How do you respond to the recent Entropy publication blaming glyphosate as disrupting our biochemical pathways and potentially being responsible for most of the primary diseases of Americans for being on the rise in the last 5 years? I am providing the link to the article I am referring to: http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416

And a youtube video of this article being discussed with a PhD which broke down the article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_AHLDXF5aw#t=2213 I understand the video is pretty attacking, but I want you to counter their facts.

Expert response from Dan Goldstein

Former Senior Science Fellow and Lead, Medical Sciences and Outreach, Monsanto Company

Wednesday, 16/10/2013 12:30

This publication claims that there is a causal connection between glyphosate and numerous diseases, including autism, Alzheimer’s, obesity, anorexia nervosa, liver disease, reproductive and developmental disorders, and cancer.  

In actuality, the manuscript offers no new data.  Instead it presents multiple hypotheses, none of which are tested, and in order for the story to be true, every one of the hypotheses must be true. It is an attempt to make correlations between glyphosate and common health ailments. None of the disease associations are supported by available toxicology testing, experimentation, or by observations associating glyphosate exposure with these disease outcomes in human populations. Proponents of the paper like to point out that it was in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, but it was published in a Physics journal with an editorial board that has no members qualified in the areas of biology, metabolism or medicine. 

The paper is interesting because it strings together so many hypothetical allegations that the details would be confusing even to scientists not skilled in each field of science implicated in the allegations, and therefore, the temptation of many would be to just read the conclusions.  Always be suspicious of associations without cause and effect, in vitro data extended to in vivo conclusions, without regard to experimental conditions such as dose, and extraordinary hypotheses not supported by years of research.

If you watch the video you will note that Stephanie Seneff states clearly that they have no new data and that the paper raises hypotheses but offers no proof that they are correct.

Dr. Kevin Folta offered more information about the quality of the science in this publication in a similar answer: http://gmoanswers.com/ask/maybe-gmos-arent-problem-they-are-only-enabler-case-roundup-ready-enabling-food-be-doused-it