Oh My gosh!!!! It says "Potential" link.. Does not seem to me you want to discuss much of anything, just to jump on someone's coat tails. She used to work for Reuters and yes, then she began her investigation of Monsanto....glyphosate Round Up. In case you were not aware Round Up spraying kills, Bees (a critical part of our food supply) Birds and in some cases dogs and cats when not applied properly. What about the chemicals released into Michigan Huron River? What about those poor people who have to drink this water. She gives us information for us to digest. This has nothing to do with selling books, but rather sharing with the public "Potential" problems.
I work with farmers throughout the United States who are cleaning up their soil, with an amazing and cost effective process, to eliminate glyphosate from their soil. I work with a Master Beekeeper who has 2400 hives, along with egg producers, hog farmers, cattle ranchers who are realizing how critical our soil is to our existence.
We should always want information on "Potential" problems.
Everyone needs to pay close attention to our Environment..
Once again Carey extrapolates data to reinforce her predetermined (book selling) conclusion. Mice in this study had to be fed 500 micrograms per kilogram. In a 220 lb guy like me, that is like eating 200 aspirin-sized tablets of pure glyphosate every day, for fourteen days. I'd be surprised if you didn't find a little bit in my brain, my big toe, or my eyelashes! Jesus! They fed mice huge amounts of herbicide and showed they were not well. Surprise! Not!
The interesting data come from the lowest treatment. It is a HUGE amount, 125 micrograms/kg, one fourth of the high dose, and equivalent to me eating 50 tablets of pure glyphosate a day for half a month. The results were negligible, sometimes statistically significant, but barely biologically significant. If anything, this says that you have to do shots of concentrate to see an effect, as realistic occupational or consumer exposures are tiny fractions of what was used here.
What this says is that a massive overdose for half a month barely has an effect. I know Carey has to sell books, but let's get real. Read the paper, talk to the authors-- even they will tell you that Carey over inflates the findings of their work.
I think my next book should be called "Kevin Hates Science" - It will be all about a little boy who believes "science" is what people who pay him tells him it is. Kevin doesn't understand concepts of research and writing and peer review. Kevin hates when journalists quote directly from published, peer-reviewed scientific journals. Kevin is too afraid of real scientists to tell them directly he doesn't like their research so Kevin trolls reporters instead. What should the cover art for this book look like? Maybe a cartoon illustration of Kevin pocketing a big check from Bayer/Monsanto?
Readers of these threads should note that you don't address the validity of my points, you make another false claim not supported by evidence, on brand. I am not paid by Bayer/Monsanto, and the ad hominem fallacy is a very weak defense. I **am** paid as an independent public scientist that has an obligation to correct false information and teach from evidence. It is in that spirit that I left a thoughtful and scientifically precise retort to your inflammatory article. I sent the authors a link and encourage them to reply as well. Then you can call them shills for Monsanto too. (And FWIW I'm an editor for three scientific journals and reviewer for about 12-20 per year, so I'm recognized for my prowess in peer review)
There is no validity to your troll tirades, Kevin. You're ridiculous. If you don't like the conclusions the scientists came to you should take it up with them. Don't troll the messenger, who quoted directly from the paper. If you really thought there was a problem you'd take it up with the journal and the authors of the paper. If you see that I did not correctly quote the paper, let me know, point it out. But otherwise I suggest you calm down and have another drink. Science gonna science.
Carey, you quoted the paper. The problem is that the authors use the term "may" 10 times. You also don't note that the authors "These high doses provided valuable information on a potential mechanism of action ... however, future work will include more environmentally relevant concentrations of glyphosate."
If I was a reviewer I would have had questions about the 'mechanism of action'. The work shows that when you pound a mouse with mountains of a chemical for half a month some tiny fraction ends up in the brain, with associated changes in relevant cytokines and gene expression. There's no problem with the science. The issue is that this context is not revealed in your article or any other fear-manufacturing pieces. That's not "trolling" the messenger, it is indicating that the messenger strategically omits information that does not support a thesis that sells books.
And yes, I did reach out to the senior author of the work and hope to interview him on the Talking Biotech Podcast. Your personal insults are so unbecoming, but certainly consistent with a long history of hate toward me and other scientists that take the time to step into these important discussions.
So I did quote the paper accurately using "may" - writing this in my column: “Collectively, given that a large subset of the population may be exposed to this chemical agent, these results raise awareness of the detrimental effects glyphosate exposure may have on the brain and human health.” Science is a search for knowledge- research building upon research. You don't like anyone seeking knowledge about a pesticide made by a company that has paid you to carry their propaganda forward. Anyone who wants the details about the extent of Folta's alliance with Monsanto can read my book Whitewash, pages 124-129, 131 and 145.
