yeah, it's kind of sad. Due to diet issues, I don't eat any grain, wheat, corn or oats. Occasional rice. So hopefully I'm avoiding most of the pesticide filled GMO food.

Our pigeons are coming home to roost methinks. It may take years for this kind of poisoning to manifest itself as some form of disease, but it certainly seems that cancer is affecting more young people than ever before, and there has been quite an increase in lupus, fibromyalgia and other degenerative diseases. I would expect agribusiness to fight these findings to the bitter end, no matter how much of the population is adversely affected. We're just so good at screwing up the ecosystem on a vast scale for the sake of profit and greed.

Folks, don't panic yet. Go read the original article which, by the way, isn't original research but a "review", by a computer scientist and an "independent scientist" (http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416, all 48 pages of it, talk about a "snow job"). Or, (to spare you my verbosity and for a simpler debunking), this is such a crock, even the Huffington Post could see it's a bunch of malarkey (see link below).

Believe me, there are way bigger, real problems out there.

Debbie

Here is a link that might be useful: Huffington on Roundup article

It's getting harder all the time to protect ourselves.

It's getting harder to protect ourselves from bad science, bs, bribes, lobbyists, cons, axes to grind...One has to take the media with spoonfuls of salt and then research the researchers. Or, use common sense and stay paranoid.

indeed catsrose, indeed. It is so frustrating to read these things being described as science. I was reading about the salmon the other day. Why would salmon with eel dna be dangerous to eat, I ask you lol.

catsrose, thanks for that article, it does point out a lot of issues with the report. There is a real problem with reporting of scientific studies (or not so scientific studies). I've recently gone through a crisis with digestive issues, so have started reading a lot of stuff. I've changed my diet a lot to a mostly Paleo type diet. Of course the 'conventional wisdom' is that meat and fat are bad and low fat and grains are good. Well I can't eat grains and a lot of vegetables. Is is because of pesticides or GMO or who knows. But every day there is an article about meat that the people I trust tear apart. But the mainstream media just keeps printing this crap.

I do spray. I've used Round Up and I use fungicide on my roses. I am really trying to limit how much I do spray. Both for my health and the environment. I am not against GMO foods, I think there are a lot of good that can be done with them. However, I don't like the idea of corn with pesticides already in them and then ingesting them. So I just don't eat any of that stuff which I can't digest anyway.

Catsrose, I agree with you. I've seen articles about how contaminated many city drinking water supplies are. While my city and others as well send yearly reports detailing water tests, what they do not tell you is that there are many things such as pharmaceuticals that are not tested for.

What are Tamar Haspel's credentials to evaluate a published reviewed scientific paper? The normal procedure for scientists if they disagree with a published scientific paper is to submit their comments to the same journal where the original was published. The comments are then sent to reviewers normally including the authors of the paper being discussed. If the reviewers and the editor feel that the comments have merit, the reviewed comments and the authors rebuttal (if any) are then published back to back.

When you read comments from other sources, I suggest that you keep the following in mind.

The following may be of interest (which I signed):
") Conclusion: When those with a vested interest attempt to sow unreasonable doubt around inconvenient results, or when governments exploit political opportunities by picking and choosing from scientific evidence, they jeopardize public confidence in scientific methods and institutions, and also put their own citizenry at risk. Safety testing, science-based regulation, and the scientific process itself, depend crucially on widespread trust in a body of scientists devoted to the public interest and professional integrity. If instead, the starting point of a scientific product assessment is an approval process rigged in favour of the applicant, backed up by systematic suppression of independent scientists working in the public interest, then there can never be an honest, rational or scientific debate."

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

Henry,
Exactly. If I were to hazard a guess, I would think that there are those on the payroll of some companies for this very purpose, to discredit inconvenient ideas.
There are companies now whose very existence is to advise other companies how to handle adverse events and information.
I took a law CEU course detailing this idea. In that course, the advice seemed to tend toward honesty, transparency, immediate address by the company of the concerns voiced by the public.
But I realize that some companies intent on PR and putting their spin on what is out there will sometimes take a more unethical path and simply hire mud throwers without addressing issues.

Henry,

You make an important point: don't take just anybody's word for it, especially when journalists are involved (few are scientists). So a cardinal rule is to always find the original paper, read it, and see if the reviewer's comments seem valid. That is what I (credentials: professional plant ecologist with master's degree) did (here's the original paper: http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416).

