22 ms·

Weedkiller ingredient tied to cancer found in 80% of US urine samples

420 points by mindracer 4y ago

mensetmanusman 4y ago
Is this a case of: -no cancer -no famine -low cost Choose two?
sharrington 4y ago
While most are focusing on glyphosate's debated status as a carcinogen, it was approved by the FDA as as an herbicide, in part, because it does not interact with any human metabolic pathways. We may be missing the forest for the trees talking about cancer when we could be exploring glyphosates negative impact on gut microbiome and bacterial/fungal metabolic pathway inhibition. Anecdotally, I know a lot of folks who have GI-distress from eating wheat (99% of which is sprayed with RoundUp to allow for faster harvesting time), but are fine when eating a non-commoditized grain like Farro. Notably, both contain plenty of gluten, however, Farro is harvested without RoundUp (fact-check required...) in a much less efficient way (hence the higher price tag).
- kmbfjr 4y ago
  I live in a very rural area, and have never seen winter wheat sprayed with Roundup to speed up harvest time. I have seen it sprayed in the early spring, but never when kernels are on the plant. Given that a majority of wheat is winter wheat harvested in the heat of summer, I just can’t see how spraying it with Roundup speeds up anything. Soybeans? That gets blasted with Roundup. Frequently.
twawaaay 4y ago
There is very basic, simple reason for it and has nothing to do with the company being evil. I believe it is possible to use Roundup safely and the reason it gets into our food is misuse. (disclamier: "possible to use safely" does not mean it is reasonable to expect people to do so on their own) Roundup kills plants. It does it by breaking roots of the plant which causes the entire plant to dry out. For some crops (like wheat), it is very beneficial to harvest the crop after it dried out. But plants do not care about calendar and do not necessarily all dry out at the same time. So what farmers do, is to spray their crop just before harvest. It all dries out nicely and uniformly and can be harvested all together at the same time with minimum spoilage. It can also let them schedule harvest on various plots to happen at different times rather than all at the same time. It can also allow to force harvest earlier if you, for example, predict bad weather. Or if you want to go for vacation. This is not how Roundup is supposed to be used but this is very popular "hack".
gregwebs 4y ago
I would encourage everyone to take a look at the glyphosphate toxicity report done by experts on toxicology: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp214.pdf https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp214.pdf Most other summaries of glyphosphate toxicity are not by toxicity experts, are more politically influenced (today's agriculture relies on glyphosphate), and set the bar of evidence very high and otherwise assume glyphosphate is okay instead of taking a precautionary approach.
pumnikol 4y ago
I've been in the field for many years and I see the EU on the forefront of public chemical safety, both in terms of legislation and enforcement. ECHA is transparent about glyphosate [1]. It is not even labelled as CMR on REACH Annex III [2], and that's saying a lot. If you follow the developments, you will find that there is no way to prove a chemical as "safe". All it takes is one bloke on record to develop any health condition which can be linked to a chemical, and it will be scrutinized six ways to Sundays. Often leading to the introduction or decrease of an OEL, or a classification of this substance. As new humans are born all of the time, and diagnostics and analysis methods are still being improved, the likelihood of any given chemical to be "harmless" asymptotically approaches zero. 1 in 2 people develop cancer during their lives [3]. There are currently > 23000 chemicals on the EEA market at >= 1 t/a [4]. 1 https://echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/glyphosate https://echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/glyphosate 2 https://www.echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals/annex-iii-inventory https://www.echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals/annex-ii... 3 https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/cancer/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/cancer/ 4 https://echa.europa.eu/registration-statistics https://echa.europa.eu/registration-statistics
- emodendroket 4y ago
  US regulators seemingly subscribe to the "three monkeys" approach where they assume everything being added to your food is safe and don't ask too many questions unless compelled.
- zelphirkalt 4y ago
  However, there are people in the EU, who prolonged glyphosat usage for another few years, against the principles of the EU to only allow proven safe products. And they are still pushing CETA, which supposedly weakens standards for food and gives companies more rights to sue countries, when new protective laws are made. EU does many good things, but is far from always being on the lookout for the wellbeing of its people.
- nswest23 4y ago
  Pretty standard shilling here. This comment is designed to induce apathy by making the problem seem insurmountable and so convince you that it's impossible to know anything so why bother trying [to remove cancer inducing chemicals from the food supply].
juanani 4y ago
checker 4y ago
How far off are we from having drones that mechanically remove weeds at a reasonable cost? It's ridiculous that we put up with spraying sketchy chemicals on our food. We can build loyal wingman drones to kill enemy aircraft but we can't kill weeds?? Edit: I'm talking about farming, not lawns. RTFA
- ciconia 4y ago
  Weeds are largely a symptom of monoculture, an algricultural practice that's ecologically destructive. Besides, there are diverse solutions to controlling weeds: mulching, association planting, green cover... > It's ridiculous that we put up with spraying sketchy chemicals on our food. Yes, but it's also ridiculous to treat the symptom instead of the disease.
- serpix 4y ago
  Why do you need to kill weeds? Adapt and stop having lawns.
  - 535188B17C93743 4y ago
    Lawns are awful for the environment, and lawn care is a large part of this. Why we still have golf courses in any area that is regularly in drought is beyond me.
    - parineum 4y ago
      A lot of golf courses use grey water.
      - 535188B17C93743 4y ago
        Their water usage is only part of the problem. Extensive over-use of fertilizers which then end up in water ways is just as bad, if not worse.
    - nemo44x 4y ago
      Swimming pools are worse. Let’s ban those first.
pfdietz 4y ago
"Tied to cancer" in the sense of "if you torture data long enough, it will confess."
- foxhop 4y ago
  that's ridiculous it also messes up digestive systems, gluten intolerance. the chemical is BAD and does cause cancer.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    Let me express my utter lack of confidence in your statement's connection to reality. The "gluten intolerance" should be a strong warning sign of Woo.
    - jjulius 4y ago
