South Dakota Voices Response: Jeanette, thank you for joining the discussion. Very good points. Should it be outlawed or should we require testing? Are there other options?
Email comment from JS: "I thought Round UP was regulated for use in the US. Why the heck are the food companies allowed to put it in our foods, we have it in facial creams, lotions, in our water sources and almost every other part of our lives... Get rid of it."
Most water anywhere you go tastes like something is wrong with it. I farmed for many years as well as my dad and my grandparents in union county SD. In 1986 my dad died of kidney, lung and other areas cancer. I relate his death with chemicals, here’s why. When the new at the time product 2-4D came out very little was known about it, possibly not much for warnings of any kind on the can then, just a guess. He sprayed the pasture with it one day, breezy and it drifted on him several times to the point he got deathly sick, had to crawl to the house to get help and everything he vomited up smelled like that chemical. Through several years he did his own spraying of many different chemicals, Atrazine, roundup, Banvel, etc.! As i got into helping i too sprayed these toxic chemicals and worse than that i ran a floater for the Farmers COOP in Akron, Iowa spraying pre and then post with a rogator most of the summer. My biggest product i used was roundup and as careful as you want to be you still get it on you. I’ve been retired since the age of 62, now 67 but been fighting possible prostrate cancer since 2014. We moved to Madison, SD in 2022 and in 2023 again they said it looks like i have cancer. I believe in homeopathic/ natural ways of fighting things and i think things are working out fairly well, that’s an while another subject i could discuss with anyone. But what were spraying and fertilizing is killing us. What’s going in the water beneath us and its not only agriculture chemicals its everyday chemical that we use. We have no idea what all in the food we been eating for ages or drinking. I do know prostrate cancer is way more in the population than anyone one knows or lets on about. What other cancers are out there of other types no ones speaks about. The other thing is when they vaccinate you or shoot you with something do you ask the side effects, what’s in it? You wouldn’t want to know, its unbelievable. Then you go to the Doctor and and they give you chemo which is a sham, good honest doctors will tell you it only fixes 3% of those treated, but its big money to the doctors and supplier. Radiation is just that, will fry your insides and cause more cancers. Then there all the other things like hormone treatment which have unbelievable damage. The thing is there is no money in a cure, between big pharma and Doctors its all about the money over lives saved. I hope is RFK now will expose all the bad things going on in our day to day lives that’s killing us slowly and some cases very quickly.
Email comment from HB: "Sorry, I disagree that roundup causes cancer. I have farmed for 50 years and have used roundup for at least 40 of those.I have read many of the studies done by reputable organizations. They all will tell you roundup does not cause cancer. Roundup only affects one gene that is only found in green plants. Very safe if used properly."
I was shocked when I found out a couple years ago that roundup was being used as a desiccant. I don't eat much wheat anymore. I was fortunate to meet a group of wheat farmers in the panhandle of Nebraska who raise organic wheat. Most of their produce is shipped to Japan.
If people don't believe they spray mature wheat with roundup all they have to do is drive from Wall to Hayes mid June. One field will be green, the next on is being harvested.
Begs the question, can it be that lawmakers are willfully ignorant, grifting or lazy, maybe another reason, simply do what they are told?
I quit eating grains treated with glyphosates and that are genetically modified. Grains treated with 'Roundup' cost about 0.20/lb vs 0.55/pound for ancient grains.
Yes, there's an argument for feeding folks, but at the risk of the farmer who's been spraying for 20 years? The data, science, a word that has been ruined by media, shows studies that don't actually follow the mixture and exposure the farmer is exposed. Also, it can be argued that glyphosates are more beneficial than dangerous, as it has been in the courts.
In my opinion, accountability drives safety, we can observe that lawsuits force scrutiny, Bayer reformulated Roundup in Europe, they dropped POEA surfactants, because they were considered a probable carcinogen. From the court records, it Monsanto hid early glyphosate risks, 1980s memos, unsealed 2017, suits exposed this. Why didn't the lawsuit have Bayer reformulate US sold Roundup?
If glyphosate cause cancer, 41% NHL risk in heavy users, Mutation Research, 2019, victims deserve compensatio our farmers spraying 20+ years shouldn’t eat the cost. Exemption screws them the farmer, not Bayer’s $63 billion revenue.
Lawsuits signal demand—$10.9 billion pushed Bayer to non-glyphosate options such as pelargonic acid Roundup, seems that exemption dulls incentives, why innovate if you’re untouchable?
