Drinking Roundup Herbicide Makes Men Live Longer

By: Myles Power Edited by: Peter & Hannah

In September of last year, the highly discredited paper ‘Long-term Toxicity of a Roundup Herbicide and a Roundup-Tolerant Genetically Modified Maize‘ was published in the journal ‘Food and Chemical Toxicology’. Most people have heard of this paper, as it is currently being promoted by every anti-GMO group on the planet, as it supposedly shows a link between GMOs, cancer and premature death. I have previously written about this paper and its lack of scientific merit, including its sample size being too small, the choice of rats that are known to spontaneously grow tumours, and for misleading the reader into thinking that the tumours don’t occur in the control group. I also wrote about how I find this research to be HIGHLY unethical, as the scientists involved allowed the rats (known for spontaneously growing tumours) to remain alive, while 25% of their body weight was tumours so they could get pointless unscientific pictures. The only reason I can think of for them doing this is to provoke an emotional response in the reader.

Tumors-Rats1Pictures of rats from the paper

However, some people online who have read my article refuse to change their mind regarding the paper. They simply shout “SHILL” and disregard everything I have said. These people believe that the paper is correct and there is a link between GM-maize and cancer. They also believe that this GM-maize will have the same effect in humans as it does in the rats. To these people I say, if you think this paper shows a link between GM-maize and cancer then you must also believe that drinking large concentrations of roundup herbicide will make men live longer.

To understand how the paper ‘proves’ the link between roundup and prolonged life in men, we first need to talk about the experiment itself. The experiment involved 100 male and 100 female albino Sprague-Dawley rats, who were divided into groups of 10. For each sex, a control group was fed on plain water and standard maize. Six groups were fed with 11%, 22% and 33% of GM-maize, either treated with Roundup or not. The final three groups were fed with the control maize, but had access to water contaminated with 1.1×10-8% (the contaminating level of some regular tap waters), 0.09% (concentrations found in some GM feed) and 0.5% (half of the minimal agricultural working dilution) of Roundup. The results apparently showed that 50% of males and 70% of females died prematurely, compared with only 30% and 20% in the control group.

If we look at the paper you will see there is something very strange with the table of data showing the mortality rates of the rats – it’s missing. For a paper that boasts about the death count of female rats fed GM-maize, this is very strange; especially considering they went to the trouble of producing a table that shows the rates of cancers in the rats in all groups. Instead of a nice neat table of data, we get six graphs to interpret the data from. Firstly, it should be said that these graphs are a mess. They use a series of lines differing in thickness to show the difference in the groups’ mortalities, with a dotted line representing the control group. The problem is that the lines are not different colours and frequently overlap making it difficult to see what is going on. They also have many other dotted lines going vertically for no reason and use the same key to show different things. For example, the think line represents rats that have been fed on 33% GM-maize but it also represents rats that have been given water contaminated with 0.5% Roundup herbicide. What we are left with is an almost unreadable mess and I believe that’s the whole point: it’s a mess so people don’t notice that  the paper shows a link between Herbicide and long life in male rats.

Long-term Toxicity of a Roundup Herbicide and a Roundup-Tolerant Genetically Modified Maize 2

The paper shows that male rats drinking pure water will have a 50% higher mortality rate than those drinking water contaminated with 0.5% Roundup herbicide. Unlike the other graphs in which the results don’t make sense (for example, more male rats die eating 11% GM-maize and sooner than those fed 0%, 22% and 33%), there is a clear correlation between the amount of Roundup herbicide consumed and life expectancies. Rats drinking water contaminated with 1.1×10-8% had a 11% less mortality rate, 0.09% contamination had a 22% less mortality rate and 0.5% contamination had a 33% less mortality rate. If this paper is correct then the more herbicide you drink, the longer you would live.

Long-term Toxicity of a Roundup Herbicide and a Roundup-Tolerant Genetically Modified Maize

Control (dotted line). Rats fed water contaminated with 1.1×10-8% (thin line), 0.09% (medium line) and 0.5% (bold line) of Roundup.

In closing, next time someone tells you that there is a link between GM-maize and cancer (I am looking at you Hank Green!), ask them if they would be happy glugging large quantities of herbicide.

P.S. Don’t drink herbicide!

About these ads

27 thoughts on “Drinking Roundup Herbicide Makes Men Live Longer

    • Yes, the fact is that only idiots would glug down large quantities of herbicide, but no less are those who imbide the GMO party line while being presented with contrary evidence. Myles rather deftly identified some fallacies in a study that has been used to confuse millions of unsuspecting souls, yet he’s the idiot? Perhaps “idiot” doesn’t mean what I thought it meant.

  1. Pingback: Bad science in the paper ‘Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant GM maize’ | Myles Power (powerm1985)

  2. haha haha why don’t you analyze the newest studies myles, why don’t you analyze the studies that sparked entire nations to ban GMOs? 80+ countries have already done so.

  3. did you even read the study??? bt is an acronym for the scientific name of the fungi the study is on the specific genotype is a genetically modified one, which the study concludes links to increased lymphocytes in the blood…. read the study and obviously you will need to read the dissection and analysis of the study done by a professional as you clearly aren’t one, because we have the same 24 hours in a day, i held up to your request you wanted to see the studies even said you would analyze them i knew you werent not a Man of your word i figured everyone deserves a fair chance and opportunity and it presented itself to you and you demonstrated that your character is flawed and you clearly do not wish to elaborate on anything that does not fit your agenda or your world view perspective of the reality we currently share, i think based on your statement that this study shows that ‘organic farming is potentially dangerous’ that your one of those skeptics, the kind of which is so strongly passionate about their skepticism it is to the point of a religious like belief except that your belief isn’t really a belief you choose to believe nothing, nothing is believable is the motto of the skeptics, what are you gaining by being pro gmo? a monopolized food industry an overly poisoned agriculture system and the creation of destructive forces of nature and it’s natural flowing evolution. are you telling the public your for patenting dna code are you really telling the public it’s okay to eat poison? cause that’s what it looks like specifically this post? are you trying to convince me it’s okay to allow a handful of powerful corporations the control if the food supply are you telling me these things? Ill answer for you, the position you have taken for these things proves you indeed are and if you aren’t then you’re not pro Gmo..

