The following was stated: "Glyphosate breakdown via heat produces mostly aminomethylphosphonic acid, carbon monoxide/dioxide, amino acids, and water/vapor...similar to microbe breakdown, but a lot faster. ." H.Kuska comment. I am aware of the microbe breakdown products, but I am not aware of any references that state that the thermal breakdown is similar. The melting point of glyphosate is nearly 230 degrees C. That would be nearly 446 degrees F. This is the main thermal paper that I have been able to find so far. Unfortunately it does not identify the glyphosate decomposition products. Howver, it appears to me that very little glyphosate would actually decompose in normal hosehold use. The first observed decomposition product is: "By analyzing the infrared spectrum of the sample which is processed by rising temperature to 260 C at the heating rate of 6 C min-1, the most possible group loss in this stage may be methylene. Moreover, the mass loss in the first stage by TGA is in accordance with the mass loss of a group of methylene in the molecular of glyphosate." Then. "With the temperature increased, the second stage appeared the exothermic peak after a smaller main endothermic peak, and the lost mass had continued, which indicated that this stage might occur burning phase, thus exothermic phenomenon occurred. By analyzing the infrared spectrum of the sample which is processed by rising temperature to 360 C at the heating rate of 6 Cmin-1, the most possible group loss in this stage may be the group of carbonyl. Moreover, the mass loss in the second stage by TGA is in accordance with the mass loss of a carbonyl in the molecular of glyphosate." Now Canola Oil has a smoke point of around 238 degrees C, so I doubt that the glyphosate is breaking down very much in normal Canola Oil use. http://www.culinary-yours.com/frying_oil.html Of course, if you can document your answer, I am willing to look at the reference. Here is a link that might be useful: link to thermal study

Seeds of Deception "You are what you eat" takes on a new meaning by Kim Matthews March 30, 2009 Food has lost its innocence. Works like Fast Food Nation have exposed the underbelly of consumption: the greed of the supplier and the naivete of the consumer. The new milieu proved that food isnÂt what we thought it was, thus spurring the organic and sustainable revolution. However, even eating organic isnÂt enough to keep yourself healthy and safe. Science has dramatically complicated the food system, genetically modifying the plants that grow our food and producing fruits and vegetables that our bodies arenÂt designed to digest. The internationally renowned author, Jeffrey M. Smith, "reveals how industry manipulation and political collusion  not sound science  allow dangerously genetically engineered food into your daily diet" in his bestselling book: Seeds of Deception. The publication reveals the health risks of eating genetically modified foods through the unfolding of evidence that includes internal memos by FDA scientists, warnings of toxins, studies on killing animals, revelation of new diseases and the blatant subversion of information by the powers that be. Smith estimates that 60Â70 percent of the American food supply has unregulated genetically modified ingredients. According to the Institute of Responsible Technology, the bulk of the current commercialized crops in the United States are grown from genetically modified seeds: Soy (89 percent) Cotton (83 percent) Canola (75 percent) Corn (61 percent) Other sources of GMOs include: Dairy products from cows injected with rbGH Food additives, enzymes, flavorings, and processing agents, including the sweetener aspartame (NutraSweet®) and rennet used to make hard cheeses Meat, eggs, and dairy products from animals that have eaten GM feed Honey and bee pollen that may have GM sources of pollen Contamination or pollination caused by GM seeds or pollen While this information proves that problems clearly exist in the American food industry, Smith also provides ideas for solutions. The Seeds of Deception website is packed with information on how to change your shopping and gardening habits to protect your family. His other books and resources are also available for order, and there is a link to the new documentary film, "The World According Monsanto," from French filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin. The film exposes the seed giantÂs participation in everything from Agent Orange to the new infiltration of genetically modified food. It's time to eat smarter! Found on internet. -B

This is complicated. Maybe we should just discuss brownie recipes. In lieu of that, let's just for now try to focus on two aspects of the question, food quality and conservation. Wasn't there someone who, early in the discussion, cited a large study published in Science magazine? I can't find that post now but the study is the most important one I am aware of. The full text can't be accessed at the Science web site without subscribing. It is available elsewhere on the web. The study sampled and compared wild and farmed salmon from many regions around the world. The level of PCBs and other dangerous substances was found to be "significantly" higher in farmed salmon. The word "significant", when used in this sort of document is understood to mean statistically significant, which is not the same as the every day usage. Statistical significance means that a difference between two samples can be proven mathematically at a certain criterion. It does not mean the difference is important. If I sprinkle 2 grains of salt on my order of fries and you sprinkle 4, the difference obviously is statistically significant. But is it important? Neither one is enough salt to affect the taste at all. Significant but not important. The study found, at some locations, levels of certain toxins at 10 or so parts per billion. At those levels, differences of say, 4 parts per billion would be significant. But important? FDA standards allow hundreds of times that concentration. But that is not the end of the controversy. Some, including the authors of the study, prefer the standards of the EPA over those of the FDA. EPA standards are much stricter. This is where science and politics collide. One might think that the "Food" and Drug Administration would take precedence over the "Environmental" Protection Administration in the matter of food safety. But that would be too simple. I have to observe that, although the importance to science of a "not statistically significant" finding is equal to, often greater than, one of "statistically significant". The importance in press releases is not. Everyone wants the results of their work to be "significant". Well, that is the health issue in a nutshell, a very small nutshell. The conservation issue is more difficult. Jim Here is a link that might be useful: Global Assessment of Organic Contaminants in Farmed Salmon

Thanks for those articles from me, too. The CDC still says to use bleach to disinfect, which is different than sanitize. They say that to disinfect hard, non-porous surfaces you need 1/3 cup of regular chlorine bleach per gallons of water, although Clorox recommends using 1/2 cup bleach per 1/2 gallon. For small batches, use 4 teaspoons of regular chlorine bleach and 1 quart of water. Dip a cloth into the mixture, wipe the surface, ALLOWING THE SOLUTION TO CONTACT THE SURFACE FOR 5 MINUTES AND AIR DRY. For food contact surfaces, like countertops and high chair trays, rinse with warm water and air dry after disinfecting. Use it sparingly on stainless steel sinks and surfaces. I use bleach regularly, I have all those white bar mops that I wash and bleach, I use them for everything. I also bleach the white socks and cotton gloves I use/wear on the farm, as well as wash cloths and some white towels. A person should NEVER have white towels on a farm, BTW. Anyway, I use enough that it's never outdated, and I leave it in the original opaque container. The biggest mistake people make, though, is to wipe their counters with the solution but not leave it the required 5 minutes before wiping the residue to dry their surfaces. If you don't do it correctly, it doesn't work correctly. Annie