I dont have time to digest all the studies and anyway, I agree with the conclusion of not using glyphosate. However the basic "science" presented here is quack. Glyphosate is not a great chelator (citric acid and tons of other stuff we use everyday in our shampoos and put into our mouths are probably better). Glyphosate works as a very specific inhibitor of an enzyme involved in synthesizing certain branched chain amino acids. This is because glyphosate chemically looks like an intermediate (transition state of a glycine substrate) and inactivates this specific enzyme by appearing to look like an intermediate in a reaction (binds the mouth part of the enzyme). This is very analogous to how carbon monoxide destroys hemoglobin (carbon monoxide looks like CO2 and binds the active site of hemoglobin but does not let go, thereby gumming up and essentially destroying the molecule, and preventing oxygen transport). Monsanto makes soybeans resistant to this specific inhibitor by putting in a new gene for a modified enzyme that does not bind this glycine-amino acid analogue in its active site.
If glyphosate were such a great chelator then it would at least be used as a chelator for some purpose somewhere in industry. The fact that someone first made it in a search for improved chelators does not mean that it is a great chelator, and anyway all such small molecules are not specific and would bind calcium/copper/zinc and other things long before getting into a cell. We use and eat humongous amounts of chelators that (as far as I can tell from my search on glyphosate chemistry) work to chelate metals better than glyphosate.
I think that the science focus should be on the fact that synthesis of these branched chain amino acids is inhibited in gut flora, and that gut bacteria that are exposed to high enough levels of glyphoate are killed off. A different flora result and change in immunomodulation etc. follows. Just my two cents on where any informed discussion should go.
But the extreme effects of glyphosate on the environment in my opinion are much more damaging than effects on human health and are a bigger reason to shut down the Monsanto machine. Anyone so interested in human health should be thousands of times more interested in attacking hedonism and gluttony as a way to prevent harm to human health. But no one likes to look in the mirror and it is easy to blame our health problems on a known devil.
A major reason why Monsanto gets away with this crap is because so many of their detractors and attackers rely on junk science arguments, that are easy to disprove in a public forum, thereby painting silver caps on the opposition. The more important story is how the soils have been changed for the worse, how biodiversity has been changed for the worse, use of legal machinery by Monsanto to destroy native biology (astounding how Monsanto is using the USDA to destroy native seed and other biology) and how microbes (to what extent and where) have been transformed.
The glyphosate saga is repeated many times in many ways in other related industries. Chlorination of public water for example causes much well documented cancer, which far exceeds the hypothesized damage of glyphosate, but is justified because: a. originally public water chlorination saved many more lives than (we now know) are caused by the cancer; and b. governments dont want to spend the money on better but expensive alternatives such as ozone or natural processes. (these are rationing arguments and are real issues of cost/benefit that internet arm chair chit chat crappers ignore)
Much of this boils down to rationing of resources: the best ways of doing things (growing food in a world where no one wants to hoe weeds but wants cheapo food, cleaning water where supplies are stretched to the limit etc.) are not pursued because we need a cheap chemical fix. Even after cancer from glyphosate is proven, Monsanto will continue, based on the argument that preventing starvation of millions by this alleged chemical savior is worth it. Last I checked, the US government evaluates and makes decisions on public safety regulations based on a human life being worth 3,500,000$. If a proposed regulation costs more than 3500000$ per life saved, it will not be implemented. This rationing issue is the bottom line and trumps all facts and arguments about causing cancer etc. Even if a cancer is conjectured or proven, such fact does not settle the issue. Eventually the arguments turn into cost/benefit and many things are ignored (your car's exhaust in front of my house is an example) based on this calculus. Best to walk away from the system.
[Quote]
Time2help wrote:
The latest issue of Mother Earth News contains an interview with a retired genetic engineer (and former soil biologist) who spent his professional career advocating pesticides and did an "about face" in retirement as a serious gardener. He gives an indepth (yet easy to understand) explanation of how glyphosate kills plants and microbes by chelating the manganese required to build a specific essential protein. It's one of the best explanations I've read.
http://www.motherearthnews.com/natural-health/glyphosate-toxicity-interview-with-thierry-vrain-zm0z16jjzkin.aspx
If you think your gut microbiome and the earth's microbial life are important, avoid glyphosate (Roundup (r)) and 90+/-% of processed foods. Does the health of our gut microbiome affect our likelihood of developing cancer? You bet it does!
Does the sick care industry give a darn about this? No. More glyphosate = more cancer = more money for the sick care industry.
[/quote]
