CONNECT
GMO Technology, Glyphosate Toxicity Leaving Men Sterile
Natural Society / News Analysis
Published: Sunday 30 September 2012
One study in particular found that glyphosate (an ingredient in Roundup), leaves a residue on crops and this residue is “actually toxic to testicle cells.”
What if the pesticides and herbicides being sprayed on your food was causing your sperm to die? What if GMO crops had the same effect? What would it mean for humanity if this “modern food marvel” (as Monsanto would like you to think) was actually making men infertile, and eventually wipe us out? Sounds pretty end-of-times-ish, but it’s happening right now. Well, studies indicate that factors like glyphosate toxicity and GMO technologies could be playing a significant role in the growing number of men who struggle with fertility.
Glyphosate Toxicity and GMO Technology
One study in particular found that glyphosate (an ingredient in Roundup), leaves a residue on crops and this residue is “actually toxic to testicle cells.” Also, the residue lowers testosterone synthesis—this means the glyphosate toxicity lowers the amount of the male sex hormone available for the body to use.
The negative effects from glyphosate toxicity vary, but some people have been known to develop breasts, have a variety of birth defects, and have been known to experience carcinogenic effects as well. The people are also becoming sterile over time. Given the rate of consumption, they will likely be completely sterile within a decade.
Another study, this one out of Russia, found that hamsters who consume GM soybeans have a slower sexual maturation process and in a few generations, they weren’t able to reproduce.
“We noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as before. These pairs’ growth rate was slower and reached their sexual maturity slowly.” By the third generation, the hamsters were infertile.
So, what effects are they having on men now, today in the United States and around the world? Plenty.
According to a study out of Denmark, sperm counts have dropped exponentially, from an average of well above 100 million sperm cells per milliliter in 1940 to an average of 60 million per ml now. Some research has found that close to 20 percent of young men have counts as low as 20 million per ml.
Genetically modified soybeans are getting harder and harder to escape, and because we don’t know which products contain genetically modified ingredients in the United States, our safest bet is to simply avoid anything with any soy or corn derivatives—and this is nearly everything in your supermarket that’s not found in the produce aisles.
We can’t be surprised at this research, but we can be angry. Though it sounds like something out of a science fiction/world-domination type movie—it’s real life. Companies like Monsanto are killing people off, by one way or another, and the U.S. government is allowing it to happen.
For now, if you want to stay healthy, cancer free, and fertile, your best bet is to start a garden, eat foods grown locally, and stay away from processed foods at all costs.
Top Stories
By Green Shadow Cabinet
19 comments on "GMO Technology, Glyphosate Toxicity Leaving Men Sterile"
February 21, 2013 4:45pm
ANONO, I agree with you. We, people of science need to be more careful with nature, more humble and less pretentious. Everytime a or a renowned researcher comes with that vicious point of view (small dose do not affect, damage is neglected) ,its an I dont care test, companies are saying "natures and people are mine". Responsability is upon companies and "science people". Its the science wo/man who has to show and measure the change, damage at short and long term. Nature do not need to defend what it is or meant. What a shame! A fact, nature response, but how??? A good science quest or maybe a scientific faith! Ah! Sadly nature response consistently not in a good way...
October 07, 2012 5:18pm
I recommend the new film by the Institute for Responsible Technology, "Genetic Roulette" for the anti corporate story. A lot of smart people are alarmed by GMOs and we should at least have the right to know and to choose!
September 30, 2012 7:45pm
Early hints of this & similar organic-chemical pseudo-hormone effects were noticed over 20 years ago. Human Male Fertility fell 25% between 1895 & 1950, & another 25% between 1950 & 1995. So we’re producing stuff that sterilizes us - elegant, painless way to cut back population numbers - for those who have to eat the stuff. The ultimate triumph of technology. O Brave New Soylent World.
September 30, 2012 4:34pm
OK it's a big conspiracy to scare people away from chemicals like roundup. Fair enough. But I find that hard to believe since not one of you at this time of writing has responded with any type of credible sources. One guy actually sourced his own opinion blog. hahahaha
I have an idea. Give us just one credible study that show how glyphosate is harmless to lab animals. And by credible, I mean a scientifically peer reviewed and independent study. Give us something that is accepted science.
