Weed Killer Glyphosate Found In Most Americans' Urine (usnews.com) 192
An anonymous reader quotes a report from U.S. News & World Report: More than 80% of Americans have a widely used herbicide lurking in their urine, a new government study suggests. The chemical, known as glyphosate, is "probably carcinogenic to humans," the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer has said. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, a well-known weed killer. The U.S. National Nutrition Examination Survey found the herbicide in 1,885 of 2,310 urine samples that were representative of the U.S. population. Nearly a third of the samples came from children ages 6 to 18.
Traces of the herbicide have previously been found in kids' cereals, baby formula, organic beer and wine, hummus and chickpeas. In 2020, the EPA determined that the chemical was not a serious health risk and "not likely" to cause cancer in humans. However, a federal appeals court ordered the EPA to reexamine those findings last month, CBS News reported. In 2019, a second U.S. jury ruled Bayer's Roundup weed killer was the cause of a man's cancer. It was only the second of some 11,200 Roundup lawsuits to go to trial in the United States. Another California man was awarded $78 million (originally $289 million) in the first lawsuit alleging a glyphosate link to cancer.
A study published around the same time as those rulings found that glyphosate "destroys specialized gut bacteria in bees, leaving them more susceptible to infection and death from harmful bacteria."
Further reading: 'It's a Non-Party Political Issue': Banning the Weedkiller Glyphosate (The Guardian)
Traces of the herbicide have previously been found in kids' cereals, baby formula, organic beer and wine, hummus and chickpeas. In 2020, the EPA determined that the chemical was not a serious health risk and "not likely" to cause cancer in humans. However, a federal appeals court ordered the EPA to reexamine those findings last month, CBS News reported. In 2019, a second U.S. jury ruled Bayer's Roundup weed killer was the cause of a man's cancer. It was only the second of some 11,200 Roundup lawsuits to go to trial in the United States. Another California man was awarded $78 million (originally $289 million) in the first lawsuit alleging a glyphosate link to cancer.
A study published around the same time as those rulings found that glyphosate "destroys specialized gut bacteria in bees, leaving them more susceptible to infection and death from harmful bacteria."
Further reading: 'It's a Non-Party Political Issue': Banning the Weedkiller Glyphosate (The Guardian)
I predicted this in the 80's. (Score:3, Insightful)
When I learned how this stuff supposedly only targets weeds, the first thing I thought was: "No. There's no way they can do that accurately enough to be safe for humans."
Re:I predicted this in the 80's. (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't target only weeds. It kills a lot of plants. Farmers who use it generally also use crops that were bred or engineered to be glyphosate tolerant. But it is very selective to a plant enzyme, and there's no known mechanism for it to cause health problems in mammals. (The evidence for carcinogenicity is mixed at best, and national health authorities mostly do not share the WHO assessment cited in TFS.)
On the other hand, a lot of weeds have developed glyphosate tolerance now too.
Re:I predicted this in the 80's. (Score:5, Informative)
Journalist asks lobbyist whether he would drink a glass of Roundup, the lobbyist agrees, the journalist actually HAS Roundup for him to drink, and the lobbyist freaks out.
Re:I predicted this in the 80's. (Score:4, Interesting)
The best part of this video is that the lobbyist in question is one of the founders of Greenpeace.
He's gone rogue a long time ago and is now representing some immoral corporations through lobbying.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty lame video that "proves" nothing, IMHO.
a) The guy is a lobbyist, not a scientist, so he has no privileged secret knowledge about it really being safe / not-safe. So him refusing to drink it is not evidence of anything.
b) Even if it were completely safe in quantities found in food- should he or anyone be expected to drink a whole glass of it? Vegetable oil is perfectly safe to consume - I still wouldn't drink a glass of it under any circumstances.
The closest thing to a "gotcha" in the video is when he
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I'd drink a glass of veg oil if I was spouting bullshit that I truly believed and someone called me on it. Why not if you truly believe it's safe?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
He may not be a scientist but he did claim drinking it is safe. And when asked to drink it, he refused and said "I am not an idiot".
