# Glyphosate found in 19 of 20 beers, wines tested



## jswordy (Feb 27, 2019)

Top shelf wines like:


Sutter Home Merlot: 51.4 ppb
Beringer Founders Estates Moscato: 42.6 ppb
Barefoot Cabernet Sauvignon: 36.3 ppb
Inkarri Malbec, Certified Organic: 5.3 ppb
Frey Organic Natural White: 4.8 ppb


Story: 

https://www.ecowatch.com/glyphosate...-sfRyUEaJRFLcET15KOFgvORVHZnHMQ1yMQ2u9znLeQTo


----------



## Johnd (Feb 27, 2019)

From the Article:

"Assuming the greatest value reported, 51.4 ppb, is correct, a 125-pound adult would have to consume 308 gallons of wine per day, every day for life to reach the US Environmental Protection Agency's glyphosate exposure limit for humans. To put 308 gallons into context, that would be more than a bottle of wine every minute, for life, without sleeping."

Agreed that none in your beer / wine is better than having any at all, but it doesn't seem to be a real concern even at the highest dosage found, 51.4 parts per billion............


----------



## Boatboy24 (Feb 27, 2019)

Certified organic, you say?



Johnd said:


> From the Article:
> 
> "Assuming the greatest value reported, 51.4 ppb, is correct, a 125-pound adult would have to consume 308 gallons of wine per day, every day for life to reach the US Environmental Protection Agency's glyphosate exposure limit for humans. To put 308 gallons into context, that would be more than a bottle of wine every minute, for life, without sleeping."
> 
> Agreed that none in your beer / wine is better than having any at all, but it doesn't seem to be a real concern even at the highest dosage found, 51.4 parts per billion............



You're assuming we can have 100% faith in what the EPA recommends. I personally have something less than that.


----------



## Johnd (Feb 27, 2019)

Boatboy24 said:


> You're assuming we can have 100% faith in what the EPA recommends. I personally have something less than that.



No doubt, but they'd really have to off by an incredible factor for the worst case scenario to have any impact. A bottle of wine per minute for life with no sleep means, if you live to be 75, consuming 39,420,000 bottles of wine. 

Starting at age 21 and drinking a bottle a day til you die at 75, means consuming 19,710 bottles, a mere .05 % of the "danger dose", a factor of safety of 2000. Alcoholism, liver disease, or some other sickness would kill you way before the glyphosate would.


----------



## pgentile (Feb 27, 2019)

If I lived by beer and wine only, I don't think there would be a concern, I will never reach the 39,420,00 bottle in my lifetime. I'll probably fall a few bottles short.

But If this is in wine and beer. What are the amounts in produce? Meat/poutry? Processed foods? Neigbor's lawn and sidewalks? Nearby park? The air?

What is the accumulated affect?


----------



## 1d10t (Feb 27, 2019)

I'm at least willing to try to reach that limit of imbibing but I'll have to redo the numbers since I'm approaching 67.


----------



## Johnd (Feb 27, 2019)

pgentile said:


> If I lived by beer and wine only, I don't think there would be a concern, I will never reach the 39,420,00 bottle in my lifetime. I'll probably fall a few bottles short.
> 
> But If this is in wine and beer. What are the amounts in produce? Meat/poutry? Processed foods? Neigbor's lawn and sidewalks? Nearby park? The air?
> 
> What is the accumulated affect?



Now those are the numbers that I'd expect to be out of control. Once Monsanto invented Roundup, they also started selling genetically enhanced farm seed / grains that were "Roundup Ready", meaning that it didn't affect them. So you can plant Roundup Ready corn and spray roundup on the entire crop, and it kills everything but the corn. Roundup ready soybeans, same gig. More here about it if you're interested: http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/about.html


----------



## pgentile (Feb 27, 2019)

Johnd said:


> Now those are the numbers that I'd expect to be out of control. Once Monsanto invented Roundup, they also started selling genetically enhanced farm seed / grains that were "Roundup Ready", meaning that it didn't affect them. So you can plant Roundup Ready corn and spray roundup on the entire crop, and it kills everything but the corn. Roundup ready soybeans, same gig. More here about it if you're interested: http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/about.html



Thanks, will read


----------



## stickman (Feb 27, 2019)

Fortunately or unfortunately chemicals are a part of everything today so you can't get too worked up about it. When you start measuring down to the ppb range, you'll find many environmental/industrial chemicals in the human body, pesticides, herbicides, PCB's, metals, preservatives like methyl paraben, BPA, not to mention various hydrocarbons like toluene and xylene etc. The CDC publishes a general informational report on what is found, primarily trending conclusions are made; not that anyone is really interested, certainly isn't comforting, but the reports and additional fact sheets can be found below.

https://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/index.html


----------



## bstnh1 (Feb 28, 2019)

jswordy said:


> Top shelf wines like:
> 
> 
> Sutter Home Merlot: 51.4 ppb
> ...



