Audience Questions About Glyphosate

You know, I didn't start recording, and I hope that's okay. I mean, we, we promised we would record this just so that we both were, you know, because we originally said that. I neglected to do it, so I did it now. So it is recording, just so no one will know your age now. Um, uh, so, so I go— I'm sorry, I got a little bit of a panic there. So let's talk about that 80% figure again. What was, uh, what was it about that that really triggered you or really concerned you?

Well, I mean, if 80%— 80% of 100%, I mean, come on. That's like as if we're walking around, we're all— we're mainly all water, right? Our bodies. So what do we have? Only 20% not affected?

Well, no. Well, that's the key word, right?

Is—

well, well, affected versus detected. And this is a really key point of that particular study. So those numbers came from the CDC, and when I read the materials and methods, I was very certain that it was done correctly. And so when you look at the numbers that they were able to detect, they were able to detect down to a limit of 0.2 parts per billion, so 200 parts per trillion, which is equivalent to 3 minutes and 32,000 years. I mean, it's really sensitive stuff.

Well, that's what I've seen, and I was like, what?

Well, well, the beauty of this is, is that if you had a more sensitive test, you would likely be able to detect it in 100% of people. And because it's, it's there in these vanishingly small amounts, and it's ubiquitous, it's, it's a chemical that because of the way in which it's used, uh, it's used residentially, municipalities use it, tiny residues in food, and those are reflecting in the urine in these 200 parts per trillion. And, and the highest level they had was 1.4 parts per billion, which is 1.4 seconds in 32 years. So there, the highest level was still very, very small. But yet, um, these studies are done on a regular basis to ensure that the food supply is safe and that the environment is safe, that we're not being exposed to levels that are approaching physiological relevance. And we know those thresholds because of animal studies. Extensive numbers of animal studies have been done that help us understand what the thresholds are where we begin to see physiological impact. So does, you know, knowing that you— that, you know, when they— when they— when the CDC uses a good method to detect almost nothing, does that give you a little bit of Yes, but I do have another concern. Sure.

I did a little bit more research.

Sure.

Okay, I, I really, I noticed that this glyphosate was originally started in the '70s. I think it was Roundup or something like that. And then they lost, they lost their patent after a while. And then It exploded in the '90s, and then they had 3 different forms of glyphosate. And it took 3 different forms: isopropylamine and dimethylamine and potassium salt mixed with other ingredients. So which is the safest, and how do we know which is the safest?

Okay, so let's talk about what glyphosate is. Glyphosate is a very simple molecule that was discovered in the late '60s. And one of the things that they found out about it very quickly was that it bound a specific enzyme that plants have and some bacteria. And it's an enzyme called 3-enol— I always get it right— EPSPS, 3-enol phosphochimyl phosphate synthase. And this compound binds this enzyme and the enzyme can't function. And this enzyme is essential for making amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. So it shuts down your ability to make the resources a cell needs. And glyphosate does this, but it only does this in organisms that have this enzyme. And humans don't have it. Mammals don't have it. Birds, insects, animals don't have it. So the feeling was that you could use this compound that was extremely toxic to plants and very minimally toxic to animals, that this was a miracle once-in-a-century compound. And as you mentioned, this was used— well, as I mentioned, it was used for years and mostly in municipalities. It was used on farms around fence lines and maybe controlling weeds in the middle of rows. It was a dangerous thing to use on farms because it's toxic to plants. And a little bit of overspray, a little bit of drift would kill your crops. And so farmers were reserved in using it because you didn't want to use it around plants unless conditions were perfect. So in 1990— Nightly Goat, 1998— the patent expired. And now 350— no, 750 different companies make glyphosate. And so glyphosate is the chemical, the main chemical that kills the plant, but they mix it with other chemistry and other things that are used to allow the chemical to penetrate the leaf of the plant, where then it becomes systemic. It moves throughout the plant. It's absorbed only through the leaves, a little bit through the roots, but not very well. And so this foliar herbicide needs this kind of what they call a surfactant, which is a detergent-like molecule that allows it to move into the cells, move into the plant. And so the big time this exploded, when it started really being used, was you could genetically engineer plants with a different version of that enzyme that would not bind to glyphosate. And what that meant was that plant would function just fine making amino acids and the building blocks of life, without being impaired by the chemical. And so this was a really cool breakthrough because now seed companies could make the plants that would grow in the field along with the weeds. You could spray the weeds over the top with glyphosate over the field, very small amount, 2 pop cans, 2 soda cans, 750 milliliters per acre. and kill the weeds and leave the crop. And this was great because you could do it when plants were maybe, you know, corn or cotton was about knee-high. And then it was never sprayed actually on the crop that you would eat. It was only sprayed on the plants and later would shade out the weeds. So it was really a good thing and saved farmers a lot of money and a lot of fuel and a lot of labor time. So this is what glyphosate was. When you talk about the different formulations, It's because there's other compounds that are in there, these surfactants. And whether you're talking about Roundup, which is one brand that I never buy because it's really expensive, or the generic Tractor Supply glyphosate, they're all a little bit different. So it's different formulations, almost all of them made in China. So that's really what you're seeing. But the active ingredient is glyphosate.

