A lot of people think it is anyway. You may be more familiar with the brand name Round Up, the glyphosate-based herbicide.
I have been aware of this for some time and even in my 20’s back in the 1980’s herbicides and pesticides were largely anathema to me.
Not that I had much occasion to use them as a building surveyor although I did recommend treatment of beetle infested timbers to inhibit deterioration.
Much of that was down to what the surveying profession recommended, although as I got older and wiser I realised that even such toxic spraying had its issues.
But as to glyphosate, well that’s another ball game as they say. It was ET's World Occult Circus substack that made me think I ought to start a post on it.
He has linked to J. Arnold of Liar’s World Substack here.
J. Arnold
Oct 21, 2023
It is a very good, long article.
Anyway, I thought I might have a little something to add to the matter so this is my take. Writing it down also helps to understand what is going on. Text in italics from this link unless otherwise stated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
This is its idealised skeletal chemical formula. The nitrogen atom is the root of what makes it have a negative impact on plant growth, N for ‘no’.
Glyphosate (IUPAC name: N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine) is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide and crop desiccant.
That is it kills weeds (unwanted plants) and dries out crops (wanted plants).
I say unwanted plants as somebody or something might want them but farmers generally don’t.
It is an organophosphorus compound which acts by inhibiting a plant enzyme. An enzyme is a chemical that accelerates chemical reactions and therefore growth.
Glyphosate restricts the making of amino acids on growing plants.
Its herbicidal effectiveness was discovered by Monsanto chemist John E. Franz in 1970.
You may well know about Monsanto and Genetically Modified (GM) seeds.
Monsanto was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation.
It is now owned by German chemical company Bayer; you know the one that marketed heroin as a cure for coughs.
All of which would make you think of Bayer with fondness no doubt. No? Oh well.
Farmers quickly adopted glyphosate for agricultural weed control, especially after Monsanto introduced glyphosate-resistant Roundup Ready crops, enabling farmers to kill weeds without killing their crops.
Which was great news. Although, hang on, that means before Roundup Ready crops the farmers’ crops were also being killed.
And if the crops were being killed what about those who ate the crops that were left?
Still, it meant that Monsanto could sell the farmers its patented genetically modified seed as well, a win-win for everybody.
Everybody in Monsanto and its shareholders that is. The farmers maybe not.
Stauffer Chemical patented the agent as a chemical chelator in 1964 as it binds and removes minerals such as calcium, magnesium, manganese, copper, and zinc.
All of which we use in our bodies. So that’s nice, take away useful things for bodily health.
Residues in food products
According to the National Pesticide Information Center fact sheet, glyphosate is not included in compounds tested for by the Food and Drug Administration's Pesticide Residue Monitoring Program, nor in the United States Department of Agriculture's Pesticide Data Program.
So again that’s great. It is toxic but the Federal Authorities don’t test for it. Hear no, see no, speak no evil of glyphosate.
The U.S. has determined the acceptable daily intake of glyphosate at 1.75 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg/bw/day) while the European Union has set it at 0.5.
So the science is very clear. The U.S. thinks that the poison its citizens can tolerate is 3.5 times that of the average EU citizen. Perhaps that is due to obesity.
People in the U.S.A. are large but not that large surely?
With the science so obvious I suppose this explains people saying ‘follow the science’ regarding COVID 19 and the vaccines. Scientists can obviously be trusted, right?
Still, it must be ok because U.S. citizens are the healthiest in the world, aren’t they?
US spends most on health care but has worst health outcomes among high-income countries, new report finds
January 31, 2023
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/31/health/us-health-care-spending-global-perspective/index.html
Ok, maybe not. It says.
The data showed that in 2021 alone, the US spent nearly twice as much as the average OECD country on health care – and health spending in the US was three to four times higher than in South Korea, New Zealand and Japan.
Globally, health care spending has been increasing since the 1980s, according to the report, driven mostly by advancements in medical technologies, the rising costs of medical care and a higher demand for services.
The US has the highest rate of people with multiple chronic health conditions, the data showed, and the highest obesity rate among the countries studied.