The only way to convince people is to show those who understand what evidence really is the evidence, evidence proper.
Just to get you started, what evidence isn't:
(1) Evidence is not your emotional need.
(2) Evidence is not your opinion.
(3) Evidence is not citing some obscure study with which you tend to agree.
(4) Evidence is not scripture.
(5) Your belief is not evidence.
What evidence is:
(1) That which corresponds to the facts.
(2) By observations,
(3) That are repeatable.
Gainesville, FL
September 30, 2012 9:36pm
DWD!!! Look at #3 above!!! Do you realize that obscure studies that are agreeable are the WHOLE ARGUMENT AGAINST GM? Are you kidding me? The second #3-- show me one repeatable study that expands some of Seralini's findings!! never. The anti-GM literature is nothing but single-appearance studies that are never expanded or repeated (and published, my guess is some of them are repeated and don't fit with the original reports).
And don't lecture me on evidence. I've been reviewing scientific papers, serve as an editor for journals in my field and review evidence on a daily basis. I teach people how to do it.
Let's talk glyphosate. First, it is a chemical that can have physiological effects at high doses. That's true of distilled water, salt, and medicine. It has clear environmentally impacts. We know that. We also know the levels needed to generate symptoms of acute toxicity. Residual levels on food and in the environment do not approach these thresholds. Williams AL et al. 2012 was an extensive review of the literature and reveals no effects at these levels. Williams GM et al. (2000) Reg Pharm Tox also review the literature stating, "It was concluded that, under present and expected conditions of use, Roundup herbicide does not pose a health risk to humans."
These were all synthesized from extensive bodies of literature and I'd be glad to send them to you. There are risks and benefits of any technology and herbicide use needs to be limited as best possible. However, the use of glyphosate has been a great benefit to farmers that use it, and it is a much better choice than other herbicides.
Gainesville, FL
September 30, 2012 2:09pm
Once again, irresponsible and deceptive reporting on NoC's anti-GMO squad. Here are the facts about the studies cited. The main one was done by guess who? Seralini's group! The guy that runs the anti-GMO institute and writes books and movies on anti-GM. The rat-tumor guy from last week. They showed that in a petri dish, using testicular cells, a small amount of glyphosate would affect them by decreasing testosterone released. Higher doses had no effect!!! Just like their rat-tumor study! Also, glyphosate (the active ingredient) had NO EFFECT. They only saw the minimal effect with Roundup itself, so if they are attributing an effect it is on one of the surfactants and not glyphosate.
The article above shows deceptive and irresponsible reporting. Sounds like problems in testicles, doesn't it? That's not what the study showed. It showed (unconvincingly, no dose-response relationship) that it affects cells in a dish. To extend these data to sperm counts is a leap to say the least. I hope that regular readers understand this and see how they are being manipulated by fear. Don't be fooled.
http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2012/03/misrepresenting-science-for-fun-and.html
November 13, 2012 11:03am
HI Kevin,
I'll check out your work further.
Remember to breathe in nature, get some good manly exercise to keep them hormones going?
Please feel free to contact me?
Thanks for the blog!!!,
Chris
October 07, 2012 3:47pm
Kevin Folta said: "That's not what the study showed. It showed (unconvincingly, no dose-response relationship) that it affects cells in a dish."
Gimme a break, Kevin! It looks VERY BAD for your side, if you can't even report the correct facts ABOUT THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION.
What about the hamsters going sterile, eh? A bit more than "cells in a dish," that.
"The article above shows deceptive and irresponsible reporting"
No, what is deceptive and irresponsible, is YOUR criticism of the article.
What, do you earn your keep doing this? Are you on Monsanto's payroll? Sure looks that way.
BTW, the very problem you have with the data, the "falloff" of the symptom-increase, with increasing dosages, is the very HALLMARK of hormone mimicry. Hormone have their effects AT those lower dosages, and increasing the dosage does not increase the effects (until VERY high doses are reached, where the toxic effects start kicking in).
And, hate to say it, hormone mimics are the WORST way to poison a population, as the effects WILL persist until the poisons are in fact gone. And now, those poisons are all over; indeed they are a "permanent" feature of our environment now.
