12 ms·

I've been researching this. 1. Glyphosate (roundup) use is two orders of magnitude higher than originally approved. 2. Due to the emergence of glyphosate-re

I've been researching this. 1. Glyphosate (roundup) use is two orders of magnitude higher than originally approved. 2. Due to the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds, the dosage has been increased substantially. 3. It is now also usually combined with other compounds to increase effectiveness, which affects how it breaks down and affects both the food and environment. 4. It is now also used for 'green burndown'. To help dessicate the crop. AKA they use it to kills crops to speed harvest, resulting in significantly elevated levels in your food. Start with the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate Go on to a letter of concern published in the journal of Environmental Health signed by 14 experts in the field. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26883814 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26883814 Realize that little to gain from raising these concerns, while there are many wealthy parties with vested interests in not finding these results. There's little funding behind this. Governing bodies (e.g. in Germany) are still relying on findings from labs with clear conflicts of interest.

blacksmith_tb 10y ago
Without claiming RoundUp is good for you, I would point to this with regards to your point #4: http://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/roundupwheat.asp http://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/roundupwheat.asp
- CodeWriter23 10y ago
  Gotta love how Snopes dismisses anecdotal claims of allergies, then goes on to use anecdotal stories from farmers on a discussion forum to support their assertion that RoundUp isn't used as a crop dessicant.
  - gadders 10y ago
    Pretty sure they use it on Rape Seed in the UK. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation
  - randomdata 10y ago
    The article says it isn't used as a crop desiccant in wheat. If you want another anecdotal data point, as a grain grower myself, I have to echo the sentiment there. I'm sure someone has tried it, but I see no reason for wheat to need desiccation generally. Edible beans on the other hand...
    - CodeWriter23 10y ago
      I was merely noting Snopes' intellectual dishonesty in dismissing anecdotal data solely on the basis that it is anecdotal (and obviously, inconvenient to their conclusion), but then using anecdotal data to support their conclusion when it is convenient.
- abandonliberty 10y ago
  Yeah, no. Here's a guide from roundup on pre-harvest application: http://www.roundup.ca/_uploads/documents/MON-Preharvest%20Staging%20Guide.pdf http://www.roundup.ca/_uploads/documents/MON-Preharvest%20St... A page from 2014: http://fieldcropnews.com/2014/08/direct-harvest-do-you-need-a-desiccant-or-a-pre-harvest-glyphosate/ http://fieldcropnews.com/2014/08/direct-harvest-do-you-need-... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pre-harvest+burndown https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pre-harvest+burndown
alevskaya 10y ago
There are many conflicts of interest in the world - organic farming is an industry too. e.g. at least one of those 14 experts is an active member of the organic industry and has long had a beef with the GMO industry: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/charles-benbrook-former-washington-state-adjunct-consultant-organic-industry/ https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/charles-ben... As to the science: the original highly-questionable IARC determination has since been contested by both the European Chemical Agency and the European Food Safety Authority. It doesn't do us any good calling everything in the world a carcinogen. We have to rank-order risks in order to make reasonable choices in life, and glyphosate sits very low on that list compared to other industrial chemicals when you look at the evidence for mutagenicity or secondary carcinogenic mechanisms.
- shriphani 10y ago
  As Nicholas Taleb put it - stuff that is natural is time-tested. Food we've grown + consumed has a multi-millennium history of being safe to consume. The burden of proof is on the synthetic. And health issues can materialize with a time gap of a decade or so - essentially you can ruin a couple of generations with a mistake you didn't catch in time. It doesn't help when those who have to prove their validity have to resort to regulatory capture so often.
  - sametmax 10y ago
    Particularly, they have been time-tested in a complex system. Our tests are not only limited in time, but also in complexity. Scientists take a sample of subjects in a defined environment. The benefit of that is that they can draw definitive conclusions because of the manageable variables. The problem with it is that you fail to see the big picture, the many interactions with the numerous components of a real life activity, and on the long run. When talking about living things and food, or in that case, living things that are food, the context is incredibly important to define what is safe or not.
  - bojan 10y ago
    Is it really (time-)tested? How do we know what is safe to consume, especially long-term? We don't really have proper data to support most claims. We did not track and log the causes of death throughout the vast majority of our history.
ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
Be prepared for the army of shills - this topic is one of the most targeted by shills.
- cholantesh 10y ago
  Getcha tinfoil