First off, the legitimacy of the journal, "Entropy", itself is somewhat questionable, since they are a pay-to-publish outfit. Second, the paper itself seems to be very thinly (to say the least) supported stream-of-consciousness correlation that runs for 30 pages (the other 18 pages being bibliography, for what that's worth). Scientists have a rather coarse saying for this that runs something like: "If you can't blind them with brilliance, bewilder them with BS." I thought Haspel pretty much summed it up in laymen's terms, so I linked that.

I suspect there are issues with Roundup use that have not been addressed by Monsanto and should be, but publishing stuff like this is worse than useless.

Debbie

This post was edited by catspa on Sun, Apr 28, 13 at 12:23

Multiple studies have shown that GMO crops do not produce a higher crop yield than traditional hybridization techniques. So, basically we are taking the risk for no real gain.

Personally I do not trust the company that brought us PCB'S, Lasso (Agent Orange), DDT, Cycle Safe. All of which they insisted were safe. All of which were disastrous to animal and human health and have now been banned.

I do agree that this type of 'science' is damaging to the credibility of actual peer reviewed articles.

Good or bad reporting aside, maybe the bigger importance of awareness of the possibilities of dangers in chemicals is to get people back to planting small gardens in their own soil rather than adding more lawn space.

The following was stated: "First off, the legitimacy of the journal, "Entropy", itself is somewhat questionable, since they are a pay-to-publish outfit."

H. Kuska comments:
Open access is the "new" journal publishing model that is being considered/has been adopted by an increasing number of publishing houses including scientific societies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2286552/
-------------------------------------

"Methods of financing gold open access publishing In scholarly publishing, there are many business models for OA journals.[21] Some charge publication fees (paid by authors or by their funding agencies or employers). Some of the no-fee journals have institutional subsidies. For more detail, see open access journals.

Roughly half[22] the Gold OA journals have author fees to cover the cost of publishing (e.g. PLoS fees vary from $1,350 to $2,900[23]) instead of reader subscription fees. Advertising revenue and/or funding from foundations and institutions are also used to provide funding."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access
--------------------------------------------------
For a specific example see the Royal Society ( UK's national academy of science) link:
http://royalsocietypublishing.org/site/authors/open_access.xhtml
---------------------------------------------------------

In my professional lifetime experience non open access journals in chemistry and physics charged authors/institutions to publish their paper (it was possible in some cases to get the charges waved).
http://sharmanedit.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/author-charges/
-------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning the specific journal. I suggest looking at the editors. For the list of editors of the journal Entropy, see:

http://www.mdpi.com/journal/entropy/editors
-------------------------------------

If you are not familar with the journal:

http://www.mdpi.com/journal/entropy/about
-------------------------------------------------

This post was edited by henry_kuska on Sun, Apr 28, 13 at 16:11

The essence of the article for me is not the speculation on diseases that may or may not be caused by Round Up, but the idea that while you may think you are avoiding Round Up in your body by never using it in your garden, in reality you are probably eating the stuff every single day, whether you like it or not.

Evidence or non-evidence of bad effects aside, the HuffPo bit doesn't deny (nor apparently does Monsanto) that if we eat wheat, corn, soy, sugar from sugar beets, or a few other things, our bodies receive doses of Round Up (or if I missed it, point me to the part that says so).

Absolutely hoovb, That's why I don't eat any of that stuff!!! It's probably safer for me to use RU in my own yard (since I don't eat weeds!) than to eat any processed food.

And now they want to put aspartame in milk products, which is bad enough, but they don't want to have to PUT IT ON THE LABEL. This is horrendous. I don't want to ingest that stuff. I will be buying organic milk products only. I wish I could get raw milk.

The following was stated:
"Second, the paper itself seems to be very thinly (to say the least) supported stream-of-consciousness correlation that runs for 30 pages (the other 18 pages being bibliography, for what that's worth). Scientists have a rather coarse saying for this that runs something like: "If you can't blind them with brilliance, bewilder them with BS." I thought Haspel pretty much summed it up in laymen's terms, so I linked that.

I suspect there are issues with Roundup use that have not been addressed by Monsanto and should be, but publishing stuff like this is worse than useless."

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

H.Kuska comment:

First, I am not surprised that a review would contain a lot of references.