    • Wow crazy commenter is crazy. First when did I say that I was not going to write about it? and when did I say that I did not know what Bt was short for? (FYI Bt is short for bacillus thuringiensis which is a bacteria not a fungi dipshit. Second the paper looks at the toxicity of the bacteria and not the GM crop. Also the bacteria in not GM and found in nature and therefore can be used in organic farming. I may have been wrong and you might have read the paper but it is clear that you are not up to the challenge of understanding it.

  4. Pingback: Bad science in the paper ‘Hematotoxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis as Spore-crystal Strains Cry1Aa, Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac or Cry2Aa in Swiss Albino Mice’ | Myles Power (powerm1985)

  5. Pingback: Yes on Proposition 37 to Label Genetically Engineered Food? | Myles Power (powerm1985)

  6. Pingback: Drinking roundup makes guys live longer! « Biology Fortified, Inc.

  7. Is it my imagination or are they squeezing those rats really hard to make those tumors pop out ?

    • Also, as far as the Bt toxin study that was linked to you, the absolute flaw in it is they used Bt spores that were dried out and not the isolated proteins themselves, and at concentrations about 100 million higher than any human will ever have. David Tribe, had the following to say:

      “They used spore/crystals from modified Bt strains, rather than isolated protein. As per Schnepf, 2012a, such sporulating cultures are about ~20% Bt crystal proteins by dry weight. In other words, 80% of what the mice were fed is God knows what.
      The results seen are not due to use of too high a level of protein (270 mg/kg) , as there are reports of up to 5280 mg/kg of purified proteins fed to mice without any adverse effects (Schnepf, 2012b)
      So,

      The real negative control should have been wild type Bt strains, not water, as water lacks the other stuff floating around the culture medium
      The amounts fed the mice do not reflect human dietary levels– they were some ~ 106 to 108 time higher than exposure from GM or organic crops ( as per Hammond, 2012)
      The use of 3 mice/sex/group, as compared to OECD standards that call for 5 mice per sex per group.
      The historical incidence for these pathologies in the mice used was not reported. Thus, it is not clear if they are looking at treatment effects or natural biological variability for the mice
      The results did not all show the expected dose-response, with the lower dose resulting in the highest symptoms, as opposed to the other way around (eg, the 136 Cry1Ab had reduced MCH, but not the 270 mg/kg group)
      The reduction in MCV and RDW in all groups suggests a contaminant is involved rather than different Bt proteins
      For dose response, they get U shaped or inverse U shaped curves, a la Seralini. These could be a result of small animal numbers, not of hormesis.
      In the lit review, they say that Thomas and Ellar (1983) previously showed that cry proteins were hemolytic. However, Thomas and Ellar (1983) tested cyt proteins, not cry proteins. Even then, the cyt results were in vitro– there were no results when mice were fed the cyt proteins, presumably because they are digested.
      They also cite Aris and LeBlanc (Bt in mother and fetal blood) to support their work. (a rubbish paper)
      Their results are at odds with all the other studies whereby Bt (the bacterium) and cry (the bt protein) have not had adverse results in feeding studies.
      Also — the journal is not a high quality journal.”

      http://www.biofortified.org/2013/05/leukemia/

  8. It may well be a valid finding that drinking higher amounts of Roundup leads to male rats living longer. There’s a controversy brewing in environmental and safety science concerning how toxicologists and regulators should deal with Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) because studies on their effects often go against the typical “the dose makes the poison” paradigm: low doses can be bad for you, while high doses good, for example (Roundup cocktails anyone?). Or, more confusing, low doses are bad for you, moderate doses can be good –or at least, OK, and high doses can be bad. It is possible that low doses and high doses can have exactly the opposite effect: high doses can make rats lose weight, while tiny doses can make rats gain weight dramatically.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2682588/

    These two competing letters, the first by a large group of toxicology journal editors-in-chief, and the second by a large group of published researchers in toxicology who specialize in EDC research, exemplify the controversy:

    http://www.altex.ch/resources/open_letter.pdf

    http://www.ehjournal.net/content/pdf/1476-069X-12-69.pdf

    Here’s a presentation made to the European Food Safety Association (EFSA) on the topic:

    http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/events/documents/120614l-p07.pdf

    and here’s the EPA describing their ongoing investigation into if and how they should integrate EDC findings into existing and future safety considerations:

    http://epa.gov/ncct/edr/non-monotonic.html

  9. Pingback: The best ‘GM Health Risk Week’ can throw at us | Myles Power (powerm1985)

  10. Pingback: Gentechnik Segen oder Fluch? - Seite 38 - Politik - Forum - top agrar online

  11. Pingback: Glyphosat - Seite 15 - Politik - Forum - top agrar online

  12. Pingback: Angry Science » Seralini – Scientist or Reanimator?

  13. Pingback: De anti-GMO studie van Séralini – drinken van Roundup laat mannen langer leven

  14. Pingback: Myles Power video: Scientific deception or ignorance? How the anti-GMO machine works | Truth About Trade & Technology

  15. Pingback: Faktencheck: Der BUND, Glyphosat und tote Babys › Detritus › SciLogs - Wissenschaftsblogs

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s