Line 4Line 4 Copyic/close/grey600play_circle_outline - material

Answers

Question

How can an organism that has been genetically modified to produce "Round Up" Be considered safe to eat when all there is a variety of anecdotal evidence readily availible that states Glyphosate is harmful http://action.responsibletechnology.org/p/salsa/web/common/public/content?content_item_KEY=11129 Also how Can I take your word that this is safe when Monsanto(the lobbyists pushing this including this site) is the Same Company Responsible for the infamous agent orange defoilant used in vietnam?

Submitted by: Idontlikepoison


Answer

Expert response from Steve Savage

Consultant, Savage & Associates

Monday, 12/08/2013 15:21

First of all, no organisms have ever been modified to produce Roundup (glyphosate). Several crops have been modified with a minimally altered version of one of their existing enzymes (EPSPS) which makes them tolerant to that herbicide, but they don't make it. Second, regulatory agencies around the world don't base their decisions on “anecdotal evidence,” no matter how much is available. They stick to solid science.

 

The consensus among regulators is quite clear that glyphosate has no real health or environmental issues. I'm sorry that so many people think that agencies like the EPA are somehow “bought off.” All I can say is that if you are in an industry such agencies regulate, it certainly never feels like that. I also know independent academic toxicologists who serve on EPA committees, so I get some window on that source of objectivity that is involved in the process. I also have a lot of respect for all the EPA folks I’ve had occasion to meet, and I don't think they deserve the criticism they get from either the Right or the Left of the political spectrum. I’m really glad that the EPA has been around for 44 years, refining their risk assessment capabilities and regulatory processes. I wish more people could have that confidence.

Finally, the ultimate responsibility for the tragic health issues with Agent Orange is not something that is easily assigned. It was a repugnant military strategy in the first place—to drive the peasants off their farmland so that they could not provide food for the insurgents, and also to defoliate the jungles to make it easier to find the Viet Cong. The military also required several U.S. chemical manufacturers to quickly provide large quantities of the active ingredients: ­ 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. This was a long time ago (40—50 years), and at the time, no one realized that there was a trace process contaminant in the 2,4,5-T—­a dioxin. The effects of that unintended component were horrible ­ but it does no service to the Vietnamese and American people and families who suffered to casually assign blame. Hopefully, we have learned a great deal from that collective mistake.