"100,000 times the concentration needed to cause cancer"

....100,000 times the concentration to cause cancer in vitro...

1mg of Vitamin C in vitro causes consistent severe chromosome mutations (breakage, deletions, additions)...and noted mutating effects are found at 1/4mg. Most people take 500mg supplements. 1500mg is considered a high daily intake.

Context is important here.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Tue, Jul 2, 13 at 17:43

The following was stated: "1mg of Vitamin C in vitro causes consistent severe chromosome mutations (breakage, deletions, additions)...and noted mutating effects are found at 1/4mg. Most people take 500mg supplements. 1500mg is considered a high daily intake. "

H.Kuska comment: The original thread research was talking about concentrations. You are talking about absolute weights, and you did not give a reference to the in vitro vitamin C study.

...the point was the difference between in vitro studies vs. how inputs are used in the real world by whole organisms.

Also, what's the point of references when you have a bad track record of how to use the data you're trying to interpret? (this old chestnut, again)

Nonetheless...

www.bjbms.org/archives/2008-2/141-146.pdf

Here's the point expanded...

A lot of things sound very scary with in vitro studies and single cells or cell types independent of how the body works as a system on whole. We are a system of cells, filters, processes, enzymes, bacterias, fluids, etc etc etc...

In vitro studies on single cell types or clusters are very important indicators, especially as reaction sites (this is also true in plants and all biological systems), but they are not end-points in very many cases because of how the organism on whole uses, allocates, and deals with inputs. You can start an area of research with in vitro studies, but you can draw very few end-point conclusions.

Long story short...we'd have a lot of mutant babies being born with little to no immune system (if they could survive long enough in the womb to even form a child) because of Vitamin C...and a ton more breast cancer from anyone spraying Glyphosate...if it was not for the whole body process of interacting with inputs.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Tue, Jul 2, 13 at 23:22

Ya know...the other "take home" from this might be trying to lean how the body processes glyphosate...especially if one wants to worry about such things.

About 0.02-0.08 ppm ends up in muscle and fat tissues. It is extremely poorly utilized outside of the digestive system and we pretty much piss or crap it out.

In this area...it would probably be a lot more important to worry about it's effect on contact/passing through kidneys and the digestive system on whole rather than worrying too much about bewbs.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Tue, Jul 2, 13 at 23:39

The question is if there is scientific research that points to "scary" results, is that the time to increase the allowable amount of glyphosate in crops?

Examples of cases where the "scary" did not transfer to "bad" results in later more refined experiments do not (in my mind) justify using the human population as "beta testers".

These are what I understand are the latest (2013) published concerns about glyphosate and cancer:

Title: Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors

"Abstract
Glyphosate is an active ingredient of the most widely used herbicide and it is believed to be less toxic than other pesticides. However, several recent studies showed its potential adverse health effects to humans as it may be an endocrine disruptor. This study focuses on the effects of pure glyphosate on estrogen receptors (ERs) mediated transcriptional activity and their expressions. Glyphosate exerted proliferative effects only in human hormone-dependent breast cancer, T47D cells, but not in hormone-independent breast cancer, MDA-MB231 cells, at 10−12 to 10−6 M in estrogen withdrawal condition. The proliferative concentrations of glyphosate that induced the activation of estrogen response element (ERE) transcription activity were 5-13 fold of control in T47D-KBluc cells and this activation was inhibited by an estrogen antagonist, ICI 182780, indicating that the estrogenic activity of glyphosate was mediated via ERs. Furthermore, glyphosate also altered both ERα and β expression. These results indicated that low and environmentally relevant concentrations of glyphosate possessed estrogenic activity. Glyphosate-based herbicides are widely used for soybean cultivation, and our results also found that there was an additive estrogenic effect between glyphosate and genistein, a phytoestrogen in soybeans. However, these additive effects of glyphosate contamination in soybeans need further animal study."

The quote is from:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691513003633

-------------------------------------------------
AND

"Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases"

"Abstract: Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup®, is the most popular herbicide used worldwide. The industry asserts it is minimally toxic to humans, but here we argue otherwise. Residues are found in the main foods of the Western diet, comprised primarily of sugar, corn, soy and wheat. Glyphosate's inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes is an overlooked component of its toxicity to mammals. CYP enzymes play crucial roles in biology, one of which is to detoxify xenobiotics. Thus, glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body. Here, we show how interference with CYP enzymes acts synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria, as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport. Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. We explain the documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease, and we show that glyphosate is the “textbook example” of exogenous semiotic entropy: the disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins."