      Not-so-hot take: Both of you are wrong to state with certainty whether this discovery of glyphosate in our urine is good or bad for us, or whether we should discard this because of "data torture". From the article: >Cynthia Curl, Boise State University assistant professor of community and environmental health, said it was “obviously concerning” that a large percentage of the US population is exposed to glyphosate, but said it is still unclear how that translates to human health.
      - parineum 4y ago
        Only one of these people is wrong because only one is making or implying a statement of fact concerning a causal link that isn't shown in this paper and has never been shown in the past. Neither tried to make the claim that glyphosate in urine is a good thing.
    - paulryanrogers 4y ago
      Don't see any citations on either side of this discussion. WHO says yes [0] while EPA says "not likely" [1]. Until the experts agree people can decide for themselves what risks they consider acceptable. Or at least they can if they can afford buying from farmers who don't yet use the chemical. [0] https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/ https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-gly... [1] https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-releases-draft-risk-assessments-glyphosate https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-releases-draft-risk-asses...
diogenescynic 4y ago
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  I recommend you remind yourself of the HN rules. The evidence that glyphosate in fold causes cancer is currently really weak, albeit enough to convince a lay jury.
  - stfp 4y ago
    You're not responding to the parent's point. They're not saying that it causes or doesn't cause cancer. They're saying Monsanto and other multi billion dollar industrial players have permanent PR campaigns running that include posting on social media. I think that's obviously right and a big problem in terms of public discourse, at the very least, because it drowns out legitimate questions and concerns.
    - whimsicalism 4y ago
      I am responding. Accusing others of astroturfing is a violation of HN guidelines. FWIW, people seem to vastly overestimate the amount of astroturfing that they are experiencing, perhaps because they find it difficult to believe many people have different views than they do.
      - stfp 4y ago
        > Accusing others They are pointing out that Monsanto does it, not accusing anyone here of being a shill. I thought it was a good reminder that views can be, and are influenced by industry (it's the foundation of modern PR?). I believe it's helpful to make others aware of this. At least that's how I read it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
        whimsicalism 4y ago
        HN guideline: Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. > Monsanto has had a huge astroturf campaign online for several years defending/promoting glyphosate (even on this website). ... I started noticing that there were the same users over and over with extremely well-researched defensive responses (the stuff that only someone with a PhD or JD could put together) and it's pretty obvious what's going on. Seems pretty obviously an insinuation that HN is full of pro-Monsanto astroturfing and I don't think it is a stretch to say it is a commentary on the specific comments in this thread.
sudden_dystopia 4y ago
Yet another reason to avoid grains, soy, and processed foods. I would love to see some meat tested to see if it’s still detected in the meat after the animals eat the tainted corn.
- nverno 4y ago
  Is there some indication it is more prevalent in processed foods? That wasn't indicated in the article afaict. Also, they mention it's used across a wider range of crops than just soy and grains sadly.
  - tastyfreeze 4y ago
    Glyphosate is sprayed on some grain crops prior to harvest to force a whole field into senescence at the same time.
    - kmbfjr 4y ago
      Which species of crops? Because I have never seen that with winter wheat, common oats, #2 dent corn, soybeans or sorghum. They grow all of that within 300’ of my home. It may be that the farms near me are worked by smaller operators and they are not paying professional harvesting to bring in the crops in on a schedule. But not letting the grain mature on its own seems like a good way to take less money when sold at the elevator.
      - tastyfreeze 4y ago
        Sounds like you are much closer to production than me. Pre-harvest spraying is only something I have read about. Around here we talk about grades of seafood not crops. Here are a few sources I found recommending pre-harvest spraying and one talking about ending the practice in Canada. US: https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/glyphosate-use-as-a-pre-harvest-treatment-not-a-risk-to-food-safety.html https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/glyphosate-use-as-... https://extension.umn.edu/small-grains-harvest-and-storage/managing-wheat-harvest https://extension.umn.edu/small-grains-harvest-and-storage/m... UK: https://ahdb.org.uk/knowledge-library/pre-harvest-glyphosate-best-practice-in-cereals https://ahdb.org.uk/knowledge-library/pre-harvest-glyphosate... Australia: https://grdc.com.au/resources-and-publications/all-publications/factsheets/2020/preharvest-herbicide-use-fact-sheet https://grdc.com.au/resources-and-publications/all-publicati... Canada: https://non-gmoreport.com/articles/days-are-numbered-for-pre-harvest-use-of-glyphosate/ https://non-gmoreport.com/articles/days-are-numbered-for-pre...
microSnowball 4y ago
Not knowing anything about glyphosate, I went to the article before reading the comments. I’ll just put this here because it was clear the researchers wanted to be sure people see it. From the first paragraph of the article—> > In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer determined that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen” (IARC, 2015). However, the European Food Safety Authority and the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)/World Health Organization (WHO) Meeting on Pesticide Residues (EFSA 2015, FAO/WHO 2015) determined that glyphosate is unlikely to be a carcinogen. The US EPA concluded that “available data and weight-of-evidence clearly do not support the descriptors “carcinogenic to humans,” “likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” or “inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential” (US EPA 2017a). Controversy and concern that the rising use of glyphosate may have adverse human-health effects exist (Myers et. al., 2016).
- hammock 4y ago
  > the European Food Safety Authority determined that glyphosate is unlikely to be a carcinogen Yet Europe has banned glyphosate (it is allowed in the US). Curious
  - fennecfoxen 4y ago
    The EU was concerned about marine toxicity and the potential for the concentrated forms to cause serious eye damage!
  - hnarn 4y ago
    Just to play devil’s advocate for a second: the fact that the EU has banned glyphosate does not mean that it’s a confirmed carcinogen. It only means that it’s considered harmful, which it can be in many other ways apart from causing cancer.
- pohl 4y ago
  One thing I've noticed with regard to all of the safety claims made about glyphosate is that it only claims that it's safe with respect to humans directly. They never discuss what it might do to your gut biome. That seems like a curious omission, to me, for a substance like this. Shouldn't that be a standard part of the risk analysis?
lurquer 4y ago
