11 ms·

I find it disheartening that it takes studies of this nature to reshape regulations. Glyphosate (as Roundup) has been the bestselling herbicide on the market si

I find it disheartening that it takes studies of this nature to reshape regulations. Glyphosate (as Roundup) has been the bestselling herbicide on the market since 1980. Among bee-keepers, asserting that "roundup kills bees" is about as controversial as "rain makes things wet." The US regulatory environment treats artificially prepared chemicals as innocent until proven guilty. A safer approach (recently adopted in Europe) would be to guarantee the safety of industrial, agricultural, and household chemicals before they are allowed to go to market. On a potentially related note, sperm counts in the western world have been declining precipitously since 1990. I'd bet that glyphosate and/or other common poorly regulated chemicals have something to do with this. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sperm-count-dropping-in-western-world/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sperm-count-dropp...

sebazzz 8y ago
> On a potentially related note, sperm counts in the western world have been declining precipitously since 1990. This is also associated with birth control. The problem is that is hard to do extensive studies on this and get compelling evidence, but it is true, we are not "better safe than sorry".
- code_duck 8y ago
  It is also associated with dozens of compounds found as pollutants or contaminants in food, air, water, personal care products and cleaners... and many of the ingredients put in on purpose. Who knows. It’s probably a result of an additive or synergistic effect of a dozen causes.
klmr 8y ago
> I find it disheartening that it takes studies of this nature to reshape regulations. You … find it disheartening that regulations require sound evidence? That’s odd. > Among bee-keepers, asserting that "roundup kills bees" is about as controversial as "rain makes things wet." You may be confusing Roundup with neonicotinoids here. The latter are known to harm bee ecosystems by weakening the bee immune system. Glyphosate generally hasn’t, despite previous studies (which showed no effect on bees). That’s why the new study is actually surprising (if it holds up, and there are already some potential concerns). > I'd bet that glyphosate and/or other common poorly regulated chemicals have something to do with [reduction in sperm counts]. There is no evidence for this, and no good reason to assume so (for one, there’s no known biochemical connection here, and the general population does not come into contact with glyphosate in noticeable amounts). A much more plausible reason is the presence of residues from hormonal contraceptives in drinking water. But even that is tenuous, and general changes in nutrition are a more plausible candidate. In sum, nothing of what you’ve said is supported by evidence.
- drb91 8y ago
  Presuming chemicals are not safe seeems rational to me, especially sprayed on our food. Why not have monstanto spray a fucking bee? They ain’t gonna do it themselves. Seems like the burden of proof would be to establish safety. If that’s not possible, why is it being used? And where is this evidence you have that is is safe?
  - klmr 8y ago
    > Presuming chemicals are not safe seeems rational to me I’m sorry but it’s fundamentally irrational. Everything is chemicals. Chemophobia is by definition irrational. > especially sprayed on our food ~~~It’s not.~~~ Glyphosate is a herbicide: if you spray it on plants, those plants die. That is in fact its purpose. [EDIT: see correction in comment below.] — Regarding your later edit: > Seems like the burden of proof would be to establish safety. That is indeed the case, why do you assume otherwise? > And where is this evidence you have that is is safe? There are — literally — thousands of studies [1] on that subject. Wikipedia contains a summary. All national and almost all international health and safety organisations class it as safe, with the exception of IARC, which classes it as “potentially carcinogenic” (context: compared to red meat, which it classifies as definitely ”carcinogenic”). The IARC has been roundly criticised for excluding contradictory evidence, and for using misleading language, by the scientific community [2]. [1] https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=safety+of+glyphosate&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=safety+of+glyphosate&... [2] http://academicsreview.org/2015/03/iarc-glyphosate-cancer-review-fails-on-multiple-fronts/ http://academicsreview.org/2015/03/iarc-glyphosate-cancer-re...
    - drb91 8y ago
      Actually, my point was that presumption of safety is irrational; you latched on to the wrong word. And even though glyphosate is a known weed killer it’s still used adjacent to food we do eat. Anyway, my impression is that glyphosate is regularly detected in the water, the plants we eat, the animals we eat, in our own bodies. Vinegar seems to work in my experience, a chemical I can drink.
anotheramala 8y ago
US regulatory environment is built for corporate profits (so that money can go to politicians) before public safety.
pvaldes 8y ago
> sperm counts in the western world have been declining precipitously since 1990. I'd bet that glyphosate has something to do with this Free porn on internet looks like a simpler explanation. Or maybe we could speculate that everybody touching plastic keyboards for many hours a day can't be healthy. Poor countries in Africa and Asia doing extensive and not-so-regulated agriculture should have an even bigger decrease in sperm count if pesticides are the only reason. It pours Glyphosate there. Probably is a combination of many factors.
mkstowegnv 8y ago
"As in many animals, honey bees rely on their gut microbial community for a variety of functions, including food processing (25, 26), regulation of immune system (33, 34), and defense against pathogens (17, 27). Perturbations of this system have the potential to lead to negative consequences for host fitness. " There have been many unexpected effects from the human introduction of long lived synthetic compounds into the environment. E.g. we had to learn the hard way about bioaccumulation and hormonal disruption. Now we are starting to see more and more cases [e.g. 1] where damage to microbiomes may be causing harm and we may need to make such effects part of safety screening and environmental monitoring. Could microbiome effects explain the crash in many insect populations around the world [2-4]? 1 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1365-2656.12769 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1365-2656.12... 2 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/17/where-have-insects-gone-climate-change-population-decline https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/17/where-ha... 3 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809&_ga=2.266632718.1476661257.1527292800-1633289002.1527292800 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... 4 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Theo_Zeegers/publication/325206013_Analysis_of_insect_monitoring_data_from_De_Kaaistoep_and_Drenthe/links/5afdcf30aca272b5d80f3ae0/Analysis-of-insect-monitoring-data-from-De-Kaaistoep-and-Drenthe.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Theo_Zeegers/publicatio...