Here is a link that might be useful: second quote link

"The question is if there is scientific research that points to "scary" results, is that the time to increase the allowable amount of glyphosate in crops?"

When the human body processes .02-.08ppm of glyphosate into animal muscle/fat tissue on the most detectable proportions...and you want to compare it to an in vitro study...and you point to and quote for your post an article that claims "100,000 times the concentration needed to cause cancer"...

...well...you get replies like the one I made.

Sorry to take some of the fear out of something. Maybe others can use the information.

If you'll excuse me I'm going to chill out and drink something that 90%+ bottles have residues from multiple fungicides + pesticides and also contains about 10% total volume of a Class 1 carcinogen called "ethanol"....some people call it "wine" and extoll it's health properties. Imagine that.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Wed, Jul 3, 13 at 1:19

This is what was stated bync-crn : "1mg of Vitamin C in vitro causes consistent severe chromosome mutations (breakage, deletions, additions)...and noted mutating effects are found at 1/4mg. "

H.Kuska comment. I requested a reference. He replied with a reference. Does that reference support what he stated? (The reason that I asked for a reference is that he gave data as weights instead of as concentrations.)

The following is the conclusion section of the reference that he gave: "Testing concentrations of Vitamin C induced different aberrations including the impairment of spindle function. The spindle disturbances can result in mitotic arrest, multipolar spindles and multipolar segregation, errors in chromosome segregation, formation of chromosome bridges and chromosome laggards. The most frequent irregularities were found in anaphase and telophase. The ascorbic acid was not clastogenic except at the highest concentration (1000 μg/ml) in
colchicine-treated cultures, and pulverization of chromosome was observed in colchicine-untreated cultures indicating that certain higher concentrations of ascorbic acid have clastogenic effects.
A certain number of lymphocytes were arrested at anaphase or telophase (in colchicine-untreated cultures of human lymphocytes) indicating that ascorbic acid may also have inhibited tumour cell growth and have potential anticarcinogenic activity."

H. Kuska comment: I cannot find anything in that paper to support his statement :

"1mg of Vitamin C in vitro causes consistent severe chromosome mutations (breakage, deletions, additions)...and noted mutating effects are found at 1/4mg."

H.Kuska comment. I presented a quote from the Conclusion section. Please also look at what is said in the Discussion section.

-edited and deleted-

I'm just deleting the explanations right out and leaving this.

No matter what I present you're going to nit-pick it to death or try to switch the focus of the message to something else.

I think you're probably more interested in nitpicking me using mg/ml conversion over μg/ml as stated (or not converting to ppm over μg/ml, though it's a braindead conversion that needs no math) or if you don't understand what you read. Heck, it could even be something else.

I give a "biology science'd-down" explanation of something...you don't like it...I give the source...you don't understand it.

I don't think you know what you just read...much less what words like "clastogenic" mean or what a "mitotic index value" is.

As it stands right now you would have me defending something that isn't even the point of your initial post or my counter-point...that using in vitro studies and drawing conclusions about a whole body organism using single-cell measurements and concentrations are not valid to say something, quote something, or stand by something such as "100,000 times the concentration needed to cause cancer." That is asinine and it's bad science interpretation based on a total lack of understanding of how in vitro cell science works....especially when you're no longer talking about a single cell/cell type and you're applying it to a whole organism.

This is before we get into the additional point I brought up about how less than 0.1% of glyphosate is even taken up into muscle/fat tissues...plus the additional nugget that it isn't persistent for very long so you would need extremely consistent exposure of crazy high amounts to even get close to danger levels you'd see in vitro (which is kinda points back to my counter-point,,,plus you'd run into other issues before the breast cancer became an issue ingesting this much).

We've been down this road before. I don't like this road trip.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Wed, Jul 3, 13 at 5:45

Though I don't understand the biological science being discussed here, what about Henry's question:

Why should the population be used as test subjects? Why not lower the allowable limits instead of raising them, and see what happens?