Soooooo ........... that explains why I have no weeds or grass growing in my gut. And I thought it was from healthy eating!


----------



## Johnd (Feb 28, 2019)

bstnh1 said:


> Soooooo ........... that explains why I have no weeds or grass growing in my gut. And I thought it was from healthy eating!



And why the grass dies when I pee in the back yard.............


----------



## stickman (Feb 28, 2019)

After several exposures humans become Roundup Ready.


----------



## pgentile (Feb 28, 2019)

stickman said:


> After several exposures humans become Roundup Ready.



That's not what this guy says. https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/10/health/monsanto-johnson-trial-verdict/index.html


----------



## Boatboy24 (Feb 28, 2019)

Guess I need to stock up on Peak Organic IPA.


----------



## bstnh1 (Feb 28, 2019)

pgentile said:


> That's not what this guy says. https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/10/health/monsanto-johnson-trial-verdict/index.html



It's California! Nothing they do there makes any sense.


----------



## Frosty452 (Mar 1, 2019)

Johnd said:


> Now those are the numbers that I'd expect to be out of control. Once Monsanto invented Roundup, they also started selling genetically enhanced farm seed / grains that were "Roundup Ready", meaning that it didn't affect them. So you can plant Roundup Ready corn and spray roundup on the entire crop, and it kills everything but the corn. Roundup ready soybeans, same gig. More here about it if you're interested: http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/about.html



Except it is sprayed on long before there is any produce on the plant. Also last I checked ( it's been a while since) Roundup ready is only labeled for livestock consumption


----------



## ibglowin (Mar 1, 2019)

Years ago my former employer aka "The Laboratory" started making all sub contractors who mow, weedwack, spray herbicides etc. wear a Tyvek jumpsuit, half face respirator and of course safety glasses anytime they do anything basically. Even peak summer months when we can hit in the 90's. Probably a good move on their part......


----------



## ibglowin (Mar 1, 2019)

Nothing personal but anytime you mention politics on either side (red or blue) they will be deleted. Its just too polarizing of a subject and flame wars start up almost immediately guaranteed.


----------



## Dennis Griffith (Mar 1, 2019)

Well, this is something that has been on my mind of late. I use Round Up fastidiously and sparingly. I do so with all the chemicals I use. I tried the organic route, and didn't have much success. I live in the fungus and mold capital of the US (Ohio river valley). Needless to say histoplasmosis is another concern for residents here and my wife had part of her lung removed in 2000 as a result of it. For grapes, if you don't treat, you will have downy and powdery mildews. I also maintain the rows of younger plants with Roundup so that they can get their feet in good soil without competition. I have looked at the citrus based weed killer, but it is not systemic and only kills the foliage, so I'd have to treat more often to control weeds. So my question is, 'How long is glyphosate residual in the soil?' My wife was diagnosed with Non Hodgkin's Lymphoma in January, which is why I have additional concern now. I have long been an advocate of science, but I have long believed that we know less than we think we do.

PS. If you have experience with the citrus based weed killers, please let me know as I'm interested in how the grapes respond and how it effects the soil.


----------



## ibglowin (Mar 1, 2019)

Some studies have said glyphosate never breaks down. Monsanto has always said it breaks down in 24 hours but most believe that that is now wishful thinking and a marketing ploy at best.


----------



## jswordy (Mar 1, 2019)




----------



## Dennis Griffith (Mar 1, 2019)

ibglowin said:


> Some studies have said glyphosate never breaks down. Monsanto has always said it breaks down in 24 hours but most believe that that is now wishful thinking and a marketing ploy at best.



I wish I could find a good paper or two on this. I've always been on the skeptical side and need to see independent sources. And yes, they indicate that it dissipates quickly in the soil cause it's 'bio-degradable'. This won't help as they get the pants sued off of them. Can't watch TV without an ambulance chaser commercial.


