• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Safety Study showing ROUNDUP Safe has been RETRACTED

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
This was big news when it came out, claiming the safety of the active ingredient in ROUNDUP herbicide.

Over the past 2 decades, "Roundup Ready" crops were introduced that had been genetically modified to resist the herbicide. We eat those crops when we eat most foods that are mass produced with corn, soybeans and wheat. Alfalfa and even Sweet Corn seeds are often 'roundup ready' as are sugar beets, cotton and canola.

So now I have to ask, if the ingredient in ROUNDUP is not safe, are the foods that have been genetically modified, actually safe?



FULL STORY at the NYTiimes archived article above ^^^​

A Study Is Retracted, Renewing Concerns About the Weedkiller Roundup

Problems with a 25-year-old landmark paper on the safety of Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, have led to calls for the E.P.A. to reassess the widely used chemical.
A tractor navigates a field.
U.S. regulators consider it safe, but the World Health Organization has said glyphosate is probably carcinogenic.Credit...Seth Perlman/Associated Press
Jan. 2, 2026Updated 3:25 p.m. ET
In 2000, a landmark study claimed to set the record straight on glyphosate, a contentious weedkiller used on hundreds of millions of acres of farmland. The paper found that the chemical, the active ingredient in Roundup, wasn’t a human health risk despite evidence of a cancer link.
Last month, the study was retracted by the scientific journal that published it a quarter century ago, setting off a crisis of confidence in the science behind a weedkiller that has become the backbone of American food production. It is used on soybeans, corn and wheat, on specialty crops like almonds, and on cotton and in home gardens.
The Environmental Protection Agency still considers the herbicide to be safe. But the federal government faces a deadline in 2026 to re-examine glyphosate’s safety after legal action brought by environmental, food-safety and farmworker advocacy groups.
The E.P.A. has also faced pressure to act on glyphosate from the Make America Healthy Again movement, led by supporters of the health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who once served as co-counsel in a lawsuit against Monsanto over exposure to Roundup.
The 2000 paper, a scientific review conducted by three independent scientists, was for decades cited by other researchers as evidence of Roundup’s safety. It became the cornerstone of regulations that deemed the weedkiller safe.
But since then, emails uncovered as part of lawsuits against the weedkiller’s manufacturer, Monsanto, have shown that the company’s scientists played a significant role in conceiving and writing the study.
In the emails, Monsanto employees praised each other for their “hard work” on the paper, which included data collection, writing and review. One Monsanto employee expressed hope that the study would become “‘the’ reference on Roundup and glyphosate safety.”
The pharmaceutical giant Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018 for $63 billion.
In retracting the study last month, the journal, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, cited “serious ethical concernsregarding the independence and accountability of the authors.” Martin van den Berg, the journal’s editor in chief, said the paper had based its conclusions largely on unpublished studies by Monsanto.
There were indications that the authors had received financial compensation from Monsanto for their work, he said. There was no disclosure of a conflict of interest on the part of the authors beyond a mention in the acknowledgments that Monsanto had provided scientific support. As a result, Dr. van den Berg said, he “had lost confidence in the results and conclusions of this article.”
Brian Leake, a spokesman for Bayer, said Monsanto’s involvement with the 2000 paper “did not rise to the level of authorship and was appropriately disclosed in the acknowledgments” and that the listed authors “had full control over and approved the study’s manuscript.”
He said that glyphosate was “the most extensively studied herbicide over the past 50 years” and that “the vast majority of published studies had no Monsanto involvement.”
The sole surviving author of the 2000 article, Gary M. Williams, who is a professor at New York Medical College, did not respond to requests for comment.
Traces of glyphosate have been detected in foods like bread, cereal and snacks, and in the urine of both adults and children, though there are signs that levels in food have dropped after public pressure led some companies to stop applying glyphosate shortly before harvest, a practice that leaves behind more chemical residues.
The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2015 classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
Three blue flags featuring the Bayer logo fly in front of a building also carrying the logo.
Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018 and has since paid out billions of dollars in settlements, defended the study.Credit...Wolfgang Rattay/Reuters
“This is a seismic, long-awaited correction of the scientific record,” said Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, who is a pediatrician and epidemiologist and the director of the Program in Global Public Health at Boston College.
Dr. Landrigan recently chaired an advisory committee for a global glyphosate study that found that even low doses of glyphosate-based herbicides caused leukemia in rats.
“It pulls the veil off decades of industry efforts to create a false narrative that glyphosate is safe” he said. “People have developed cancers, and people have died because of this scientific fraud.”
Laboratory tests first flagged potential risks posed by exposure to glyphosate as far back as the early 1980s, and soon after, studies of Midwestern farmers exposed to herbicides started to show an increase in certain cancers. A U.S.-backed effort to eradicate coca fields in Colombia by spraying glyphosate from planes onto hundreds of thousands of acres of cropland led to widespread reports of illnesses among residents. STORY CONTINUES AT LINK ABOVE.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Doc
Just a thought...
All this gluten stuff seemed to have started after about the sane time. Coincidence?