The in vitro paper was published in a reviewed scientific journal. This means that a group of scientists in the field acted as reviewers as to whether this was publishable science, and the editor (normally a highly respected scientist) approved its publication. The following appeared in the abstract:

"However, several recent studies showed its potential adverse health effects to humans as it may be an endocrine disruptor."

AND

" These results indicated that low and environmentally relevant concentrations of glyphosate possessed estrogenic activity."

This research is adding to prior knowledge concerning whether glyphosate "may be an endocrine disruptor". The EPA recognizes the possibility and has included glyphosate on its list of chemicals to be singled out and studied in more detail for endocrine disruptor properties.

http://www.epa.gov/endo/pubs/prioritysetting/final_listfacts.htm

--------------------------------------------------

pnbrown, thank you for your comment. Even if they do not lower it at this time, I find it unbelievable that they propose to raise it before the study is done.

Here is a link that might be useful: EPA endocrine disruptor investigation

My assumption is that they're raising it because more is necessary to fight the super weeds.

Thanks, both henry and nc -- like to be informed, and you balance each other. Think I'll try to stick to organic corn chips, though.

another case of science running amok, why i tell people who use that recycled hums from refuse collection the science sets teh bar and changes it at will to suit the chem' co's and councils.

we can't rust them on anything as they are there for their own glory and wealth and for those who use their services.

they have their own changeable parameters, to suit their modelling, they get it wrong with health, they get it wrong with what we use in our gardens, and they've got it wrong with this climate debacle.

grow your own where you can, seek local grown produce, organic is corrupted through greed and power.

len

elisa, that thought about the super weeds went through my mind also. However, this is supposed to be the Environmental Protection Agency.

"The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or sometimes USEPA) is an agency of the U.S. federal government which was created for the purpose of protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress.[2)."

-------------------------------------------------

Regarding my balancing nc or anyone else. When I feel scientific information presented is incorrect, I feel as a scientist, I have a responsibility to point that out. In this case if we accept that his mg should of been micrograms and that he somehow left off that it was per ml, the revised statement: " "1μg/ml of Vitamin C in vitro causes consistent severe chromosome mutations (breakage, deletions, additions)...and noted mutating effects are found at 1/4μg/ml. Most people take 500mg supplements. 1500mg is considered a high daily intake. "

The paper he cited stated: "Vitamin C was added to lymphocyte cultures after 48 hours of incubation at following final concentrations: 1, 10, 20, 100, 250, 500, and 1000 μg/ml culture medium.

Please notice that they did not use 1/4 μg/ml nor discuss such an occurance/result. If what he has stated did appear somewhere in a scientific paper, it appears that this is not the paper!

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above.

"Regarding my balancing nc or anyone else. When I feel scientific information presented is incorrect, I feel as a scientist, I have a responsibility to point that out."

As a scientist, myself, I'm a bit alarmed you won't accept a conversion of measurements.

You're not even a biologist (which I am), you're a chemist.

I chose to convert μg to mg because most people are far more familiar with mg.

I could have converted to ppm, too.

Also results were clearly pointed out in the paper...you don't seem to understand words like "clastogenic"...most likely because your field of science doesn't involve words like this...mine does.

Being a mechanic is neat...just because a mechanic can fix a Volvo engine doesn't make that mechanic qualified to fix Blackhawk helicopter engines.

...about the "super weeds"...

The reason the limit is being raised doesn't have much of anything to do with super weeds...dumping more RU on resistant weeds isn't going to do much of anything and a farmer isn't going to spend mega-loot upping how much RU they put on a field to destroy a small amount of weeds.

While super weeds are present on a high percentage of farm lands, the amount actually in the fields are rather low percentage...in almost every case not enough to run a piece of equipment through the field and just sending a manual labor worker to spot-kill the resistant weeds with 2,4-D or similar with a brush/mop application.

2,4-D GMOs are on the horizon giving farmers in problem areas a rotation option of herbicides to take care of the super weeds issue. The overuse of a single herbicide (RU) is what's caused a lot of this super weeds issue.

The main reason the limits are being up'd is a demand by oil seed farmers who are already reaching the high point of limits. Most oil seed is grown in cool/cold areas and initial harvests tend to be a bit high because of the physiological effect of RU dispersal/degradation in the plant and soil that isn't much of an issue in warmer climates.

