9 ms·

> I find it disheartening that it takes studies of this nature to reshape regulations. You … find it disheartening that regulations require sound evidence? Tha

by 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.
    - klmr 8y ago
      Presumption of safety without qualification would be irrational, correct. But the same is true the other way round: there’s a balance to be struck (otherwise you couldn’t leave your house for risk of being run over by a car). And, again, glyphosate’s safety record is pretty phenomenal, especially compared to all the other stuff we treat our food with. > Vinegar seems to work in my experience, a chemical I can drink. No you can’t. Food grade vinegar does fuckall as a herbicide. The stuff you use as an actual herbicide is 20% acetic acid and I urge you strongly not to drink that. And it also has some rather unsavoury side-effects, and caution is therefore necessary.
  - elsherbini 8y ago
    Glyphosate isn't sprayed on food? edit: Of course it is sprayed on food [0][1]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW8SrXMW7Ug https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW8SrXMW7Ug [1] http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/about.html http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/about.html
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - overcast 8y ago
      It's a plant killer, you're not going to spray it on crops, you spray it on plants you don't want to grow around your crops.
      - freehunter 8y ago
- yspeak 8y ago
  Please name something that is not a chemical. That is what my chemistry teacher taught me first day of class.
mtgx 8y ago
When it comes to things that we put in our bodies and affects a large portion of foods in the store, I'd like to see stricter regulations and, if needed, more studies, so that 4-5 decades don't pass before we learn something is super dangerous for our bodies (like say processed vegetable oil, which was promoted by special interest groups without evidence [1] of being healthier). I think the onus and liability should be on the companies "inventing" new food stuff to prove that they are safe to introduce on the market before actually doing that. I mention liability, because if the stuff is later found to actually be dangerous and it's found that the companies lied/were misleading with their own studies, then people should be going to jail (no, not just fines, regardless of how big they are - we know they aren't going to bankrupt the company anyway). [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ0WJOQzrgg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ0WJOQzrgg
- klmr 8y ago
  This is reasonable, and I entirely agree in general. Except glyphosate specifically has been studied for decades, and is known to be a lot less concerning than other herbicides and pesticides that we’re using abundantly (including on organic food).
floren 8y ago
> In sum, nothing of what you’ve said is supported by evidence. But it feels right!</sarcasm>
titzer 8y ago
> There is no evidence for this, and no good reason to assume so I'm gonna invite you to a game called the Pepsi challenge, wherein you're obliged to imbibe a glass full of unknown chemical X and survive 24 hours before you spray it on food that other people eat and/or insert it directly into the foodchain. Wanna play? It's not scare tactics to be careful with food specifically and the ecosystem in general. You see, we now have the science to actually do experiments and test things for safety before industry belches out thousands or millions of tons of the stuff into the foodchain, whereas 100 years ago we did not. IMO it is actually irresponsible to not do so. What we lack is the political will, and default positions like yours are not helpful. In my very honest opinion, 100% serious--I think it's entirely reasonable to require proof of safety before society grants you permission to inject your newly designed chemicals into the food chain.
- Natsu 8y ago
  > I'm gonna invite you to a game called the Pepsi challenge, wherein you're obliged to imbibe a glass full of unknown chemical X and survive 24 hours before you spray it on food that other people eat and/or insert it directly into the foodchain. Wanna play? We play that every day when we eat food and drink water. Literally everything we eat is made of chemicals. We simply know more about the man made ones so we can study and learn about any dangers. Would you be concerned about drinking malic acid, quinic acid, shikimic acid, and fumaric acid? Did you know about any of those when you first drank apple juice?
- klmr 8y ago
  This is a silly game and has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual process of approving ingredients for food safety. That process is far from perfect but — in the case of glyphosate — it worked very well. > It's not scare tactics to be careful with food specifically and the ecosystem in general Correct. But it’s a scare tactic to ignore the existing evidence to claim unfounded effects, or to mention “chemicals” to stir up panic.
  - ethbro 8y ago
    Both of you are right. The only thing I'd add is that there's absolutely a huge weight in the form of industry pressure sitting on the scales. E.g. efforts to limit antibiotic use in food animal production. And it's fair to say that swamps regulations that would otherwise be passed.