sebazzz 8y ago

> On a potentially related note, sperm counts in the western world have been declining precipitously since 1990. This is also associated with birth control. The problem is that is hard to do extensive studies on this and get compelling evidence, but it is true, we are not "better safe than sorry".

code_duck 8y ago
It is also associated with dozens of compounds found as pollutants or contaminants in food, air, water, personal care products and cleaners... and many of the ingredients put in on purpose. Who knows. It’s probably a result of an additive or synergistic effect of a dozen causes.

klmr 8y ago

> I find it disheartening that it takes studies of this nature to reshape regulations. You … find it disheartening that regulations require sound evidence? That’s odd. > Among bee-keepers, asserting that "roundup kills bees" is about as controversial as "rain makes things wet." You may be confusing Roundup with neonicotinoids here. The latter are known to harm bee ecosystems by weakening the bee immune system. Glyphosate generally hasn’t, despite previous studies (which showed no effect on bees). That’s why the new study is actually surprising (if it holds up, and there are already some potential concerns). > I'd bet that glyphosate and/or other common poorly regulated chemicals have something to do with [reduction in sperm counts]. There is no evidence for this, and no good reason to assume so (for one, there’s no known biochemical connection here, and the general population does not come into contact with glyphosate in noticeable amounts). A much more plausible reason is the presence of residues from hormonal contraceptives in drinking water. But even that is tenuous, and general changes in nutrition are a more plausible candidate. In sum, nothing of what you’ve said is supported by evidence.

drb91 8y ago
Presuming chemicals are not safe seeems rational to me, especially sprayed on our food. Why not have monstanto spray a fucking bee? They ain’t gonna do it themselves. Seems like the burden of proof would be to establish safety. If that’s not possible, why is it being used? And where is this evidence you have that is is safe?
- klmr 8y ago
  > Presuming chemicals are not safe seeems rational to me I’m sorry but it’s fundamentally irrational. Everything is chemicals. Chemophobia is by definition irrational. > especially sprayed on our food ~~~It’s not.~~~ Glyphosate is a herbicide: if you spray it on plants, those plants die. That is in fact its purpose. [EDIT: see correction in comment below.] — Regarding your later edit: > Seems like the burden of proof would be to establish safety. That is indeed the case, why do you assume otherwise? > And where is this evidence you have that is is safe? There are — literally — thousands of studies [1] on that subject. Wikipedia contains a summary. All national and almost all international health and safety organisations class it as safe, with the exception of IARC, which classes it as “potentially carcinogenic” (context: compared to red meat, which it classifies as definitely ”carcinogenic”). The IARC has been roundly criticised for excluding contradictory evidence, and for using misleading language, by the scientific community [2]. [1] https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=safety+of+glyphosate&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=safety+of+glyphosate&... [2] http://academicsreview.org/2015/03/iarc-glyphosate-cancer-review-fails-on-multiple-fronts/ http://academicsreview.org/2015/03/iarc-glyphosate-cancer-re...
  - drb91 8y ago
    Actually, my point was that presumption of safety is irrational; you latched on to the wrong word. And even though glyphosate is a known weed killer it’s still used adjacent to food we do eat. Anyway, my impression is that glyphosate is regularly detected in the water, the plants we eat, the animals we eat, in our own bodies. Vinegar seems to work in my experience, a chemical I can drink.

anotheramala 8y ago

US regulatory environment is built for corporate profits (so that money can go to politicians) before public safety.

pvaldes 8y ago

> sperm counts in the western world have been declining precipitously since 1990. I'd bet that glyphosate has something to do with this Free porn on internet looks like a simpler explanation. Or maybe we could speculate that everybody touching plastic keyboards for many hours a day can't be healthy. Poor countries in Africa and Asia doing extensive and not-so-regulated agriculture should have an even bigger decrease in sperm count if pesticides are the only reason. It pours Glyphosate there. Probably is a combination of many factors.

mkstowegnv 8y ago

"As in many animals, honey bees rely on their gut microbial community for a variety of functions, including food processing (25, 26), regulation of immune system (33, 34), and defense against pathogens (17, 27). Perturbations of this system have the potential to lead to negative consequences for host fitness. " There have been many unexpected effects from the human introduction of long lived synthetic compounds into the environment. E.g. we had to learn the hard way about bioaccumulation and hormonal disruption. Now we are starting to see more and more cases [e.g. 1] where damage to microbiomes may be causing harm and we may need to make such effects part of safety screening and environmental monitoring. Could microbiome effects explain the crash in many insect populations around the world [2-4]? 1 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1365-2656.12769 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1365-2656.12... 2 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/17/where-have-insects-gone-climate-change-population-decline https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/17/where-ha... 3 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809&_ga=2.266632718.1476661257.1527292800-1633289002.1527292800 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... 4 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Theo_Zeegers/publication/325206013_Analysis_of_insect_monitoring_data_from_De_Kaaistoep_and_Drenthe/links/5afdcf30aca272b5d80f3ae0/Analysis-of-insect-monitoring-data-from-De-Kaaistoep-and-Drenthe.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Theo_Zeegers/publicatio...