4 ms·

>glyphosate will continue working for a while, helping to lower the price of food. And I'll continue to choose the version grown without glyphosate even though

>glyphosate will continue working for a while, helping to lower the price of food. And I'll continue to choose the version grown without glyphosate even though the price is higher.

cyberax 2y ago
Why? Because it has better vibes?
- titanomachy 2y ago
  The EPA says that glyphosate isn't carcinogenic in humans. The WHO says that it is. The EPA says it's not an endocrine disruptor. Numerous studies and experts suggest that it is, although I can't find any major government or NGO that agrees. I'm not a doctor or molecular biologist. How should I decide which experts to trust? I can easily afford food grown without glyphosate, so that's what I eat. EDIT: I'm not religious about this, presumably all the restaurant food I eat is grown with glyphosate. But my local grocery store only has organic produce, I usually buy that since it's convenient and the cost difference is not a big deal.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    > The WHO says that it is. No, it doesn't. > I'm not a doctor or molecular biologist. How should I decide which experts to trust? I can easily afford food grown without glyphosate, so that's what I eat. Yeah, and I tuned my car to emit extra black smoke for better motor vibration. It now ROARS and consumes more gas, helping to stimulate the economy!
    - titanomachy 2y ago
      "IARC classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans". The International Agency for Research on Cancer is part of the WHO. https://www.iarc.who.int/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/ https://www.iarc.who.int/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-new... What am I missing?
      - mrguyorama 2y ago
        Did you read that link? Group 2 is pretty poorly explained to laypeople, Aloe Vera is listed as "Possibly carcinogenic", 2B. High concentration and quantity and long term exposure to glyphosate is probably bad for the farmers spraying, but their listing of glyphosate is completely irrelevant for the consumer buying a crop that was sprayed with it. They never once mention any danger to consumers in that entire article. Even in that limited case (occupational hazard), the data is mixed, and the IARC says that the US AHS study of 50k pesticide applicators did not find a correlation between cancer and glyphosate. They say that doesn't overrule the other findings. They are being hyperconservative for the safety of workers. That literally doesn't apply to you, the consumer.
      - cyberax 2y ago
        > "IARC classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans". This category includes: carpentry, bracken ferns, aloe vera extract and traditional Asian pickled vegetables, magnetic fields, radio, coffee. I'm not kidding, go see yourself: https://monographs.iarc.who.int/list-of-classifications https://monographs.iarc.who.int/list-of-classifications (group 2B). This agency has zero credibility now. No serious agency (EPA, EFSA, etc.) classifies it as dangerous: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-07/glyphosate_factsheet.pdf https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-07/glyph... It's like I can cite the Cato institute and Heritage Foundation to say that we should ban electric cars, because they are polluting the air with brake dust.
        titanomachy 2y ago
        Coffee seems to now be group 3, but your point stands. 2B is meaningless as a consumer guidance.
  - nonameiguess 2y ago