"I hope that regular readers understand this and see how they are being manipulated by fear."
Kevin, have you missed the plain fact that SOME things are WORTH being afraid of? This Know Nothing attitude is NOT what will save us from those things (though I'm starting to think that nothing will).
November 13, 2012 11:23am
Attitude is every thing!
Thanks Lightning Joe,
Chris
September 30, 2012 4:38pm
"Once again, irresponsible and deceptive reporting on NoC's anti-GMO squad."
Have any specific, peer reviewed, repeatable evidence of that besides your personal opinion blog?
When we're talking about evidence, i could care less about your opinions nor your beliefs.
Gainesville, FL
September 30, 2012 9:16pm
DWD, You have a problem with my points? I interpreted the studies that were cited in the NoC article. Clearly they misrepresent and overstep what these sources say. I'll happily hold your hand through those papers and show you, with no question, why the studies are limited, their interpretations do not fit their data, and that the NoC is stretching them to absurdity.
This is post-hoc analysis of peer-reviewed work in lower-impact journals that is being deceptively repackaged to generate fear. Period. The blog cited above details this. I'm glad to help you understand this work. It is not my opinion, it is an interpretation consistent with what just about anyone that read the paper would conclude. My username is my real name, get me an email and Ill send you the paper.
September 30, 2012 12:10pm
All biological life is Biochemical life which evolved over biliions of years in a relativitively stable biochemical envorinment. The assumption that the introduction of alien chemicals into that enviroment will not cause an alien biochemical reaction as a means of proclaiming the "safety assurity" of those chemicals is what the real problem is in this regard. There's enough anecdotal evidence to confirm that we've disrupted the biochemical balance of the environment and ourselves via the food supply. But some prefer to wait until the whole house is engulfed in flames before admitting there is a fire instead of dealing with the smoke while it's only burning on the stove.
February 21, 2013 4:46pm
good!
September 30, 2012 11:19am
You cannot argue that if everyone planted a "Health Garden" (a new twist on the World War Victory Gardens) there would be too many benefits to list.
Animal studies are always suspect when the results are then applied to humans. Just because hamsters see this happen, does not mean humans will. Of course it we cannot perform these trials on humans to find out for certain.
Since Roundup was first formulated in 1970, I find the sperm data (started in 1940) to be consequential at best. Either that or it is just poor reporting. Studies have indicated that eating soybeans and soy products are influencing cancer rates and feminization of males due to estrogen mimicking. This is looking at soybeans in general.
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/estrogenic-effects-of-soy
This is just one of many links. These studies have shown that soybeans lower fertility in men.
Chemicals are not always the evil they are reported to be. Yet, if we can live without them, we should. The real story here is not the Roundup reducing male sperm counts, it is about the increase of soy in male diet that needs to be addressed.
Once again, disappointing reporting that is more fixated on supporting an agenda than it is on reporting real science.
September 30, 2012 10:55am
Jeez, more bogus studies. Is it possible for you to post any legitimate and credible information on the GMO issue? Surov? Non-peer reviewed study and he used hamsters that are not suitable for feeding studies due to their restrictive dietary needs. Denmark and sperm cells? That came from a paper in 1992 that found declining sperm cells in Danish men from 1938-1991. That's a few years since the first GMO food hit the market. In, 2011, the decline was found to be not true. You've proven yourselves a non-credible source of information on this issue.
September 30, 2012 4:08pm
@BERNIE
You have my attention. Please cite your sources for this assertion: "In, 2011, the decline was found to be not true. "
September 30, 2012 11:31am
There have been many studies showing that as males increase consumption of soy and soy-products, their sperm count falls. Soy consumption started ramping up in the 1990's.
Roundup was first formulated in 1970, first used in 1973, and was not in wide-spread use until a decade or so later. The patent expired in 2000.
There is an agenda that must be supported and it is not real science.
September 30, 2012 10:40am
To get the cancervatives onboard this will need to framed in cancervative terms: Not only are the endocrine disrupting effects of GMO pesticides lending to the promagation of homosexuality, GMO pesticides, in killing off the sperm of hetrosexual males, are inhibiting god fearing christians from going forth and mutiplying with out the assistance of Science.
September 30, 2012 4:10pm
OK that's pretty funny.