6 ms·

I don't understand what this article is trying to convey. > One sample of Quaker Old Fashioned Oats measured at more than 1,000 parts per billion of glyphosate

I don't understand what this article is trying to convey. > One sample of Quaker Old Fashioned Oats measured at more than 1,000 parts per billion of glyphosate. That's 1 part per million (ppm), found in one particular sample. I imagine this was the most extreme outlier, as otherwise it would not be mentioned as prominently. And then, right in the next sentence: > The Environmental Protection Agency has a range of safe levels for glyphosate on crops such as corn, soybeans, grains and some fruits, spanning 0.1 to 310 parts per million. So one sample measured within the bounds that are deemed safe. On the one hand, 1ppm is well above the 0.1ppm that is deemed safe for some of these crops by the EPA. On the other hand, this egregious sample is way lower than the 310ppm deemed safe for some other crops by the EPA. What gives. What is this article trying to say? It seems like it is trying to be sensationalistic. Can someone explain if I am reading this wrong? Maybe there's a typo in the article?

ajju 8y ago
Using parts per billion for one stat and parts per million for the other is just wrong. If that is not a typo it's shameless sensationalism at its worst. Surprising to see this from the guardian. Even at 1 ppm it is above the line, so they didn't need to sensationalize it.
- saalweachter 8y ago
  0.1 ppm is the limit for popcorn; the limit for oats and other grains is 30ppm, so 1ppm is well under the limit for oats. The 310 ppm mentioned in the article is the limit for "grain aspiration fraction", which I believe is the stuff that falls off grain when you clean it with air(?), which is not something you'd normally be eating, so I don't know why the Guardian pulled that number out. The highest limit I saw in the EFCR tables for anything people would be eating seemed to be mint at 200ppm; most everything else was under 100ppm for human consumption, and the things with 200, 300, 400 ppm limits was animal feed.
nealdt 8y ago
Well spotted - It must be a typo because normally I hear parts per billion in reference to these figures, never ppm.
- detaro 8y ago
  regulations site also says ppm: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=a3b649316ccb17c31211db2edd81f789&mc=true&node=pt40.24.180&rgn=div5#se40.26.180_1364 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=a3b649316ccb17c312... (warning: massive HTML file)
theprotocol 8y ago
Good catch. It looks like human error on the part of the author. The validity of the article hinges on this one paragraph and could go either way.
joshuahughes 8y ago
The source on the EWG website (linked from the article) seems to have all values listed as parts per billion... https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/glyphosateincereal https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/glyphosateincereal
darpa_escapee 8y ago
The levels the EPA considers safe is for use on crops. These are the levels deemed safe for levels in food[1]. The median seems to be about 0.2ppm for glyphosate levels in food meant for human consumption. [1] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=0f2a0a6738e34d3b1a361bd25d49aafb&n=pt40.24.180&r=PART&ty=HTML#se40.26.180_1364 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=0f2a0a6738...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- saalweachter 8y ago
  In the case of oats (and cereal grains in general), it's 30 ppm (30,000 ppb).
roel_v 8y ago
It's the Guardian. It's the British equivalent of Fox but from the other side of the political spectrum. I don't understand why so much Guardian drivel is upvoted here every day.
- jacksproit 8y ago
  They do investigative journalism with primary sources and documented references which puts them ahead of most news outlets these days. Yes they have a bias but it’s predictable.
- tomcooks 8y ago
  Because, unlike Fox, the Guardian hires proper journalists, and the Guardian's profits are reinvested in journalism rather than to benefit its shareholders. BTW: "drivel" my arse, as they say there.
userbinator 8y ago
That's my impression when I read the headline and article too. Analytic methods have become so highly sensitive that the tiniest trace is detectable, but that doesn't mean it's significant. Combine that with a "think of the children" perspective and it makes great sensational-but-vacuous news. As they say, the dose makes the poison...
masto 8y ago
The reason it looks sensationalistic is that it is. This is the result of an anti-science advocacy group called EWG that put out a press release that's being republished by various lazy news outlets. This is the same group that has made claims that vaccines cause autism and cell phones cause brain cancer. Unfortunately, this type of article is irresistible to the media and it's getting a ridiculous amount of traction. The science on glyphosate has not changed, and these "findings" by the EWG are junk. Here's something a little more reputable. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roundup-lawsuit/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roun...
- yeloboy 8y ago
  There's nothing reputable about that site. Deal with it, reputable organisations have classified glyphosphate as a carcinogen.
  - yeloboy 8y ago
    *glyphosate
  - antonvs 8y ago
