Is it not true that the "Roundup Ready" products/plants made by Monsanto (a sponsor of this site) are the only agricultural (plant) product that will survive when sprayed with Roundup? Given that Roundup is an extremely toxic (strong) product, could it not be surmised that those sprayed products, when eaten by humans, could be somewhat toxic to the human body? Also, seed-saving is economically vital to many farmers and urban-growers from year to year. Does Monsanto not fine and/or prosecute anyone who saves the seed for the next year? Is it not in Monsanto's extensive contract that they demand that all growers sign, that all seed be destroyed after harvest? Why is this so? Those of us who are informed know that if one saves a seed from a hybrid plant, (not open-pollinated), the next year's crop will most likely be a different form from the original plant. Could this be why you support GMO plants, so that you can keep making a profit from year to year on sales? I'd like to believe that this forum is a true attempt at telling the truth; please don't prove me wrong...

Expert response from Community Manager

Tuesday, 25/11/2014 11:42

GMO Answers is a great resource for independent experts, farmers, academics and industry people alike to provide information regarding GMOs and GM crops in a format to engage in dialogue with those interested in this conversation. Our goal is to share information, answer questions, clarify myths and mistruths and evoke transparency regarding the agricultural solutions and technologies developed/needed for a nutritional, abundant and sustainable food supply, keeping in mind that we need to accomplish these goals while conserving dwindling resources on a limited amount of land and protecting our environment. The questions that have been posed are among the most asked specifically on this site, so each question has been portioned out and addressed separately.

Q: Is it not true that the "Roundup Ready" products/plants made by Monsanto (a sponsor of this site) are the only agricultural (plant) product that will survive when sprayed with Roundup? 

No, it isn’t true. Multiple companies produce crops that are tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup agricultural herbicides. These are listed below. In addition, many of these traits are used in the development of varieties and hybrids by both large and small seed companies via licensing agreements, so that there are many entities that develop and sell glyphosate-tolerant crops in the United States and abroad.

Please note all have been approved by the US Department of Agriculture but several of them are not yet commercial* products and are pending receiving authorizations in import markets:

As I have already mentioned, Roundup herbicide contains the active ingredient glyphosate and Roundup Ready crops are genetically modified to tolerate the herbicide application. Here is a previous response for greater detail on exactly how these plants are modified to be unaffected by glyphosate.

Here is a response that describes how glyphosate works and then addresses other issues you are interested in, such as health and safety: How it healthy for humans to eat a plant that has been genetically modified to not die when sprayed with roundup? Is eating a crop that laced with roundup considered healthy when it would have otherwise died from the chemical?

Q: Given that Roundup is an extremely toxic (strong) product, could it not be surmised that those sprayed products, when eaten by humans, could be somewhat toxic to the human body?

Glyphosate has been (and continues to be) extensively tested for safety and, when used according to label directions (as with anything), has a long history of safe use and will not pose any unreasonable risk to human health. Substances and their properties are collated in the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheets), and for this conversation, the critical information of concern would be whether it is a carcinogen, which is represented by the LD50 value. Please review Safety of Herbicides Compared to Other Commonly Used Chemicals publication from the University of Tennessee Institute of Ag Dept to clearly define this value and the impact to safety. However, in summary, glyphosate has an LD50 value of 5108 mg/kg and is not carcinogenic, whereas household bleach has a 5x lower LD50 value (which means a higher toxicity profile), and it is unknown whether it causes cancer.

More interesting comparisons of general “materials, substances, chemicals, etc.” to glyphosate familiar to you, from water to Botox, along with their toxicity category, can be found at this link. For the full article from Genetic Literacy Project discussing glyphosate toxicity to humans, which also includes this graphic, please visit the link.

I have included a handful of responses that address your concern of human health and glyphosate:

• Glyphosate in Round-up is listed as the "Active" ingredient, toxicity level III of IV (IV being the least toxic). However, the surfactants mixed with Glyphosate in the Round-up product greatly increase the toxicity level. Is this correct?
• Is it safe to eat Roundup?
• DOES GLYPHOSATE CAUSE CANCER?
• How can humans be safe if we are now eating more herbicides (since more can be applied with Roundup Ready GMO crops)?
• How long does glyphosate remain in roundup ready corn after it is applied?

Q: Also, seed-saving is economically vital to many farmers and urban-growers from year to year. Does Monsanto not fine and/or prosecute anyone who saves the seed for the next year? Is it not in Monsanto's extensive contract that they demand that all growers sign, that all seed be destroyed after harvest? Why is this so? Those of us who are informed know that if one saves a seed from a hybrid plant, (not open-pollinated), the next year's crop will most likely be a different form from the original plant. Could this be why you support GMO plants, so that you can keep making a profit from year to year on sales?

You are correct about the contracts involved between the farmer/grower and Monsanto (as well as all other seed businesses). Farmers understand that they are agreeing to use the seed only for the planting of one commercial crop and that they will not save or replant seeds produced from the seeds they purchase. Another response that further illustrates this idea can be reviewed here: Why is saving seeds, something inherent in nature, illegal? Why are farmers being sued for doing so? Are GMOs designed not to create seeds so farmers have to buy seeds every season? if so, how does that effect bio diversity?  

These contracts serve another purpose as well: to protect a company’s intellectual property. Here is why this is important:

• Allows inventors to recover their research and development costs — and in the case of a GMO, this averages out to 13 years and $130 million.
• Helps to foster future innovation. Monsanto, for example, invests more than $2.6 million per day in collaborations, as well as R&D, which would not be possible if our IP was not protected.

A recent response from my colleague on this very topic goes into much greater detail on IP and our farmer contracts. Here is an excerpt:

“Agricultural companies such as Monsanto, as well as public institutions and individuals, are able to patent seed trait technology because it is considered intellectual property … It has been well documented that a robust intellectual property system helps drive investment and invention. For example, ASTA sponsored this study on the value of IP rights in the seed industry. A basic reason for patents is to protect intellectual property, which allows inventors to recover their research and development costs. Research and development in the area of GM traits is expensive and generally has a low probability of success.”

To address whether a seed, after replanting, will produce the same/similar/different product, the real issue here is that the technology within the seed has not been purchased, and this is part of the contract. On the other hand, farmers realize the benefit of GM technology and want the best seed each year to for their farm — plus, typically farmers will see better yield with new seed. FYI, US soy and canola are not hybrids. Again, sales of our products drive innovation. A more in-depth response on seed saving is answered by farmer Bart Schott.

However, you touch on the technical subject of hybrid seeds and seem to believe that “hybrid” is a GMO invention, when in fact hybridization has been used by breeders since the early 1900s and can be used in organic, conventional or GM farming techniques. For the entire explanation, please read Brandon Hunnicutt’s response to “What is the difference between a hybrid and a GMO? Neither method alters genes, correct?”