In the space of just a few days, we saw two different articles come out. One on the (non) dangers of GMO’s and the other on the (actual) dangers of Monsanto’s Round Up.

On GMO’s, it’s fantastic to see a research project that was broad in participants, scientifically based and clear. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has done an excellent job adding real value to this discussion. Even better they put up a specific website just for the data. Short version — they found not statistical difference between the safety of GMO and non-GMO foods in human consumption.

On Monsanto’s Round Up, the issue is actually not glyphosate, but other ingredients (sometimes call inert ingredients), such as polyethoxylated tallowamine (POEA), which have avoided regulation for the most part until very recently (2014 in the case of POEA in some European countries).

What stood out to me is that a team of experts had to go in and analyze the various formulations of Monsanto’s Round Up separately from government or Monsato to discover that 6 of the 9 additives in Monsanto’s Round Up are actually more toxic than Monsanto’s Round Up.

My question: Why aren’t all ingredients in herbicides analyzed as part of the regulatory process?

The thing about both of these articles is that, in the face of intellectual laziness and lack of science backing decision making, here are 2 examples of how science, properly executed, can cut through the fog in both of these areas and provide clarity to those of us who truly care about plant, animal and human wellfare.