by klmr 8y ago

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.
  - klmr 8y ago
    Presumption of safety without qualification would be irrational, correct. But the same is true the other way round: there’s a balance to be struck (otherwise you couldn’t leave your house for risk of being run over by a car). And, again, glyphosate’s safety record is pretty phenomenal, especially compared to all the other stuff we treat our food with. > Vinegar seems to work in my experience, a chemical I can drink. No you can’t. Food grade vinegar does fuckall as a herbicide. The stuff you use as an actual herbicide is 20% acetic acid and I urge you strongly not to drink that. And it also has some rather unsavoury side-effects, and caution is therefore necessary.
- elsherbini 8y ago
  Glyphosate isn't sprayed on food? edit: Of course it is sprayed on food [0][1]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW8SrXMW7Ug https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW8SrXMW7Ug [1] http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/about.html http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/about.html
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - overcast 8y ago
    It's a plant killer, you're not going to spray it on crops, you spray it on plants you don't want to grow around your crops.
    - freehunter 8y ago
yspeak 8y ago
Please name something that is not a chemical. That is what my chemistry teacher taught me first day of class.

mtgx 8y ago

When it comes to things that we put in our bodies and affects a large portion of foods in the store, I'd like to see stricter regulations and, if needed, more studies, so that 4-5 decades don't pass before we learn something is super dangerous for our bodies (like say processed vegetable oil, which was promoted by special interest groups without evidence [1] of being healthier). I think the onus and liability should be on the companies "inventing" new food stuff to prove that they are safe to introduce on the market before actually doing that. I mention liability, because if the stuff is later found to actually be dangerous and it's found that the companies lied/were misleading with their own studies, then people should be going to jail (no, not just fines, regardless of how big they are - we know they aren't going to bankrupt the company anyway). [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ0WJOQzrgg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ0WJOQzrgg

klmr 8y ago
This is reasonable, and I entirely agree in general. Except glyphosate specifically has been studied for decades, and is known to be a lot less concerning than other herbicides and pesticides that we’re using abundantly (including on organic food).

floren 8y ago

> In sum, nothing of what you’ve said is supported by evidence. But it feels right!</sarcasm>

titzer 8y ago

> There is no evidence for this, and no good reason to assume so I'm gonna invite you to a game called the Pepsi challenge, wherein you're obliged to imbibe a glass full of unknown chemical X and survive 24 hours before you spray it on food that other people eat and/or insert it directly into the foodchain. Wanna play? It's not scare tactics to be careful with food specifically and the ecosystem in general. You see, we now have the science to actually do experiments and test things for safety before industry belches out thousands or millions of tons of the stuff into the foodchain, whereas 100 years ago we did not. IMO it is actually irresponsible to not do so. What we lack is the political will, and default positions like yours are not helpful. In my very honest opinion, 100% serious--I think it's entirely reasonable to require proof of safety before society grants you permission to inject your newly designed chemicals into the food chain.

Natsu 8y ago
> I'm gonna invite you to a game called the Pepsi challenge, wherein you're obliged to imbibe a glass full of unknown chemical X and survive 24 hours before you spray it on food that other people eat and/or insert it directly into the foodchain. Wanna play? We play that every day when we eat food and drink water. Literally everything we eat is made of chemicals. We simply know more about the man made ones so we can study and learn about any dangers. Would you be concerned about drinking malic acid, quinic acid, shikimic acid, and fumaric acid? Did you know about any of those when you first drank apple juice?
klmr 8y ago
This is a silly game and has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual process of approving ingredients for food safety. That process is far from perfect but — in the case of glyphosate — it worked very well. > It's not scare tactics to be careful with food specifically and the ecosystem in general Correct. But it’s a scare tactic to ignore the existing evidence to claim unfounded effects, or to mention “chemicals” to stir up panic.
- ethbro 8y ago
  Both of you are right. The only thing I'd add is that there's absolutely a huge weight in the form of industry pressure sitting on the scales. E.g. efforts to limit antibiotic use in food animal production. And it's fair to say that swamps regulations that would otherwise be passed.