4 ms·
> this suggests ... Not quite. It suggests that it’s possible that regular food has glyphosate residue. But samples “brought from home” may have been contamina
by PantaloonFlames 8y ago
> this suggests ...
Not quite. It suggests that it’s possible that regular food has glyphosate residue. But samples “brought from home” may have been contaminated elsewhere. This is why we depend on rigorous controlled tests.
It’s also possible that the “official tests” were rigged, and suspiscions about that led the testers to go rogue, and that glyphosate really IS in our food in larger concentrations than we are led to believe. That seems more plausible.
- alexandercrohde 8y ago> Not quite. It suggests that it’s possible that regular food has glyphosate residue. But samples “brought from home” may have been contaminated elsewhere It doesn't matter to the consumer where in the supply chain the food got glyphosate on it. If it has residue by the time I get home, I don't want to eat it.
- jccooper 8y agoYes, but it rather matters in terms of how to keep it out.
- perl4ever 8y agoIt matters when you want to discuss blame and solutions.
- buvanshak 8y agoYes. but the first step is to acknowledge it. That is the point the parent is talking about..
- pdonis 8y ago> It doesn't matter to the consumer where in the supply chain the food got glyphosate on it. It does if the food got it, not from anywhere in the food supply chain, but from the home's own supply of Roundup, which has found its way in small quantities into all kinds of places.
- pdonis 8y ago> samples “brought from home” may have been contaminated elsewhere. Or they may have been contaminated at home, if the home has Roundup somewhere around.