Why do our lawmakers embolden both the pharma and companies that produce risky chemicals, historical evidence?
Monsanto Internal docs (2017 lawsuit leaks) show they downplayed glyphosate risks, ghostwrote studies, and lobbied EPA in the 1980s to 90s. $10.9 billion in settlements reined that in, Bayer’s now scrambling for safer mixes, my point it without law suits it would be business as usual.
Other Cases for example, DDT (banned 1972) and Agent Orange (sued out of use) show companies push limits till litigation bites, carelessness thrives without consequences.
No fear of accountability is an incentive shift I think it is good that lawsuits cost billions, Bayer slashed dividends 2023 to pay Roundup claims.
Fear of courts keeps formulations under scrutiny. If they are exempt, there's no financial hit, seriously, why spend $1 billion on R&D for safer herbicides when glyphosate’s $5 billion/year cash cow keeps mooing?
EPA Limits: Approves based on lab data (e.g., 300 mg/kg/day safe in rats) in reality the real-world mixes glyphosate + adjuvants slip through, no lab has tested what is actually used in the field or yard. Companies might still tweak formulas to dodge PR hits or EU bans glyphosate’s on a 2033 clock there. Bayer’s slow pivot pre-lawsuits (1974–2015) suggests profit lags safety without a legal shove, in my opinion exemption leads to worse human and environmental outcomes.
With exemption, carelessness rises; why test exhaustively or ditch risky additives if no one can sue?
Affordability, sure, Roundup keeps grain at $0.20/lb, not $0.50/lb organic.
Lawsuits hike food prices passed-on legal fees, exemption saves that, at the risk of our health?
I think that part of these settlements, the companies should also set aside a funds and given a timeline to innovate their way to better solutions, it is how we will survive.
Thank you for the very good questions and analysis. I wonder whether we should question the "producing enough food" argument. If food was really in short supply there would be no need for subsidies and subsidies uses for food (ethanol). One has to wonder whether we need to reduce the chemicals a bit and become a little less efficient (and less toxic).
I first watched the documentary "Vaccine Roulette" in early 80s by Lea Thompson, then comes along Barbara Loe Fischer's book DPT: A Shot In The Dark ( a very sad story of her own son's severe injury to DPT) and their group DPT ( Dissatisfied Parents Together) which led to the groundswell of moms and parents in bringing the '86 law but they do lament - to this day - that their efforts in bringing that law into place ended up working against them and shielding the manufacturers. Again, I'm in the minority here, but there's a better way forward with Terrain Theory of health vs. working off Pasteur's ( flawed) theory of germs, which gets us right back of the professional medicine cartel class that are bringing us these "life saving" interventions, that, as you say in the article is playing risk/benefit life and death and severe injury roulette with our very lives. There's a better way forward.
If anyone's interested I've written on some of this on my Substack.
I remain (somewhat) hopeful that RFK will try to mitigate some of this. As he's said "the only thing standing between a child and a corrupt government today is a mother"
"If the State can tag, track down and force citizens against their will to be injected with biologicals of known and unknown toxicity today, there will be no limit on which individual freedoms the State can take away in the name of the greater good tomorrow." — Barbara Loe Fisher, Co-Founder NVIC
Hopeful is a good way to look at RFKJ's time at HHS. He's got a huge challenge there in so many ways. "mitigate" is a pragmatic expectation, and I hope we will see our mitigate expectations exceeded.
The terrain theory should be primary. I think there is a role for germ theory, too. Human health and biology are so complex. Pasteur's original approach worked more with our natural immune system. So much of the approach used in modern vaccine design hits it too hard with toxins hard for the body to naturally neutralize or eliminate.
I live in Aberdeen, which has undrinkable water. No one ever explains to us why it is so bad, or what is going to be done about it. The water comes from the Elm River, which is so dirty that no amount of "treatment" can clean it up. I strongly suspect agricultural run-off.... either pesticides or fertilizer or both.
I used to live in Aberdeen and my mom is still there, living not far from Moccasin Creek ! Of course she has filtered water but, as you say, it's undrinkable and really can't be cleaned up!
Part of the issue with glyphosate and other herbicides and pesticides is that they destroy the natural and necessary microbiology for healthy soil and the human gut. A healthy gut plays a vital role in the systemically complex human immune system. The research on this exists, but it's not well publicized and still rather limited compared to what supports the big business of ag chemicals, similar to Big Food and Pharma.