Some people may not like the fact that farmer request is pushing this. Some people really don't like to blame farmers for some reason...even though they're the reason GMOs are being produced. If corporations could force GMO on people, we'd see GMO wheat everywhere. The technology is already in the bag...farmers don't want to touch it, though. The foreign markets are too important.

Oh yeah, I just remembered why I seldom visit the organic gardening site. Luke

Welcome to the organic gardening forum...home of many posts from the usual suspects that have absolutely nothing to do with organic gardening.

Need your soil improved? Fertilizer recommendations/rates? Seed suggestions for a given area? Debate/knowledge about integrated pest management using non-chemical means?

No? Oh well...

How about some scientific studies about products made by large scale feed-storage-corn/soy/sugar beet/canola commercial farmers?

Yes? Awesome.

NC, isn't the majority of the oil-seed crop produced in canada, and don't they have their own regs? So why don't they raise their limits, since the oil-seed lobby would presumably be much more powerful there?

Why should the limits for a substance which is in the midst of testing be raised for the entire US on account of a small industry segment? There must be more to the story...

Although most of the technical terminology was waaay above my head I was thoroughly entertained by this thread. I usually have to go over to 'hot topics' to find this quality of discussion.

Lloyd

The following was stated: "you don't seem to understand words like "clastogenic"..."
---------------------------------------------
H.Kuska comment. When discussing someone else's comment, I recommend that one put the part in question in quotes so that the other readers can quickly see what the comment is based on. In this case, apparently my use of clastogenic is being questioned. One can put the word clastogenic in your browers "find" command to see how I have used. There are 2 hits that originate in my posts. Both are in quotes from the published reviewed scientific research paper that he introduced as the basis for his statement that I questioned. The author's use of the word had to be approved by the reviewers and the editor.

What is happening here? I expect that, in this forum, specific scientific information (such as "1mg of Vitamin C in vitro causes consistent severe chromosome mutations (breakage, deletions, additions)...and noted mutating effects are found at 1/4mg" be based on facts. I pointed out that even if the statement is converted to "1μg/ml of Vitamin C in vitro causes consistent severe chromosome mutations (breakage, deletions, additions)...and noted mutating effects are found at 1/4μg/ml." it is NOT from the cited paper.

I gave in quotes the author's Conclusion Section. How can one have a problem with that? I also recommended that the readers look at the Discussion Section.

The final part of the Conclusion Section (which I had presented earlier) stated: "A certain number of lymphocytes were arrested at anaphase or telophase (in colchicine-untreated cultures of human lymphocytes) indicating that ascorbic acid may also have inhibited tumour cell growth and have potential anticarcinogenic activity."

H.Kuska comment. why did the author use the word "clastogenic" at one place and "anticarcinogenic" at another.
H.Kuska answer. Because "clastogenic" does NOT mean "will cause cancer". A clastogenic compound "may" cause cancer. It also "may not". This may be easiest to illustrate by looking at the following published, reviewed scientific research paper.

Title: "Comparison of the Mutagenic and Clastogenic Activity of Amsacrine and Other DNA-intercalating Drugs in Cultured V79 Chinese Hamster Cells"

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/44/10/4420.full.pdf+html

If one would also like to see definition of "clastogenic"

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/clastogenic

Please note that the link gives a number of sources and definitions.
------------------------------------------------

This post was edited by henry_kuska on Thu, Jul 4, 13 at 17:30

When a scientific paper challenges the safety of glyphosate, it is my experience that Monsanton replies with what used to be called a "white paper".

The link below takes you to Monsanto's reply.

Here is a link that might be useful: Rounding Up the Evidence on the Safety of Glyphosate

"NC, isn't the majority of the oil-seed crop produced in canada, and don't they have their own regs? So why don't they raise their limits, since the oil-seed lobby would presumably be much more powerful there?"

One thing that's a bit looked past with GMO...fair or not...wise or not...etc etc...is that much GMO is US corporate intellectual property...plus farming has HUGE power over US policy. Farming in the US is a $100 billion dollar business. We really do feed a lot of the world as much as we feed ourselves.

It is a lot easier to get things done on that front in the US.

Fwiw, glyphosate is barely a Monsanto product anymore outside of the home consumer point-and-spray market...a majority of it comes in generic forms from China. There's not much industry pressure for the limit raises...a lot is coming from farmers, though it's not like any GMO companies are going to stand in the way of it happening. They're just not lobbying it because the farmers are doing it on their own.

