I most certainly do understand the subject - had a good discussion here with an anti-GMO person, if you’re interested:
There’s certainly data to indicate that glyphosate messes with the microbiome:
Im in it every single day. I work for the largest independant plant breeder and all we do is NonGMO corn. Its my life. WE dont need glyphosate. there is plenty of conventional corn out there that is better than GMO. We beat GMO in every trial and side by side situation we are in.
WE dont need GMO CORN>. save it for biofuel and ethanol. not for human or animal consumption.
Read Seeds of Destruction. youll change your mind.
1 Like
This discussion is about agriculture. Don’t pivot to human health system
If that were true, farmers would switch to non-GMO. Btw- gmo sweet corn isn’t widely used currently and there’s no gmo popcorn. The vast majority of gmo corn already IS only used for biofuel, high-fructose corn syrup and animal feed. HFCS is just sugar and doesn’t contain any dna so it being gmo has no relevance whatsoever. There’s zero detectable difference between gmo and non-gmo at that point (and doesn’t matter anyway bc there’s nothing wrong with gmo corn).
Look at the conclusion section of the study you linked. Everywhere it says “potential effect”. That’s not good enough to ban something used successfully all around the world for many beneficial reasons and no one can actually prove it’s harmful. I’m so tired of this unwillingness to believe someone invented something wonderful
There is little organic actually. They have found glyphosate circling the globe in the cloud layer. So there’s the rain issue. Our water supply now had all sorts of forever drugs. I don’t know how we fix this.
1 Like
I was responding to this, i.e. antibiotic prescriptions in human health system have also been on the rise since 1996 & have been shown to also cause problems in the human microbiome (like glyphosate)
It may not be reason enough to permanently ban, I agree - but certainly worthy of deeper, impartial investigation, without conflict of interest, and a temporary halt until that investigation concludes
Who ran the largest studies of glyphosate?
I’m sorry you believe all these falsehoods.
Glyphosate has been in use since the 70s. Everyone and their brother has attempted to find something wrong with it. Government agencies, activist organizations, universities all over the world. There is zero reason to stop using it just because some activists refuse to stop fearmongering about it.
So there’s no birth control in public water and no chemicals in the air? Riiiiight…
1 Like
So I take it you have a long list of the studies by these government agencies & their brothers, finding that glyphosate has absolutely no long-term effects?
I sent 2 showing that it is likely to have an effect on the microbiome
Certainly you can send me 1 that found nothing in a long-term study, including no change to microbiome, that was not funded by a company with a conflict of interest (aka mansanto)
I’ll wait
1 Like
This is the most recent large study I know of:
The funding statement:
This work was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics (Z01CP010119), National Institute of Environmental Health Science (NIEHS; Z01ES0490300), the Iowa Cancer Registry (HHSN261201300020I), and Iowa’s Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center (P30CA086862), as well as the NIEHS-funded Environmental Health Sciences Research Center at the University of Iowa (P30ES005605).
You may have missed my question - “found nothing in a long-term study”
So perhaps we can establish that glyphosate doesn’t cause cancer, that’s fine - but I never argued that it did
I also question the quality of the study: “self-reported information from enrollment”
Crap data in, crap data out
Well, nobody is going to put a thousand people in a bubble and control everything they do and eat for months so self-reporting on human issues is what we have. That study was about people who use glyphosate on a regular basis so they have a vested interest to participate fully and honestly to find out the truth about a chemical they use regularly and expose their families to. They represent a worst-case scenario study vs the rest of us who are exposed to glyphosate minimally bc of how it isn’t applied when the part we eat would be exposed to it and how quickly it degrades after it is applied.
You’re putting all your money on “potentially” and I’m putting mine on testimonies of expert user habits and actual concrete data on cancer incidences in that population. I’m comfortable with my hand here.
Why do you want to believe glyphosate is rotten so badly that no evidence is good enough for you?
I agree it’s a complex study & very difficult to do with humans
I think the better bet would be with lab animals, e.g. monkeys
Unfortunately for testing long-term effects of food, it’s really the only thing you can do - too difficult to do outside a lab
How do you test whether eating a pesticide for 10 years causes serious problems in humans? Near-impossible to do, which is why companies like this are able to get away with it
“Get away with” what? Again. It’s not like we have never detected a link between something people consume/exposed to and harm. Asbestos, lead, cigarette smoking, etc.
How long did it take to find those links?
How easy is it to tell someone is exposed to asbestos (remembering it mostly affected construction workers, with high exposure), vs exposed to glyphosate?
Monsanto ran the studies. They cut them off after 30 days because the lab mice were coming up with tumors around 45 days out. So the fda went ahead and gave them the thumbs up. You may want see who is on the board in the fda and look up their past employment history. A lot like the cdc merry band of outlaws.
3 Likes
America has one major flaw in this system. WE look at single dose toxicity. Its not good stuff. If it were so wonderful, there wouldnt be so many issues with it. its not needed.
1 Like