We should invest in more research on the systemic harms to human and biological health from these chemicals as well as transition away from their use as quickly as possible. Such a transition will not be easy and require government assistance, or farmers will go bankrupt unfairly as the structure of their farm finance-economic operations is based on the use of GMOs and the accompanying harmful chemicals.
Often overlooked is that with that 1986 legislation the government took on both the financial risks and the responsibility to investigate and establish the safety of vaccines. It has failed in both by not adequately compensating victims who suffered injury as well as failing to properly safety test the vaccines agains true placebos or even over an extended period of time. Most were tested singly for a matter of a few weeks against previously approved vaccines (similarly approved with limited safety testing) or placebos containing all of the secondary adjuvants without the primary immune inducing agent. No government funded tests have been conducted regarding the potential interactions of one vaccine with another or from following the whole schedule. If its not adequately tested, one can equally say it's safe or unsafe. Congress was supposed to get annual reports on the vaccine safety tests, but they never asked for them. Neither did the CDC or FDA voluntarily provide them. One can read the provisions of the bill and see that. I did once. That kind of reading does not require a medical degree.
I think that it is difficult because it is not just one or two sources that cause the problem... but a fairly large number of scattered polluters, which makes it hard to target them and force some action. Using WEB water from Oahe Dam is a possible solution, but the costs of converting the whole local infrastructure to WEB are probably daunting. But we may need to bite the bullet. I am not sure that just continuing to tinker with the water treatment plant will ever suffice--it's trying to turn a sow's ear (in terms of the quality of the water itself) into a silk purse.
South Dakota Voices Response: Jeanette, thank you for joining the discussion. Very good points. Should it be outlawed or should we require testing? Are there other options?
Email comment from JS: "I thought Round UP was regulated for use in the US. Why the heck are the food companies allowed to put it in our foods, we have it in facial creams, lotions, in our water sources and almost every other part of our lives... Get rid of it."
Most water anywhere you go tastes like something is wrong with it. I farmed for many years as well as my dad and my grandparents in union county SD. In 1986 my dad died of kidney, lung and other areas cancer. I relate his death with chemicals, here’s why. When the new at the time product 2-4D came out very little was known about it, possibly not much for warnings of any kind on the can then, just a guess. He sprayed the pasture with it one day, breezy and it drifted on him several times to the point he got deathly sick, had to crawl to the house to get help and everything he vomited up smelled like that chemical. Through several years he did his own spraying of many different chemicals, Atrazine, roundup, Banvel, etc.! As i got into helping i too sprayed these toxic chemicals and worse than that i ran a floater for the Farmers COOP in Akron, Iowa spraying pre and then post with a rogator most of the summer. My biggest product i used was roundup and as careful as you want to be you still get it on you. I’ve been retired since the age of 62, now 67 but been fighting possible prostrate cancer since 2014. We moved to Madison, SD in 2022 and in 2023 again they said it looks like i have cancer. I believe in homeopathic/ natural ways of fighting things and i think things are working out fairly well, that’s an while another subject i could discuss with anyone. But what were spraying and fertilizing is killing us. What’s going in the water beneath us and its not only agriculture chemicals its everyday chemical that we use. We have no idea what all in the food we been eating for ages or drinking. I do know prostrate cancer is way more in the population than anyone one knows or lets on about. What other cancers are out there of other types no ones speaks about. The other thing is when they vaccinate you or shoot you with something do you ask the side effects, what’s in it? You wouldn’t want to know, its unbelievable. Then you go to the Doctor and and they give you chemo which is a sham, good honest doctors will tell you it only fixes 3% of those treated, but its big money to the doctors and supplier. Radiation is just that, will fry your insides and cause more cancers. Then there all the other things like hormone treatment which have unbelievable damage. The thing is there is no money in a cure, between big pharma and Doctors its all about the money over lives saved. I hope is RFK now will expose all the bad things going on in our day to day lives that’s killing us slowly and some cases very quickly.
South Dakota Voices Response: Harley, thank you for joining the discussion. We appreciate your point of view. How do you feel about glyphosate being used as a desiccant on grains? Some people who are intolerant to standard wheat, for example, can eat glyphosate free wheat. Also, have you seen the material about glyphosate disrupting the bacteria in the gut. https://www.cornucopia.org/2014/03/gut-wrenching-new-studies-reveal-insidious-effects-glyphosate/?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIxZuT4MfXiwMVRDKtBh3Wjx4FEAAYASAAEgItM_D_BwE
What do you think of these assertions?