I do have another.

Yeah, keep, keep them coming.

I had a farmer contact me. He wanted to be around. He couldn't be able to get online, but he had the question. He said, you know what, this has been bothering me for so many years. You know, you spread the glyphosate for the weeds Right. In after springtime there, you know, everything's all the compost, the ground, and then when the weeds start, you spray. And then once you plant and then you— the weeds are starting to grow, you spray again. Sometimes they do 3 times, but the weeds never come to the point that they make their own seed.

Okay.

The weed itself, you're submitting it, right? You're stopping it from producing seed. So the question is, after— if you don't place any more glyphosate for a season, why do the weeds all come up full blast out of the blue after 20 years of spraying? spraying this stuff, isn't it supposed to kill every darn thing? And they never see this to that point?

Well, weeds are magical things. You know, you know, we're growing, we're growing crops in their space, by the way. None of the plants that we're planting in, you know, up by you, it's probably winter wheat and maybe some canola. Where are you in Alberta?

I'm in Lloydminster.

Oh, you're, you're up by Edmonton then.

No, no, I'm on the Lloydminster, Alberta, and there's Lloydminster, Saskatchewan. So we're—

Ah, all right. I'm thinking, I'm thinking of, uh, the one between Saskatoon and Edmonton. I drove through there once. Oh yeah. So, so where are— so, so is it mostly canola by you?

Yes. Yeah, canola oil, wheat. Um, there is some other kinds of wheat, but that's more in British Columbia, the kind that You can store away for 3,000 years.

Sure, yeah, if you need to. Um, but the, the beauty of this is that, you know, those crops don't belong there, and what actually belongs on the prairies there is a combination of weeds that will always find a way to spread into those spaces because they've spent the last, uh, since the Ice Age perfecting how to do that, and we've only invaded this space in the last you know, 50 years since World War II, when many farmers were deeded space out there, that we, that we've tried putting crops in their space. So you can keep knocking them down, but, you know, nature finds a way. And glyphosate doesn't have much of a residual effect. As I mentioned before, it's a foliar herbicide.

Mm-hmm.

It tends to be taken up by the, by the leaves best. And when taken up by the leaves is systemically toxic to the plant. If it gets on the soil, which it usually doesn't because you spray the leaves, it breaks down with a half-life depending upon the soil and temperature and humidity, but between days and weeks. Sometimes you can find residues after years, but it tends to turn over very quickly, and it's not taken up very well through roots. So plants that would grow— you can glyphosate an area and replant it, and the plants generally will grow very well in that space.

The other question is, because Canada is, is going the same way as Denmark, the farmers are having to have— they're not allowed to use as much glyphosate at all. They're trying to take it away for the farmers, and the farmers are going— they're, they're very nervous about it. Is there anything else they can use that would be On the crops that would be legal and be able to still have a living and all that?

They will find alternatives, but none of the alternatives are as good as glyphosate. What hap— or is safe, and when I say safe, I should say as low risk as glyphosate. I don't like using the word safe as a scientist. It's not a science word. I can say Demonstration of low risk and low harm. There are others that glyphosate replaced. Glyphosate replaced atrazine and 2,4-D, as I mentioned before, the component of Agent Orange. And atrazine is another one that only kills certain broadleaf weeds. It tends to leave the grasses. So you could grow corn and treat cornfields with atrazine, and they would continue to grow right through. And these were not genetically engineered. These were just regular old corn. And so if farmers were not able to use glyphosate, they would go back to atrazine, which glyphosate replaced atrazine almost one per one and gave much better performance to farmers. And it's much cheaper and safer for applicators. You can find the best resource for anyone who's listening is the Agricultural Health Study. So the AHS is now in its 27th year. where they've been examining a cohort of farmers and applicators and looking at the diseases they get. And they don't see any associations between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or other types of cancers. Slight association with one called AML, which is another different blood cancer, but very, very slight. But atrazine and 2,4-D— not 2,4-D, atrazine, you can find some effects. So you want to minimize the use of that one, at least in the agricultural health study.

I think— yeah, I don't know when you started with the recording. I don't know if you want me to tell them the story or just leave it as is.