Maybe we should just pee on the weeds.
- deepsquirrelnet 4y ago
  Brawndo works really well too. Toilet water, not so much.
- coffeefirst 4y ago
  My dog is 3 steps ahead of you there.
kache_ 4y ago
"tied to cancer" Bullshit. I've looked this up and researched it extensively as I was looking at different chemicals to use for weed control The science isn't settled, this is just more news media garbage fear mongering
- b0ner_t0ner 4y ago
  > The science isn't settled I'm with you on this. Time for a science experiment then, put a drop of Roundup into each of your meal everyday, do let us know your body check results in a year's time.
nemo44x 4y ago
This is bad journalism. Glyphosate is not “linked” to cancer. Sone groups think it is “probably” a carcinogen but most every governing body around the world says it is not as there’s no proof of the link at all. This is probably not journalism but rather propaganda designed to rally public support around glyphosate bans which we have seen in Germany and now the Netherlands. Farmers can still use it of course, but the ban is for home use. Even though it is safe to use when following the label.
- bsedlm 4y ago
  just to generalized bad health and possibly celiac disease I'd say that part of the problem is that this chemical makes the gut flora sick, not the human... but given as the gut bacteria are symbiotic with us, we also suffer negative consequces which are harder to explain with strictly reductionist biomechanics also I keep in mind the economic incentives and the sorry state of academic funding
  - moneywoes 4y ago
    Is having celiac correlated with this?
- macondo 4y ago
  This is bad thinking. Glyphosate has seen billions of USD in settlements and is tied to decreased liver function. "Most every governing body says..." what is this poor appeal to authority? Like the other commenter says, even if it is not directly effecting on humans, if it affects our gut flora then it ends up affecting. The reductionist approach does not work much in biology, one has to consider the whole system.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > Glyphosate has seen billions of USD in settlements In my country some scientists have been found guilty of "not predicting an earthquake"[1], so I would be careful to believe to what a court can prove or disprove and the scientific value of their decisions... [1] https://blog.ucsusa.org/michael-halpern/italian-scientists-jailed-for-failing-to-predict-earthquake/#:~:text=In%20a%20decision%20that%20is,to%20accurately%20predict%20an%20earthquake https://blog.ucsusa.org/michael-halpern/italian-scientists-j....
RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
GMO skepticism is pretty much the same as anti-vax. Lots of talk about big corporations and a fetish for “natural” as well as a litany of vague syndromes without a clearly elucidated biological mechanism.
- mandmandam 4y ago
  Your confidence in big Agri and big Pharma would be hilarious, if it wasn't so dangerous. Do you have any idea what all the chemicals we're pumping into the lakes and rivers and earth and ocean are doing to the biosphere? Seriously! How many species above the background rate are going extinct every year?! The blame for that lies squarely and undeniably at the industries you have such blind confidence in. "Man is quite insane. He wouldn't know how to create a maggot, and he creates Gods by the dozen." —Michel de Montaigne
Bjorkbat 4y ago
Well, if it truly is tied to cancer, I'll be sure to let Hacker News know. Back in college I was paid $50 to wear a backpack sprayer loaded with the stuff and go nuclear on a guy's weed-infested garden. Backpack sprayers leak, so I got glyphosate all over my skin, my back in particular. It's been a little more than 10 years, so nothing, but then again, I'm also only 32, live a fairly healthy lifestyle, and have no family history of cancer, so maybe it just sort of cancels itself out.
- colordrops 4y ago
  Exposure to carcinogens doesn't guarantee that you will get cancer.
- elif 4y ago
  The skin is designed to protect you from foreign substances. The intestines are designed to absorb foreign substances.
- toxik 4y ago
  I smoked a pack of cigs back in my teens and I don’t have cancer.
airocker 4y ago
Does organic food really not carry glyphosate?
- colordrops 4y ago
  It shouldn't if handled properly.
sschueller 4y ago
I always thought GMO was used to make plants resistant to diseases and pests but in reality these plants are resistant to one thing only. Monsanto's chemicals.
- atwood22 4y ago
  Some genetic modification does make plants pest resistant. For instance, Bt corn is pest resistant without the need of additional pesticides.
- sparker72678 4y ago
  GMO is also used for improving yields, drought tolerance, and temperature tolerance, among other things.
bfrog 4y ago
Aren’t there side effects of this stuff killing other microorganisms in the soil? Like it’s not just the cancer aspect, or the gmo crop aspect. It’s, as I understand it, contributing to arable land loss
crikeyjoe 4y ago
They didn't check mine.
Proven 4y ago
tomohawk 4y ago
If you're eating anything with oats grown in the US, especially things like Cheerios, you're likely getting a big dose of glyphosate. They spray this on the oats to kill and dessicate them prior to harvest to prevent the crop from being ruined by rain.
- hammock 4y ago
  Does that include organic oats?
  - tomohawk 4y ago
    It's not supposed to, however, most brands are not certified or tested in any way. https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/monsanto-weedkiller-still-contaminates-foods-marketed-to-children https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/monsanto-weedkiller-stil... Even reputable brands like Bob's Red Mill have had issues. After some of their products tested positive, they apparently took some measures: https://www.bobsredmill.com/blog/healthy-living/bobs-red-mill-oats-glyphosate/ https://www.bobsredmill.com/blog/healthy-living/bobs-red-mil...
IncRnd 4y ago
In 1961, 13 years prior to being sold by Monsanto to kill weeds, Glyphosate was patented in the U.S. as a Descaling and Chelating Agent by the Stauffer Chemical Co. In 2010, Monsanto patented Glyphosate as an antibiotic. Take a moment to consider that if CLR (a brand name that removes Calcium and Lime from metal pipes) were discovered to be a weedkiller, your sons or daughters would have this same conversation in a decade or two about CLR in their urine. You can substitute trace plutonium, anthrax, or anything else for CLR in the above paragraph.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > were discovered to be a weedkiller coke is a potent weedkiller people love to drink it or to put it in another way: some things we eat and drink are great to kill weeds, just not selective enough or too destructive an example: salt
csr86 4y ago
Maybe one day we can skip plants and weedkillers by using artificial process to make food. Photosynthesis is not very efficient either. Less land for farms and more forests.
- 240P_Climate 4y ago
  Eat meat like our ancestors did perhaps? Fat is only dangerous if it can stick to sugar. Sugar molecules are like little daggers that attach to arteries.
  - triyambakam 4y ago
    Processed sugar. And it could be better said the other way around: processed sugar is more dangerous coupled with high fat intake. Sugars bound in fiber are fine. No one got heart disease or diabetes from eating too many apples with a diet of otherwise moderate fat intake.