    You're presumably thinking of the IARC monograph. You can read how the classifications work in their own preamble: https://monographs.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Preamble-2019.pdf https://monographs.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/P... Specifically, > A cancer hazard is an agent that is capable of causing cancer, whereas a cancer risk is an estimate of the probability that cancer will occur given some level of exposure to a cancer hazard. The Monographs assess the strength of evidence that an agent is a cancer hazard. The distinction between hazard and risk is fundamental. > The identification of a cancer hazard should trigger some action to protect public health, either directly as a result of the hazard identification or through the conduct of a risk assessment. The key thing to recognize here is they are making preliminary assessments of existing lines of research, looking for studies into whether an agent has been associated with cancer in humans, animals, or mechanistically, and characterizing the strength of such evidence, as to whether or not something can cause cancer. The purpose of doing this is so that other standards bodies can assess the actual dose/response relationship and your probability of getting cancer from levels of exposure. Glyphosate in in group 2A, along with things like being a barber, night shift work, hot beverages, red meat. Lots of things the EPA does not ban. Why? Because as the organization itself says, hazard does not mean risk. The fact that studies show a robust association between one thing and some increase in cancer incidence, at any dose, does not mean the level of exposure any regular person experiences raises their probability of getting cancer by any meaningful amount we should care about or regulate. The problem here is you're almost certainly not actually reading the publications of either IARC or the EPA, which are not in conflict with each other. You're reading science journalism, which almost universally presents this in the most misleading, fear-mongering fashion possible to attract eyeballs.
    - titanomachy 2y ago
      Thanks, this is helpful context. Basically they conclude that the chemical has the potential to increase cancer incidence in some dose. But they are not making any statement about whether glyphosate as used in agriculture increases cancer risk?
      - nonameiguess 2y ago
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
analog31 2y ago
Devil's advocate: I've asked a couple of farmers about this. The conventional wisdom is that glyphosate reduced the carbon footprint of farming. My own feeling is that reducing the amount of farming would also reduce the carbon footprint of farming. I love meat as much as the next person, but widespread meat consumption is not particularly ecological.
- jimbob45 2y ago
  I love meat as much as the next person, but widespread meat consumption is not particularly ecological. Lab-grown meat is probably the quickest route forward that maintains normalcy whilst solving the sustainability issues.
  - analog31 2y ago
    Indeed, our current dietary "normalcy" is an engineered phenomenon to begin with, and a new one can be engineered just as well.
  - tmitchel2 2y ago
    Could you pinpoint what exactly is not sustainable about eating meet though? In the UK (where I live) we eat meet produced mostly within the country, the livestock here are generally mostly fed a grass diet. Yes we should eat meet in moderation like anything, yes chopping down rainforests and building feeding lots is obvs horrific. But otherwise, the cattle eat the grass, they turn that into meet and farts, which fairly quickly come full circle back into the ground. No fossil fuels here. Hard to think of something more sustainable to me.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      The farts (and burps) are a major greenhouse gas component. https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/war-cow-farts-is-stinky-necessary-job-2023-03-24/ https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/war-cow-farts-is-stink...
      - 2y ago
quickthrowman 2y ago
Glyphosate is mostly used for animal feed crops like field corn, soybeans, and alfalfa that have genetically modified seeds that resist glyphosate. Looks like it’s used for some fruits and vegetables too, but it’s mostly for the ones I listed above.
smm11 2y ago
This. Not related, but it's my belief that gluten-intolerance is actually a glyphosate issue.