Well, yeah, go ahead and just maybe recap how we got together. Well, the main reason I wanted to record was essentially whenever we're having these conversations, You know, sometimes you don't want to— you want everybody to feel like there's no setup, you know, that it's, that it's not me gonna ditch out of here and just, you know, whatever. You make sure that it's recorded so everybody knows that we're all in this together. And, you know, we'll save it and maybe play it again someday. But maybe talk about how you and I got together on this.

Yes. Okay. So what happened? I'm Teresa Smith, and I posted an article from— it was called The Defender, which had explained a big logo with a skull and a big X across it that 80% of all children and adults had 80% of this glyphosate in their urine. So that alarmed me. So I posted, and then Kevin made a comment underneath, you know, kind of like disputing. And I said, you know what, why don't we have a debate or a discussion? He said, sure, why not? So here we are. And so my concern, which I, you know, we started, we didn't record that part. My concern was because of my childhood in the military and the spraying of on me as a child with a truck and running behind it, all those kids. And then I was in another facility place, and actually it's in the news, and the facility for the military had Agent Orange. And I work with stained glass, so I was working with lead. I've been exposed to asbestos. as well because, you know, there were a lot of old buildings. And so my son developed cancer and died from mesenchymal sarcoma, which is 5% of all cancers. So Kevin and I started talking, and he made me feel better about myself because I felt very guilty because I was a child Because I was married at 15 in Canada, which was legal. I was signed away, and I had my son at 16. So I felt guilty that I gave something cancerous to my son because of my exposure. But Kevin has explained everything to me very well, and I did research once he had addressed me. To— on Twitter, I did dig deeper in that article, and I feel better about myself. I feel not as guilty. It's sad my son died, yes, but that's been a burden on me for years. Years.

Well, Theresa, you know, the, the one major thing is that there was nothing in that equation that you could control. And, you know, it's heartbreaking that you would have exposures and things like that. But when you say, you know, and I'm not putting a psychologist hat on, it's nothing you could control. And therefore, I did, you know, I really hope you would never feel guilt for that. The thing that we can control is going forward. And, you know, I appreciate you reaching out and then making this kind of arrangement because these are concerns. You know, we always, I think about what we spray on our space, what we feed to our animals, what I eat myself. You know, we eat— I neglected to mention that my wife is a farmer. We grow fruits and vegetables. We raise chickens, geese, ducks, turkeys, and pigs here in Florida. When I come home from work, I get to go to work. And I love every minute of it. But we eat off our own space. And we're very careful with what we have. And we sell at farmers markets every Saturday. So very concerned about that kind of stuff. And that's why I really appreciate these conversations, because they're really important that we have them. Theresa, would you mind if we took some questions from the chat box and then you could chime in?

Sure.

Yeah, Michelle, did you want to read any of those for us? Just kind of see.

Well, there's only one question, and that question is my question. And I was just curious, Theresa, what your position was on GMOs. You know, are you for, against?

You mean food, Janet?

Oh, yes, ma'am. Yep.

Yes. Okay. I actually have a small garden. I always had gardens. And I just find at the grocery store, like, if you purchase strawberries, it just tastes like water. And so I have my own strawberries. And, you know, I had the children last week week from the street next door with their bicycles, and they stopped over, and I said, go ahead, go into the strawberries, and they were just so excited. They couldn't believe it tasted so good. And so I'm more for growing my own food. Of course, I'm in northern Alberta, so I only have a month and a half, and that's it. So I rush things.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But be happy to know there are no GMO strawberries. Never was done.

Well, I don't know why it tastes different from the store to mine.

I can tell you, because traditional breeding— that when we genetically improved the wild strawberry, which has been done over the last 100 years, farmers are— well, Farmers wanted one thing, big red yield— well, 4 things: yield, big, red, disease resistance, because that's what consumers wanted, big red things. And when you select for those traits, you're not selecting for flavors and aromas. And so what my laboratory has done over the last 20 years is identified the genes that make flavors and aromas so that not using GMO techniques, but by using breeding, breeders can identify when they get all the genes in one place, just with a simple test. So, I think you'll see better flavors in strawberries. And those of you in the States, watch what's coming out of Driscoll's. It's one of my former students. They're coming out with tropical flavors and passion fruit and all that. I mean, strawberries are going to never be the same. So, enjoy that. I saw a note pop up in the chat from Dr. Liz Dunn, she said AML was not statistically significant in the Agricultural Health Study. That's true. It was trending in that direction, but it was not significant association. And it was the closest thing they had to an association with glyphosate. Any other— were there any other questions in the chat? Or if you want to unmute—

There is. There's a couple of questions. Hasn't there been law cases, one in the US, against Monsanto for people Getting cancer?