  - ReactiveJelly 4y ago
    Maybe if it's lab meat. Otherwise it seems inefficient to grow food for animals instead of just growing food for humans
pragmatic 4y ago
Add I kid I watched people who worked with the spray coups/planes work with zero safety equipment. They would reach right into tanks full of weed killer with bare hands to try to fix something. No masks worn, no gloves. We’ve learned a lot since the 70s/80s/90s. I would imagine direct substained contact with the stuff is different than the minimal amounts in food.
- ReactiveJelly 4y ago
  Like how asbestos is never good for you, but if you're a shipbreaker working with asbestos for 40 years, it's definitely worse than if you're a homeowner and accidentally knock some asbestos out of your ceiling. But in the same lines, I'm still more worried about glyphosate showing up in food from the supermarket than if I spray it around my house
swayvil 4y ago
This previous HN post, which refers to Monsanto's astroturfing efforts, relates. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17043836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17043836
ramphastidae 4y ago
Society loves to make fun of those who choose organic produce, but avoiding glysophate is the main reason I do so, and it works: > Organic diet intervention significantly reduces urinary glyphosate levels in U.S. children and adults > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935120307933 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393512...
- tbrock 4y ago
  There’s no question it would be better if it were true but how sure can we be that it’s not just the same food with different labels?
  - kybishop 4y ago
    Because the FDA exists?? Because that would be fraud to claim otherwise, and fruit/veg sources are easily traceable back to their source, particularly at quantity?
    - tbrock 4y ago
      The FDA does not regulate the use of the term “organic” on food labels. Further, if something isn’t 100% organic how do you know which part isn’t?
    - classichasclass 4y ago
      USDA regulates that, at least for products with its seal. https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/organic-seal https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/organic-s...
      - kybishop 4y ago
        Thank you for the correction
- harles 4y ago
  I think organic is great. I just wish we didn’t put non-GMO in the same bucket. Give me GMO foods without pesticides.
astrostl 4y ago
It's been in global use for almost 50 years. I don't doubt that it may produce some negative effects, but it wouldn't concern me even a little bit to discover that some of it could be detected in my urine. If the impacts were that severe I expect that they would have shown up in force by now.
- cool_dude85 4y ago
  What do you mean by "severe effects" and how are you sure they haven't shown up in force? Let's say the incidence rate of certain types of cancer triples. You still might never meet someone with one of these types of cancer, and you might not even know if you did whether their cancer was caused by glyphosate. But still sounds like a severe effect to me if you're the guy with cancer, right?
  - astrostl 4y ago
    I'm most directly referring to the implication in the article: cancer. It wouldn't surprise me if it tripled the odds of rare cancer, but even taking this claim at face value triple a tiny amount is still a tiny amount. And I do believe I'd still think of it that way if I happened to roll snake eyes.
- ReactiveJelly 4y ago
  But isn't there a similar concern with microplastics? Plastics have been around for decades, but they're being used in greater volume every year, and we've been finding them in odd places, and we aren't sure it's safe for them to be in those places.
- cameronh90 4y ago
  The last 50 years has seen significant increases in the rates of obesity, severe allergies, celiac, heart disease, alzheimer's, depression, etc. There are plenty of other (demonstrated and theoretical) reasons behind that, but it seems a little hasty to say we haven't seen severe health impacts. It might just be that we haven't figured out the link yet.
kpennell 4y ago
The US sprays this all over Colombia to get rid of Coca but it ends up getting into the water and other crops https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/03/20/biden-pushes-colombia-restart-glyphosate-spraying-program https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/03/20/biden-pushes-co...
- wronglyprepaid 4y ago
  Maybe you linked to the wrong article, that article mentions "Duque’s spraying campaign" - fairly sure that Duque is not US. Also Biden is the most progressive president in history, and I think with Colombia's track record when it comes to black and trans bodies you should maybe look in the mirror before pointing fingers.
jelliclesfarm 4y ago
Monsanto has poisoned the world..not just the US. Now that it sold out to Bayer, most of the world is fed by the same powers that made Agent Orange and Napalm. Our food is grown with fossil fuels and chemicals. It’s chemical warfare on soil and water. Glyphosate gets into us due to runoff’s into the water system and the aquifers. This is food grown as fodder and it gets into animals and then into us. It’s hideously obscene. Most of the problem would be solved if we adopted eesponsible animal husbandry. Which means less meat and animal based foods. But that’s only one part of the solution.
- csisnett 4y ago
  Meat is good for you
  - jelliclesfarm 4y ago
    It is not good for the planet.
wslh 4y ago
The world react very slow. I posted a similar news 6 years ago about te same issues in Argentina https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11544254 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11544254 It doesn't really require a deep study when you see values outside the normal range.
de6u99er 4y ago
Remember this guy? https://youtu.be/ovKw6YjqSfM https://youtu.be/ovKw6YjqSfM
kazinator 4y ago
> a finding scientists have called “disturbing” and “concerning”. What were they expecting; that stuff sprayed onto crops will magically not end up in people?
arminiusreturns 4y ago
I quit a job in the industry during the era the studies started coming out when I found out about the bosses ties to Monsanto. The real kicker for me was during my digging into them, although largely due to corporate buyout name games, they were the ones responsible for agent orange, with Nam vets in my family I couldn't stay. Use the most natural chemicals you can for crop/yard control. The same warning applies to the neurotoxins that are bug killers.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  Natural doesn’t mean anything when it comes to safety of a substance. There are quite a few dangerous substances used for “organic” weed and pest control. Well controlled synthetics can indeed be safer. Or if it’s your yard, don’t do anything to it. You don’t need to.
  - arminiusreturns 4y ago
    Least-toxic would probably ve the correct terminology, you are correct.
UberFly 4y ago
"said it was “obviously concerning” that a large percentage of the US population is exposed to glyphosate, but said it is still unclear how that translates to human health" That last line pretty much sums up the article. Lots more questions than answers.