    > reputable organisations have classified [glyphosate] as a carcinogen That's a bit of an oversimplification. This article helps clarify the situation: https://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/glyphosate-cause-cancer/ https://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/glyphosate-cause-cancer/ An important point is the following: > "An FAQ page on WHO’s website clarifies why the IARC’s and the pesticide residue experts’ conclusions aren’t contradictory. > "The 2015 IARC conclusion aimed to identify any potential cancer hazard glyphosate may pose to humans at some level of exposure, WHO explains. But in 2016, the pesticide residue experts at WHO and the U.N. assessed the actual cancer risk the herbicide poses to consumers at a specific level of exposure, namely the level commonly found in foods." Further: > "In fact, a yet-to-be-published study that found no link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, may have changed IARC’s 2015 analysis of the herbicide had it been published." It's also worth noting that the IARC's finding is somewhat speculative, as described in https://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer-1.17181 https://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-... : > "The IARC review notes that there is limited evidence for a link to cancer in humans. Although several studies have shown that people who work with the herbicide seem to be at increased risk of a cancer type called non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the report notes that a separate huge US study, the Agricultural Health Study, found no link to non-Hodgkin lymphomas. That study followed thousands of farmers and looked at whether they had increased risk of cancer. > "But other evidence, including from animal studies, led the IARC to its ‘probably carcinogenic’ classification. Glyphosate has been linked to tumours in mice and rats — and there is also what the IARC classifies as ‘mechanistic evidence’, such as DNA damage to human cells from exposure to glyphosate." There's a good amount of research showing no cancer links in practice at realistic levels, though, for example. Here are a couple of studies (one of which is mentioned above): Cancer Incidence among Glyphosate-Exposed Pesticide Applicators in the Agricultural Health Study - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253709/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253709/ - "Glyphosate exposure was not associated with cancer incidence overall or with most of the cancer subtypes we studied." Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and cancer: A review - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230012000943 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027323001... - "Seven cohort studies and fourteen case-control studies examined the association between glyphosate and one or more cancer outcomes. Our review found no consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between total cancer (in adults or children) or any site-specific cancer and exposure to glyphosate." In short, this is not an issue that justifies running around with one's hair on fire, unless that happens to be your hobby, which it does seem to be for some people.
tomp 8y ago
For a long time, the story of pro-GMO advocates was "RoundUp is safer than other weed-killers because it's applied when the plant is still young and not growing edible parts yet, so there won't be any of it in your food". Looks like they were wrong. (Note that I'm not saying that RoundUp is worse than other stuff, or that there's more of it in our food that of other stuff.)
- randomdata 8y ago
  They may not be wrong. The article says that glyphosate was found present in all but two of the 45 oat-derived products. There are no GMO oats available on the market. Glyphosate is sometimes used on wheat and oats when the plant is at the end of its lifecycle when it is fine, if not desirable, if it kills the crop. We can reasonably conclude that the traces showed up because of the crop being non-GMO, delaying application until the plants are old.
  - zeroego 8y ago
    >There are no GMO oats available on the market That's not true at all. Many companies offer Non-GMO oats. There's is a big difference between crops being sprayed with glyphosate and crops coming from non-GMO seeds.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      Wait, didn't you two just say the same thing? He said there are no GMO oats available. You said companies offer non-GMO oats, which are not GMO oats.
      - zeroego 8y ago
        Ah you're correct, I'm sorry I misread.
    - randomdata 8y ago
      > There's is a big difference between crops being sprayed with glyphosate and crops coming from non-GMO seeds. Being a grain farmer, I know. :)
pasta 8y ago
- Q: "I don't understand what this article is trying to convey." - A: Getting as much hits as possible so they have more income from ads. Also: "Cancer-linked herbicide, sold as Roundup by Monsanto, present in 45 products including granola, snack bars and Cheerios" is very sensational because there are a lot of types of herbicides. Glyphosate is possible connected to cancer but there is not much proof for it. Edit: (disclaimer) I think it's still crazy companies are allowed to add toxic synthetic chemicals to nature. For example: In the US and Netherlands there is now GenX [1] in drinking water because it is unsure if GenX can cause any harm. Well imho that should be the other way around: only allow chemicals to be dumped in open water if you are 100% sure it can't do harm. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenX
- randomdata 8y ago
  Even the recent court case about Roundup was careful to avoid looking at glyphosate, but instead focused on other additives mixed into the Roundup brand.