Life expectancy at birth in the US in 2020 was 77 years – three years less than the OECD average – and early data suggests that US life expectancy dropped even further in 2021. Since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, more people died from coronavirus infections in the US than in any other high-income country, according to the report.
It is CNN and they cannot be trusted on coronavirus and the vaccine issues but other sources back up the rest which I can leave you to research.
Environmental fate
The problem with glyphosate in the environment includes its association with the adjuvants, primarily the detergent.
It is said not to break down readily in water or sunlight.
The half-life of glyphosate in soil ranges between 2 and 197 days; a typical field half-life of 47 days has been suggested. Soil and climate conditions affect glyphosate's persistence in soil. The median half-life of glyphosate in water varies from a few to 91 days.
At a site in Texas, half-life was as little as three days. A site in Iowa had a half-life of 141.9 days.
The glyphosate metabolite AMPA has been found in Swedish forest soils up to two years after a glyphosate application. In this case, the persistence of AMPA was attributed to the soil being frozen for most of the year.
Glyphosate adsorption to soil, and later release from soil, varies depending on the kind of soil.
Glyphosate is generally less persistent in water than in soil, with 12- to 60-day persistence observed in Canadian ponds, although persistence of over a year has been recorded in the sediments of American ponds. The half-life of glyphosate in water is between 12 days and 10 weeks.
The term half-life is not helpful unless one understands that this means the degradation of glyphosate increasingly slows.
Thus from a 100% concentration it will take over 7 periods of time, of half-lives, to get below 1%.
So get to this low level in soil, taking the example of between 2 and 197 days, might be just over 2 weeks up to just over 4 years.
In water, taking the example of between 12 days and 10 weeks, it might be just over 13 weeks to 1.5 years. One can see how this will be of long term concern.
Toxicity
It is worth pointing out that Wikipedia indicates the global labelling system has these two symbols associated with glyphosate.
And this is its Safety data sheet link.
https://www.inchem.org/documents/icsc/icsc/eics0160.htm
Clearly it is internationally considered hazardous.
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in herbicide formulations containing it. However, in addition to glyphosate salts, commercial formulations of glyphosate contain additives (known as adjuvants) such as surfactants, which vary in nature and concentration. Surfactants such as polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA) are added to glyphosate to enable it to wet the leaves and penetrate the cuticle of the plants.
Adjuvants are also the names given to the additives to the vaccines. We know the toxic parts of adjuvants cause problems to people; they must do to cause what is vaguely and deceptively called the ‘immune response’. That is they make you ill, even if only slightly.
Thus we might be duly suspicious here with glyphosate. Surfactants are of course essentially detergents, breaking down surface resistance.
Thus, like vaccines, it is reasonable to say the adjuvants increase toxicity and likelihood of damage to humans and animals.
Glyphosate is less toxic than 94% of herbicides, and is also less toxic than household chemicals such as table salt or vinegar.
There is a footnote link but it merely repeats the claim with no detailed justification.
But in any event that hardly gives me confidence when one knows that table salt for example contains additional chemicals to help it flow. Its toxicity issues are well documented.
As to vinegar, well you can use this to spray on weeds. In fact it seems one is merely doing what Roundup is doing.
https://gardenerbible.com/how-to-use-30-vinegar-for-weed-killer/
One has to be careful in its application of course, but as it is much cheaper than Roundup I dare say the manufacturer may not be keen on the idea.
There are the adjuvants costs to consider, salt and soap in the above link, but still one can control what goes into the mix.
Back to Wikipedia.
In a 2017 risk assessment, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) wrote: "There is very limited information on skin irritation in humans. Where skin irritation has been reported, it is unclear whether it is related to glyphosate or co-formulants in glyphosate-containing herbicide formulations."
And yet glyphosate carries a corrosive warning sign, can’t the ECHA read? And the Safety data sheet specifically says ‘The substance is mildly irritating to the skin.’
But it must be obvious that it is not so much one or the other but both working together. If you use detergent on your hands, you break down the oils, leaving your skin vulnerable for other things to penetrate.