Second, then you state: "very thinly (to say the least) supported".
H.Kuska comment:
It appears (to me) that you are saying that you looked at the references and they do not sufficiently support what they are cited for? If that is what you mean, please give specific examples. If that is not what you mean please state in more detail what you do mean.
-------------------------------------------------------
I would appreciated it if you would start with the section concerning glyphosate and Parkinson's Disease..

It appears that references 208, 215-218, 239, and 240 are used by the authors in reference to their glyphosate and Parkinson discussion.

For background, The following is a thread in this forum on that subject:

http://forums2.gardenweb.com/forums/load/roses/msg0300394823674.html )

Please particularly look at the two 2012 references that I gave:

A 2012 Parkinson's disease - glyphosate paper:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0892036212000438
---------------------------------------------
Another 2012 Parkinson's disease - glyphosate scientific paper:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k04267614g27062l/
--------------------------------------------

Henry,

More telling than the boatload of references with which the authors, individually and in isolation, purport to support a bundle of speculative links between glyphosphate and a veritable daisy chain of a vast array of disparate human ills, are critical linking arguments they make which have no references at all. Look at the final paragraph on page 1431 continuing onto 1432:

"Glyphosate from food sources or as a contaminant in water would be likely to reach the liver in high concentrations through direct transport from the digestive system via the hepatic portal vein. It could be anticipated that glyphosate would disrupt many of the diverse CYP enzymes that are bioactive in the liver, involved in cholesterol synthesis and metabolism, vitamin D3 synthesis and metabolism, the detoxification of xenobiotics, and regulation of retinoic acid.

Glyphosate would also be expected to travel throughout the blood stream, disrupting any CYPenzymes it comes in contact with. Of particular concern are the two that regulate blood clotting (thromboxane A2 synthase: CYP5A1) and hemorrhaging (prostacyclin synthase: CYP8A1). CYP5A1 stimulates platelet aggregation, whereas CYP8A1 inhibits platelet aggregation. The elderly often face instabilities in hemorrhaging and clotting leading to Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (DIC) and life-threatening destabilization of the blood [175], which could be due to impaired function of these two enzymes."

The authors need to get glyphosphate into the blood stream because they never establish how glyphosphate gets from the mouth to the intestines, a critical component in their argument that glyphosphate disrupts the shikimate pathway of gut bacteria that somehow leads to a vast, disparate array of human ills (p. 1417). Their only reference (175) is that DIC is often a threat to the elderly. I'll concede that. Otherwise, without supporting references, they contend that glyphosphates make it to the liver, attack CYP liver enzymes, and also enter the bloodstream and attack enzymes there. Sort of like Jeffries Tubes in Star Trek, don't you think?

Until they establish a plausible mechanism for glyphosphate to enter these systems, everything else they blather on about is extraneous (with lots and lots of references -- I'm not impressed).

The same problem with Parkinson's. They need to substantiate that glyphosphate really does deplete phenylalanine and tyrosine in plants, and thus dopamine in humans -- note their phrase "it would be expected", with no reference-- or all else is irrelevant.

Your two links reference studies with rat PC12 cells in vitro and effects on C. elegans (an invertebrate). While potentially hinting at pieces of the puzzle, until a plausible mechanism of action with supporting evidence for mammals in vivo is delineated, it's all disparate speculation.

I am actually very worried about the effects of biologically active synthetic molecules that humans have so blithely created and turned loose in the environment. DDT is a classic example whose actual mechanism of effect on raptors was not figured out until decades after its effect on raptors was obvious. It took many experiments, with many wrong turns, to figure out what was actually going on there. The tendentious and dishonest arguments of the authors of this paper remind me a lot of the dishonest arguments of the pro-DDT people ("lying with citations", as I call it when dismembering one of their screeds for my classes).

There are a lot of candidates out there. Glyphosphate could be one of them, maybe. However, this argument is less than convincing.

Debbie (who just got back from fighting Himalayan blackberries all day at my Mom's -- pls. excuse typos)

The following was stated: "they never establish how glyphosphate gets from the mouth to the intestines,"
H.Kuska comment: Is there any question?

