Monsanto RoundUp Detected in Water Samples

Published on September 1st, 2011 | by

Monsanto Roundup

Researchers testing water from streams in farming areas found significant levels of Monsanto RoundUp in the water.

According to a Reuters report:

Significant levels of the world’s most-used herbicide have been detected in air and water samples from two U.S. farm states, government scientists said on Wednesday, in groundbreaking research on the active ingredient in Monsanto Co’s Roundup.

The researchers found “significant levels” of the Monsanto herbicide in water samples from streams in Mississippi and Iowa. They say that every water sample that they took contained RoundUp.

While this study didn’t look at the impact of this contamination, we know that RoundUp is not something we want to be drinking or something we want marine life to be exposed to. It’s proven to cause birth defects and contribute to a number of plant, animal, and human health problems.

What Can You Do?

This is a tricky question, since the main culprit seems to be agricultural runoff. It feels like the best solution is to choose organic produce or buy directly from farmers that you know don’t use RoundUp. Of course, you can also abstain from using RoundUp in your own yard or garden.

RoundUp is heavily sprayed on corn and soybean crops for livestock feed, so it’s important to know where your meat comes from, too. Cutting back on meat or finding a farmer you trust can make a big difference.

You can also let your representative know that you have concerns about RoundUp’s safety!

Image Credit: Creative Commons photo by -eko-


The solar estimate solar calculator shows how much solar panels cost per kw, solar system prices, solar rebates and incentives and the best rated solar companies in each county

3 comments

  • I have been researching what is actually known about glyphosate and happened on this report. The style it is written in demands that it not be believed on the face of it. “Detectable levels” What were they? So what if they are detectable, there is such a thing as a harmless level (that banana you ate today contains easily detectable levels of K-40 which is radioactive – look up “banana equivalent dose”). The supposed references you cite are not findable. Where are they in the literature? Did they survive scrutiny by other scientists, or are they the equivalent of cold fusion? If you want your information to be believed, it must be detailed enough to be evaluated by readers. You should quote enough details in the paper to give it credibility (if it is detectable, what proportion of the EPA defined safe level is it?). I should be able to read the original work for myself. You do none of this. It appears you expect readers to believe this simply because you printed it. I don’t. No one should.

  • And, by the way, I do not believe your assertion it is a proven cause of birth defects. I can find no information to that effect, and your link does not lead to a believable source. Likewise the link about “contribute to a number of plant, animal, and human health problems.” that link leads to a story that a crop planted in a field treated by glyphosate the prior year may not do well. Big surprise, but nothing – nothing – about animal or human health problems. Data in the EPA’s files indicates that dogs fed 500mg/kg of Glyphosate daily for a year had no health problems. That would mean my dog would have to eat all the grass on a 16 ft square plot that was freshly treated every day, and still there would be no observable effect. If you have information to the contrary, put it here in a form that can be critically reviewed.

Leave a Reply