420 points by mindracer 4y ago

Is this a case of: -no cancer -no famine -low cost Choose two?

While most are focusing on glyphosate's debated status as a carcinogen, it was approved by the FDA as as an herbicide, in part, because it does not interact with any human metabolic pathways. We may be missing the forest for the trees talking about cancer when we could be exploring glyphosates negative impact on gut microbiome and bacterial/fungal metabolic pathway inhibition. Anecdotally, I know a lot of folks who have GI-distress from eating wheat (99% of which is sprayed with RoundUp to allow for faster harvesting time), but are fine when eating a non-commoditized grain like Farro. Notably, both contain plenty of gluten, however, Farro is harvested without RoundUp (fact-check required...) in a much less efficient way (hence the higher price tag).

kmbfjr 4y ago
I live in a very rural area, and have never seen winter wheat sprayed with Roundup to speed up harvest time. I have seen it sprayed in the early spring, but never when kernels are on the plant. Given that a majority of wheat is winter wheat harvested in the heat of summer, I just can’t see how spraying it with Roundup speeds up anything. Soybeans? That gets blasted with Roundup. Frequently.

twawaaay 4y ago

There is very basic, simple reason for it and has nothing to do with the company being evil. I believe it is possible to use Roundup safely and the reason it gets into our food is misuse. (disclamier: "possible to use safely" does not mean it is reasonable to expect people to do so on their own) Roundup kills plants. It does it by breaking roots of the plant which causes the entire plant to dry out. For some crops (like wheat), it is very beneficial to harvest the crop after it dried out. But plants do not care about calendar and do not necessarily all dry out at the same time. So what farmers do, is to spray their crop just before harvest. It all dries out nicely and uniformly and can be harvested all together at the same time with minimum spoilage. It can also let them schedule harvest on various plots to happen at different times rather than all at the same time. It can also allow to force harvest earlier if you, for example, predict bad weather. Or if you want to go for vacation. This is not how Roundup is supposed to be used but this is very popular "hack".

gregwebs 4y ago

I would encourage everyone to take a look at the glyphosphate toxicity report done by experts on toxicology: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp214.pdf https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp214.pdf Most other summaries of glyphosphate toxicity are not by toxicity experts, are more politically influenced (today's agriculture relies on glyphosphate), and set the bar of evidence very high and otherwise assume glyphosphate is okay instead of taking a precautionary approach.

pumnikol 4y ago

I've been in the field for many years and I see the EU on the forefront of public chemical safety, both in terms of legislation and enforcement. ECHA is transparent about glyphosate [1]. It is not even labelled as CMR on REACH Annex III [2], and that's saying a lot. If you follow the developments, you will find that there is no way to prove a chemical as "safe". All it takes is one bloke on record to develop any health condition which can be linked to a chemical, and it will be scrutinized six ways to Sundays. Often leading to the introduction or decrease of an OEL, or a classification of this substance. As new humans are born all of the time, and diagnostics and analysis methods are still being improved, the likelihood of any given chemical to be "harmless" asymptotically approaches zero. 1 in 2 people develop cancer during their lives [3]. There are currently > 23000 chemicals on the EEA market at >= 1 t/a [4]. 1 https://echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/glyphosate https://echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/glyphosate 2 https://www.echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals/annex-iii-inventory https://www.echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals/annex-ii... 3 https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/cancer/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/cancer/ 4 https://echa.europa.eu/registration-statistics https://echa.europa.eu/registration-statistics

emodendroket 4y ago
US regulators seemingly subscribe to the "three monkeys" approach where they assume everything being added to your food is safe and don't ask too many questions unless compelled.
zelphirkalt 4y ago
However, there are people in the EU, who prolonged glyphosat usage for another few years, against the principles of the EU to only allow proven safe products. And they are still pushing CETA, which supposedly weakens standards for food and gives companies more rights to sue countries, when new protective laws are made. EU does many good things, but is far from always being on the lookout for the wellbeing of its people.
nswest23 4y ago
Pretty standard shilling here. This comment is designed to induce apathy by making the problem seem insurmountable and so convince you that it's impossible to know anything so why bother trying [to remove cancer inducing chemicals from the food supply].

juanani 4y ago

checker 4y ago

How far off are we from having drones that mechanically remove weeds at a reasonable cost? It's ridiculous that we put up with spraying sketchy chemicals on our food. We can build loyal wingman drones to kill enemy aircraft but we can't kill weeds?? Edit: I'm talking about farming, not lawns. RTFA

ciconia 4y ago
Weeds are largely a symptom of monoculture, an algricultural practice that's ecologically destructive. Besides, there are diverse solutions to controlling weeds: mulching, association planting, green cover... > It's ridiculous that we put up with spraying sketchy chemicals on our food. Yes, but it's also ridiculous to treat the symptom instead of the disease.
serpix 4y ago
Why do you need to kill weeds? Adapt and stop having lawns.
- 535188B17C93743 4y ago
  Lawns are awful for the environment, and lawn care is a large part of this. Why we still have golf courses in any area that is regularly in drought is beyond me.
  - parineum 4y ago
    A lot of golf courses use grey water.
    - 535188B17C93743 4y ago
      Their water usage is only part of the problem. Extensive over-use of fertilizers which then end up in water ways is just as bad, if not worse.
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    Swimming pools are worse. Let’s ban those first.

pfdietz 4y ago

"Tied to cancer" in the sense of "if you torture data long enough, it will confess."