Yes, there have— so not for getting cancer. There have been cases which show— which a jury of 12 laypeople, despite all of the scientific evidence and regulatory evidence, where 12 laypeople were able to be convinced that glyphosate was a contributing factor to cancer and in these cancer victims. So if you think of the dynamics of that situation, a courtroom, emotion from someone being sick, sitting there, a jury reaching, having feelings for this person, a deep-pocket company, misinterpretation of internal emails, things like that. A lot of that kind of thing happened. And I, I, I, and I wasn't in the courtroom. I didn't see all the evidence. But what I can tell you is that based upon 40 years of research and regulatory approvals by 20 different agencies around the globe, including Health Canada, who's very firm. Um, there's no evidence of cancer. And, uh, Health Canada in 2017, in response to the IARC— oh, we didn't talk about that, but the International, uh, Panel for Research on Cancer— they, uh, Health Canada convened a special group to get together and reevaluate glyphosate. And they came out very firmly saying that there was no evidence of carcinogenicity. This was 2017. So again, very recent reevaluation. Any other questions or thoughts there? I mean, the big take-home is we shouldn't make our scientific decisions based upon courts. And these are things that we really have to have these discussions in in the scientific literature, which is where it really is. Glyphosate affects some bacteria. Oh, you want to go ahead and read that, Michelle?

I'm sorry.

Sure.

So it says glyphosate affects some bacteria. Is there any evidence for or against it affecting—

I moved—

affecting any of the bacteria important in the human biome?

Yeah, I love this question because I've worked with glyphosate on bacteria. And so let me tell you what we were trying to do. We had an enzyme, this EPSPS enzyme that glyphosate affects, binds to very strong. We were using the enzyme from strawberries and trying to re-engineer it to see if it would be resistant. And we were using E. coli that were missing the EPSPS enzyme, missing this enzyme, and we were putting the strawberry version in there and seeing if it could work. And we could never kill the bacteria with glyphosate. You can't get it in very easily until you put in the surfactant. And so we had to actually add the soap to go to get the glyphosate into the bacteria. So the first answer is, is that it's very difficult to get glyphosate into bacteria just on its own. There's no transporter that moves it in. But then the problem with affecting microbiomes, and, and this is important, is if we're taking it in in extremely small amounts, like, you know, parts per billion, seconds in 32 years, The math can't work that it would have an effect on the hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of microbes that inhabit our digestive tract. And that if you think about how many bacteria are in there and the mechanism by which glyphosate works with that enzyme, you would have to be exposed to a pretty substantial amount in order to feel any ill effects. at the level of microbiome. I don't know what that is. I don't know that anyone's ever tested it. People have tried to commit suicide with the stuff and just got diarrhea. The likelihood, if you do the math, you don't even need the back of an envelope, based on residual or application exposures, it would be very unlikely that you would have any effect from glyphosate itself. itself on a microbiome.

Yeah.

Any other, any other questions or thoughts in the Q&A?

Yeah, there is. Can you speak much to surfactants we use? I grow barley, wheat, and Roundup Ready alfalfa and canna. We use Roundup a fair amount. I often use a surfactant. Are there certain surfactants that seem to be more or less harmful?

Yeah, that's above my pay grade. Sorry. I, um, what I can do is look into that for you, and I would be very happy to post the answer for that. I'll put it on, uh, on my professional Facebook page, which is Kevin M. Folta, not Kevin Folta. Kevin Folta gets you where I talk to my cousin. Uh, Kevin M. Folta. Um, I will find out about what we know about surfactants and, uh, talk to people who know. I wouldn't want to take a guess and give you bad information. Most of the time, these are a specific kind of molecule which tends to encapsulate the glyphosate and deliver it through the membrane or open up a way so that it can move through membranes. And then once on the inside, is released. So it's true with a lot of different— the way a lot of different compounds are delivered in plants. Any other questions or thoughts?

Yeah, there's— there is one more question. I have horses and I use Roundup on my paddocks, and I always worry about it being toxic to my horses and dogs. How long should I wait to put my livestock back out onto that area?

Yeah, there's— the rule of thumb is that the stuff, once it's dry, is relatively safe, that it moves into the plant rather quickly. Of course, if they're eating the plant, they're consuming it. It moves through the body very quickly, and this has been studied extensively. It moves into the digestive tract and is either expelled as stools or urine with a half-life of— and maybe Dr. Dunn can correct me— half-life in hours. And what isn't moving through, the 5% that doesn't go through the stools and urine, is metabolized by an enzyme in the liver. rather efficiently. So it moves through very quickly. I still don't think it would be— if I sprayed it in my space, I wouldn't worry about my dogs eating it or being exposed to it. I think if I— I don't think I would spray it in a place where I knew geese would be grazing or anything like that because it's not supposed to be consumed. And the surfactants, you never know in a goose what they would do, if they would cause weirdnesses just with the digestion or whatever. I wouldn't worry about cancer or anything like that, but, uh, you know, upset tummy on a goose, that's not a good thing either.