----------



## jswordy (Mar 1, 2019)

ibglowin said:


> Some studies have said glyphosate never breaks down. Monsanto has always said it breaks down in 24 hours but most believe that that is now wishful thinking and a marketing ploy at best.



I farm and use glyphosate for weed control in summer. When Monsanto first came out with Roundup, they told us farmers it was a harmless salt that would easily break down on soil contact and that it would be at least 125 years before we saw weed resistance. It took 20. I wouldn't trust 'em. Nowadays, they are offering "new" mixes of glyphosate with old known nasties like 2,4-D under fancy names to try to counter the weed resistance.

BTW, about 20% of US farmers still grow the old non-GMO, non-Roundup Ready plants because they like the premium prices they get for them. That doesn't mean they are chemical free, though.

The good side of glyphosate is that it has promoted lots of no-till planting, saving us millions of tons of topsoil. So there's a yin and a yang to everything.

Mostly, though, I do adhere to the "What ya gonna do?" rule. As already mentioned, Roundup Ready means glyphosate is present in all our foods. It is supposed to break down, averting the situation we have with atrazine, which is found even in water in remote areas of Yellowstone Park, some of our most pristine remaining lands. See above: I wouldn't trust 'em.

Course, climate change might get us before chemical residues or rogue genetics getting loose will. And the rogue genetics is a big deal. For example, they told us the Roundup Ready genes were stable in the plants, but they found out that genes from corn or beans can easily drift to adjacent weeds and confer resistance. That's why they started to make farmers plant buffer strips, and why 125 years to resistance became 20. It's why I worry when they talk about growing crops to produce drugs, etc. Those rogue genes can escape pretty easy. When they first started out, they did not realize that the air is literally a genetic soup, transferring genes from plant to plant regardless of species relationships. I makes me wonder what they don't know now.

There have actually been court cases where farmers have been told they cannot plant seed from a non-GMO crop they planted because the patented genes from an adjacent GMO crop had contaminated the non-GMO crop, making its seed patent protected. Go figure.

Anyway, they say the insects are best adapted to surviving it all. The next era is theirs, they say. Meanwhile I reckon I'll work on my 39,420,000 bottles.


----------



## Dennis Griffith (Mar 1, 2019)

I've only been using Round Up for about 3 years on the grapes. Now I wonder if it's residual in the grapes. I've been using in on fence rows for quite a while longer and didn't think it was that dangerous (it is only a salt). Now my wife has cancer and I wonder if I gave it to her by using it.


----------



## ibglowin (Mar 1, 2019)

I found this article pretty interesting. Fairly recent as well.

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-...e-worlds-most-popular-herbicide-roundup-30308



Dennis Griffith said:


> I wish I could find a good paper or two on this. I've always been on the skeptical side and need to see independent sources. And yes, they indicate that it dissipates quickly in the soil cause it's 'bio-degradable'. This won't help as they get the pants sued off of them. Can't watch TV without an ambulance chaser commercial.


----------



## Dennis Griffith (Mar 1, 2019)

Thank you. A well written piece on the topic. From what I gather, using straight glyphosate is safer that using formulations such a 'Round Up'. It's something to consider. I sure more will come out on this as researchers dig into it. There's a lot of bucks riding on this research. Just have to separate the chaff from the wheat, so to say.

PS. thanks for the article


----------



## sour_grapes (Mar 1, 2019)

jswordy said:


> BTW, about 20% of US farmers still grow the old non-GMO, non-Roundup Ready plants because they like the premium prices they get for them. That doesn't mean they are chemical free, though.



Perhaps 20% of _farmers_ use non-GMO plants (so 80% use GMO), but ~90% of _acreage_ is GMO. Latest figures I have is 88% of US corn acres and 93% of US soybean acres are planted with GMO varieties. This change happened very quickly, like over 10-12 years.


----------



## Masbustelo (Mar 2, 2019)

American agriculture is so saturated with chemicals that home gardeners cant safely use manure, hay or straw in their gardens. Usually compost produced by cities in sophisticated systems are considered safe. For mulch i use leaves and wood chips. Wood chips can also be used commercially or in home vineyards to control weeds. They have naturally occurring chemicals that basically inhibit all seed germination.