Email comment from HB: "Sorry, I disagree that roundup causes cancer. I have farmed for 50 years and have used roundup for at least 40 of those.I have read many of the studies done by reputable organizations. They all will tell you roundup does not cause cancer. Roundup only affects one gene that is only found in green plants. Very safe if used properly."
I was shocked when I found out a couple years ago that roundup was being used as a desiccant. I don't eat much wheat anymore. I was fortunate to meet a group of wheat farmers in the panhandle of Nebraska who raise organic wheat. Most of their produce is shipped to Japan.
If people don't believe they spray mature wheat with roundup all they have to do is drive from Wall to Hayes mid June. One field will be green, the next on is being harvested.
Begs the question, can it be that lawmakers are willfully ignorant, grifting or lazy, maybe another reason, simply do what they are told?
I quit eating grains treated with glyphosates and that are genetically modified. Grains treated with 'Roundup' cost about 0.20/lb vs 0.55/pound for ancient grains.
Yes, there's an argument for feeding folks, but at the risk of the farmer who's been spraying for 20 years? The data, science, a word that has been ruined by media, shows studies that don't actually follow the mixture and exposure the farmer is exposed. Also, it can be argued that glyphosates are more beneficial than dangerous, as it has been in the courts.
In my opinion, accountability drives safety, we can observe that lawsuits force scrutiny, Bayer reformulated Roundup in Europe, they dropped POEA surfactants, because they were considered a probable carcinogen. From the court records, it Monsanto hid early glyphosate risks, 1980s memos, unsealed 2017, suits exposed this. Why didn't the lawsuit have Bayer reformulate US sold Roundup?
If glyphosate cause cancer, 41% NHL risk in heavy users, Mutation Research, 2019, victims deserve compensatio our farmers spraying 20+ years shouldn’t eat the cost. Exemption screws them the farmer, not Bayer’s $63 billion revenue.
Lawsuits signal demand—$10.9 billion pushed Bayer to non-glyphosate options such as pelargonic acid Roundup, seems that exemption dulls incentives, why innovate if you’re untouchable?
Why do our lawmakers embolden both the pharma and companies that produce risky chemicals, historical evidence?
Monsanto Internal docs (2017 lawsuit leaks) show they downplayed glyphosate risks, ghostwrote studies, and lobbied EPA in the 1980s to 90s. $10.9 billion in settlements reined that in, Bayer’s now scrambling for safer mixes, my point it without law suits it would be business as usual.
Other Cases for example, DDT (banned 1972) and Agent Orange (sued out of use) show companies push limits till litigation bites, carelessness thrives without consequences.
No fear of accountability is an incentive shift I think it is good that lawsuits cost billions, Bayer slashed dividends 2023 to pay Roundup claims.
Fear of courts keeps formulations under scrutiny. If they are exempt, there's no financial hit, seriously, why spend $1 billion on R&D for safer herbicides when glyphosate’s $5 billion/year cash cow keeps mooing?
EPA Limits: Approves based on lab data (e.g., 300 mg/kg/day safe in rats) in reality the real-world mixes glyphosate + adjuvants slip through, no lab has tested what is actually used in the field or yard. Companies might still tweak formulas to dodge PR hits or EU bans glyphosate’s on a 2033 clock there. Bayer’s slow pivot pre-lawsuits (1974–2015) suggests profit lags safety without a legal shove, in my opinion exemption leads to worse human and environmental outcomes.
With exemption, carelessness rises; why test exhaustively or ditch risky additives if no one can sue?
Affordability, sure, Roundup keeps grain at $0.20/lb, not $0.50/lb organic.
Lawsuits hike food prices passed-on legal fees, exemption saves that, at the risk of our health?
I think that part of these settlements, the companies should also set aside a funds and given a timeline to innovate their way to better solutions, it is how we will survive.
Thank you for the very good questions and analysis. I wonder whether we should question the "producing enough food" argument. If food was really in short supply there would be no need for subsidies and subsidies uses for food (ethanol). One has to wonder whether we need to reduce the chemicals a bit and become a little less efficient (and less toxic).
