Another GMO Whore Heard From (Re-Post from GMO Answers)

It just doesn't end.


Before I put up the Richie Allen video featuring Professor Seneff, there was a YouTube commenter by the name of dsndicmsa, who I'm hoping isn't getting paid to shill for Monsanto (pssst...you're not getting your money's worth). The commenter engaged in much bashing of Stephanie, and I decided to refute a number of proffered statements by said commenter. As a newer user of Google Plus, I was unaware of comment duplication, so you may see multiple responses to comments. I'm learning something new every day.


I found this piece of fish wrapping by Steve Savage: 


Steve Savage Addresses Samsel and Seneff study, “Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases II: Celiac sprue and gluten intolerance”

By Steve Savage (Independent Expert) on Friday, March 14, 2014 - 15:14

Category: Impact on Environment, Safety, Health, and Nutrition, Science and GMO Basics

In a recent literature survey published by Samsel and Seneff, an argument is made for a possible link between the incidence of celiac disease in the United States and the use of the herbicide glyphosate.

A key element of the authors’ argument is based on a single example of a study with fish (Senapati et al., 2009). In that study, adverse effects were observed in fish that were exposed to water containing a glyphosate-based herbicide. Samsel and Seneff concluded that the effects observed in the fish were "highly reminiscent of celiac disease." The Senapati fish paper is itself deeply flawed, but it is also irrelevant.

Senapati et al. exposed fish in tanks to a glyphosate rate of 4mg/L, added as a commercial formulation manufactured in India, called Excel Mera-71. That is a formulation made for terrestrial, not aquatic, use, and it is described as containing glyphosate and "a blend of non-ionic and cationic surfactants." At least in the United States, products registered for use on emerged weeds growing in water do not contain surfactants, because they are known to injure fish. The 4mg/L concentration used in the Senapati study was also more than twice as high as the highest rate allowed for a legitimate aquatic formulation, AquaMaster, in the United States. In addition, the water in which the fish were kept was replaced every other day for 45 days with a fresh supply of the surfactant-containing herbicide—not something relevant to any real-world situation. There was no surfactant control in this study, even though surfactants are well known for being able to cause injury to the gills and digestive tracks of fish. The Senapati study simply redocumented the fact that long-term, high-rate exposure of fish to surfactants is damaging, while glyphosate and its primary metabolite, AMPA, are classified as "practically non-toxic" to fish by the EPA.

There is no pattern of potential glyphosate exposure for humans in the United States that is even remotely like that in this poorly designed fish study. The formulation surfactants would not be present in human foods, the rates of glyphosate would be orders of magnitude lower and they would be in the form of the metabolite AMPA. 

The Senapati study simply provides no meaningful data that Samsel and Seneff can use to connect glyphosate and celiac incidence.

Independent Expert

Steve Savage

Consultant, Savage & Associates

Steve Savage has more than 30 years of experience in agricultural technology having worked in academics (Colorado State University), at a global research company (DuPont), at a biotechnology start-up (Mycogen), and for the last 16 years as a consultant. Over the years, his research and consulting topics have ranged from biological control to crop protection chemicals (synthetic and natural product based); traits based on advances from traditional genetics to biotechnology; and crops from grains to specialty fruits and vegetables. He has also worked extensively on bio-fuels, fertilizers and on footprints of farming (carbon, water, energy and land-use).

As I stated...fish wrapping. Luca Brasi himself approves this.

Whenever I read a phrase that goes, "classified as "practically non-toxic" to fish by the EPA", I say to myself...YOU DIDN'T PERFORM ANY BLOODY STUDY AT ALL, DID YOU?

I was listening to Dr. Ted Broer this morning, and he echoes the sentiments of this study - that it isn't intolerance to gluten that we are all experiencing all of a sudden; rather, it's the recent application of glyphosate as a dessicant to increase crop yields.

I find this utterly unnecessary, considering the amounts of food that are being discarded daily; in fact, there was a ridiculous story about a green grocer who had their food too far out on the sidewalk, so city workers were THROWING IT AWAY.

Probably right in front of starving people.

WHAT

THE

HELL?!?

Then there's a throw-away reference to "real-world" situations...as if in the real world, pollution doesn't stay on one place, it migrates, like the homeless guy who manages to freshly defecate on your wall, just as you're coming home with fresh baked goods.

In the study, they kept the level of pollution constant; in the real world, the level of pollution will get WORSE. I thought the study was exceedingly kind, considering.

Just to finish this with the proper bit of zing...he's a hell of an "independent expert", considering his ties to a number of biotech firms. Sort of like Colonel Sanders being an independent expert on chicken.