----------



## Dennis Griffith (Mar 2, 2019)

Masbustelo said:


> American agriculture is so saturated with chemicals that home gardeners cant safely use manure, hay or straw in their gardens. Usually compost produced by cities in sophisticated systems are considered safe. For mulch i use leaves and wood chips. Wood chips can also be used commercially or in home vineyards to control weeds. They have naturally occurring chemicals that basically inhibit all seed germination.



I have been using untreated cyprus mulch/chips in my grape rows. It takes a couple years before it really starts to affect weeds and needs to be 3 to 4" deep. The grapes don't mind having mulch piled up around it like some other plants/trees. But I have used glyphosate to help fight the weeds for the early years, but only in spots. I don't like blanketing the rows with it. Fortunately there is a company here in Ohio that is a supplier of cyprus and it boils down to about $2 per 50 pounds. It just needs to be spread down the rows.


----------



## Masbustelo (Mar 2, 2019)

If you want to go fishing after a couple of years you have lots of big worms too.


----------



## jswordy (Mar 5, 2019)

Dennis Griffith said:


> Thank you. A well written piece on the topic. From what I gather, using straight glyphosate is safer that using formulations such a 'Round Up'. It's something to consider. I sure more will come out on this as researchers dig into it. There's a lot of bucks riding on this research. Just have to separate the chaff from the wheat, so to say.
> 
> PS. thanks for the article



Roundup IS glyphosate (41% solution). Patent has expired so now yo can buy it in other brands, too.


----------



## Dennis Griffith (Mar 5, 2019)

Yes, I know, but the article detailed research that indicated that it may be the additives rather that the glyphosate that may be the problem.


----------



## jswordy (Mar 5, 2019)

sour_grapes said:


> Perhaps 20% of _farmers_ use non-GMO plants (so 80% use GMO), but ~90% of _acreage_ is GMO. Latest figures I have is 88% of US corn acres and 93% of US soybean acres are planted with GMO varieties. This change happened very quickly, like over 10-12 years.



Yeah I have those figures at home. I used the 20% as a rough figure. It is in the mid-range 80% GMO out of total acreage planted, per my February "Farm Journal" magazine. Farmers who grow non-GMO make a premium for it but they also have to work harder, too, to make sure there is no contamination with GMO seed or residue in their bins, trucks, combines, etc., until delivery. And like I said, the genes in the air can contaminate a field if there is not adequate buffer. Get contaminated and you lose the premium for all your hard work. 

Of course, the quick adoption of herbicide resistant trait GMO systems is no surprise. They are superior in every way as a production system when maximum yield is the goal. And maximum yield is the goal of most farmers, since land and equipment are expensive to lease or own and maintain, and the farmer is the only businessperson who buys inputs at retail and then sells into a market in which s/he has no control over the ultimate pricing of the product other than timing of sale. Maximizing yield is a hedge against low prices. And farming is inherently a low ROI endeavor. It takes a lot of cash to make a little cash.

And glyphosate has its good and bad points. As I mentioned, millions of tons of topsoil have been saved by no-till practices using glyphosate to "burn down" weed growth and then planting directly into last year's plant residues. Also, when compared to 2,4-D and other herbicides, KNOWN carcinogens and bad actors and - trust me - really nasty stuff, glyphosate is relatively benign. Though class action attorneys would have you think it is a top-notch killer.

Every action has a yin and yang. When we build a new interstate highway, it's great for us but not so good for the deer. Etc.

The real trouble with glyphosate is that weed resistance is much faster acquired than they had predicted. That means the useable life of it is limited. And the alternatives so far are all nastier stuff. As I said, they are coming out with those in blends now. Or you can look at Dicamba, a really nasty actor in my view. But becoming more widely adopted due to weed resistance to glyphosate.

And the flip side of genetic modifications, we don't really know all about yet. So that's a big question going forward. Just as our knowledge about intra-field contamination was limited when we got into this whole thing, our knowledge of what gene splicing does in the broader world is also limited. We don't know what we don't know until we know it, and field experience is not always the most pleasant way to learn.

As long as cheap and readily available food is the top priority, as it is in the USA, I don't see the country - or for that matter, the world - backing away from GMO production systems.


----------



## jswordy (Mar 5, 2019)

Dennis Griffith said:


> Yes, I know, but the article detailed research that indicated that it may be the additives rather that the glyphosate that may be the problem.