I'm happy to answer some of those. Sure.

Yeah, sure. Thank you.

So in full disclosure, I'm Liza Dunn. I'm the medical affairs lead for Bayer. And so I'm a medical toxicologist and an emergency medicine physician. Um, I use Roundup all the time and glyphosate. Our farm and around my family. And I completely understand why people get concerned given all of the discussion around glyphosate. So what surfactants really are, are they are like laundry detergent. And what they're supposed to do is they're supposed to— for plants, when you mix your glyphosate into the plant. You want to be able to break through the waxy cuticle on the plant so that the glyphosate itself, the active ingredient, can get into the plant. We use laundry detergents and dishwasher detergents all of the time, and you're exposed to far more residues on your forks and knives and spoons from using them in a dishwasher than you'd ever be from getting residues on a crop. These surfactants are also tested to make sure that any exposure that you do have will not cause harm. I don't get very concerned about the surfactants at all because We know that surfactants are really useful. We use surfactants every day in our— when you brush your teeth, you use surfactants, and surfactants are helpful in getting through, you know, bacterial cell walls and things like that. So they're— you use them all the time, and they will not cause harm, and they're tested to make sure that they don't cause harm if you use them, you know, correctly. You shouldn't be drinking laundry soap, or you shouldn't be drinking, you know, dishwasher detergent. But if you use them like normally, you won't have any problem with exposure.

Oh, very good. Thank you. Yeah, the stuff that you dump in, the Spot Free stuff, is a great example of a surfactant, which basically breaks the surface tension of the water so things drain better. So yeah, that's an excellent point. So thank you for that. Any other thoughts or questions?

You know, there is—

there's—

is Roundup used on wheat close to harvest to hurry maturity?

Yeah, so this is a good question. In some parts of the world, you have problems with wheat and barley and certain grains not drying uniformly, even things like chickpeas and some other pulses. And Teresa, this is going on up by you. If things are not drying uniformly, or if it's been a little bit wet, or you had plants of different levels of maturity, farmers will sometimes use glyphosate as a desiccant. So what does that mean? You can apply it and it allows the plant to dry down uniformly so that you're not losing the crop off of the wheat and you get a better, more uniform harvest. And so this was something that was really started in the '90s. It's another— they used to use things like paraquat and other herbicides for this, and this is a much safer alternative. Some people object to this because this is where residues have been detected that are a little bit higher. When you read the literature, you're starting to see in the Parts per million, which is seconds in 7 years rather than 32 or 32,000. And those residues sometimes will show up on the raw commodity. The thing is, once you take that wheat and you move it through the supply chain and you process it in the flour and you run it through the different ways that you do this, there's negligible levels of glyphosate remaining in the final product. And I should mention real quickly is that when you read these things online, there's a lot of people who claim to find it in things like beer and wine and then— and, uh, in other products. It's not necessarily there just because they say it's there. There's some kits that are very sloppy and some things that are made for detection in water that you can't use with milk or you can't use with breast milk or you can't use with wine. Um, there are some really good methods you can use. And so you always want to look at the methods and make sure that it's something— LC-MS. There's some other ways you can detect using HPLC steps, but it's a very difficult molecule to find. And you have to— in order to do it with sensitivity and accurate quantitation, you have to use the proper methods. So if you ever see something on that or have a question, send me an email. I'll be happy to tell you. I think the CDC data are very good. Any other thoughts, questions?

Um, well, there is a question. Why is it used in food processing? Glyphosate is in cereal. And I think you just answered that.

So yeah, um, the stuff that found it in cereal and pretzels, I don't know that those data are good. Um, they seem to have used other ways around the, um, bona fide ways of doing the test. And even the levels they did find, or, you know, that they did report report are extremely low and would not be consequential. If you— you'd have to— when we do the math on these things, if you could eat 2,000 pounds of Cheerios, maybe you could start getting into the area of risk, but you would die from Cheerio poisoning long before the glyphosate got you. Um, it— there are a lot of claims that are made online, and even the ones who claim to detect it don't detect it in any high levels, so, or dangerous levels. And the USDA monitors this. Well, no, different agencies do monitor this. And different— you'll find lots of reports online of where this is detected on different commodities. I'm always dubious of those because they'll find them in like the organic pretzels, and organic farmers can't use glyphosate. And I know lots of organic farmers and none of them cheat. They play by the rules. And so you're— I find it very unlikely that when something is found where it shouldn't be, like organic produce, that— or, you know, organic processed products— that maybe that's the negative control and saying the baseline is this very low number that they found.