Interesting about ghost writing studies. I have heard those rumors before. Do you have links? This is an interesting one about pharmaceutical companies and medical reviewers. https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/pharma-paid-1-06-billion-to-reviewers-at-top-medical-journals/
I first watched the documentary "Vaccine Roulette" in early 80s by Lea Thompson, then comes along Barbara Loe Fischer's book DPT: A Shot In The Dark ( a very sad story of her own son's severe injury to DPT) and their group DPT ( Dissatisfied Parents Together) which led to the groundswell of moms and parents in bringing the '86 law but they do lament - to this day - that their efforts in bringing that law into place ended up working against them and shielding the manufacturers. Again, I'm in the minority here, but there's a better way forward with Terrain Theory of health vs. working off Pasteur's ( flawed) theory of germs, which gets us right back of the professional medicine cartel class that are bringing us these "life saving" interventions, that, as you say in the article is playing risk/benefit life and death and severe injury roulette with our very lives. There's a better way forward.
If anyone's interested I've written on some of this on my Substack.
I remain (somewhat) hopeful that RFK will try to mitigate some of this. As he's said "the only thing standing between a child and a corrupt government today is a mother"
"If the State can tag, track down and force citizens against their will to be injected with biologicals of known and unknown toxicity today, there will be no limit on which individual freedoms the State can take away in the name of the greater good tomorrow." — Barbara Loe Fisher, Co-Founder NVIC
I did not know about Barbara Fischer. Sad indeed.
Hopeful is a good way to look at RFKJ's time at HHS. He's got a huge challenge there in so many ways. "mitigate" is a pragmatic expectation, and I hope we will see our mitigate expectations exceeded.
The terrain theory should be primary. I think there is a role for germ theory, too. Human health and biology are so complex. Pasteur's original approach worked more with our natural immune system. So much of the approach used in modern vaccine design hits it too hard with toxins hard for the body to naturally neutralize or eliminate.
I live in Aberdeen, which has undrinkable water. No one ever explains to us why it is so bad, or what is going to be done about it. The water comes from the Elm River, which is so dirty that no amount of "treatment" can clean it up. I strongly suspect agricultural run-off.... either pesticides or fertilizer or both.
I read that most of the waterways in the state are contaminated. Sad. https://kbhbradio.com/water-pollution-levels-high-in-south-dakota-waterways/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20state's%202024,which%20make%20rivers%20run%20brown.
I used to live in Aberdeen and my mom is still there, living not far from Moccasin Creek ! Of course she has filtered water but, as you say, it's undrinkable and really can't be cleaned up!
Wow!
Part of the issue with glyphosate and other herbicides and pesticides is that they destroy the natural and necessary microbiology for healthy soil and the human gut. A healthy gut plays a vital role in the systemically complex human immune system. The research on this exists, but it's not well publicized and still rather limited compared to what supports the big business of ag chemicals, similar to Big Food and Pharma.
We should invest in more research on the systemic harms to human and biological health from these chemicals as well as transition away from their use as quickly as possible. Such a transition will not be easy and require government assistance, or farmers will go bankrupt unfairly as the structure of their farm finance-economic operations is based on the use of GMOs and the accompanying harmful chemicals.
Often overlooked is that with that 1986 legislation the government took on both the financial risks and the responsibility to investigate and establish the safety of vaccines. It has failed in both by not adequately compensating victims who suffered injury as well as failing to properly safety test the vaccines agains true placebos or even over an extended period of time. Most were tested singly for a matter of a few weeks against previously approved vaccines (similarly approved with limited safety testing) or placebos containing all of the secondary adjuvants without the primary immune inducing agent. No government funded tests have been conducted regarding the potential interactions of one vaccine with another or from following the whole schedule. If its not adequately tested, one can equally say it's safe or unsafe. Congress was supposed to get annual reports on the vaccine safety tests, but they never asked for them. Neither did the CDC or FDA voluntarily provide them. One can read the provisions of the bill and see that. I did once. That kind of reading does not require a medical degree.
I think that it is difficult because it is not just one or two sources that cause the problem... but a fairly large number of scattered polluters, which makes it hard to target them and force some action. Using WEB water from Oahe Dam is a possible solution, but the costs of converting the whole local infrastructure to WEB are probably daunting. But we may need to bite the bullet. I am not sure that just continuing to tinker with the water treatment plant will ever suffice--it's trying to turn a sow's ear (in terms of the quality of the water itself) into a silk purse.
Thank you for all the information.