My "alliance with Monsanto". As I recall, your book doesn't exactly get it right either. Lots has been said and written about it, and calling that relationship an "alliance" is pure hyperbole. My job is to communicate with companies about their technology and fairly discuss its risks/benefits, strengths/limitations. That is literally my job as a public university scientist. And Monsanto never personally paid me a penny. I was once reimbursed the exact costs of speaking to farmers in Colorado. I know, scandal, right? You can have the last word. Anyone interested in knowing the realities can find me anytime.
Wow, Kevin Folta, you just won't go away. I remember seeing your name and false statements about 10 years ago regarding Glyphosate, and here we all are, still being poisoned by this chemical. The damage is cumulative; it is in our soils, our water, our air. The proof is there. The question is: can our government act in the interests of planetary health?
It should be noted that editors of "scientific journals" are, these days, a suspect lot and, in some glaring examples, discredited and shamed. It's all about the funding--who does it, for what purposes, and the control thus provided by such captured enterprises over "the Science".
Hello Applicator. Dr. Keith Solomon published a rather nice minireview on this a few years ago. Urinary data that predicted systemic presence and dosimetry both showed exposures in applicators orders of magnitude below any of the international daily exposure thresholds. It was figure 3 and 5 of this paper. There are others too, such as estimates of occupational exposure from 54,000 applicators that tracked frequency of use for years (Andreotti et al., 2018). Here's the Solomon reference, I hope this helps! Pest Manag Sci
. 2020 Sep;76(9):2878-2885. doi: 10.1002/ps.5717. Epub 2019 Dec 28.
Keith Solomon is a paid consultant for Monsanto that was caught (just like you were) not disclosing his ties to Monsanto. Particularly, in his 2016 submission to Taylor & Francis ‘Critical Reviews in Toxicology’-
Keith is also from Canada where the PPE on Roundup labels is different and CA at least requires applicators to wear gloves when fixing and repairing spray equipment, which from decades of experience I can tell you is when substantial applicator exposure occurs.
It’s funny you resort to AHS next, which pertains to agricultural use where tractor & boom exposure is minimal next to the general population. It’s not what I asked and there are gaping holes in AHS that have yet to be revealed in court, but will be.
Your response further solidifies that you are simply a mouthpiece, a pawn, for Monsanto and the agrochemical industry. Furthermore, it is more than evident that you do not know what you’re talking about.
If you have something meaningful to contribute please do, but otherwise go back to Entine, UF pro-pesticide buddies spewing the same disinformation, Monsanto, and your strawberries. You have no credibility here…I at least gave you an opportunity to prove otherwise.
Keith Solomon authored 3 of the 5 articles in 2016 to TAYLOR & FRANCIS ‘CRITICAL REVIEWS IN TOXICOLOGY’ - this is what the editor and publisher had to say:
“We, the Editor-in-Chief and Publisher of the journal, have been informed of concerns over the completeness of acknowledged contributions to the above supplement, and in the declarations of interest provided by the named contributors, for the following articles:
Williams, G. M., Aardema, M., Acquavella, J., Berry, C., Brusick, D., Burns, M. M., de Camargo, J. L. V., Garabrant, D., Greim, H. A., Kier, L. D., Kirkland, D. J., Marsh, G., Solomon, K. R., Sorahan, T., Roberts, A., & Weed, D. L. (2016). A review of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate by four independent expert panels and comparison to the IARC assessment. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 46(S1), pp. 3–20.
Solomon, K. R. (2016). Glyphosate in the general population and in applicators: a critical review of studies on exposures. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 46(S1), pp. 21–27.
Acquavella, J., Garabrant, D., Marsh, G., Solomon, K. R., Sorahan, T., & Weed, D. L. (2016). Glyphosate epidemiology expert panel review: a weight of evidence systematic review of the relationship between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or multiple myeloma. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 46(S1), pp. 28-43.
We have requested corrigenda from the authors to provide additional disclosure as to contributions to the articles. To date, we have only received corrigenda for three of the five articles that have been agreed by all authors. We have not received an adequate explanation as to why the necessary level of transparency was not met on first submission. We thank those who brought this matter to our attention. When reading the articles, we recommend that readers take this context into account. We will continue to work to update these articles and ensure full disclosure of all contributions to them.”
Okay, anyone that disagrees with your synthesis is a shill for monsanto. I get it. Both Solomon and I are public servants working for agricultural universities, and that's the reality. The data (that the broad scientific consensus accepts) are unacceptable to you because they don't fit your conclusions. Great. Enjoy.