Mm-hmm.

Any other thoughts or questions? Theresa, this was— I thought you would have a few more questions or thoughts, but I'm glad that you do.

Oh, keep, keep my phone. I have 4 devices here going, and I'm trying to shut them all off. No notifications. There's still something's going off here.

Well, you're always more than welcome to contact me otherwise. I was really glad that we could just do this in a public forum, um, just for this reason. Uh, but any other thoughts or questions?

I do have a question.

Sure.

You know, like, uh, when you're testing for, you know, the— now how do I pronounce that word again?

Glyphosate. Glyphosate. It's a glycine, uh, and phosphate. Uh, glyphosate.

So for testing in the lab for human consumption and Do you guys, as scientists and toxicologists, do you test, you know, if somebody is deceased for an autopsy, do you test the kidneys, the liver, you know, to see if there's any traces in there at all? Have you done that?

Well, that's not the kind of thing that's typically done because we know from animal studies that there's very limited acute toxicity from this compound. You can feed mice up to 5 grams per kilogram body weight. If you think about that, a pretty massive amount, and that kills 50% of them. That's what we refer to as the LD50, and Dr. Dunn can jump in if I get that wrong. But it takes a tremendous amount to cause any kind of physiological acute symptomology. So it's— and That's the other big part of this is that when you look at how it integrates with biological systems, you don't see a mechanism by which it would cause harm. And when we talk about things like, how do you know something causes cancer? There's 2 ways. You either see molecular evidence from that, you start looking in cells in a dish and you start to extrapolate that to animal models and look for evidence of carcinogenicity with trends towards specific cancers or cellular events and specific gene expression. The other thing that you look at is epidemiological data. You look at big populations of users and non-users, people who have maybe in the same cohort, same area, some which never use it, some that do, and see if there are meaningful associations that statistically hold up and are extremely rigorous. That's why the Agricultural Health Study is so important. They've looked at 55,000 applicators and farmers, and they know what each one uses, and they know what each one eats and what diseases they get, and if they like Skippy peanut butter or Jif. And they can start to look at those associations and start to ask, what are the things that are causing problems? Because they see every time some— every time everyone's Every time somebody uses Bounty paper towels, they come down with excessive— they come down with, you know, baldness, you know, whatever. They find these statistical meaningful associations from these studies. I don't know, Dr. Dunn, if you want to throw in anything else on that.

Sure.

You know, all pesticides, including Roundup and glyphosate, undergo a huge battery of studies before they're ever put on the market. And those battery of studies are to make sure that there are not going to be problems at doses that you'll be exposed to if you're using them out in public. And these battery of studies take about 10 years to conduct, and the studies are all very, very highly regulated. People can audit them. EPA can come and make sure that your lab is right and that the animals aren't getting sick and all of this stuff. There's a very rigorous protocol that takes 10 years and about a quarter of a billion dollars to conduct before you can ever put your product on the market. And when glyphosate came off patent, not only did we have a whole bunch of studies that you actually can go look at, we have a transparency website and you can go look at the animal studies. and judge for yourself or have an expert judge whether or not you think there's a problem, because all of our data that are— all of our data are public. So the— there's— our company did that, and then 6 other companies, when it went off patent, conducted a whole other 10-year battery of studies to make sure that we that there was no evidence of it causing cancer, no evidence of neurotoxicity, no evidence of allergy. And these studies have all been reviewed by multiple regulatory agencies around the world over decades, over 45 years. Cancer is a disease of DNA and order, and DNA is really kind of Like the if you think about it as a cookbook, and your cookbook, your DNA, which is in the nucleus of your cells, has recipes. Your genes are recipes for proteins. And so when you get an abnormality in DNA, you wind up making cells grow more quickly and they mutate. So if you're if you have it. Carcinogen, something that's going to cause cancer, or a chemical that's going to cause cancer, it has to either directly or indirectly interact with DNA to start that growth process. And glyphosate doesn't do that. It doesn't have any way of getting to the DNA to do that. And we've looked at this multiple times over multiple years. And so it's not a carcinogen. It doesn't cause developmental toxicity in babies. It doesn't cause allergies. It doesn't cause any neurotoxicity or any of those things. And that's why we are— and it's also, I like to say that agriculture is the foundation of civilization. The reason why we can be having these conversations with really great scientists like Kevin Folta is because we all have an abundant food supply. We're not all subsistence farming to make ends meet. And we've got 10,000 years since the beginning of agriculture of experience with organic farming and 50 years of food security in the West. And there's nothing bad about organic farming, but what we do know after those millennia of experience is that they don't reliably feed us. And so if we're going to have 7.5 billion people in the world now and 10 billion people by 2050, we really need to make sure that we're looking at things scientifically instead of romanticizing what subsistence farming is. And so glyphosate is really the foundation of North and South American agriculture. agriculture. And it is a once-in-a-century herbicide. It has got such a low toxicity profile that it's really, really revolutionized agriculture and makes sure that people have access to a healthy, nutritious, and affordable food supply.