"Gyphosate is a commonly used nonselective herbicide that inhibits plant growth through interference with the production of essential aromatic amino acids. In vivo studies in mammals with radiolabeled glyphosate have shown that 34% of radioactivity was associated with intestinal tissue 2 h after oral administration. The aim of our research was to investigate the transport, binding, and toxicity of glyphosate to the cultured human intestinal epithelial cell line, Caco-2, and the rat small intestinal crypt-derived cell line, ileum epithelial cells-18 (IEC-18). An in vitro analysis of the transport kinetics of [14C]-glyphosate showed that 4 h after exposure, approximately 8% of radiolabeled glyphosate moved through the Caco-2 monolayer in a dose-dependent manner. Binding of glyphosate to cells was saturable and approximately 4 × 1011 binding sites/cell were estimated from bound [14C]. Exposure of Caco-2 cells to ≥10 mg/ml glyphosate reduced transmembrane electrical resistance (TEER) by 82 to 96% and increased permeability to [3H]-mannitol, indicating that paracellular permeability increased in glyphosate-treated cells. At 10-mg/ml glyphosate, both IEC-18 and Caco-2 cells showed disruption in the actin cytoskeleton. In Caco-2 cells, significant lactate dehydrogenase leakage was observed when cells were exposed to 15 mg/ml of glyphosate. These data indicate that at doses >10 mg/ml, glyphosate significantly disrupts the barrier properties of cultured intestinal cells."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1897/04-088R.1/abstract
-------------------------------------------------

http://journals.lww.com/amjforensicmedicine/Abstract/2012/09000/Pathol ogical_and_Toxicological_Findings_in.11.aspx#Home

http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/yajem/article/S0735 -6757(10)00577-2/abstract

Here is a link that might be useful: first link 2005 abstract

This post was edited by henry_kuska on Sun, Apr 28, 13 at 23:15

The following was stated: "Otherwise, without supporting references, they contend that glyphosphates make it to the liver, attack CYP liver enzymes,......"

H.Kuska comment: yes, they do not reference everything. If someone questions something the scientific literature is available through the computer.
"Results
All the four Roundup formulations provoke liver cell death, with adjuvants having stronger effects than glyphosate alone. Hep3B are 3-5 times more sensitive over 48 h. Caspases 3/7 are greatly activated in HepG2 by Roundup at non-cytotoxic levels, and some apoptosis induction by Roundup is possible together with necrosis. CYP3A4 is specifically enhanced by Roundup at doses 400 times less than used in agriculture (2%). CYP1A2 is increased to a lesser extent together with glutathione-S-transferase (GST) down-regulation. Dig 1, non cytotoxic and not inducing caspases by itself, is able to prevent Roundup-induced cell death in a time-dependant manner with an important efficiency of up to 89%, within 48 h. In addition, we evidenced that it prevents Caspases 3/7 activation and CYP3A4 enhancement, and not GST reduction, but in turn it slightly inhibited CYP2C9 when added before Roundup."

Here is a link that might be useful: link to 2010 abstract

Henry,

These are both in vitro experiments on "cell lines", still. And, if so definitive and recent, why not cite it??? (Vasiluk 2009, I mean -- they do cite Gasnier 2010)

In the Vasiluk experiment you mention, what part of the molecule was radioactively labelled and was it bioactive? Why did only 34% of the radioactivity appear in the intestine? Was it because the molecule was broken up? If so, how does that relate to the actions of glyphosphate, the whole molecule, on the cultured cells? Might the parts showing up in the intestine not be bioactive? (I don't have access to the whole article: illuminate me).

Where I come from (ecology), we don't expect readers to fill in their own references.

As hoovb says, there's little doubt we are ingesting the stuff, but to what effect? That's the chain of evidence that is needed -- the effect of ingesting the stuff, not applying it exogenously to cultured cells.

Debbie

This post was edited by catspa on Mon, Apr 29, 13 at 0:06

Just to add my two cents whatever that's worth. Due to limits in animal testing, most initial testing is done on cell lines before any animal testing is done. By going this route we have a petty good idea what kind of perimeter to set for such animal testing. And I have to agree that 34% is low amount, like Debbie I wonder if the molecule isn't being broken up. After all we are talking the digestive tract here.
I have to admit that it would have been more helpful to read the entire study.

The following was stated: "Where I come from (ecology), we don't expect readers to fill in their own references. "

H.Kuska comment.

It is my experience as a prior member of the board of editors of a review journal that reviews are written for scientists in the field.
For example Chemical Reviews includes in the instructions to authors the following:

"The presentation should not be elementary; it should be addressed to readers who are competent in fundamentals but need not have extensive knowledge of the topic. All articles must be comprehensive in the treatment of their subject matter within the scope defined in the introductory paragraph."

