I am not dismissing the idea that environmental causes may be at play... but be VERY VERY cautious when throwing around charts like that. http://www.snopes.com

I am not dismissing the idea that environmental causes may be at play... but be VERY VERY cautious when throwing around charts like that. http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/glyphosate.asp http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/glyphosate.asp Correlation != Causation and not every scientist is an expert on Autism/Genetics/Biology. "Even disregarding the sloppy mathematics, the claim's very basis (that glyphosate is the cause of a perceived increase in autism) is unsupported. No mention was made of how glyphosate was isolated and shown to be a cause (or even a factor) in some or any cases of autism in the article. No autism spikes near agricultural facilities were described, nor was any definitive causative link at all cited by the article (and presumably, Seneff) to back up the purported link between glyphosate and autism rates anywhere other than the imaginations of those making the claim. The single link of merit made within the article (to a USDA report) made absolutely no mention of autism at all but was misleadingly arranged to suggest a connection. What the claim seemed to hinge on largely was a correlation/causation fallacy: Because [unclear activity involving glyphosate] occurred, a corresponding rise in autism diagnoses must be due to that unspecified issue with glyphosate. Claims of a similar nature have been dispelled with graphs like the following that show how difficult (or simple) it is to "prove" any one cause correlates with any one effect:"