Any other questions or thoughts?

There is, there is one, one question that I missed over, and she's from Australia, so I thought we should answer. Can you talk about, about those, those herbicides that are an issue such as organophosphates? Additionally, can you also talk about copper sulfate?

Yeah, so organophosphates are a class of herbicide or a class of insecticides that are what they refer to as acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. They stop an enzyme that is responsible for the production and turnover of a specific neurotransmitter. And they are very toxic to insects, especially because of the nature of their nervous systems and the way that they're also— their way you can get to them. So organophosphates, There's quite a few of them out there. They still use some of them in some applications. A lot of the things that were organic chlorides, they've been phased out, but a lot of the other ones are still around. Malathion, chlorpyrifos to some degree is still around. Still some use because you don't have anything else. And so we've got a lot of peach growers in this country that use organophosphates as a last line of defense against peach tree borers, and lots of other applications where— in coffee is another one. In the last case, when you have this insect, it is all you have. And if you don't have it, you lose the trees. And the discussion around bans is still ongoing. These are chemistries that, if used improperly, could have consequences. But that's true with everything. It's true with dish soap, again. There are humans, they're less toxic, there are still some levels of toxicity, but your body remakes those enzymes on a pretty regular basis, so our exposures are much lower. There have been some associations, I believe, with other types of long-term diseases, but not causal ones, meaning they can't show that it causes, but they show these— if you used them or were an applicator, there's higher incidences of some types of neurodegenerative diseases. And maybe Dr. Dunn can chime in on that in a second. But, uh, did I leave anything out there, or is that pretty— And I left out copper sulfate. Copper sulfate is, uh, elemental copper conjugated with, um, with sulfate ion, which is— which in chemistry means this is a naturally occurring compound. So this isn't a synthetic compound, yet it's very toxic to microbes. So people use it in their pool to kill the algae. It's also sprayed on or uses an organic control for fungi and bacteria. So it works well. I use it on my farm, on my pear trees to control fire blight. But at the same time, it has a level of toxicity as well. And it's— there are tomato packing houses in Florida that use the organic copper sulfate. That the wastewater has to be treated as a toxic waste because of the high levels of copper. That if that gets in the groundwater, it is a heavy metal. And we know that heavy metals do have biological effects. So what the take-home message is, is that there are a lot of chemistries that are used in agriculture to control pests. It's necessary, absolutely necessary, organic and conventional. The important part is to use them responsibly. and use them correct as an applicator, as a consumer, and with respect to the environment. Did I leave anything out there, Dr. Dunn?

Just in terms of the human health aspect for organophosphates, there are a class of chemistries called cholinesterase inhibitors, and organophosphates are one of them. They've been used as lice treatment in children and scabies treatment in very low concentrations. So, there are products out there that you can, you know, kids get lice and scabies, and lice can actually carry terrible diseases like typhus. So they're important for that kind of treatment. And then in the '60s and '70s and '80s, people were using an organophosphate compound to treat a disease called schistosomiasis.

Really?

Which is an infection that kids get in their gut or in their liver in their bladder that can cause bladder cancer or liver cancer. And it's actually one of the leading causes of bladder cancer in the Middle East and in places in Africa. And so people have taken— it was considered by the World Health Organization on the list of essential medicines at the time. So People do take and have taken organophosphates therapeutically to treat infections. One. Two, that class of chemistries, cholinesterase inhibitors, are actually critical for treating— and it's not organophosphates, but they're a different class, it's called the carbamates— but they're critical for treating Alzheimer's. They're the first-line treatment for Alzheimer's because What you want to do is you want to have enough of that neurotransmitter floating around in your brain to make sure that you can make memories. And so the first-line treatment for Alzheimer's on the market right now uses that mechanism to be able to protect people's cognitive function. That first-line— that's also a first-line treatment for several neuromuscular diseases. which need that neurotransmitter to be able to move your muscles. So diseases that cause weakness are often treated with chemistries that block that same enzyme. So there are a lot of people who get very concerned about these things because they hear a lot of the narrative. But once again, the dose makes the poison. And in the agricultural setting, these things are so heavily regulated that the trace amounts— that if you even get exposed to a trace amount, it's not going to cause harm.

