3 ms·

The debate is ongoing. For example: http://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer-1.17181 http://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-

The debate is ongoing. For example: http://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer-1.17181 http://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-c... For the time being, I plan to do my best to avoid the stuff.

tptacek 12y ago
Here's another source: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-carcinogenicity-classification-of-five-pesticides-by-the-international-agency-for-research-on-cancer-iarc/ http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-carcino... A couple other important things to note: 1. The 2A classification is based on things like mouse models; epidemiological studies --- which have been done, on people with exceptional exposure to glyphosate --- don't support it. 2. There are a lot of 2A carcinogens that you're exposed to far more routinely. For instance, do you also avoid potatoes? Acrylamide for-sure causes human cancer. I guess my point with #2 here is that the IARC classifications give a misleading sense of the precision involved here: there is no direct causal link between human cancer and glyphosate, but many of the 2A carcinogens are simply known to be cancer-causers.
- daeken 12y ago
  The biggest thing that focusing on the IARC classification misses is this: the dose makes the poison. I will gladly have a gram of a known carcinogen if I know that I'll need 10 tons of the substance to increase my risk of cancer substantially. We simply can't know anything about this without knowing 1) what we're exposed to (realistically), and 2) what the actual risks are. Given the observed results, it evidently can't be too terrible.
DanBC 12y ago
They aren't talking about the glyphosate you eat when you eat food from a non-organic farm. They're talking about the glyphosate you breathe in, year after year, when you're a worker on that non-organic farm handling glyphosate without proper safety equipment.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
sampo 12y ago
> For the time being, I plan to do my best to avoid the stuff. How do you actually go on about avoiding glyphosate? If you buy organic, your food crop may have been treated with e.g. rotenone, which is a notably nastier poison than anyone has claimed glyphosate to be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone
- ricardobeat 12y ago
  > If you buy organic Where I come from, organic crops means no pesticides / insecticides except natural ones. What would make food grown with pesticides "organic"?
  - sampo 12y ago
    "there are over 20 chemicals commonly used in the growing and processing of organic crops that are approved by the US Organic Standards" http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogss...
- ScottBurson 12y ago
  The erosion of organic standards under political pressure from agribusiness is a very valid area of concern. But that's another conversation. And anyway I'm not sure rotenone is an example of that. Yes, it's quite toxic, but it degrades pretty rapidly [0]. And it's a carbohydrate, with none of the chlorine-carbon bonds that tend to be biochemically problematic in many synthetic pesticides (though glyphosate is an exception here). [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone#Toxicity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone#Toxicity
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Retenone is also carcinogenic in mouse models. If I had to choose exposure to retenone or glyphosate, I guess I'd go with glyphosate, which at least isn't neurotoxic.

tptacek 12y ago

Here's another source: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-carcinogenicity-classification-of-five-pesticides-by-the-international-agency-for-research-on-cancer-iarc/ http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-carcino... A couple other important things to note: 1. The 2A classification is based on things like mouse models; epidemiological studies --- which have been done, on people with exceptional exposure to glyphosate --- don't support it. 2. There are a lot of 2A carcinogens that you're exposed to far more routinely. For instance, do you also avoid potatoes? Acrylamide for-sure causes human cancer. I guess my point with #2 here is that the IARC classifications give a misleading sense of the precision involved here: there is no direct causal link between human cancer and glyphosate, but many of the 2A carcinogens are simply known to be cancer-causers.

daeken 12y ago
The biggest thing that focusing on the IARC classification misses is this: the dose makes the poison. I will gladly have a gram of a known carcinogen if I know that I'll need 10 tons of the substance to increase my risk of cancer substantially. We simply can't know anything about this without knowing 1) what we're exposed to (realistically), and 2) what the actual risks are. Given the observed results, it evidently can't be too terrible.

DanBC 12y ago

They aren't talking about the glyphosate you eat when you eat food from a non-organic farm. They're talking about the glyphosate you breathe in, year after year, when you're a worker on that non-organic farm handling glyphosate without proper safety equipment.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

sampo 12y ago

> For the time being, I plan to do my best to avoid the stuff. How do you actually go on about avoiding glyphosate? If you buy organic, your food crop may have been treated with e.g. rotenone, which is a notably nastier poison than anyone has claimed glyphosate to be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone

ricardobeat 12y ago
> If you buy organic Where I come from, organic crops means no pesticides / insecticides except natural ones. What would make food grown with pesticides "organic"?
- sampo 12y ago
  "there are over 20 chemicals commonly used in the growing and processing of organic crops that are approved by the US Organic Standards" http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogss...
ScottBurson 12y ago
The erosion of organic standards under political pressure from agribusiness is a very valid area of concern. But that's another conversation. And anyway I'm not sure rotenone is an example of that. Yes, it's quite toxic, but it degrades pretty rapidly [0]. And it's a carbohydrate, with none of the chlorine-carbon bonds that tend to be biochemically problematic in many synthetic pesticides (though glyphosate is an exception here). [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone#Toxicity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone#Toxicity
- tptacek 12y ago
  Retenone is also carcinogenic in mouse models. If I had to choose exposure to retenone or glyphosate, I guess I'd go with glyphosate, which at least isn't neurotoxic.