foxhop 4y ago
that's ridiculous it also messes up digestive systems, gluten intolerance. the chemical is BAD and does cause cancer.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Let me express my utter lack of confidence in your statement's connection to reality. The "gluten intolerance" should be a strong warning sign of Woo.
  - jjulius 4y ago
    Not-so-hot take: Both of you are wrong to state with certainty whether this discovery of glyphosate in our urine is good or bad for us, or whether we should discard this because of "data torture". From the article: >Cynthia Curl, Boise State University assistant professor of community and environmental health, said it was “obviously concerning” that a large percentage of the US population is exposed to glyphosate, but said it is still unclear how that translates to human health.
    - parineum 4y ago
      Only one of these people is wrong because only one is making or implying a statement of fact concerning a causal link that isn't shown in this paper and has never been shown in the past. Neither tried to make the claim that glyphosate in urine is a good thing.
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    Don't see any citations on either side of this discussion. WHO says yes [0] while EPA says "not likely" [1]. Until the experts agree people can decide for themselves what risks they consider acceptable. Or at least they can if they can afford buying from farmers who don't yet use the chemical. [0] https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/ https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-gly... [1] https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-releases-draft-risk-assessments-glyphosate https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-releases-draft-risk-asses...

diogenescynic 4y ago

whimsicalism 4y ago
I recommend you remind yourself of the HN rules. The evidence that glyphosate in fold causes cancer is currently really weak, albeit enough to convince a lay jury.
- stfp 4y ago
  You're not responding to the parent's point. They're not saying that it causes or doesn't cause cancer. They're saying Monsanto and other multi billion dollar industrial players have permanent PR campaigns running that include posting on social media. I think that's obviously right and a big problem in terms of public discourse, at the very least, because it drowns out legitimate questions and concerns.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    I am responding. Accusing others of astroturfing is a violation of HN guidelines. FWIW, people seem to vastly overestimate the amount of astroturfing that they are experiencing, perhaps because they find it difficult to believe many people have different views than they do.
    - stfp 4y ago
      > Accusing others They are pointing out that Monsanto does it, not accusing anyone here of being a shill. I thought it was a good reminder that views can be, and are influenced by industry (it's the foundation of modern PR?). I believe it's helpful to make others aware of this. At least that's how I read it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
      - whimsicalism 4y ago
        HN guideline: Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. > Monsanto has had a huge astroturf campaign online for several years defending/promoting glyphosate (even on this website). ... I started noticing that there were the same users over and over with extremely well-researched defensive responses (the stuff that only someone with a PhD or JD could put together) and it's pretty obvious what's going on. Seems pretty obviously an insinuation that HN is full of pro-Monsanto astroturfing and I don't think it is a stretch to say it is a commentary on the specific comments in this thread.

sudden_dystopia 4y ago

Yet another reason to avoid grains, soy, and processed foods. I would love to see some meat tested to see if it’s still detected in the meat after the animals eat the tainted corn.

nverno 4y ago
Is there some indication it is more prevalent in processed foods? That wasn't indicated in the article afaict. Also, they mention it's used across a wider range of crops than just soy and grains sadly.
- tastyfreeze 4y ago
  Glyphosate is sprayed on some grain crops prior to harvest to force a whole field into senescence at the same time.
  - kmbfjr 4y ago
    Which species of crops? Because I have never seen that with winter wheat, common oats, #2 dent corn, soybeans or sorghum. They grow all of that within 300’ of my home. It may be that the farms near me are worked by smaller operators and they are not paying professional harvesting to bring in the crops in on a schedule. But not letting the grain mature on its own seems like a good way to take less money when sold at the elevator.
    - tastyfreeze 4y ago
      Sounds like you are much closer to production than me. Pre-harvest spraying is only something I have read about. Around here we talk about grades of seafood not crops. Here are a few sources I found recommending pre-harvest spraying and one talking about ending the practice in Canada. US: https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/glyphosate-use-as-a-pre-harvest-treatment-not-a-risk-to-food-safety.html https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/glyphosate-use-as-... https://extension.umn.edu/small-grains-harvest-and-storage/managing-wheat-harvest https://extension.umn.edu/small-grains-harvest-and-storage/m... UK: https://ahdb.org.uk/knowledge-library/pre-harvest-glyphosate-best-practice-in-cereals https://ahdb.org.uk/knowledge-library/pre-harvest-glyphosate... Australia: https://grdc.com.au/resources-and-publications/all-publications/factsheets/2020/preharvest-herbicide-use-fact-sheet https://grdc.com.au/resources-and-publications/all-publicati... Canada: https://non-gmoreport.com/articles/days-are-numbered-for-pre-harvest-use-of-glyphosate/ https://non-gmoreport.com/articles/days-are-numbered-for-pre...

microSnowball 4y ago

Not knowing anything about glyphosate, I went to the article before reading the comments. I’ll just put this here because it was clear the researchers wanted to be sure people see it. From the first paragraph of the article—> > In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer determined that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen” (IARC, 2015). However, the European Food Safety Authority and the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)/World Health Organization (WHO) Meeting on Pesticide Residues (EFSA 2015, FAO/WHO 2015) determined that glyphosate is unlikely to be a carcinogen. The US EPA concluded that “available data and weight-of-evidence clearly do not support the descriptors “carcinogenic to humans,” “likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” or “inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential” (US EPA 2017a). Controversy and concern that the rising use of glyphosate may have adverse human-health effects exist (Myers et. al., 2016).

hammock 4y ago
> the European Food Safety Authority determined that glyphosate is unlikely to be a carcinogen Yet Europe has banned glyphosate (it is allowed in the US). Curious
- fennecfoxen 4y ago
  The EU was concerned about marine toxicity and the potential for the concentrated forms to cause serious eye damage!
- hnarn 4y ago
  Just to play devil’s advocate for a second: the fact that the EU has banned glyphosate does not mean that it’s a confirmed carcinogen. It only means that it’s considered harmful, which it can be in many other ways apart from causing cancer.
pohl 4y ago
One thing I've noticed with regard to all of the safety claims made about glyphosate is that it only claims that it's safe with respect to humans directly. They never discuss what it might do to your gut biome. That seems like a curious omission, to me, for a substance like this. Shouldn't that be a standard part of the risk analysis?

lurquer 4y ago

Maybe we should just pee on the weeds.

deepsquirrelnet 4y ago
Brawndo works really well too. Toilet water, not so much.
coffeefirst 4y ago
My dog is 3 steps ahead of you there.

