 GMO soy has been found to be contaminated with pesticide residues, but are these levels anything to worry about? The researchers describe these levels as high, but compared to what? Compared to the maximum allowable residue levels. The legal limit for glyphosate in foods have been set at 0.1 to 0.2 milligrams per kilogram. So, okay, maybe these levels are high, exceeding the legal limits by an average of about 2,000%, as organic and conventional non-GMO soy both had none. So, what did Monsanto do? Did the industry ditch the whole GMO thing? Go back to using less pesticides so residue levels wouldn't be so high, or they could just change the definition of high. What if they could get authorities to raise the maximum residue level from 0.1 or 0.2 up to, say, 20? Then the residue levels don't look so high anymore. Problem solved. The acceptance level of glyphosate in food and feed had been increased by authorities in countries that use round-up-ready GMO crops. In Brazil, they went up to 10, and in the US and Europe now accept up to 20. In all these cases, the maximum residue level values appeared to have been adjusted, not based on any new evidence indicating glyphosate toxicity was less than previously understood, but pragmatically, in response to actual observed increases in the content of residues in GMO soybeans, otherwise it wouldn't be legal to sell the stuff. What evidence do we have, though, that these kinds of residues are harmful? For 12 years, we've heard that round-up interferes with embryonic development, but the study was about sea urchin embryos. For 14 years, that round-up may disrupt hormones, but that's in mouse testicles. Blogs will dish about concerning new studies indicating round-up and male fertility, but if you look at the study, it's about rat testicles. Some blogs cite studies with disturbing titles like pre-puberty exposure alters testosterone levels in testicular shape, but they're talking about puberty in rats, though doesn't make as catchy a blog title. Why not use human tissue? Women are having babies every day. Why not just experiment on human placentas, which would otherwise just get thrown away? And in 2005, researchers did just that. And despite all the negative effects in rodents, glyphosate, the active ingredient in round-up, didn't seem to have much of a toxic effect on human cells even at high doses, or have much effect on hormone-regulating enzymes. Leading Monsanto-funded reviewers to conclude that regardless of what hazards might be alleged based on animal studies, glyphosate is not anticipated to produce adverse developmental or reproductive effects in humans. But pure glyphosate isn't sprayed on crops. Round-up is, which contains a variety of adjuvants and surfactants meant to help the glyphosate penetrate into tissues. And indeed, when the study was repeated with what's actually sprayed on GMO crops, there were toxic and hormonal effects even at doses smaller than the 1% or 2% concentration that's used out in the fields. Similar results were found for other major pesticides. It took until 2014, but 8 out of 9 pesticide formulations tested were up to 1,000 times more toxic than their so-called active ingredients. So when you just test the isolated chemicals, you may not get the whole story. Round-up was found to be 100 times more toxic than glyphosate itself. Moreover, Round-up turned out to be among the most toxic pesticides they tested. It's commonly believed that Round-up is among the safest, though, an idea spread by Monsanto, the manufacturer. However, this inconsistency between scientific fact and industry claim may be attributed to the huge economic interests involved.