Well I dunno. I'm not a scientist or a farmer. But I've been wondering about our ultra-processed foods for a while (and yes, I eat them) and the genetically modified seeds we consume directly and indirectly and also RoundUp for several years.

Not so much about the whole gluten allergy, but more about health spending so I asked GROK AI to generate a chart.

Interesting correlation as the lines move simultaneously.

I also ran a couple more asking about people with gluten allergies and intolerance, and saw minimal correlation, as well as children treated for attention deficit disorders and saw minimal correlation. Certainly a simple GROK AI search, based on my un-informed questioning, is a very imprecise study. But that said, maybe people more into deep data dives might want to look at genetically modified foods and RoundUp.


Screenshot 2026-01-04 at 6.23.11 AM.pngHere's a timeline graph showing the widespread adoption of genetically modified (GM) seeds—specifically herbicide-tolerant (Roundup Ready) varieties for major U.S. crops (corn, cotton, soybeans)—alongside U.S. glyphosate (Roundup) herbicide usage and federal government contributions to national health expenditures.GM adoption (as % of planted acres for corn, cotton, and soybeans combined) started near 0% in 1995, rose rapidly after commercial introduction in 1996, reached ~50% by 2000, and plateaued above 90% from ~2010 onward (data from USDA ERS).Glyphosate usage (in million pounds applied annually in U.S. agriculture) was low pre-1996 (~20-50 million lbs), surged with Roundup Ready crops to ~100 million lbs by 2005 and ~280-300 million lbs by the mid-2010s (data from USGS and peer-reviewed analyses).Federal government health spending (in billions of dollars, including Medicare, Medicaid federal share, and other programs) rose steadily due to aging population, program expansions, and rising costs (data from CMS National Health Expenditure Accounts).The graph uses dual y-axes: left for GM adoption (%) and glyphosate usage (million lbs); right for federal health spending (billions $).
 
Before anyone gets too far into this, there is no Roundup Ready wheat in production, i think that confusion comes with desicating wheat with Roundup, which isn't as common of a practice anymore as there are better options for desicating now.

I'm not defending Bayer or Monsanto, kinda have a hate on for them personally but that's another story, I can't understand why everyone goes after Roundup for all that is wrong in this world. We are literally surrounded by toxic chemicals everywhere we go, plastic in everything, and breathing pollution, yet Roundup is the problem.

Roundup revolutionized farming. Without it we wouldn't be growing the abundant crops that we are and a big chunk of the population would be starving. It stopped the need for summer fallow which destroys the biology of the soil and causes erosion. It's helped to prolong the use of all the other chemicals we use for weed control, without it most weeds by now would be resistant to all chemicals.

Im not advocating that people should go out and drink it by any means, but I don't think people understand the importance of what Roundup has done for the world we live in.
 
Well I dunno. I'm not a scientist or a farmer. But I've been wondering about our ultra-processed foods for a while (and yes, I eat them) and the genetically modified seeds we consume directly and indirectly and also RoundUp for several years.

Not so much about the whole gluten allergy, but more about health spending so I asked GROK AI to generate a chart.

Interesting correlation as the lines move simultaneously.

I also ran a couple more asking about people with gluten allergies and intolerance, and saw minimal correlation, as well as children treated for attention deficit disorders and saw minimal correlation. Certainly a simple GROK AI search, based on my un-informed questioning, is a very imprecise study. But that said, maybe people more into deep data dives might want to look at genetically modified foods and RoundUp.