kache_ 4y ago

"tied to cancer" Bullshit. I've looked this up and researched it extensively as I was looking at different chemicals to use for weed control The science isn't settled, this is just more news media garbage fear mongering

b0ner_t0ner 4y ago
> The science isn't settled I'm with you on this. Time for a science experiment then, put a drop of Roundup into each of your meal everyday, do let us know your body check results in a year's time.

nemo44x 4y ago

This is bad journalism. Glyphosate is not “linked” to cancer. Sone groups think it is “probably” a carcinogen but most every governing body around the world says it is not as there’s no proof of the link at all. This is probably not journalism but rather propaganda designed to rally public support around glyphosate bans which we have seen in Germany and now the Netherlands. Farmers can still use it of course, but the ban is for home use. Even though it is safe to use when following the label.

bsedlm 4y ago
just to generalized bad health and possibly celiac disease I'd say that part of the problem is that this chemical makes the gut flora sick, not the human... but given as the gut bacteria are symbiotic with us, we also suffer negative consequces which are harder to explain with strictly reductionist biomechanics also I keep in mind the economic incentives and the sorry state of academic funding
- moneywoes 4y ago
  Is having celiac correlated with this?
macondo 4y ago
This is bad thinking. Glyphosate has seen billions of USD in settlements and is tied to decreased liver function. "Most every governing body says..." what is this poor appeal to authority? Like the other commenter says, even if it is not directly effecting on humans, if it affects our gut flora then it ends up affecting. The reductionist approach does not work much in biology, one has to consider the whole system.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > Glyphosate has seen billions of USD in settlements In my country some scientists have been found guilty of "not predicting an earthquake"[1], so I would be careful to believe to what a court can prove or disprove and the scientific value of their decisions... [1] https://blog.ucsusa.org/michael-halpern/italian-scientists-jailed-for-failing-to-predict-earthquake/#:~:text=In%20a%20decision%20that%20is,to%20accurately%20predict%20an%20earthquake https://blog.ucsusa.org/michael-halpern/italian-scientists-j....

RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago

GMO skepticism is pretty much the same as anti-vax. Lots of talk about big corporations and a fetish for “natural” as well as a litany of vague syndromes without a clearly elucidated biological mechanism.

mandmandam 4y ago
Your confidence in big Agri and big Pharma would be hilarious, if it wasn't so dangerous. Do you have any idea what all the chemicals we're pumping into the lakes and rivers and earth and ocean are doing to the biosphere? Seriously! How many species above the background rate are going extinct every year?! The blame for that lies squarely and undeniably at the industries you have such blind confidence in. "Man is quite insane. He wouldn't know how to create a maggot, and he creates Gods by the dozen." —Michel de Montaigne

Bjorkbat 4y ago

Well, if it truly is tied to cancer, I'll be sure to let Hacker News know. Back in college I was paid $50 to wear a backpack sprayer loaded with the stuff and go nuclear on a guy's weed-infested garden. Backpack sprayers leak, so I got glyphosate all over my skin, my back in particular. It's been a little more than 10 years, so nothing, but then again, I'm also only 32, live a fairly healthy lifestyle, and have no family history of cancer, so maybe it just sort of cancels itself out.

colordrops 4y ago
Exposure to carcinogens doesn't guarantee that you will get cancer.
elif 4y ago
The skin is designed to protect you from foreign substances. The intestines are designed to absorb foreign substances.
toxik 4y ago
I smoked a pack of cigs back in my teens and I don’t have cancer.

airocker 4y ago

Does organic food really not carry glyphosate?

colordrops 4y ago
It shouldn't if handled properly.

sschueller 4y ago

I always thought GMO was used to make plants resistant to diseases and pests but in reality these plants are resistant to one thing only. Monsanto's chemicals.

atwood22 4y ago
Some genetic modification does make plants pest resistant. For instance, Bt corn is pest resistant without the need of additional pesticides.
sparker72678 4y ago
GMO is also used for improving yields, drought tolerance, and temperature tolerance, among other things.

bfrog 4y ago

Aren’t there side effects of this stuff killing other microorganisms in the soil? Like it’s not just the cancer aspect, or the gmo crop aspect. It’s, as I understand it, contributing to arable land loss

crikeyjoe 4y ago

They didn't check mine.

Proven 4y ago

tomohawk 4y ago

If you're eating anything with oats grown in the US, especially things like Cheerios, you're likely getting a big dose of glyphosate. They spray this on the oats to kill and dessicate them prior to harvest to prevent the crop from being ruined by rain.

hammock 4y ago
Does that include organic oats?
- tomohawk 4y ago
  It's not supposed to, however, most brands are not certified or tested in any way. https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/monsanto-weedkiller-still-contaminates-foods-marketed-to-children https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/monsanto-weedkiller-stil... Even reputable brands like Bob's Red Mill have had issues. After some of their products tested positive, they apparently took some measures: https://www.bobsredmill.com/blog/healthy-living/bobs-red-mill-oats-glyphosate/ https://www.bobsredmill.com/blog/healthy-living/bobs-red-mil...

IncRnd 4y ago

In 1961, 13 years prior to being sold by Monsanto to kill weeds, Glyphosate was patented in the U.S. as a Descaling and Chelating Agent by the Stauffer Chemical Co. In 2010, Monsanto patented Glyphosate as an antibiotic. Take a moment to consider that if CLR (a brand name that removes Calcium and Lime from metal pipes) were discovered to be a weedkiller, your sons or daughters would have this same conversation in a decade or two about CLR in their urine. You can substitute trace plutonium, anthrax, or anything else for CLR in the above paragraph.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> were discovered to be a weedkiller coke is a potent weedkiller people love to drink it or to put it in another way: some things we eat and drink are great to kill weeds, just not selective enough or too destructive an example: salt

csr86 4y ago

Maybe one day we can skip plants and weedkillers by using artificial process to make food. Photosynthesis is not very efficient either. Less land for farms and more forests.