Also fwiw, Canada's limit is 20ppm.

The amount of people who don't care about US farm policy is rather concerning given how much money and power is included in every Farm Bill. It's a rather overlooked piece of legislation every time it comes up to vote...farmers and corporate interests (from seed suppliers to mass food purchasers) are pretty much the only people butting heads on what should be in it every time it gets a re-write. When people don't care about Farm Bill legislation, it's a bit easier to get "under the radar" things like residue limit changes raised. Go figure...

This post was edited by nc-crn on Thu, Jul 4, 13 at 17:08

"H.Kuska answer. Because "clastogenic" does mean "will cause cancer". A clastogenic compound "may" cause cancer. It also "may not"."

Actually, "clastogenic" for biologists (which I am one) means inducing breakage or disruptions of chromosomes...aka, breakage, deletion, and addition mutations.

Maybe we wouldn't have so much denial about the issue if you could make that connection based on what I was talking about and the meaning of the word rather than focusing on how it may cause cancer. Your lack of understanding of the subject is jumping to strange conclusions.

This is getting extremely silly. If you're going to Google a bunch of stuff, cut/paste it, and demand scientific accuracy from others...at least know how to read and use the information you're trying to use for the sake of your own scientific accuracy. If you don't understand a word, use the same Google search to find out what it means.

...and besides...this is just a distraction from the point I've been trying to make about the study you posted...that using in vitro studies and drawing conclusions about a whole body organism using single-cell measurements and concentrations are not valid to say something, quote something, or stand by something such as "100,000 times the concentration needed to cause cancer."

That is the point that's important to the discussion at hand...how the "100,000 times" alarmist message based on an in vitro study is utter scientific bull. The example I gave merely gives an example of how you can't scale like this based on an in vitro study of a single cell type. There is no "100,000 times" effect in play. That's not how you treat an in vitro study and concentrations used in direct cell experiments vs in the real world...and that's before you get to pathways for access vs directly injecting or saturating a substance straight into a cell.

If one is going to critique and use scientific literature, it helps to understand what you're reading and the "in house" language it's written in.

While you may be able to break down an explanation about how a number of chemical catalysts can break down a substance into a string of chemical compounds based upon your scientific background...and I probably wouldn't be able to...you're not very good at biological science. We are both scientists, but we're not jack of all trades. A mechanic that can fix a Volvo engine isn't automatically qualified to fix Blackhawk helicopter engines just because they're a mechanic.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Thu, Jul 4, 13 at 17:35

Wow, what a misprint. I am very sorry I meant "H.Kuska answer. Because "clastogenic" does NOT mean "will cause cancer".

I will revise it in the original post.

nc-crn said " If you don't understand a word, use the same Google search to find out what it means."

H.Kuska reply. Please read the whole post. I presented the scientifically accepted meaning and showed how the term is used in an actual scientific publication. Your additional so called "definition" is describing the effects of something being clastogenic.

Some of the definitions that I linked to refered to the meaning of clastogen. This link give the definition of clastogen.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/clastogenI

" An agent (e.g., certain chemicals, x-rays, ultraviolet light) that causes breaks in chromosomes."

---------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding your point about "stand by something such as "100,000 times the concentration needed to cause cancer.". You seem to not understand the meaning of the word "needed". Something can be needed but not sufficient. The in-vivo study shows that if the cell was exposed to that concentration cancer could/would? ocur. (I put in the question mark because I have not obtained access to the full paper.) Your point is that in the human body we do not yet know if that concentration would be reached for the reasons you stated:
".In vitro studies on single cell types or clusters are very important indicators, especially as reaction sites (this is also true in plants and all biological systems), but they are not end-points in very many cases because of how the organism on whole uses, allocates, and deals with inputs. You can start an area of research with in vitro studies, but you can draw very few end-point conclusions. "

Do you now understand that you are misinterpreting what was reported? The reporter (and also the authors) did not attempt to draw an end-point conclusion. Regarding the authors, in the actual abstract the following was stated: "However, these additive effects of glyphosate contamination in soybeans need further animal study."

I assume that there was discussion in the actual paper on the limitation of in-vivo studies.

To repeat; in-vivo studies have shown what concentration is NEEDED. It does not claim (at least from what I can read in the abstract) that that concentration WILL occur in the human body, and the reporter also did not make that claim.