Cancer
As regards cancer risk, others have looked into this in detail including Stephanie Seneff who is mentioned in the article by J Arnold I referred to at the beginning.
However, the issue is that among many toxic substances in the environment, glyphosate is widely used and in the body will just be one of many other things the body tries to break down. Why add to that burden?
I have pointed out in my article ‘Sodium nitrite (E250) – the poison in your food and how to remedy it’ referenced at the end how such neurotoxic chemicals are a cause of cancer.
And here is a study on glyphosate and issues affecting the gut.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7530464/
As I indicated earlier, if the substance inhibits uptake of essential minerals, think of how this impacts the gut and the bacteria which function as enablers of mineral absorption.
Legal claims
Since 2018, in a number of court cases in the United States, plaintiffs have argued that their cancer was caused by exposure to glyphosate in glyphosate-based herbicides produced by Monsanto/Bayer. Defendant Bayer has paid out over $9.6 billion in judgements and settlements in these cases.
Due to these pay-outs and on-going issues, the Bayer-Monsanto merger is considered one of the worst corporate mergers in history.
Perhaps this is not surprising as if you merge the words Bayer-Monsanto and anagram them you can get
- yo me born Satan
- nb ye Satan room
- norm obey Satan
- bye moron Satan
The last one might indicate why Bayer no longer uses the name Monsanto as it is so ‘toxic’ in people’s minds.
Misinformation campaigns
I see Wikipedia is having a go at RFK jr. and Stephanie Seneff.
The US politician Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has incorporated glyphosate into his anti-vaccination rhetoric, falsely claiming that both glyphosate and vaccines may be contributing to the American obesity epidemic. Stephanie Seneff has also falsely claimed that it may have a role in autism and in worsening concussion.
The only footnote links are to Science-Based Medicine, a notorious David Gorski site. He is managing editor, whilst Steven Novella is the editor. Wikipedia seems to make frequent reference to these quacks in footnote links on health related pages.
Of course there is no direct link to RFK jr saying this and when you do eventually find it, yes, the Children's Health Defense Team do claim glyphosate and vaccines may be contributing to obesity in the USA.
But David Gorski merely slags off the claim and makes no defence of vaccines or glyphosate, his typical approach generally as far as I have observed.
We know that vaccines are harmful in general and as both they and glyphosate are neurotoxic they will cause reduction in metabolic rates. This reduces energy and helps lead to accumulation of fat.
As I suggested earlier, the obese may well tolerate toxic substances more because of storage in fat. It does also explain why they can be repeatedly vaccinated without evident serious harm.
Now for a look at the anagrams of glyphosate to see if we have any clues as to its nature reinforcing what is already observed.
Anagrams
Glyphosate = 10 letters no repeats
There are various one word anagrams on interest including ‘Gestapo’ which is amusing although there is no phrase with this. Here is my selection of suitable phrases.
- ply hostage
It can take you hostage in various ways
- gyp loathes
Swindles and hates you
- Goth pylaes
Pylaes are gates to the brain so allowing the Goths in to rampage!
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pylae
- oh gayest lp
Part of the chemical disrupters causing increasing homosexuality perhaps
- gloats hype
The advertising hype about how good is supposedly is
- yet gaols ph
A prison affecting acidity, restricting the creation of amino acids
- oh ply Gates
Bill Gates in there? Well, he has invested in Monsanto.
- go heals pty
I am not aware that there are any healing benefits but here is a link to possible detox from glyphosate
https://blog.listentoyourgut.com/how-to-detox-from-glyphosate/
- he splat goy
A goy is a non-Jewish person. As Monsanto was named after Olga Méndez Monsanto, the wife of the founder and part of the Sephardic Jewish merchant and banking business family, perhaps this is significant
And as Olga Méndez Monsanto will anagram to ‘Satan demon gloom zen’ maybe that is also significant!
- he got palsy
Reminds me of my own facial palsy. It is no more than might be expected. Here is a link.
