5 ms·
This article reads like a political agenda providing few verifiable facts, and many broad, unsubstantiated claims. If one is going to make bold claims, they sh
by JohnGB 9y ago
This article reads like a political agenda providing few verifiable facts, and many broad, unsubstantiated claims. If one is going to make bold claims, they should be substantiated by fact, not by other bold claims.
I am no expert on glyphosates, but that article has left me less than convinced that they are "safe".
- dotdi 9y agoI came here to write a very similar thing. While activists exaggerate to persuade people it's not safe because it might be carcinogenic, the author is on the other extreme: it's safe until proven otherwise. It also sports a fair share of whataboutism: "what about bacon, that's also considered carcinogenic!?".
- zaarn 9y agoI recall my chemist teacher repeating the age old phrase "the dosage makes the poison" so often that I'm basically immune to anyone crying "X is poison". It's all about "how much?" and "over which time period?" and "where did you put it into your body?" to determine if something will kill you or cause cancer.
- orwin 9y agoTrue. Glyphosate opponent target the fact that everybody ingest glyphosate (and that's supposed to be bad). But the dose we ingest (at least in western europe) is too small to be really dangerous, and i think this arguent is a bad one. However, i am concerned about farmer and gardener using the product, as well as kids living near them. Most natural pesticide and herbicide show bad affect on young people brain developpement. I would be really surprised if a chemical, more potent one was harmless.
- zaarn 9y agoIt really depends, mostly on whether or not Glyphosate can cross the Blood-Brain barrier and how easily it does. If it barely or not at all goes through then there should be less of an impact.
- dozzie 9y ago> I recall my chemist teacher repeating the age old phrase "the dosage makes the poison" [...] Indeed it's the dosage and not the substance, even if it will sound stupid when somebody on your funeral says that you were crushed by a ton of cherries.
- zaarn 9y agoI think I'll put it on my last will that if I was to be crushed by a truckload of cherries, the phrase "the dosage makes the poison" must be mentioned during my funeral.
- redblacktree 9y agoI haven't yet had time to properly investigate, but I have heard that wheat crops are sprayed liberally with glyphosate directly before harvest as a desiccant to make harvesting easier. (perhaps also increasing yield, I don't know) So the dose may be quite a bit higher than you'd generally expect. Also note that glyphosate is Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) by the FDA, which means that it can be used in any quantity. With that designation, arguments about dosage carry less weight for me. If a regulatory agency were concerned with dosages in final food products, I'd feel a lot more comfortable.
- zaarn 9y agoI live in Europe so things are different. As such the maximum dosage that is allowed in food is 0.1mg per kg of body weight and per day. Thusly my argument on dosages in final food products hold and I feel fairly comfortable. I suggest either petitioning the FDA to introduce food safety standards or moving to another country with food safety standards.
- redblacktree 9y agoMoving is a rather drastic step. Instead, I buy USDA Organic wheat, which doesn't allow the use of glyphosate.
- Jumziey 9y agoMy thoughts precisely. Few things pisses me off as much as people saying you have to listen to science without presenting the science and in turn only use hyperbole and stupid arguments such as "Bacon causes cancer, so no worries... smoke your cigarettes"
- mythrwy 9y agoIt's not a scientific article about the toxicity of glyphosate. More a social/political article about the toxicity of legal firms (in pursuit of class action lawsuits) paying activists along with the toxicity of non-scientific alarmist public opinion.
- cholantesh 9y agoA fact that is regularly ignored when this discussion comes up again and again on HN.
- ozy 9y agoWhat bold claim are you referring to? Where the IARC places it on its list is a verifiable fact, and let's assume the IARC is doing a reasonable job. It's a poison, let's be clear about that. So treat it carefully and with respect. But when you do, the end result to human life is more save than bacon.
- tatersolid 9y agoThe whole point of the articke is that the IARC does not do a reasonable job, and calls just about everything carcinogenic without scientific evidence, qualification around dosage, etc.
- ozy 9y agoNo. Why do you conclude the IARC does this "without scientific evidence". And why do you conclude the article claims it is doing a bad job? Basically, the article claims people don't understand HOW the IARC does its job, what its reports mean. And that its data is easily misused for fear mongering. Eg scary fact, did you know your water contains lots of dihydrogen monoxide? First and foremost it judges on hazard, which is how much an effect it could be in the worst exposure cases. Only secondly is its job to assess risks, that is how much is the effect under normal/expected exposures.
- kubiiii 9y agoFew verifiable facts? I'm sure you can verify that the author really has a garden and controls weeds using round-up (why remove weeds by hand which is totally feasible, part of growing a garden responsably, and an infinite source of satisfaction upon achievement?), and has had no symptoms of intoxication (yet). Point proven!