The editor and the reviewers of the review make the decision as to how deep to go in references.
------------------------------------------------
Perhaps comments on the actual review by scientists in the field will help put the review in perspective:

"Other scientists say the latest research could help frame new studies. "It is a very broad, comprehensive, thoroughly researched paper, and is an important paper in many respects because it suggests many testable hypotheses," says Warren Porter, PhD, professor of environmental toxicology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. "It is also consistent with some new state-of-the-art work we have been doing on domestic animals."

While the latest review study is valid, it also makes big leaps in terms of connecting the dots, according to some researchers who say the new ideas presented in the analysis will need to be tested in future studies. "As a thought piece to stimulate thinking, it serves a useful function, but should not be used as 'proof' of problem," explains Charles Benbrook, research professor at Washington State University's Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources."

http://www.rodale.com/glyphosate-research
------------------------------------------------
H.Kuska comment. The above statements are consistent with what I feel comprises a good review.

Unfortunately there are enough baddies in our diet without RU being in there. High Fructose Corn Syrup, Vegetable Oils, Hydrogenated Oils, Aspartamane, Guar Gum, Hormones, antibiotics, gluten. These are all in our diet now, legally and can do a lot of damage. Again, while I don't think RU in the diet is a good thing, certainly, we need to clean up our own acts personally as far as diet is concerned.

Well, Henry, the two review comments you like are appropriately cautious and cagey (surprising, considering they are included in a Rodale article...). I can certainly agree that the study "makes big leaps in terms of connecting the dots" and "suggests many testable hypotheses" (there's an understatement!).

Seriously, thought pieces and wide-ranging reviews laced with speculation, even ones as deliriously free-associating as this one sometimes seems, play an important role in science by suggesting research pathways. They should not, however, be mistaken as evidence, something that unfortunately happens all too often in the lay press.

Back to the glyphosphate/gut issue, I am still wondering if that 34% of radioactivity that was detected was connected with intact glyphosphate molecules or breakdown products and, if so, what those products were? Biologically active or not? In the second URL you provide in that post, yes, you can certainly do yourself in by drinking a couple of cups of concentrated Roundup. But were the effects noted due to glyphosphate or the polyoxyethylene amine surfactant or both and which effects due to which compound or secondary effects (e.g., hypoxia)? The case study is interesting but not exactly useful for parsing out what chronic effects of minute doses would be or if or what product of Roundup does make it to the intestine in the case of minute doses. Your third URL address in that post does not work.

I am not an environmental toxicologist or chemist and thus can only evaluate the arguments made in this study based on how strongly they seem to be supported, not on any great fund of technical knowledge in that field. I find it hard to believe, however, that the more startling, but unreferenced, assertions made by the authors are such fundamental knowledge that, as you imply above, the editors and reviewers decided citations weren't necessary. Really?

All in all, though, I heartily agree that more research is needed and I would not be surprised if, down the road, effects of some sort are found. However, just as microcosms, while useful for preliminary exploration of and tinkering with principles of ecology, are not ecosystems, in vitro is not in vivo.

Debbie

This post was edited by catspa on Mon, Apr 29, 13 at 13:11

On a positive note - We switched to Burn Out which is organic and works great.

I'd like to point out that 'organic' is meaningless in terms of effectiveness and safety.
A particular product may indeed be both organic and safe, the same can be said of a chemical. But a critical eye is needed to judge effect and safety, and adjective such as 'organic' or 'chemical' does not make it so.

The following was stated: "In the Vasiluk experiment you mention, what part of the molecule was radioactively labelled and was it bioactive? Why did only 34% of the radioactivity appear in the intestine? Was it because the molecule was broken up? If so, how does that relate to the actions of glyphosphate, the whole molecule, on the cultured cells? Might the parts showing up in the intestine not be bioactive? (I don't have access to the whole article: illuminate me). "