How is attacking the author of the article serving the public?
And Dr. “public servant” because you’re employed by a university doesn’t mean that your interests are aligned with serving the public, but you sure try to make yourself sound as if your moral compass is still intact. The papers linked below specifically describe how private-public relationships can adversely impact science and ultimately mislead the general public. This is not a new problem for science either as big tobacco etched in stone the playbook of how to manufacture doubt. Monsanto’s ‘Orchestrate Outcry’ initiative was designed to do just that and you, Mr. “public servant”, are a participant.
Kevin, its seems your calculations are wrong, go back to school, mate! 500 micrograms per kilogram for your weight will be just 0.5 grams. 1g = 1000mg = 1 000 000 mcg
Sorry Tanya, you're off by 1000. From the paper: Mice were randomly assigned to receive one of three dosages starting at 4 months of age: vehicle (control) 125 mg/kg, 250 mg/kg, 500 mg/kg of body weight. Dosages were administered daily via oral gavage for a total of 14 days."
500 mg/kg x 100 kg = 50,000 mg = 50 grams.
Be careful when you tell the guy that teaches the classes to "go back to school".
Sorry, Kevin, you are right! I based my reply on what you wrote : "Mice in this study had to be fed 500 micrograms per kilogram. In a 220 lb guy like me, that is like eating 200 aspirin-sized tablets of pure glyphosate every day, for fourteen days." "Micrograms" = mcg, you perhaps meant "milligrams" which is mg. I noticed in the original article they used mg, but decided it was an error.
At the bare minimum it is time for the US EPA to require adequate PPE on all glyphosate-based herbicide labels. A step intentionally and corruptly overlooked due to Monsanto disinformation regarding the safety profile of RoundUp and glyphosate.
Yes, it is sad that long term effects from chemicals are now ignored as inconclusive as they were for the tobacco industry’s. Thank you for sounding the warnings!
Oh My gosh!!!! It says "Potential" link.. Does not seem to me you want to discuss much of anything, just to jump on someone's coat tails. She used to work for Reuters and yes, then she began her investigation of Monsanto....glyphosate Round Up. In case you were not aware Round Up spraying kills, Bees (a critical part of our food supply) Birds and in some cases dogs and cats when not applied properly. What about the chemicals released into Michigan Huron River? What about those poor people who have to drink this water. She gives us information for us to digest. This has nothing to do with selling books, but rather sharing with the public "Potential" problems.
I work with farmers throughout the United States who are cleaning up their soil, with an amazing and cost effective process, to eliminate glyphosate from their soil. I work with a Master Beekeeper who has 2400 hives, along with egg producers, hog farmers, cattle ranchers who are realizing how critical our soil is to our existence.
We should always want information on "Potential" problems.
Everyone needs to pay close attention to our Environment..
Thank you for your important work!
Once again Carey extrapolates data to reinforce her predetermined (book selling) conclusion. Mice in this study had to be fed 500 micrograms per kilogram. In a 220 lb guy like me, that is like eating 200 aspirin-sized tablets of pure glyphosate every day, for fourteen days. I'd be surprised if you didn't find a little bit in my brain, my big toe, or my eyelashes! Jesus! They fed mice huge amounts of herbicide and showed they were not well. Surprise! Not!
The interesting data come from the lowest treatment. It is a HUGE amount, 125 micrograms/kg, one fourth of the high dose, and equivalent to me eating 50 tablets of pure glyphosate a day for half a month. The results were negligible, sometimes statistically significant, but barely biologically significant. If anything, this says that you have to do shots of concentrate to see an effect, as realistic occupational or consumer exposures are tiny fractions of what was used here.
What this says is that a massive overdose for half a month barely has an effect. I know Carey has to sell books, but let's get real. Read the paper, talk to the authors-- even they will tell you that Carey over inflates the findings of their work.
Here is a link to my analysis of the same paper. As always, glad to discuss. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2022/08/16/glyphosate-traces-in-breast-milk-weedkiller-causes-neurological-disorders-how-activists-leverage-social-media-to-distort-science-and-spread-bogus-health-concerns/
I think my next book should be called "Kevin Hates Science" - It will be all about a little boy who believes "science" is what people who pay him tells him it is. Kevin doesn't understand concepts of research and writing and peer review. Kevin hates when journalists quote directly from published, peer-reviewed scientific journals. Kevin is too afraid of real scientists to tell them directly he doesn't like their research so Kevin trolls reporters instead. What should the cover art for this book look like? Maybe a cartoon illustration of Kevin pocketing a big check from Bayer/Monsanto?
