4 ms·
Seems to me that the evidence surrounding this isn't strong enough to warrant designating glyphosate as "cancer-causing" for humans, but the evidence surroundin
by epmaybe 9y ago
Seems to me that the evidence surrounding this isn't strong enough to warrant designating glyphosate as "cancer-causing" for humans, but the evidence surrounding the adverse effects in animals is pretty strong (based on my skimming of the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Humans).
Would like to hear thoughts from anyone close to the matter, I'm sure you have a different perspective than I.
- davidivadavid 9y agoAfter this disaster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair I'm very skeptical about claims of glyphosate being "cancer-causing" (whatever that means when no measure of effect size is mentioned), even in animals.
- erikpukinskis 9y agoWhy? Flawed studies get run all the time. If you see a flawed study about bat flight, does that make you more skeptical about all bat flight studies? Do you get joy from hippies being wrong? That's probably going to cause huge biases in your science reading.
- bazzert 9y agoThe point being it is the only study that seemed to point to a link to cancer. But it was hugely flawed and was retracted. Given the hysteria over roundup you would think there were a bunch of such studies.
- ComputerGuru 9y agoReminds me of aspartame. It's probably the only drug that's been studied more than glyphosate as a result of bad science causing public outrage.