You like a science piñata. Break her open.

And yeah.

Any other thoughts or questions?

There's one question left. And she said— she asked, why are some stores such as Costco not selling Roundup anymore, saying it's not safe. Where are they getting this info from?

That's a good question, and I don't know that I know the answer to it. But if I had to take a guess, I would say that since you see, uh, a company— and so there's 750 different formulations of glyphosate, and the litigation went against one company, not against glyphosate manufacturers, but against one company that sells one formulation. happens to be a company with deep pockets and, um, and had— and was attached to something that had some history. So the— my guess is, is that since companies see a large company losing cases in jury trials based upon bad information, you probably don't want to be selling the same product because now it looks like You are continuing, but you can imagine the lawyers cashing in saying Costco sells so many millions of gallons of this a year. Why are they selling it when we've already found these, you know, these jury cases? I just guess it's in— the other thought is, though, is that Bayer at least is not going to sell Roundup after 2023, I think.

Right.

in a publicly facing manner. They'll have brands that are available to farmers. They're not going to sell it in places like Lowe's or Costco. You'll have to buy generic glyphosate, which is what I buy anyway. But is that true, Dr. Donoff?

And that's not because we think that there is any risk of cancer with the product. It's because That's where the litigations come from.

Yeah, it insulates you from the litigation. It's a huge waste of time and money. And, and, um, sadly, um, you know, it pollutes a conversation that, that's really important because we're going into some food insecure times with, uh, prices of food rising, with Ukraine being invaded. Um, there's a— it's going to be the poorest people in the world will suffer first, and they should have the best technology delivered and available to them. I want them to have access and they in the African continent. Yet these kinds of conversations make the access to the best science almost impossible. And that just kills me. I've been there, and I love the people there, and I see what they do to farm. And so—

And if you look at Sri Lanka and what's happened in Sri Lanka, I think that's very informative. It's a good example. It's very tragic. So there are lots of good articles out there about what's happened there, and it's Because people have really put all their eggs in one basket with organic farming and did it overnight. And I think it's an important case to study.

It's worth checking out if you don't know the story. Well, if there's nothing else, what I'll do is leave you with my information. You can always contact me. It's easy to find me. If you want, you can ask my university for 10,000 emails. Everybody does. You can reach— you can find me at kfolta@ufl.edu, which is K-F-O-L-T-A, my name, at University of Florida, ufl.edu. And then also the podcast is Talking Biotech Podcast, which is every weekend. And if you ever have questions, I really want to answer them for you. I want you to understand this, and I want you to share the exciting science and social media with people. people who need to hear it. And it's the most important job you have is to help share the science because there are people who need it. Therese? Yeah, sure.

Yes. Underneath my logo, we are graphics there. People see F-I-T-T, fit, underneath the Twitter graphics. You as a scientist and me as FIT. So anybody who wants to know what FIT stands for, it's for Forum of International Trade. And so I have my international business. So I also— I have a question. Do you deal with plastics at all in your science?

No, not at all.

Not at all?

No, I deal with plastics in real life in that I avoid buying them and I I avoid single-use plastic like the plague. Anything I get in plastic, I'm— if I buy a container of plastic, I use it till it falls apart.

Right.

And I'm either feeding an animal out of it or transporting something in it, using it for screws and tools in the barn. Yeah, believe me, I just hate plastic. I mean, I love plastic because of the good things it gives us with, you know, space shuttles and headphones and things like that. The stuff that's single-use that goes back to the environment, I'm very careful about.

Yes, because my history of the business is mainly of importing of used clothing, and that's over 4 million pounds a year. So I'm going to be, uh, probably making a video, the, the good part about recycling and the bad part. Because of the textile industry of recycling. So that's my area.

That's a big deal, and I hope you clue me in when you do that because I'd be happy to share your stuff. Okay, share your media. I, I think it's a great point. It's one of the things I agree with Vandana Shiva about. She was giving a talk and said, I've had the same saris for years. I wear them all the time. I don't buy a pair of jeans and wear them for a year and throw them in the landfill. And, you know, I'm, I, I'm with you. So thank you very much, everybody, for taking so much time on a whatever night this is, Thursday night. Um, and reach out if I can ever be of assistance. This is a great conversation that needs to be had more often, and we can do it again if any of you have other questions about science. We can do it anytime. So thank you very much, everybody. We'll see you later.

Thank you very much, Kevin.

Thank you.