Readers of these threads should note that you don't address the validity of my points, you make another false claim not supported by evidence, on brand. I am not paid by Bayer/Monsanto, and the ad hominem fallacy is a very weak defense. I **am** paid as an independent public scientist that has an obligation to correct false information and teach from evidence. It is in that spirit that I left a thoughtful and scientifically precise retort to your inflammatory article. I sent the authors a link and encourage them to reply as well. Then you can call them shills for Monsanto too. (And FWIW I'm an editor for three scientific journals and reviewer for about 12-20 per year, so I'm recognized for my prowess in peer review)
There is no validity to your troll tirades, Kevin. You're ridiculous. If you don't like the conclusions the scientists came to you should take it up with them. Don't troll the messenger, who quoted directly from the paper. If you really thought there was a problem you'd take it up with the journal and the authors of the paper. If you see that I did not correctly quote the paper, let me know, point it out. But otherwise I suggest you calm down and have another drink. Science gonna science.
Carey, you quoted the paper. The problem is that the authors use the term "may" 10 times. You also don't note that the authors "These high doses provided valuable information on a potential mechanism of action ... however, future work will include more environmentally relevant concentrations of glyphosate."
If I was a reviewer I would have had questions about the 'mechanism of action'. The work shows that when you pound a mouse with mountains of a chemical for half a month some tiny fraction ends up in the brain, with associated changes in relevant cytokines and gene expression. There's no problem with the science. The issue is that this context is not revealed in your article or any other fear-manufacturing pieces. That's not "trolling" the messenger, it is indicating that the messenger strategically omits information that does not support a thesis that sells books.
And yes, I did reach out to the senior author of the work and hope to interview him on the Talking Biotech Podcast. Your personal insults are so unbecoming, but certainly consistent with a long history of hate toward me and other scientists that take the time to step into these important discussions.
So I did quote the paper accurately using "may" - writing this in my column: “Collectively, given that a large subset of the population may be exposed to this chemical agent, these results raise awareness of the detrimental effects glyphosate exposure may have on the brain and human health.” Science is a search for knowledge- research building upon research. You don't like anyone seeking knowledge about a pesticide made by a company that has paid you to carry their propaganda forward. Anyone who wants the details about the extent of Folta's alliance with Monsanto can read my book Whitewash, pages 124-129, 131 and 145.
My "alliance with Monsanto". As I recall, your book doesn't exactly get it right either. Lots has been said and written about it, and calling that relationship an "alliance" is pure hyperbole. My job is to communicate with companies about their technology and fairly discuss its risks/benefits, strengths/limitations. That is literally my job as a public university scientist. And Monsanto never personally paid me a penny. I was once reimbursed the exact costs of speaking to farmers in Colorado. I know, scandal, right? You can have the last word. Anyone interested in knowing the realities can find me anytime.
Wow, Kevin Folta, you just won't go away. I remember seeing your name and false statements about 10 years ago regarding Glyphosate, and here we all are, still being poisoned by this chemical. The damage is cumulative; it is in our soils, our water, our air. The proof is there. The question is: can our government act in the interests of planetary health?
It should be noted that editors of "scientific journals" are, these days, a suspect lot and, in some glaring examples, discredited and shamed. It's all about the funding--who does it, for what purposes, and the control thus provided by such captured enterprises over "the Science".
Kevin, please provide supporting data that backs your claim of knowing what “realistic occupational exposure” is?
Particularly of those in T&O using backpack sprayers year-round that’s common in the southeast. Look forward to your timely response.
Hello Applicator. Dr. Keith Solomon published a rather nice minireview on this a few years ago. Urinary data that predicted systemic presence and dosimetry both showed exposures in applicators orders of magnitude below any of the international daily exposure thresholds. It was figure 3 and 5 of this paper. There are others too, such as estimates of occupational exposure from 54,000 applicators that tracked frequency of use for years (Andreotti et al., 2018). Here's the Solomon reference, I hope this helps! Pest Manag Sci
. 2020 Sep;76(9):2878-2885. doi: 10.1002/ps.5717. Epub 2019 Dec 28.
Kevin,
Keith Solomon is a paid consultant for Monsanto that was caught (just like you were) not disclosing his ties to Monsanto. Particularly, in his 2016 submission to Taylor & Francis ‘Critical Reviews in Toxicology’-
https://retractionwatch.com/2018/09/27/journal-flags-papers-saying-authors-didnt-adequately-disclose-ties-to-monsanto/
Keith is also from Canada where the PPE on Roundup labels is different and CA at least requires applicators to wear gloves when fixing and repairing spray equipment, which from decades of experience I can tell you is when substantial applicator exposure occurs.
