Jump to content
The Corroboree
DiscoStu

Monsanto’s Roundup Found in 75% of Air and Rain Samples

Recommended Posts

roundup2-400x240.jpg

In recent years, Roundup was found to be even more toxic than it was when first approved for agricultural use, though that discovery has not led to any changes in regulation of the pesticide. Photo courtesy of Shutterstock

A new U.S. Geological Survey has concluded that pesticides can be found in, well, just about anything.

Roundup herbicide, Monsanto’s flagship weed killer, was present in 75 percent of air and rainfall test samples, according to the study, which focused on Mississippi’s highly fertile Delta agricultural region.

GreenMedInfo reports new research, soon to be published by Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry journal, discovered the traces over a 12-year span from 1995-2007.

In recent years, Roundup was found to be even more toxic than it was when first approved for agricultural use, though that discovery has not led to any changes in regulation of the pesticide. Moreover, Roundup’s overuse has enabled weeds and insects to build an immunity to its harsh toxins.

To deal with the immunity issue, Monsanto’s solution has been to spray more and stronger pesticides to eliminate the problem.

The health effects of Roundup are also hard to ignore as research has linked exposure to the pesticide to Parkinson’s disease and various cancers.

For instance, children in Argentina, where Roundup is used in high concentrations, struggle with health problems, with 80 percent showing signs of the toxins in their bloodstreams.

However, Roundup isn’t the only widespread threat to public health. The U.S. Geological Survey, along with others, have identified additional pesticides in the air and water that become more toxic as they mix and come in contact with people.

Spraying Roundup may have short-term economic benefits for Monsanto, but the potential long-term risks could present significant challenges to people in affected regions of the country.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsantos-roundup-found-in-75-of-air-and-rain-samples/5371398

free market success!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

75%? I assume the collection methods were highly biased.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably collected from under the tractor that dispensed it. Though, biased methods aside, it is still dangerous stuff, like that agent orange, or the shit that poisoned the Aboriginal people who went spraying throughout NSW and QLD then they were instructed to dump the barrels with residues in the forests. 15+ years later all sorts of health problems. I think we can all agree that Chemical and Techno fixes are rarely the answer :(

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glyphosates not so bad...its the decomposition products that's the real worry. Round-up is the tradename for Monsantos glyphosate...every fckr makes it now......

doesn't really suprise me in a US broad acre production system, particularly when growing "Round-up ready" crops.... they want us to do the same. .........Don't forget to grab a pack of glyphosate up on your way out of Bunnings near the checkout next time :wink:

Some may be suprised to know how much gets poured onto aussie farms.....dairies use it a fair bit as one example....and due to the action of accumulating sugars in a broken metabolism as it kills ........the cows go for the sprayed plants first :o ....

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elaborate on decomposition products waterboy?

interesting about the cows.

i love the the article implies that roundup was found to be highly toxic before being approved. It doesn't directly say so but guides the reader to that interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

, biased methods aside, it is still dangerous stuff, like that agent orange, or the shit that poisoned the Aboriginal people who went spraying throughout NSW and QLD

those aboriginal workers had no proper equipment or procedures and basically bathed in an old and now disused herbicide heavily tainted with dioxin. So where is the actual comparison, beyond any made by ACA or whoever ran that scare piece?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know its a scare piece, however I was only saying that its just stupid as history continues to repeat itself. Pour chems first, ask questions later. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i love the the article implies that roundup was found to be highly toxic before being approved. It doesn't directly say so but guides the reader to that interpretation.

It really does, doesn't it?

In recent years, Roundup was found to be even more toxic than it was when first approved for agricultural use

...and how toxic was that, hmm? Reminds me of Swearengen from Deadwood: "I trust you know that 2% of nothing is fucken nothing"

Not to say that Monsanto aren't evil swine, you understand. But that's no reason to automatically write off any technology they happen to develop or use. I've heard people say that everything from glyphosates to genetic modification to simple plant hybridisation is bad, just based on what bloody Monsanto have done with it. Get a grip people! Glyphosates don't kill people, Monsanto kills people!*

(*disclaimer: I don't pretend to actually know anything about glyphosate toxicity. I'm speaking generally - it doesn't matter how dangerous it is, it can't be half as dangerous as multinational capitalist organisations controlling our food sources)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tired ...but Thunder the acid from the first decomposition stage is documented as more "toxic" and persistant ....Its name will come to me. I see what I can dig back up.

I use "toxic" as there is a difference between exposure once in a life and several contacts. Sorry not a toxicologist but its worth raising. Then there is how you get exposure....absorption, ingestion... No exposure is no exposure.