View attachment 200262Here's a timeline graph showing the widespread adoption of genetically modified (GM) seeds—specifically herbicide-tolerant (Roundup Ready) varieties for major U.S. crops (corn, cotton, soybeans)—alongside U.S. glyphosate (Roundup) herbicide usage and federal government contributions to national health expenditures.GM adoption (as % of planted acres for corn, cotton, and soybeans combined) started near 0% in 1995, rose rapidly after commercial introduction in 1996, reached ~50% by 2000, and plateaued above 90% from ~2010 onward (data from USDA ERS).Glyphosate usage (in million pounds applied annually in U.S. agriculture) was low pre-1996 (~20-50 million lbs), surged with Roundup Ready crops to ~100 million lbs by 2005 and ~280-300 million lbs by the mid-2010s (data from USGS and peer-reviewed analyses).Federal government health spending (in billions of dollars, including Medicare, Medicaid federal share, and other programs) rose steadily due to aging population, program expansions, and rising costs (data from CMS National Health Expenditure Accounts).The graph uses dual y-axes: left for GM adoption (%) and glyphosate usage (million lbs); right for federal health spending (billions $).


Plot that graph with soda consumption and obesity! Without every contributor on the graph it can be manipulated any the narrative you want.
 
That’s why I quit eating granola, all oats are harvested using the active ingredients in roundup, so that it dies and dries evenly. I switched to Greek yogurt with my blueberries instead of granola several years ago.
 
Roundup revolutionized farming. Without it we wouldn't be growing the abundant crops that we are and a big chunk of the population would be starving. It stopped the need for summer fallow which destroys the biology of the soil and causes erosion. It's helped to prolong the use of all the other chemicals we use for weed control, without it most weeds by now would be resistant to all chemicals.
It allows one farmer to 10X the size of his operation and still gulf all summer long. :hide:
There are some not good unintended consequences with everything. Especially round up.

The assumptions of what percentage of soy grown would be round up ready ae flawed and untrue as it turned out. We knew that a decade ago as well.
 
That’s why I quit eating granola, all oats are harvested using the active ingredients in roundup, so that it dies and dries evenly. I switched to Greek yogurt with my blueberries instead of granola several years ago.
I need to correct this statement. Not all oats are sprayed with glyphosate. In Canada, most, if not all buyers of oats WILL NOT, buy oats that have been desicated with it. We sign a declaration each year agreeing that we won't spray them, can't guarantee there isn't the odd idiot that does, but the risk of getting caught would break most people. I can't comment on US policy.
 
Before anyone gets too far into this, there is no Roundup Ready wheat in production, i think that confusion comes with desicating wheat with Roundup, which isn't as common of a practice anymore as there are better options for desicating now.

I'm not defending Bayer or Monsanto, kinda have a hate on for them personally but that's another story, I can't understand why everyone goes after Roundup for all that is wrong in this world. We are literally surrounded by toxic chemicals everywhere we go, plastic in everything, and breathing pollution, yet Roundup is the problem.

Roundup revolutionized farming. Without it we wouldn't be growing the abundant crops that we are and a big chunk of the population would be starving. It stopped the need for summer fallow which destroys the biology of the soil and causes erosion. It's helped to prolong the use of all the other chemicals we use for weed control, without it most weeds by now would be resistant to all chemicals.

Im not advocating that people should go out and drink it by any means, but I don't think people understand the importance of what Roundup has done for the world we live in.
Understood. However, it seems to me that it is not a question of Roundup as an effective weed control chemical. It is a question of the authenticity of the data produced to get it approved for use. Keep in mind that Round-Up (tm) is sold to private individuals for use intheir home gardens and lawns.

I love the term, "Generally recognized as safe". (A term generally used when they, the regulators, don't have a clue) How safe do you believe the average homeowner is with this certified deadly poison as a common tool for liberal use in their back yards? Given the deceit of 25 years ago on which every testimonial of "safety" rests, I worry.
For me, that is as much the problem for agriculture, as well as the private unsupervised farmer, in question.
 
Last edited:
Top