WITHOUT COMMENT.....
THE LIE:
The Salt: What's on your plate?
March
24, 2015 3:48 PM ET
By
Dan Charles.
Glyphosate
residues on food, however, are not of great concern. The chemical is typically
used in the early stages of growing crops like soybeans, corn, and canola.
Those crops, if they even reach human consumers at all, are heavily processed
first, destroying any glyphosate residues.
THE TRUTH;
FROM: www.glyphosate.eu
Clarification
of Pre-harvest uses of glyphosate: The advantages, best practices and residue
monitoring.
In
several north western European countries glyphosate can be applied before crop
harvest for weed control, to enhance ripening on non-determinate crops to
reduce crop losses, and to help manage determinate crops in wet seasons… Glyphosate
is absorbed by the leaves and stems of plants and is translocated throughout
the plant… Glyphosate is slower acting but tends to
reduce pod shatter, while helping the crop stems dry out to help harvest... Pre-harvest
use of glyphosate started in 1980 (O’Keeffe, 1980) and revolutionized perennial
weed control.
FROM: Arregui, M. C., Lenardón, A., Sanchez, D., Maitre,
M. I., Scotta, R., & Enrique, S. (2004). Monitoring glyphosate residues in
transgenic glyphosate‐resistant soybean. Pest Management
Science, 60(2), 163-166.
In
soybean leaves and stems, glyphosate residues ranged from 1.9 to 4.4mgkg and
from 0.1 to 1.8mgkg in grains.
So, your citations show:
ReplyDelete1) in preharvest ripening applications, little glyphosate residue is transferred to the grains, because it is applied after the grain is at 30% dryness, so it's essentially not connected to the plant any longer
2) in preharvest weed control applicaiotns, little glyphosate will show because you have to do it right before harvest, at the time when grain will also be dry. Also, it is stated that this kind of use would potentially be spot-use since you can visually find green weeds in brown mature grain fields.
3) glyphosate will have moderate levels in soy BEANS when applied in a manner that doesn't really look normal to me, but I don't know. What the Arregui study doesn't cover is whether the products of RR soy would have the glyphosate residues. So what if it's in the leaves and stems. That's a literally meaningless fact. If it's in the grain, ok. But, we don't really eat whole soy. Glyphosate won't be found in soy oil- it's water soluble. Generally protein purification would easily get rid of water soluble components - if your interested I can elaborate. I worked in the protein purification field at a major biochemical supplier for a decade.
So you haven't rebutted NPR at all really. The first citation ended with showing relatively low sampling incidence for glyphosate in food products from non RR cereal grains, and the second showed pretty low residues in soy, which would be processed as the NPR story said, and the actual consumed products of the grain would also not contain much glyphosate.
NPR did not lie, or at least you have not shown that they did.
You didn't read to the end of the sentence. "In soybean leaves and stems, glyphosate residues ranged from 1.9 to 4.4mgkg, and from 0.1 to 1.8mgkg in grains". When a substance is an EDC, that's quite sufficient to cause damage. You may well be right that plants non-resistant to glyphosate don't uptake it into their grains, but that is NOT the case with RoundUp-resistant plants.
ReplyDeleteI did in fact address that. You seen to have not read my comment.
ReplyDeleteYou still have not addressed the issue of purification via processing. Everything the NPR article states still stands.
No it doesn't stand. Residues of glyphosate have been found in humans and animals, see Kruger, M., Schledorn, P., Schrödl, W., Hoppe, H. W., Lutz, W., & Shehata, A. A. (2014). Detection of glyphosate residues in animals and humans. J Environ Anal Toxicol, 4(210), 2161-0525. Read that and explain why processing didn't remove them.
ReplyDeleteThere's really no way to do this without sounding ad hominem, but I don't put anything past the Kruger lab. They put out that piglet deformation study where they reported levels of glyphosate that couldn't possibly have been correct, yet published anyway - if you have more glypohsate in a liver than you do in the feed, and you know that glyphosate doesn't accumulate, then you know you have a bad reading, or a spiked sample. Either way, you question it, you don't report it without significant reproduced evidence.
ReplyDeleteJ Environ Anal Toxicol is an Omics journal that has had big problems as far as publishing anything for a price.
http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/01/25/omics-predatory-meetings/
Then in the article they cite Seneff and then Huber. I mean, why would a legit researcher do that. It's outing yourself as an activist instead of a scientist.
Lot's of strikes, none against the content of the study. But considering the source, the history, the journal and the citations I have a hard time taking it seriously. Did they actually get the reported results? I don't know. Are they above reporting false information? Wouldn't put it past them. I'd like to see a higher quality piece of evidence before I would conjecture as to why there is glyphosate in human blood and urine.