ajju 8y ago

Using parts per billion for one stat and parts per million for the other is just wrong. If that is not a typo it's shameless sensationalism at its worst. Surprising to see this from the guardian. Even at 1 ppm it is above the line, so they didn't need to sensationalize it.

saalweachter 8y ago
0.1 ppm is the limit for popcorn; the limit for oats and other grains is 30ppm, so 1ppm is well under the limit for oats. The 310 ppm mentioned in the article is the limit for "grain aspiration fraction", which I believe is the stuff that falls off grain when you clean it with air(?), which is not something you'd normally be eating, so I don't know why the Guardian pulled that number out. The highest limit I saw in the EFCR tables for anything people would be eating seemed to be mint at 200ppm; most everything else was under 100ppm for human consumption, and the things with 200, 300, 400 ppm limits was animal feed.

nealdt 8y ago

Well spotted - It must be a typo because normally I hear parts per billion in reference to these figures, never ppm.

detaro 8y ago
regulations site also says ppm: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=a3b649316ccb17c31211db2edd81f789&mc=true&node=pt40.24.180&rgn=div5#se40.26.180_1364 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=a3b649316ccb17c312... (warning: massive HTML file)

theprotocol 8y ago

Good catch. It looks like human error on the part of the author. The validity of the article hinges on this one paragraph and could go either way.

joshuahughes 8y ago

The source on the EWG website (linked from the article) seems to have all values listed as parts per billion... https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/glyphosateincereal https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/glyphosateincereal

darpa_escapee 8y ago

The levels the EPA considers safe is for use on crops. These are the levels deemed safe for levels in food[1]. The median seems to be about 0.2ppm for glyphosate levels in food meant for human consumption. [1] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=0f2a0a6738e34d3b1a361bd25d49aafb&n=pt40.24.180&r=PART&ty=HTML#se40.26.180_1364 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=0f2a0a6738...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
saalweachter 8y ago
In the case of oats (and cereal grains in general), it's 30 ppm (30,000 ppb).

roel_v 8y ago

It's the Guardian. It's the British equivalent of Fox but from the other side of the political spectrum. I don't understand why so much Guardian drivel is upvoted here every day.

jacksproit 8y ago
They do investigative journalism with primary sources and documented references which puts them ahead of most news outlets these days. Yes they have a bias but it’s predictable.
tomcooks 8y ago
Because, unlike Fox, the Guardian hires proper journalists, and the Guardian's profits are reinvested in journalism rather than to benefit its shareholders. BTW: "drivel" my arse, as they say there.

userbinator 8y ago

That's my impression when I read the headline and article too. Analytic methods have become so highly sensitive that the tiniest trace is detectable, but that doesn't mean it's significant. Combine that with a "think of the children" perspective and it makes great sensational-but-vacuous news. As they say, the dose makes the poison...

masto 8y ago

The reason it looks sensationalistic is that it is. This is the result of an anti-science advocacy group called EWG that put out a press release that's being republished by various lazy news outlets. This is the same group that has made claims that vaccines cause autism and cell phones cause brain cancer. Unfortunately, this type of article is irresistible to the media and it's getting a ridiculous amount of traction. The science on glyphosate has not changed, and these "findings" by the EWG are junk. Here's something a little more reputable. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roundup-lawsuit/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roun...