Yeah, it's partly a semantics thing, since everybody living in the country calls glyphosate Roundup. I haven't used Roundup brand for well over 10 years since the patent ran out. The 59% side of glyphosate is ethoxylated tallow amines, surfactants used for adherence to plants that come from rendered animals. The EPA says review of the research indicates they are safe. For what that is worth.


----------



## sour_grapes (Mar 5, 2019)

jswordy said:


> Of course, the quick adoption of herbicide resistant trait GMO systems is no surprise. They are superior in every way as a production system when maximum yield is the goal. And maximum yield is the goal of most farmers, since land and equipment are expensive to lease or own and maintain, and the farmer is the only businessperson who buys inputs at retail and then sells into a market in which s/he has no control over the ultimate pricing of the product other than timing of sale. Maximizing yield is a hedge against low prices. And farming is inherently a low ROI endeavor. It takes a lot of cash to make a little cash.
> 
> And glyphosate has its good and bad points. As I mentioned, millions of tons of topsoil have been saved by no-till practices using glyphosate to "burn down" weed growth and then planting directly into last year's plant residues. Also, when compared to 2,4-D and other herbicides, KNOWN carcinogens and bad actors and - trust me - really nasty stuff, glyphosate is relatively benign.



It may not have been evident in my last post, but my viewpoint is indistinguishable from yours.


----------



## bstnh1 (Mar 6, 2019)

I've been using Round-Up and generic equivalents around the yard for years. Before that, my choice was 2-4-D. Admittedly, I don't cover myself with it, but I do get some of the undiluted stuff on my hands. Have never suffered any ill effects from it. And now I'm too damn old to worry about it! lol
The one successful lawsuit against Monsanto that I read about involved a guy who sprayed Round-Up for a school district and on several occasions was sprayed head-to-toe with the stuff. Still, from what I read, there is no definitive way to prove what caused his cancer. Apparently the technology to determine the cause of any cancer is not there yet.


----------



## Dennis Griffith (May 8, 2019)

I tried the citrus oil base stuff this spring and it's about worthless. I may try vinegar/Epsom salts concoction just to see what it does. As it is, I'm getting ready to spray fence rows and the established rows in the vineyard. I have looked at mechanical means, but still don't see how I can do that and leave the mulch. I have to do something as we have an evasive species (Autumn/Russian Olive) here that bear copious quantities of berries that the birds eat. When they land on the top wires in the vineyard, they poop out the seeds. So guess where I find lots of these plants starting to grow? If you don't control these devils, they tale over in short order and can grow 4' to 5' a year. The property near me is loaded with them and I can't seem to convince the birds to fly elsewhere. So glyphosate it is.


----------



## Masbustelo (May 8, 2019)

Note that if you try to mix he vinegar spray that there are industrial strength solutions that might be more powerful. https://www.factorydirectchemicals....ial-vinegar-the-difference-between-20-30-pure


----------



## Dennis Griffith (May 8, 2019)

I'm curious to what effect this acid has on the soil. Does it alter pH or cause uptake issues for other minerals. I intend on trying it, but not on the vineyard. What I'll do is take a soil sample, treat the area, an then take another soil sample down the road, say 2 months. That corresponds with my annual sample (soil and green matter) delivery for testing.


----------



## Dennis Griffith (May 8, 2019)

I suppose I'm looking for a magical spray that only kills weeds, doesn't effect the bark or grapevine, that isn't toxic, and doesn't leave anything in the soil.


----------



## Rice_Guy (May 9, 2019)

Dennis Griffith said:


> I suppose I'm looking for a magical spray that only kills weeds, doesn't effect the bark or grapevine, that isn't toxic, and doesn't leave anything in the soil.


would a weed eater with a few spare batteries work? (My big issue is creeping Charlie, , , grows over 12 inches of mulch)


----------



## Dennis Griffith (May 9, 2019)

I have 2, plus a gas powered one (never use anymore). I always carry one while I walk the rows, and I spend a lot of time stooping, pulling, and weed eating. I also use nail aprons, one for cutters, scissors, and jute. The other carries a spare battery or 2. And yea, mulch only does so much, but I like how it keeps the soil conditioned and moist. I really do try to avoid weed killers. I just put in another 40+ vines yesterday, so I do a lot of walking and weed eating.


----------

