can also create swales to contain more of the rainwater in the area to use less water. Basically you create a bunch of little ponds to harvest rainwater. More water means more life. You create habitat for waterfowl and provide water for megafauna. In the rocky mountains swalls would provide habitat for moose, which are declining in many areas. It would also allow for the cultivation of more berries and grasses, which will help grouse, deer, elk, and bear populations. One of the biggest limiting factors in the west is water.

The point is there is a lot more to permaculture than growing food for humans. It creates a healthier ecosystem that does benefit wildlife if you applied it to a large scale.

Like I said before, I think it is something that everyone should do in their backyard; because it is one less bill that you have to pay and it is a lot of fun.
 
Top