Gov’t Study: 75% of AIR and Rain Samples Tested Positive for Roundup ??


Senior Member.
Gov’t Study: 75% of AIR and Rain Samples Tested Positive for Monsanto’s Roundup (link)

I'm suspicious of this claim. Is it factually based ? Is it specific enough to warrant headlines.....let's see.....

There are many sites using this claim to post articles. Has any of these site's authors had the study in-hand ?.....or are they delving in conjecture based on a simple "abstract" of the study ?

Last week the anti-biotech websites exploded with the news: “Roundup Weedkiller Found in 75% of Air and Rain Samples, Gov. Study Finds” and more scary-sounding titles like that.

My first response was to get a copy of the paper right away so I could read all about it and see the data. That would be pretty remarkable. But I could not access the paper at Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. So how did all of these websites above and their scholarly journalists get the manuscript?
I contacted one of the original paper’s authors, Dr. Paul Capel, and asked for a copy and got one. Apparently I was the first. Seems like those coming to the conclusions of the websites above were acting true to form– skimming an abstract and drawing a conclusion that best fits their desires.
Content from External Source
Please read the above link/article.....I won't copy-and-paste the whole article.

The study (only the abstract is available):

(more editing and info very soon)
I gave this thread link to the study's author, Paul Capel.
....and I requested a copy of the study.
Last edited:


Senior Member.
.....First, the paper’s authors do this work because ag chemicals volatilize or become airborne on particulate matter. I never realized to what extent, but wind, rain and other factors stir up otherwise latent chemicals and it is important to understand what is present. ........(snip)
Content from External Source
Interesting.....there may be a dual belief by some of the chemtrail community, who do not believe that dust and particulate matter leads to Aluminum and other elements in rainwater test results, but however might believe that pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers ARE carried by rain droplets. It's something that can be pointed to, in a discussion of "what's in the rain".

I have not yet read the study, but I strongly suspect that any pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers found, are indeed primarily attached to airborne soil dust.....if the study includes this data.
Last edited:


Senior Member.
I have not yet read the study, but I strongly suspect that any pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers found, are indeed primarily attached to airborne soil dust.....if the study includes this data.
I have a copy of the study (I have university access). Here's what it says about that issue:
The extent of the pesticide flux from the
landscape to the atmosphere is affected by the amount applied,
method of application, meteorological conditions, and physical–
chemical characteristics of the pesticide. Pesticides can be
introduced into the atmosphere though spray drift, volatilization,
and wind erosion of soil particles to which they are
attached. The removal of pesticides from the local atmosphere
include deposition (wet or dry), photochemical reaction, and
advective transport [10,11]. In the atmosphere, pesticides are
distributed between particle and vapor phases based on the
vapor pressure of the chemical, ambient temperature, and
concentration of suspended particulate matter [12].
Content from External Source
And specifically with regard to glyphosate and its breakdown product, aminomethylphosphonic acid:
Given its very low vapor pressure, glyphosate has two
important mechanisms for delivery to the atmosphere, spray
drift from application and wind erosion of soil particles to which
glyphosate is associated. Aminomethylphosphonic acid will be
introduced into the atmosphere only by soil erosion processes,
because it is formed in the soil after application. Volatilization
form the soil will not be an important process for either
Content from External Source
I'd say that the summary that you linked to in your OP got it right. The study found that detection of glyphosate increased in air and rainwater samples between the two sampling periods, and that other, often more environmentally-harmful pesticides (including other herbicides) decreased.


I'd like to see these tests performed in a typical neighborhood with well manicured yards. My guess is they might find glyphosate there too.


Senior Member.
Here are the studies....

.....Much thanks to Paul author of these studies.
I have not had time to review them yet.


  • Chang_ETC_2011.pdf
    287.7 KB · Views: 551
  • Coupe_Pest_Man_Sci_2011.pdf
    497 KB · Views: 551

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Interesting how this website takes a part of the study and then just runs with it, into a gish gallop of dot joining.
The researchers pointed out that, “the 2007 weekly air concentration pattern for glyphosate was similar to those of other commonly detected herbicides in both 1995 and 2007 in that the highest concentrations occurred in April and May. However, there were detectable concentrations of glyphosate over the entire growing season, which is consistent with how glyphosate is used on GM crops, including for post-emergent weed control throughout the growing season.”

The longer period of exposure adds to growing concern that this ubiquitous toxicant represents an unavoidable body burden and that even small daily environmental exposures may be causing significant harm through their cumulative and synergistic effects with other toxicants.

So, what is the toxicological significance of the discovery of glyphosate in most air samples tested? In the month of August, 2007, if you were breathing in the sampled air you would be inhaling approximately 2.5 nanograms of glyphosate per cubic meter of air. It has been estimated the average adult inhales approximately 388 cubic feet or 11 cubic meters of air per day, which would equal to 27.5 nanograms (billionths of a gram) of glyphosate a day.

Of course, when one considers the presence of dozons of other agrichemicals found alongside glyphosate in these samples, the interactions between them are incalculably complex and produce far more harm together than glyphosate alone (i.e. synergistic toxicity). Also, now that recent cell research has shown that glyphosate may act as an endocrine disrupter exhibiting estrogenic-like carcinogenicity within the part-per-trillion range, there is all the more reason to raise the red flag of the precautionary principle — especially since inhaled toxicants evade the elaborate detoxification mechanisms of ingested toxicants which must pass through the microbiome, intestinal lining and liver before entering the blood and only a long time later the lung far downstream.

This study brings to the surface the extent to which GM farming has altered our daily exposure to chemicals, such that even the rain and air we now breath contains physiologically relevant levels of glyphosate ‘fall out’ from the war against any plant not part of the monocultured, genetically engineered system of production. With a significant body of research now available today showing that glyphosate and its components are far more toxic than believed at the time of its widespread approval, the implications of ubiquitous glyphosate exposure should be carefully considered.
Content from External Source