4 ms·
Referencing the toxicity of water is a bit disingenuous, since the average human body is 60% water or more to begin with. Glyphosate, on the other hand, is a su
by markoman 8y ago
Referencing the toxicity of water is a bit disingenuous, since the average human body is 60% water or more to begin with. Glyphosate, on the other hand, is a substance wholly artificial and foreign to the human body. Its only logical that if the substance is capable of interfering with a plant's enzyme pathway, said molecule can also have a similar role in animal hosts as well.
Surely each of us is carrying more than trace amounts of this substance, unfortunately. Its used in grain crops as a pre-harvest crop desiccant, although in a way to limit residue effects. The fact that France has banned the herbicide, with other European countries considering similar bans, is something I found interesting.
- s21n 8y agoGlyphosate interferes with the shikimate pathway by inhibiting the EPSP synthase enzyme. The shikimate pathway is not present in animals. European Union follows the precautionary principle, that means it would ban a substance if there's a scientific uncertainty about the substance's safety (unlike US, where you'd have to prove that it's harmful). The problem is you can never be 100% certain about any substance's safety. And it's quite easy to convince the politicians that the safety concerns are bigger than they really are by using bad science and aggressive lobbying. Even so, the France's decision to ban glyphosate was very controversial in EU.
- ucaetano 8y ago> Referencing the toxicity of water is a bit disingenuous, since the average human body is 60% water or more to begin with. Glyphosate, on the other hand, is a substance wholly artificial and foreign to the human body. Quite the opposite: water is the basis of our life, a substance that we all depend on. Still, it can easily kill you. It is exactly my point: no substance is entirely safe.