Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pnwmom

(110,255 posts)
32. Glyphosphate must be absorbed by the plant in order to work.
Thu Oct 8, 2015, 09:16 PM
Oct 2015

Washing it off will not remove what has been absorbed.

And residues can remain stable in foods for a year or more, even processed foods.

http://cals.arizona.edu/crops/pdfs/062512%20Maximizing%20the%20Use%20of%20Glyphosate.pdf

Glyphosate must be absorbed into the foliage to be translocated to the sites of action.

https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/press_releases/foee_4_human_contamination_glyphosate.pdf

Glyphosate-containing herbicides are applied in large amounts to both genetically modified
(GM) crops and non-GM crops. GM crops may receive two or three applications of
glyphosate in a season [1] while glyphosate-containing herbicides may be sprayed just
before harvest onto non-GM cereals, pulses, sunflowers and oilseed crops. This is done to
remove weeds and dry out the grains, a process called ‘dessication’ [2]. Glyphosate remains
largely unchanged in non-GM plants, but GM plants will convert glyphosate into aminomethyl
phosphonic acid (AMPA), N-acetyl-glyphosate or N-acetyl-AMPA, depending on the type of
genetic modification used [3]. When conducting risk assessments of residues in food, the
European Food Safety Authority views such breakdown products as equivalent to glyphosate
[4].
Once applied, glyphosate and its break down products are transported throughout the plant
into the leaves, grains or fruit [5]. They cannot be removed by washing, and they are not
broken down by cooking [6]. Glyphosate residues can remain stable in foods for a year or
more, even if the foods are frozen, dried or processed [7]. Some processing may even
concentrate the residues; for example, during production of wheat bran the glyphosate
residues may be concentrated by a factor of four [8].

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

GMO free salt jeff47 Oct 2015 #1
I like the first comment at that listing... Archae Oct 2015 #3
That is pretty funny, thank you. uppityperson Oct 2015 #6
Mmmm...2 pounds of Himalayan pink! Rex Oct 2015 #23
Wouldn't "It -becomes- an advertising gimmick" be more accurate? Shandris Oct 2015 #2
It's always been a gimmick Major Nikon Oct 2015 #4
Organic farmers fought, lobbied for and LOST the ability to define "organic" standards KittyWampus Oct 2015 #13
Bingo. The only difference between organic and non-organic is the price. Archae Oct 2015 #14
Oh, bullshit. You are wrong. There are organic farmers. I've listed the benefits of organic farming KittyWampus Oct 2015 #19
Rubbish Major Nikon Oct 2015 #21
LOL! You just linked to some local agency in the state of California. Nice try. KittyWampus Oct 2015 #24
So you actually think organic labels "came about" in 2009? Major Nikon Oct 2015 #25
yes, and it is tiresome Skittles Oct 2015 #29
All the more reason to learn to cook swilton Oct 2015 #5
Non-GMO and organic are two different things. GreatGazoo Oct 2015 #7
"Many?" Archae Oct 2015 #8
Well I for one insist that my fillet-o-fish be organic, non-GMO, and gluten-free. Nye Bevan Oct 2015 #11
Yes. That's why the pressure is on to create an official "Contains GMOs" label. jeff47 Oct 2015 #10
Was this an "advertising gimmick"? nationalize the fed Oct 2015 #9
Which is why we need labeling of GMO ingredients, so people can make informed pnwmom Oct 2015 #12
whose definition of "GMO ingredients"? alp227 Oct 2015 #15
No, and not corrupt food processors either, like Monsanto. By the FDA's definition. n/t pnwmom Oct 2015 #22
Monsanto isn't a "food processor" Major Nikon Oct 2015 #27
Why not a "GMO Free" label? jeff47 Oct 2015 #28
The OP says such a label would be an advertising gimmick. pnwmom Oct 2015 #30
A label with no certification process certainly is. jeff47 Oct 2015 #31
Glyphosphate must be absorbed by the plant in order to work. pnwmom Oct 2015 #32
Seeing "No GMO" advertised can be a good thing, I think. dixiegrrrrl Oct 2015 #16
Propaganda tends to do that. Archae Oct 2015 #18
Wait, did the "Advertising Gimmick Council" *officially* label it? alcibiades_mystery Oct 2015 #17
You tell me. Archae Oct 2015 #20
Unrec. Nt. darkangel218 Oct 2015 #26
Have you seen the "gluten free" 100% fruit juices? hobbit709 Oct 2015 #33
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"No GMO" is now...»Reply #32