3 ms·
The important caveat here is in laboratory mice, which isn't to dismiss ongoing work but to temper strong claims a bit.
by ch4s3 4y ago
The important caveat here is in laboratory mice, which isn't to dismiss ongoing work but to temper strong claims a bit.
- pella 4y agobut enough to refute this type of claim: "... glyphosate has been considered to be generally safe to animal health .."
- ch4s3 4y agoDoes it? You can harm those deeply inbreed and sickly lab mice with almost anything, and these types of results often don't generalize to animals outside of the lab setting. The few I skimmed don't indicate dose, generalize out form some tentative stuff from past studies, and some are making wild claims about things like autism which seem to be out of line with meta-analysis[1] of the links between dysbiotic bacteria with respect to ASD. And this analysis points to the effects only being on rat pups[2] where it was administered in drinking water. And digging a little further it seems that the evidence on actual levels in food being dangerous to humans or other mammals is lacking[3] so I don't think it refutes the claim at all. [1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10803-021-05002-y https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10803-021-05002-y [2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12940-018-0394-x https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12940-018-0394-x [3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935122012609 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00139...