>glyphosate will continue working for a while, helping to lower the price of food. And I'll continue to choose the version grown without glyphosate even though the price is higher.

cyberax 2y ago

Why? Because it has better vibes?

titanomachy 2y ago
The EPA says that glyphosate isn't carcinogenic in humans. The WHO says that it is. The EPA says it's not an endocrine disruptor. Numerous studies and experts suggest that it is, although I can't find any major government or NGO that agrees. I'm not a doctor or molecular biologist. How should I decide which experts to trust? I can easily afford food grown without glyphosate, so that's what I eat. EDIT: I'm not religious about this, presumably all the restaurant food I eat is grown with glyphosate. But my local grocery store only has organic produce, I usually buy that since it's convenient and the cost difference is not a big deal.
- cyberax 2y ago
  > The WHO says that it is. No, it doesn't. > I'm not a doctor or molecular biologist. How should I decide which experts to trust? I can easily afford food grown without glyphosate, so that's what I eat. Yeah, and I tuned my car to emit extra black smoke for better motor vibration. It now ROARS and consumes more gas, helping to stimulate the economy!
  - titanomachy 2y ago
    "IARC classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans". The International Agency for Research on Cancer is part of the WHO. https://www.iarc.who.int/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/ https://www.iarc.who.int/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-new... What am I missing?
    - mrguyorama 2y ago
      Did you read that link? Group 2 is pretty poorly explained to laypeople, Aloe Vera is listed as "Possibly carcinogenic", 2B. High concentration and quantity and long term exposure to glyphosate is probably bad for the farmers spraying, but their listing of glyphosate is completely irrelevant for the consumer buying a crop that was sprayed with it. They never once mention any danger to consumers in that entire article. Even in that limited case (occupational hazard), the data is mixed, and the IARC says that the US AHS study of 50k pesticide applicators did not find a correlation between cancer and glyphosate. They say that doesn't overrule the other findings. They are being hyperconservative for the safety of workers. That literally doesn't apply to you, the consumer.
    - cyberax 2y ago
      > "IARC classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans". This category includes: carpentry, bracken ferns, aloe vera extract and traditional Asian pickled vegetables, magnetic fields, radio, coffee. I'm not kidding, go see yourself: https://monographs.iarc.who.int/list-of-classifications https://monographs.iarc.who.int/list-of-classifications (group 2B). This agency has zero credibility now. No serious agency (EPA, EFSA, etc.) classifies it as dangerous: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-07/glyphosate_factsheet.pdf https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-07/glyph... It's like I can cite the Cato institute and Heritage Foundation to say that we should ban electric cars, because they are polluting the air with brake dust.
      - titanomachy 2y ago
        Coffee seems to now be group 3, but your point stands. 2B is meaningless as a consumer guidance.
- nonameiguess 2y ago
  You're presumably thinking of the IARC monograph. You can read how the classifications work in their own preamble: https://monographs.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Preamble-2019.pdf https://monographs.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/P... Specifically, > A cancer hazard is an agent that is capable of causing cancer, whereas a cancer risk is an estimate of the probability that cancer will occur given some level of exposure to a cancer hazard. The Monographs assess the strength of evidence that an agent is a cancer hazard. The distinction between hazard and risk is fundamental. > The identification of a cancer hazard should trigger some action to protect public health, either directly as a result of the hazard identification or through the conduct of a risk assessment. The key thing to recognize here is they are making preliminary assessments of existing lines of research, looking for studies into whether an agent has been associated with cancer in humans, animals, or mechanistically, and characterizing the strength of such evidence, as to whether or not something can cause cancer. The purpose of doing this is so that other standards bodies can assess the actual dose/response relationship and your probability of getting cancer from levels of exposure. Glyphosate in in group 2A, along with things like being a barber, night shift work, hot beverages, red meat. Lots of things the EPA does not ban. Why? Because as the organization itself says, hazard does not mean risk. The fact that studies show a robust association between one thing and some increase in cancer incidence, at any dose, does not mean the level of exposure any regular person experiences raises their probability of getting cancer by any meaningful amount we should care about or regulate. The problem here is you're almost certainly not actually reading the publications of either IARC or the EPA, which are not in conflict with each other. You're reading science journalism, which almost universally presents this in the most misleading, fear-mongering fashion possible to attract eyeballs.
  - titanomachy 2y ago
    Thanks, this is helpful context. Basically they conclude that the chemical has the potential to increase cancer incidence in some dose. But they are not making any statement about whether glyphosate as used in agriculture increases cancer risk?
    - nonameiguess 2y ago
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

analog31 2y ago

Devil's advocate: I've asked a couple of farmers about this. The conventional wisdom is that glyphosate reduced the carbon footprint of farming. My own feeling is that reducing the amount of farming would also reduce the carbon footprint of farming. I love meat as much as the next person, but widespread meat consumption is not particularly ecological.

jimbob45 2y ago
I love meat as much as the next person, but widespread meat consumption is not particularly ecological. Lab-grown meat is probably the quickest route forward that maintains normalcy whilst solving the sustainability issues.
- analog31 2y ago
  Indeed, our current dietary "normalcy" is an engineered phenomenon to begin with, and a new one can be engineered just as well.
- tmitchel2 2y ago
  Could you pinpoint what exactly is not sustainable about eating meet though? In the UK (where I live) we eat meet produced mostly within the country, the livestock here are generally mostly fed a grass diet. Yes we should eat meet in moderation like anything, yes chopping down rainforests and building feeding lots is obvs horrific. But otherwise, the cattle eat the grass, they turn that into meet and farts, which fairly quickly come full circle back into the ground. No fossil fuels here. Hard to think of something more sustainable to me.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    The farts (and burps) are a major greenhouse gas component. https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/war-cow-farts-is-stinky-necessary-job-2023-03-24/ https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/war-cow-farts-is-stink...
    - 2y ago

quickthrowman 2y ago

Glyphosate is mostly used for animal feed crops like field corn, soybeans, and alfalfa that have genetically modified seeds that resist glyphosate. Looks like it’s used for some fruits and vegetables too, but it’s mostly for the ones I listed above.

smm11 2y ago

This. Not related, but it's my belief that gluten-intolerance is actually a glyphosate issue.