240P_Climate 4y ago
Eat meat like our ancestors did perhaps? Fat is only dangerous if it can stick to sugar. Sugar molecules are like little daggers that attach to arteries.
- triyambakam 4y ago
  Processed sugar. And it could be better said the other way around: processed sugar is more dangerous coupled with high fat intake. Sugars bound in fiber are fine. No one got heart disease or diabetes from eating too many apples with a diet of otherwise moderate fat intake.
- ReactiveJelly 4y ago
  Maybe if it's lab meat. Otherwise it seems inefficient to grow food for animals instead of just growing food for humans

pragmatic 4y ago

Add I kid I watched people who worked with the spray coups/planes work with zero safety equipment. They would reach right into tanks full of weed killer with bare hands to try to fix something. No masks worn, no gloves. We’ve learned a lot since the 70s/80s/90s. I would imagine direct substained contact with the stuff is different than the minimal amounts in food.

ReactiveJelly 4y ago
Like how asbestos is never good for you, but if you're a shipbreaker working with asbestos for 40 years, it's definitely worse than if you're a homeowner and accidentally knock some asbestos out of your ceiling. But in the same lines, I'm still more worried about glyphosate showing up in food from the supermarket than if I spray it around my house

swayvil 4y ago

This previous HN post, which refers to Monsanto's astroturfing efforts, relates. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17043836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17043836

ramphastidae 4y ago

Society loves to make fun of those who choose organic produce, but avoiding glysophate is the main reason I do so, and it works: > Organic diet intervention significantly reduces urinary glyphosate levels in U.S. children and adults > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935120307933 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393512...

tbrock 4y ago
There’s no question it would be better if it were true but how sure can we be that it’s not just the same food with different labels?
- kybishop 4y ago
  Because the FDA exists?? Because that would be fraud to claim otherwise, and fruit/veg sources are easily traceable back to their source, particularly at quantity?
  - tbrock 4y ago
    The FDA does not regulate the use of the term “organic” on food labels. Further, if something isn’t 100% organic how do you know which part isn’t?
  - classichasclass 4y ago
    USDA regulates that, at least for products with its seal. https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/organic-seal https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/organic-s...
    - kybishop 4y ago
      Thank you for the correction
harles 4y ago
I think organic is great. I just wish we didn’t put non-GMO in the same bucket. Give me GMO foods without pesticides.

astrostl 4y ago

It's been in global use for almost 50 years. I don't doubt that it may produce some negative effects, but it wouldn't concern me even a little bit to discover that some of it could be detected in my urine. If the impacts were that severe I expect that they would have shown up in force by now.

cool_dude85 4y ago
What do you mean by "severe effects" and how are you sure they haven't shown up in force? Let's say the incidence rate of certain types of cancer triples. You still might never meet someone with one of these types of cancer, and you might not even know if you did whether their cancer was caused by glyphosate. But still sounds like a severe effect to me if you're the guy with cancer, right?
- astrostl 4y ago
  I'm most directly referring to the implication in the article: cancer. It wouldn't surprise me if it tripled the odds of rare cancer, but even taking this claim at face value triple a tiny amount is still a tiny amount. And I do believe I'd still think of it that way if I happened to roll snake eyes.
ReactiveJelly 4y ago
But isn't there a similar concern with microplastics? Plastics have been around for decades, but they're being used in greater volume every year, and we've been finding them in odd places, and we aren't sure it's safe for them to be in those places.
cameronh90 4y ago
The last 50 years has seen significant increases in the rates of obesity, severe allergies, celiac, heart disease, alzheimer's, depression, etc. There are plenty of other (demonstrated and theoretical) reasons behind that, but it seems a little hasty to say we haven't seen severe health impacts. It might just be that we haven't figured out the link yet.

kpennell 4y ago

The US sprays this all over Colombia to get rid of Coca but it ends up getting into the water and other crops https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/03/20/biden-pushes-colombia-restart-glyphosate-spraying-program https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/03/20/biden-pushes-co...

wronglyprepaid 4y ago
Maybe you linked to the wrong article, that article mentions "Duque’s spraying campaign" - fairly sure that Duque is not US. Also Biden is the most progressive president in history, and I think with Colombia's track record when it comes to black and trans bodies you should maybe look in the mirror before pointing fingers.

jelliclesfarm 4y ago

Monsanto has poisoned the world..not just the US. Now that it sold out to Bayer, most of the world is fed by the same powers that made Agent Orange and Napalm. Our food is grown with fossil fuels and chemicals. It’s chemical warfare on soil and water. Glyphosate gets into us due to runoff’s into the water system and the aquifers. This is food grown as fodder and it gets into animals and then into us. It’s hideously obscene. Most of the problem would be solved if we adopted eesponsible animal husbandry. Which means less meat and animal based foods. But that’s only one part of the solution.

csisnett 4y ago
Meat is good for you
- jelliclesfarm 4y ago
  It is not good for the planet.

wslh 4y ago

The world react very slow. I posted a similar news 6 years ago about te same issues in Argentina https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11544254 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11544254 It doesn't really require a deep study when you see values outside the normal range.

de6u99er 4y ago

Remember this guy? https://youtu.be/ovKw6YjqSfM https://youtu.be/ovKw6YjqSfM

kazinator 4y ago

> a finding scientists have called “disturbing” and “concerning”. What were they expecting; that stuff sprayed onto crops will magically not end up in people?

arminiusreturns 4y ago

I quit a job in the industry during the era the studies started coming out when I found out about the bosses ties to Monsanto. The real kicker for me was during my digging into them, although largely due to corporate buyout name games, they were the ones responsible for agent orange, with Nam vets in my family I couldn't stay. Use the most natural chemicals you can for crop/yard control. The same warning applies to the neurotoxins that are bug killers.

colechristensen 4y ago
Natural doesn’t mean anything when it comes to safety of a substance. There are quite a few dangerous substances used for “organic” weed and pest control. Well controlled synthetics can indeed be safer. Or if it’s your yard, don’t do anything to it. You don’t need to.
- arminiusreturns 4y ago
  Least-toxic would probably ve the correct terminology, you are correct.

UberFly 4y ago

"said it was “obviously concerning” that a large percentage of the US population is exposed to glyphosate, but said it is still unclear how that translates to human health" That last line pretty much sums up the article. Lots more questions than answers.