The Monsanto reply gave what their scientists had to say about the science of the paper,

Mind = blown...comically.

...and walking away.

So the current limit is the same in Canada and the US, and yet only in the US where oil seeds make up a much smaller part of the ag economy is there pressure to raise the limits?

That makes me think that it is not only oil-seed crop growers that want to use more glyphosate.

New research, still in press, but it has completed scientific review.

Title:
"Roundup Disrupted Male Reproductive Functions By Triggering Calcium-Mediated Cell Death In Rat Testis And Sertoli Cells"

From the final part of the abstract: "Glyphosate has been described as an endocrine disruptor affecting the male reproductive system; however, the molecular basis of its toxicity remains to be clarified. We could propose that Roundup® toxicity, implicating in Ca2+ overload, cell signaling misregulation, stress response of the endoplasmic reticulum and/or depleted antioxidant defenses could contribute to Sertoli cell disruption of spermatogenesis that could impact male fertility."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note I earlier (Wed, Jul 3, 13 at 12:03)
pointed that glyphosate was on the EPA list of chemicals singled out for special review and studied in more detail for endocrine disruptor properties.

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above

The Washington Times communities section has carried the story. Please notice the following:
"This is the Communities section at WashingtonTimes.com. Individual contributors are responsible for their content, which is not edited by The Washington Times. The opinions of Communities writers do not necessarily reflect the views of, nor are they endorsed by, The Washington Times. Contact Us with questions or comments"

See link below.

Here is a link that might be useful: Washington Times Communities article

This post was edited by henry_kuska on Fri, Jul 5, 13 at 23:34

There's a link to an Infowars story link as a reference in that WT Communities article...lulz and facepalm.

Also, that GMO that China destroyed (which is talked about in that Infowars link) was because it was imported illegally by it's buyer. China buys tons of GMO...especially soy...of course it didn't stop Infowars (the linked article) from praising China for standing up to it's food policy rather than actually doing a little research or knowing anything about China's food policy.

There's also this gem directly from the WT Communities article...

"Finally, who other than Monsanto will benefit from this raise in tolerance levels in the long run?"

Oh, gee, I dunno, maybe the fact that the amount of farmers who buy cheaper/generic glyphosate rather than Monsanto-made RoundUp...which is a HUGE amount of commercial farmers in the United States should enter into handicapping that thought process?

RoundUp is for people who shop at Home Depot. Chinese glyphosate is for farmers that want to dump barrels of the stuff on their lands.

Some people just cannot accept that farmers have their own lobbys (extremely powerful ones on both local and national levels) for some reason. They just have to be these stupid, naive, salt-of-the-earth grizzled old men who just want God to make their crop come in on time.

There's also this total...TOTAL...b/s stated...

"The rise in tolerance levels for glyphosate residue came as a result of a petition prepared by Monsanto in early 2012."

It was prepared by Rutgers University and farm lobbyists in the area.

It is absolutely crazy how much bad activism is around in the area of "food/consumer protection" these days. Real leaders need to emerge and lead the followers hungry to make real change happen. There's people out there simply making crap up, assuming things, and feeding it to people...calling themselves activists. Go figure...

The following was stated: "There's also this total...TOTAL...b/s stated...

"The rise in tolerance levels for glyphosate residue came as a result of a petition prepared by Monsanto in early 2012."

It was prepared by Rutgers University and farm lobbyists in the area."
----------------------------------------------
H.Kuska comment. The above statement is not documented. The original Washington Post Communities article was documented. Unfortunately, when I try to go to the link provided, I get a sort of governnent "please hold, I'am busy" response (Loading). The address of the busy site is:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132

Since I could not see what was on that site, I searched Google.

This site appears to have a summary (see link below):
The summary includes:
1) "EPA announced the filing of a pesticide petition by IR-4, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540."

H.Kuska comment: this appears to support nc-crn's statement.

BUT farther down in the document, the following appears:

2) "That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Monsanto, the registrant, which is available in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov/. "

H,Kuska question. What does "the registrant" mean?

----------------------------------------------------

What is the server for the government documents site - a Comodore Pet?

------------------------------------------

It may be interesting to follow the comments section of the WT Communities article.

Here is a link that might be useful: summary that includes the Monsanto, the registrant quote

This web page appears to cover everything about the history of the proposal.

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above