Glyphosate and its decomp products sure as hell last more than the "anticipated" in cold, wet conditions. Got to remember that environmental fate to get it to pass is based on Swiss lab studies...not field based....and not aussie soils and conditions. Its all our good regulators need though .... to protect us...

lol...I remember being told it was safe enough to drink during chem handling training.....I treat it like any good old school ag chemical now.

EDIT -

post-8169-0-68653200-1393926870_thumb.jp

Edited by waterboy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it can't be half as dangerous as multinational capitalist organisations controlling our food sources)

Isnt Monsanto a "dangerous multinational capitalist organization" that is actively engaged in "controlling our food sources" ? :scratchhead:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's anodyne's point i think. glyphosate (a chemical) is being equated with monsanto (an evil company), whether or not glyphosate is terribly bad (i don't know) it's unfair to judge it by the company that created it. so lots of glyphosate was found in a US environmental audit, why report it as lots of monstanto roundup?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Foo, that was kind of my point: don't worry about the technology, worry about who is using it.

When I said "Monsanto are evil swine who kill people", was I being too subtle? :scratchhead:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.....spread the good word on nasty corp :wink:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Foo, that was kind of my point: don't worry about the technology, worry about who is using it.

When I said "Monsanto are evil swine who kill people", was I being too subtle? :scratchhead:

Dont mind me. I think i was standing on my head when i read your comment :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people grew more of their own food society would not have a farming industry struggling to produce food to feed an artificially based society.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's true that there are lots of chemicals that are more toxic to life than glyphosate but it's still nasty stuff.

I was working with a guy who had a hand held spray tank explode while he was holding it, probably over-pressurised and weak from sun exposure, but never the less he was really crook for weeks as a result of the absorption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i read somewhere that glyphosate bulids up in the body rather than passing through. not sure if true, but one thing is for sure that we all probably eat glyphosate every day. roundup-ready wheat, corn, canola and soy that make up (pulling this figure out of my ass) 90% of what's in the supermarket, and who knows how much residue remains on, or in the product?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point I think cotton & canola are the only "Roundup Ready" crops grown commercially in Australia. I don't believe a RR wheat has been developed yet - they're still working on that one last I heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think even round up ready crops wouldnt be rounduped unless it really needed it, maybe bad patches of headlands or similar. Roundup is damn expensive and farmers aint going to use it unless they really really need too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont bet on it HillBilly.

Ive seen guys broad acre spray simultaneously with both glyphosate & a pre-emergent herbicide at planting to "ensure a clean start for the crop".

Might not happen quite so much now due to rising cost, but certainly has been pretty much the norm in many districts over the past coupla decades.

Same can be said of many fertilizers if your ballsy enough to tackle that monster.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres a few crops down here where it must be applied as part of a growers contract....whether its needed or not,,,, (edit- these are not "roundup ready" crops as well)

Glyphosate is pretty cheap per hectare to use , compared to some of the other staple herbicides.

Edited by waterboy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they use choppers here to spay the hills...killing off native grasses and over planting with high yielding introduced species...for sheep mainly..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They use it extensively to controll the harvest point for weat.

Gone those days the farmer patiently waited till the grain was dry and golden and praied for good weather for the harvest.

They spray the green plants with glyphosphat when the forecast looks right for the next days and then harvest.

So, in europe at least, not only cows eat this shit, everybody does as our dayly bread.

Edited by kapitän kamasutra
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres a few crops down here where it must be applied as part of a growers contract....whether its needed or not,,,, (edit- these are not "roundup ready" crops as well)

Glyphosate is pretty cheap per hectare to use , compared to some of the other staple herbicides.

Its pretty scary just how many crops are locked into contracts like that where all manner of "cides" and even fertilizers have to be applied or face ruin from the chemical co's.

Or hide it in the corner of the old shed & on sell it at the pub on the quiet next year :wink:

Mind you more than a few of those are corporate employee farmers, the days of the family run farm are coming to a close. There are a few left but most of the farmed acreage is now corporate owned & run and they are not in it for the long term. 5 or 10 years maybe but 100? nah they cant look that far ahead.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Mind you more than a few of those are corporate employee farmers, the days of the family run farm are coming to a close. There are a few left but most of the farmed acreage is now corporate owned & run and they are not in it for the long term. 5 or 10 years maybe but 100? nah they cant look that far ahead."

its the same here ...all corporate owned...its surprising how quickly the family farm went extinct....they take on too much dept ...the bank forecloses and then often without public sales its sold on to a corp....most people still think the cockee exist.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×