H.Kuska comment:
"Technical-grade glyphosate has been evaluated in several subacute toxicity studies in mice and rats. In one study, after oral administration in rats, radioactive glyphosate was absorbed incompletely from the gastrointestinal tract and excreted in the urine. The absorption in rats was reported to be 30 to 36% after single oral administration [6]. The majority of the radioactivity was associated with the tissues of the small intestine 2 h after administration; greater than 34% of the dose was bound to the small intestine. This value declined by 50% after a further 4.3 h [6]. These results were supported by a report from the National Toxicology Program [7], which showed that 30% of administered glyphosate was absorbed and 55% of the dose was eliminated in the feces after 24 h. Tissue distribution data indicated that most of the radioactivity was found in the gastrointestinal tract for up to 24 h."
------------------------------------------------
Reference 6) Brewster DW, Warren J, Hopkins WE. 1991. Metabolism of glyphosate in Sprague-Dawley rats: Tissue distribution, identification, and quantitation of glyphosate-derived materials following a single oral dose. Fundam Appl Toxicol 17: 43��"51.
Reference 7) National Toxicology Program. 1992. Toxicity studies of glyphosate (CAS 1071��"83��"6) administered in doses fed to F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NIH Publication 92��"3135. Technical Report. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Research Triangle Park, NC.

The following was stated: "And I have to agree that 34% is low amount, like Debbie I wonder if the molecule isn't being broken up. After all we are talking the digestive tract here.
I have to admit that it would have been more helpful to read the entire study. "

H.Kuska comment. The 34 % number came from an earlier study.

"Abstract
Five groups of male Sprague-Dawley rats were orally administered a mixture of [14C]- and [12C]-glyphosate (N-phosphonomethylglycine) at a dose level of 10 mg/kg body weight. The majority of radioactivity 2 hr after administration was associated with the gastrointestinal contents and small intestinal tissue. Approximately 35��"40% of the administered dose was absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, and urine and feces were equally important routes of elimination. The total body burden 7 days after administration was approximately 1% of the administered dose and was primarily associated with the bone. Total recovery for this study ranged from 95 to 102% of the administered dose. Metabolic profiles of tissues containing greater than 1% of the administered dose at various times after administration indicated that nearly 100% of the body burden of radioactivity was present as unmetabolized parent glyphosate. A minor component constituting
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027205909190237X

Here is a link that might be useful: link to earlier study

The following was stated: "The authors need to get glyphosphate into the blood stream"......... "Otherwise, without supporting references, they contend that glyphosphates make it to the liver, attack CYP liver enzymes, and also enter the bloodstream and attack enzymes there."

H.Kuska comment. The above appears to be indicating that the authors did not give a reference for glyphosate entering the bloodstream. ?????

When the authors cite the very first reference in their review, they state: "In humans, only small amounts (~2%) of ingested glyphosate are metabolized to aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), and the rest enters the blood stream and is eventually eliminated through the urine [1]."

April 2013 reviewed scientific article.

"Abstract
During the last 10��"15 years, an increase of Clostridium botulinum associated diseases in cattle has been observed in Germany. The reason for this development is currently unknown. The normal intestinal microflora is a critical factor in preventing intestinal colonisation by C. botulinum as shown in the mouse model of infant botulism. Numerous bacteria in the gastro-intestinal tract (GIT) produce bacteriocines directed against C. botulinum and other pathogens: Lactic acid producing bacteria (LAB) such as lactobacilli, lactococci and enterococci, generate bacteriocines that are effective against Clostridium spp. A reduction of LAB in the GIT microbiota by ingestion of strong biocides like glyphosate could be an explanation for the observed increase in levels of C. botulinum associated diseases. In the present paper, we report on the toxicity of glyphosate to the most prevalent Enterococcus spp. in the GIT. Ingestion of this herbicide could be a significant predisposing factor that is associated with the increase in C. botulinum mediated diseases in cattle."

---------------------------------------------------
"Evidence of disruption of gut bacteria by glyphosate is available for both cattle and poultry. It has recently been proposed that glyphosate may be a significant factor in the observed increased risk to Clostridium botulinum infection in cattle in Germany over the past ten to fifteen years [35].
Glyphosate's demonstrated toxicity to Enterococcus spp. leads to an imbalance in the gut favoring overgrowth of the toxic Clostridium species. Glyphosate has been shown to have remarkable adverse effects on the gut biota in poultry [36], by reducing the number of beneficial bacteria and increasing the number of pathogenic bacteria in the gut. Highly pathogenic strains of Salmonella and Clostridium
were found to be highly resistant to glyphosate, whereas beneficial bacteria such as Enterococcus, Bacillus and Lactobacillus were found to be especially susceptible. Due to the antagonistic effect of the common beneficial bacterium Enterococcus spp. on Clostridia, toxicity of glyphosate to E. spp could lead to overgrowth of Clostridia and resulting pathologies."

