Steve Savage Addresses Samsel and Seneff study, “Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases II: Celiac sprue and gluten intolerance”

By GMOAnswers Admin • March 14, 2014

In a recent literature survey published by Samsel and Seneff, an argument is made for a possible link between the incidence of celiac disease in the United States and the use of the herbicide glyphosate. A key element of the authors’ argument is based on a single example of a study with fish (Senapati et al., 2009). In that study, adverse effects were observed in fish that were exposed to water containing a glyphosate-based herbicide. Samsel and Seneff concluded that the effects observed in the fish were "highly reminiscent of celiac disease." The Senapati fish paper is itself deeply flawed, but it is also irrelevant.

Senapati et al. exposed fish in tanks to a glyphosate rate of 4mg/L, added as a commercial formulation manufactured in India, called Excel Mera-71. That is a formulation made for terrestrial, not aquatic, use, and it is described as containing glyphosate and "a blend of non-ionic and cationic surfactants." At least in the United States, products registered for use on emerged weeds growing in water do not contain surfactants, because they are known to injure fish. The 4mg/L concentration used in the Senapati study was also more than twice as high as the highest rate allowed for a legitimate aquatic formulation, AquaMaster, in the United States. In addition, the water in which the fish were kept was replaced every other day for 45 days with a fresh supply of the surfactant-containing herbicide—not something relevant to any real-world situation. There was no surfactant control in this study, even though surfactants are well known for being able to cause injury to the gills and digestive tracks of fish. The Senapati study simply redocumented the fact that long-term, high-rate exposure of fish to surfactants is damaging, while glyphosate and its primary metabolite, AMPA, are classified as "practically non-toxic" to fish by the EPA.

There is no pattern of potential glyphosate exposure for humans in the United States that is even remotely like that in this poorly designed fish study. The formulation surfactants would not be present in human foods, the rates of glyphosate would be orders of magnitude lower and they would be in the form of the metabolite AMPA. 

The Senapati study simply provides no meaningful data that Samsel and Seneff can use to connect glyphosate and celiac incidence.

Posted on July 21, 2017
GMOs aren't really added directly to the meat, beef.  However, beef cattle may consume feed that comes from a genetically modified plant. All beef cattle begin their lives on a farm or ranch, grazing pasture or grass - none of which is considered a GMO. For many cows this will be their sole source of feed for their lifetime. Some cattle receive rations of grain, which may contain corn or soybeans, both of which have genetically modified hybrids and varieties. ... Read More
Posted on March 28, 2017
Thanks for the question, which I will address in two ways here.   1. What are three ways that organisms are modified by scientists? Here I will focus only on plants.   a. Agrobacterium: Agrobacterium tumefaciens (Agro) is a naturally occurring soil organism that causes a disease in plants called crown gall disease. In the late 1970s, Mary-Dell Chilton discovered that Agro actually transfers genes (DNA) from the Agro to the plant cell, where it becomes integrated into the plant... Read More
Posted on March 2, 2017
First of all, to clarify – hybridization is part of conventional breeding and conventional breeding uses hybridization to create new combinations of genes from parent varieties. For example, a disease-resistant wheat variety may be hybridized to a variety that makes flour better suited for making whole wheat bread. This is a common goal of most conventional breeding programs. It typically involves taking pollen from one parent and using it to fertilize another parent. The... Read More
STUDY: New report highlights 20 years of economic and environmental benefits from using biotech/GM crops
STUDY: Biotech/GM Crops Surge to a New Peak of 185.1 Million Hectares in 2016