2 ms·

It seems like it would be really simple to know what's in your food by simply testing for it right? If you're telling me that X substance is in some good that

It seems like it would be really simple to know what's in your food by simply testing for it right? If you're telling me that X substance is in some good that is freely available then it should be easy to prove it. You can catch the EPA/FDA red handed by simply doing some independent testing. The only reason I trust the EPA/FDA over the PhD you refer to is that the barrier of entry to testing something that I can buy off the shelf seems so low that lack of evidence, in this case, really hurts the accusation. Like if I said bricks float in vegetable oil. That's trivially falsifiable. Am I mistaken about how difficult it should be to test for glyphosate? The health effects of glyphosate are another story, that is certainly much more difficult to prove and is a legitimate topic of discussion, especially considering how many times industry has withheld health issues in the past.

ItsMe000001 9y ago
> Am I mistaken about how difficult it should be to test for glyphosate? Read the article? The "official" samples contained nothing. "Testing" is not just the process of testing the sample in the lab, it takes place in a context. That context matters a lot, as this example shows. Even if your lab process is reliable, you can do a lot to influence the result before you have a sample on the plate of the technician. It's the same as with any measurement, any study: Before doing the actual measurement there is far larger and more important process that remains mostly invisible or ignored (even when it is published). Focus only is on the "numbers", because "numbers don't lie"...
- parineum 9y ago
  My point is that anybody who knows how to test for glyphosate can go to the grocery store, buy a box of ritz crackers, an ear of corn and some canned soup and test them. The food I eat is easily testable by an independent lab. If you make an accusation about a product you could easily test because it's freely available I am suspicious why you didn't.

ItsMe000001 9y ago

> Am I mistaken about how difficult it should be to test for glyphosate? Read the article? The "official" samples contained nothing. "Testing" is not just the process of testing the sample in the lab, it takes place in a context. That context matters a lot, as this example shows. Even if your lab process is reliable, you can do a lot to influence the result before you have a sample on the plate of the technician. It's the same as with any measurement, any study: Before doing the actual measurement there is far larger and more important process that remains mostly invisible or ignored (even when it is published). Focus only is on the "numbers", because "numbers don't lie"...

parineum 9y ago
My point is that anybody who knows how to test for glyphosate can go to the grocery store, buy a box of ritz crackers, an ear of corn and some canned soup and test them. The food I eat is easily testable by an independent lab. If you make an accusation about a product you could easily test because it's freely available I am suspicious why you didn't.