yeloboy 8y ago
There's nothing reputable about that site. Deal with it, reputable organisations have classified glyphosphate as a carcinogen.
- yeloboy 8y ago
  *glyphosate
- antonvs 8y ago
  > reputable organisations have classified [glyphosate] as a carcinogen That's a bit of an oversimplification. This article helps clarify the situation: https://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/glyphosate-cause-cancer/ https://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/glyphosate-cause-cancer/ An important point is the following: > "An FAQ page on WHO’s website clarifies why the IARC’s and the pesticide residue experts’ conclusions aren’t contradictory. > "The 2015 IARC conclusion aimed to identify any potential cancer hazard glyphosate may pose to humans at some level of exposure, WHO explains. But in 2016, the pesticide residue experts at WHO and the U.N. assessed the actual cancer risk the herbicide poses to consumers at a specific level of exposure, namely the level commonly found in foods." Further: > "In fact, a yet-to-be-published study that found no link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, may have changed IARC’s 2015 analysis of the herbicide had it been published." It's also worth noting that the IARC's finding is somewhat speculative, as described in https://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer-1.17181 https://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-... : > "The IARC review notes that there is limited evidence for a link to cancer in humans. Although several studies have shown that people who work with the herbicide seem to be at increased risk of a cancer type called non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the report notes that a separate huge US study, the Agricultural Health Study, found no link to non-Hodgkin lymphomas. That study followed thousands of farmers and looked at whether they had increased risk of cancer. > "But other evidence, including from animal studies, led the IARC to its ‘probably carcinogenic’ classification. Glyphosate has been linked to tumours in mice and rats — and there is also what the IARC classifies as ‘mechanistic evidence’, such as DNA damage to human cells from exposure to glyphosate." There's a good amount of research showing no cancer links in practice at realistic levels, though, for example. Here are a couple of studies (one of which is mentioned above): Cancer Incidence among Glyphosate-Exposed Pesticide Applicators in the Agricultural Health Study - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253709/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253709/ - "Glyphosate exposure was not associated with cancer incidence overall or with most of the cancer subtypes we studied." Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and cancer: A review - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230012000943 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027323001... - "Seven cohort studies and fourteen case-control studies examined the association between glyphosate and one or more cancer outcomes. Our review found no consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between total cancer (in adults or children) or any site-specific cancer and exposure to glyphosate." In short, this is not an issue that justifies running around with one's hair on fire, unless that happens to be your hobby, which it does seem to be for some people.

tomp 8y ago

For a long time, the story of pro-GMO advocates was "RoundUp is safer than other weed-killers because it's applied when the plant is still young and not growing edible parts yet, so there won't be any of it in your food". Looks like they were wrong. (Note that I'm not saying that RoundUp is worse than other stuff, or that there's more of it in our food that of other stuff.)

randomdata 8y ago
They may not be wrong. The article says that glyphosate was found present in all but two of the 45 oat-derived products. There are no GMO oats available on the market. Glyphosate is sometimes used on wheat and oats when the plant is at the end of its lifecycle when it is fine, if not desirable, if it kills the crop. We can reasonably conclude that the traces showed up because of the crop being non-GMO, delaying application until the plants are old.
- zeroego 8y ago
  >There are no GMO oats available on the market That's not true at all. Many companies offer Non-GMO oats. There's is a big difference between crops being sprayed with glyphosate and crops coming from non-GMO seeds.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    Wait, didn't you two just say the same thing? He said there are no GMO oats available. You said companies offer non-GMO oats, which are not GMO oats.
    - zeroego 8y ago
      Ah you're correct, I'm sorry I misread.
  - randomdata 8y ago
    > There's is a big difference between crops being sprayed with glyphosate and crops coming from non-GMO seeds. Being a grain farmer, I know. :)

pasta 8y ago

- Q: "I don't understand what this article is trying to convey." - A: Getting as much hits as possible so they have more income from ads. Also: "Cancer-linked herbicide, sold as Roundup by Monsanto, present in 45 products including granola, snack bars and Cheerios" is very sensational because there are a lot of types of herbicides. Glyphosate is possible connected to cancer but there is not much proof for it. Edit: (disclaimer) I think it's still crazy companies are allowed to add toxic synthetic chemicals to nature. For example: In the US and Netherlands there is now GenX [1] in drinking water because it is unsure if GenX can cause any harm. Well imho that should be the other way around: only allow chemicals to be dumped in open water if you are 100% sure it can't do harm. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenX

randomdata 8y ago
Even the recent court case about Roundup was careful to avoid looking at glyphosate, but instead focused on other additives mixed into the Roundup brand.