blacksmith_tb 10y ago

Without claiming RoundUp is good for you, I would point to this with regards to your point #4: http://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/roundupwheat.asp http://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/roundupwheat.asp

CodeWriter23 10y ago
Gotta love how Snopes dismisses anecdotal claims of allergies, then goes on to use anecdotal stories from farmers on a discussion forum to support their assertion that RoundUp isn't used as a crop dessicant.
- gadders 10y ago
  Pretty sure they use it on Rape Seed in the UK. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation
- randomdata 10y ago
  The article says it isn't used as a crop desiccant in wheat. If you want another anecdotal data point, as a grain grower myself, I have to echo the sentiment there. I'm sure someone has tried it, but I see no reason for wheat to need desiccation generally. Edible beans on the other hand...
  - CodeWriter23 10y ago
    I was merely noting Snopes' intellectual dishonesty in dismissing anecdotal data solely on the basis that it is anecdotal (and obviously, inconvenient to their conclusion), but then using anecdotal data to support their conclusion when it is convenient.
abandonliberty 10y ago
Yeah, no. Here's a guide from roundup on pre-harvest application: http://www.roundup.ca/_uploads/documents/MON-Preharvest%20Staging%20Guide.pdf http://www.roundup.ca/_uploads/documents/MON-Preharvest%20St... A page from 2014: http://fieldcropnews.com/2014/08/direct-harvest-do-you-need-a-desiccant-or-a-pre-harvest-glyphosate/ http://fieldcropnews.com/2014/08/direct-harvest-do-you-need-... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pre-harvest+burndown https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pre-harvest+burndown

alevskaya 10y ago

There are many conflicts of interest in the world - organic farming is an industry too. e.g. at least one of those 14 experts is an active member of the organic industry and has long had a beef with the GMO industry: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/charles-benbrook-former-washington-state-adjunct-consultant-organic-industry/ https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/charles-ben... As to the science: the original highly-questionable IARC determination has since been contested by both the European Chemical Agency and the European Food Safety Authority. It doesn't do us any good calling everything in the world a carcinogen. We have to rank-order risks in order to make reasonable choices in life, and glyphosate sits very low on that list compared to other industrial chemicals when you look at the evidence for mutagenicity or secondary carcinogenic mechanisms.

shriphani 10y ago
As Nicholas Taleb put it - stuff that is natural is time-tested. Food we've grown + consumed has a multi-millennium history of being safe to consume. The burden of proof is on the synthetic. And health issues can materialize with a time gap of a decade or so - essentially you can ruin a couple of generations with a mistake you didn't catch in time. It doesn't help when those who have to prove their validity have to resort to regulatory capture so often.
- sametmax 10y ago
  Particularly, they have been time-tested in a complex system. Our tests are not only limited in time, but also in complexity. Scientists take a sample of subjects in a defined environment. The benefit of that is that they can draw definitive conclusions because of the manageable variables. The problem with it is that you fail to see the big picture, the many interactions with the numerous components of a real life activity, and on the long run. When talking about living things and food, or in that case, living things that are food, the context is incredibly important to define what is safe or not.
- bojan 10y ago
  Is it really (time-)tested? How do we know what is safe to consume, especially long-term? We don't really have proper data to support most claims. We did not track and log the causes of death throughout the vast majority of our history.

ConfuciusSay02 10y ago

Be prepared for the army of shills - this topic is one of the most targeted by shills.

cholantesh 10y ago
Getcha tinfoil