The above was copied from the review being discussed.

--------------------------------------------
H.Kuska comment. Yogurt anyone?

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

Thank you, Henry, for answering my questions, providing background, and pointing out info I missed -- I really appreciate it!

A reason for the wariness I harbor about the review paper being discussed is exemplified in the passage you copy from it in your last post. Samsel and Seneff say "Glyphosate has been shown to have remarkable adverse effects on the gut biota in poultry [36], by reducing the number of beneficial bacteria and increasing the number of pathogenic bacteria in the gut." Yes, pathogenic bacteria were shown to be resistant to glyphosphate and beneficial antagonist bacteria shown to be significantly harmed by glyphosphate. However, this was not a study of what actually happened in bird guts: the experiment was done in vitro and the bacteria tested individually. Nevertheless, the review authors, by using the phrase "in the gut" at the end of their sentence, imply that this was an observed effect under realistic, interactive conditions in the guts of live birds in that study. No such thing happened.

Same thing with the clostridium study. The review authors say, "Evidence of disruption of gut bacteria by glyphosate is available for both cattle and poultry. It has recently been proposed that glyphosate may be a significant factor in the observed increased risk to Clostridium botulinum infection in cattle in Germany over the past ten to fifteen years [35]." That's a fair paraphrase, I think ( this study was also in vitro/in isolation). But then the authors plow ahead and say, "Glyphosate's demonstrated toxicity to Enterococcus spp. leads to an imbalance in the gut favoring overgrowth of the toxic Clostridium species." Who demonstrated that this actually happens in the gut? Not the study they just cited.

There are a number of other instances of these "jumping the gun" kind of statements throughout the paper.

Am I being unreasonable on this point? Overly picky? To me, assuming in vitro results are the same as in vivo looks like overextension, as if I were to observe a pine tree planted in a pot and then claim I understand forest dynamics.

Are in vivo studies actually within the current realm of possibility for these issues, e.g. glyphosphate effect on intestinal bacterial populations, I wonder?

Debbie

I presented the abstracts. To check on the accuracy of the statements in the review I feel that they should be compared against the full paper as without the full paper there is the danger that a given quote is misinterpreted because it is not placed in the context of the whole.

Yes, it is possible that in any review that the condensation of the full paper into a paragraph leads to misleading statements. Fortunately giving the actual reference allows the other scientists to determine the actual findings presented in that reference.

Back to putting quoted statements in the full context of the paper.

The introduction Section is valuable to the reader so that one has an idea of what the review intends to accomplish. In this case I feel that it is too long to reproduce here.

The Conclusion Section of the review is very valuable for sumarizing the full context.
The review's Conclusion section is given below:

"14. Conclusion
This paper presents an exhaustive review of the toxic effects of the herbicide, glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup®, in humans, and demonstrates how glyphosate’s adverse effects on the gut microbiota, in conjunction with its established ability to inhibit the activity of cytochrome P450
enzymes, and its likely impairment of sulfate transport, can remarkably explain a great number of the diseases and conditions that are prevalent in the modern industrialized world. Its effects are insidious, because the long-term effects are often not immediately apparent. The pathologies to which glyphosate could plausibly contribute, through its known biosemiotic effects, include inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, depression, ADHD, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, ALS, multiple sclerosis,
cancer, cachexia, infertility, and developmental malformations. Glyphosate works synergistically with
other factors, such as insufficient sun exposure, dietary deficiencies in critical nutrients such as sulfur and zinc, and synergistic exposure to other xenobiotics whose detoxification is impaired by glyphosate. Given the known toxic effects of glyphosate reviewed here and the plausibility that they are negatively impacting health worldwide, it is imperative for more independent research to take place to validate the ideas presented here, and to take immediate action, if they are verified, to drastically curtail the use of glyphosate in agriculture. Glyphosate is likely to be pervasive in our food supply, and, contrary to
being essentially nontoxic, it may in fact be the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment."

Please notice that "remarkably explain" is not the same as "prove". (See the earlier discussion of the purpose of a Review.)
"likely impairment"
"glyphosate could plausibly contribute"
"it is imperative for more independent research to take place to validate the ideas presented here,"

I will repeat the last one (I would like to put it in caps, but that is not considered polite):

"it is imperative for more independent research to take place to validate the ideas presented here,"