It’s funny you resort to AHS next, which pertains to agricultural use where tractor & boom exposure is minimal next to the general population. It’s not what I asked and there are gaping holes in AHS that have yet to be revealed in court, but will be.
Your response further solidifies that you are simply a mouthpiece, a pawn, for Monsanto and the agrochemical industry. Furthermore, it is more than evident that you do not know what you’re talking about.
If you have something meaningful to contribute please do, but otherwise go back to Entine, UF pro-pesticide buddies spewing the same disinformation, Monsanto, and your strawberries. You have no credibility here…I at least gave you an opportunity to prove otherwise.
Keith Solomon authored 3 of the 5 articles in 2016 to TAYLOR & FRANCIS ‘CRITICAL REVIEWS IN TOXICOLOGY’ - this is what the editor and publisher had to say:
“We, the Editor-in-Chief and Publisher of the journal, have been informed of concerns over the completeness of acknowledged contributions to the above supplement, and in the declarations of interest provided by the named contributors, for the following articles:
Williams, G. M., Aardema, M., Acquavella, J., Berry, C., Brusick, D., Burns, M. M., de Camargo, J. L. V., Garabrant, D., Greim, H. A., Kier, L. D., Kirkland, D. J., Marsh, G., Solomon, K. R., Sorahan, T., Roberts, A., & Weed, D. L. (2016). A review of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate by four independent expert panels and comparison to the IARC assessment. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 46(S1), pp. 3–20.
Solomon, K. R. (2016). Glyphosate in the general population and in applicators: a critical review of studies on exposures. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 46(S1), pp. 21–27.
Acquavella, J., Garabrant, D., Marsh, G., Solomon, K. R., Sorahan, T., & Weed, D. L. (2016). Glyphosate epidemiology expert panel review: a weight of evidence systematic review of the relationship between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or multiple myeloma. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 46(S1), pp. 28-43.
We have requested corrigenda from the authors to provide additional disclosure as to contributions to the articles. To date, we have only received corrigenda for three of the five articles that have been agreed by all authors. We have not received an adequate explanation as to why the necessary level of transparency was not met on first submission. We thank those who brought this matter to our attention. When reading the articles, we recommend that readers take this context into account. We will continue to work to update these articles and ensure full disclosure of all contributions to them.”
Okay, anyone that disagrees with your synthesis is a shill for monsanto. I get it. Both Solomon and I are public servants working for agricultural universities, and that's the reality. The data (that the broad scientific consensus accepts) are unacceptable to you because they don't fit your conclusions. Great. Enjoy.
How is attacking the author of the article serving the public?
And Dr. “public servant” because you’re employed by a university doesn’t mean that your interests are aligned with serving the public, but you sure try to make yourself sound as if your moral compass is still intact. The papers linked below specifically describe how private-public relationships can adversely impact science and ultimately mislead the general public. This is not a new problem for science either as big tobacco etched in stone the playbook of how to manufacture doubt. Monsanto’s ‘Orchestrate Outcry’ initiative was designed to do just that and you, Mr. “public servant”, are a participant.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13412-022-00788-4#ref-CR24
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048733321000925
Kevin, its seems your calculations are wrong, go back to school, mate! 500 micrograms per kilogram for your weight will be just 0.5 grams. 1g = 1000mg = 1 000 000 mcg
Sorry Tanya, you're off by 1000. From the paper: Mice were randomly assigned to receive one of three dosages starting at 4 months of age: vehicle (control) 125 mg/kg, 250 mg/kg, 500 mg/kg of body weight. Dosages were administered daily via oral gavage for a total of 14 days."
500 mg/kg x 100 kg = 50,000 mg = 50 grams.
Be careful when you tell the guy that teaches the classes to "go back to school".
Sorry, Kevin, you are right! I based my reply on what you wrote : "Mice in this study had to be fed 500 micrograms per kilogram. In a 220 lb guy like me, that is like eating 200 aspirin-sized tablets of pure glyphosate every day, for fourteen days." "Micrograms" = mcg, you perhaps meant "milligrams" which is mg. I noticed in the original article they used mg, but decided it was an error.
At the bare minimum it is time for the US EPA to require adequate PPE on all glyphosate-based herbicide labels. A step intentionally and corruptly overlooked due to Monsanto disinformation regarding the safety profile of RoundUp and glyphosate.
Makes perfect sense!
sadly
Yes, it is sad that long term effects from chemicals are now ignored as inconclusive as they were for the tobacco industry’s. Thank you for sounding the warnings!