Toxic Effects of Glyphosate on the Nervous System: A Systematic Review
2022 Apr 21
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9101768/
As it says in its conclusion
Although there are important discrepancies between the findings analyzed in this review, it is unequivocal that exposure to glyphosate, alone or in commercial formulations, can produce important alterations in the structure and function of the nervous system of humans, rodents, fish, and invertebrate animals.
It is worth my while pointing out here that if one takes the elements in glyphosate’s chemical formula, ‘hydrogen oxygen nitrogen phosphorus’, one can get the part phrase ‘neurotoxin’.
Mainstream studies may not use this term of glyphosate but is it not the effects one would expect?
Summary and final thoughts
Glyphosate, a neurotoxic substance inhibiting plant growth and take up of minerals which we need to maintain a healthy body.
The safety data sheet clearly indicates it as hazardous, particularly as dust and mist to be inhaled.
In itself perhaps not so toxic compared to other herbicides but like with vaccines made more toxic with adjuvants.
We can reasonably say the adjuvants create a breach in the wall of body defences for the glyphosate to enter and cause damage.
And whilst in small amounts a body may deal with it, like similar toxic substances, but in large doses and in conjunction with other chemicals over the course of time it will cause serious issues.
A substance which seems to have only become more acceptable to farmers when associated with GMOs due to issues affecting non-GMO crops. I found this link
Yield effects associated with glyphosate use in non-GMO arable farming: A review
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261219420300818
And its conclusion.
Glyphosate is the most commonly used and studied pesticide worldwide and in the EU. Though many calculations claim advantages for crop yield. Our review reveals that there are very few studies available regarding yield effects in current non-GMO cropping systems as being used in the EU. Based on the studies we found, we conclude that there is no scientific basis for published economic calculations on glyphosate benefits.
So very few studies. Reminds me of vaccine studies and proper comparison with true saline placebos.
This is all part and parcel of the big pharma approach, introduce toxic substances, advertise heavily and sell via the PR man, the salesman’s patter.
But when asked for real studies of benefits these are far and few between and limited in scope.
Modern farmers have to spray generally and can’t but help affecting wildlife in general. Then there is the issue of spray drift to neighbours.
https://www.thecooldown.com/green-home/roundup-garden-pesticide-neighbors-herbicide/
Even the anagram ‘neurotoxin’ of the constituent elements names give a clue as to its neurotoxic effects, as do anagrams of ‘glyphosate’ indicate possible harms.
All of which says to me that this stuff is dangerous and unsuitable for use.
But to me the clincher is the answer to why glyphosate is ghastly. I left out this anagram phrase:
- Ghastly Poe
I rest my case.
P.S. here is my link on sodium nitrite which I put down as the main cause of my facial palsy. It discusses how and why the nitrites as well as nitrates act negatively.
Sodium nitrite (E250) – the poison in your food and how to remedy it.
Then there are these links which may be of use.
Why New Zealand Must Oppose Higher Glyphosate Limits in Our Food
NZ Government wants more Carcinogens for Kiwis
MAY 15, 2025
A Weapon of Mass Destruction
Jun 01, 2025
How To Neutralise Glyphosate (Roundup) Herbicide Contamination In Soil
April 21, 2021
It all seems like a shell game to hide the real facts and truth in order to keep the money train rolling down the track.
I personally believe we shouldn’t be messing around with nature. It’s just too complex to fully understand the cause and effect of doing so in the long term.
Any long term effects we have seen are never good. That should give us a good reason to stop messing around with ALL of nature and that includes human beings !!!
I don’t think we can make it better than God did when He created the heavens and the earth and ALL living things !!!
I don’t know if you are familiar with the campaigns of Rosemary Mason over the past two decades to raise awareness of the adverse impacts of Glyphosate until she became very unwell herself as a result of exposure to Glyphosate when it was sprayed by the local council over her nature reserve in South Wales? This is a link to an article about her by Colin Todhunter which may be of interest: https://countercurrents.org/2019/10/agrochemical-apocalypse-interview-with-environmental-campaigner-dr-rosemary-mason/