So that implies he knows his claim is false and he is not idiotic enough to drink it.
Doesn't need to be a scientist to stick to what one claims to be the truth and proof it by doing what he claimed.
Re:I predicted this in the 80's. (Score:5, Interesting)
The evidence for it being carcinogenic seems to apply to very large quantities of it. Meaning you literally have to come into direct contact with it in its purified form over long periods of time. For trace amounts, as you said there isn't any strong connection.
I'd wager that it's a very weak carcinogen, and if that's the case then there are far bigger things to be concerned with that we encounter all the time. For example, cooking vegetables often results in them having acrylamide, which is a VERY strong carcinogen. It likewise shows up in everything from coffee to baked potatoes. If we're going to try to eliminate every possible carcinogen from our diets, there are much higher priorities than glyphosate.
A lot of people hate glyphosate simply because it's strongly associated with GMO, which they hate even more, and the rationale for hating either is indistinguishable from a religious viewpoint. In fact, we actually have some GMO plants already developed that can virtually eliminate acrylamide from our diet, but they aren't being commercially produced because A) they don't increase crop yields, so farmers aren't interested, B) they're going to be targeted for boycotts by the food religion, so grocery stores aren't interested. C) even if you could get the A and B to agree to sell them, few consumers will actively buy them. More than that, I bet most consumers refuse to believe that you can even get cancer from vegetables, so they'd likely choose the cheaper option when given a choice. So there's basically no market for them at all.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you believe that tobacco doesn't cause cancer, too? You're using the same reasoning.
Tobacco is a bit different (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a bit like worrying about LED lights giving you sunburn as opposed to the sun.
Yes, the right LED lights can induce tanning, at least a little of it, and theoretically might give you skin cancer, but the Sun is such as bigger source...
Tobacco is an incredibly strong carcinogen, as opposed to glyphosate being presumed to be a weak one. If it wasn't a weak one, we'd be seeing a lot more cases of cancer from it.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I wouldn't recommend vaping glyphosate.
Re: (Score:2)
But I wouldn't recommend vaping (neat) Glyphosate to some random dude I met on the street. It would be for a certain select few people who I know personally. So they can feel the privilege. Doing harm all the way down, like a good crucible of Syrian Panther Sweat.
smoke and mirrors (Score:2)
Also, I wouldn't recommend vaping glyphosate.
Okay, so we detect weed killer in people's urine, but how much weed do we detect in the urine of people who believe the industry lobbyist here?
Re: (Score:2)
Tanning beds do increase cancer rates.
Re:Tobacco is a bit different (Score:4, Insightful)
They've just proven in a court of law that Roundup caused at least one person's cancer & there are many more cases waiting to be heard. What was that about LEDs again?
Ah yes, a court of law being the highest of scientific authorities. I'm sure the jury and everyone else involved had multiple, relevant advanced degrees, with rigorous scientific principles used to come to that conclusion.
Re:I predicted this in the 80's. (Score:4, Informative)
Do you believe vaping nicotine is worse than smoking tobacco? You're using the same reasoning.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov] is a good overview of the processes that the IARC used to reach the "probable human carcinogen" label, and how those are different from the processes used by the European Food Safety Agency, which disagrees about glyphosate's carcinogenicity.
For example:
The US EPA made an assessment similar to EFSA, concluding that glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic in humans.
It's possible that some other ingredients in some formulations do cause cancer, but it's hard to tease that out for reasons identified in that article. (Only known carcinogens have to be listed on the label, not all biologically active ingredients like adjuvants, so scientists don't know what is in the herbicide mixtures; and it's impractical for retrospective studies to identify exactly which herbicides were used, especially after Monsanto's last Roundup patents expired in 2000.)
Re: I predicted this in the 80's. (Score:4, Informative)
No that's not what I'm saying. Actually your reaction here is pretty typical of somebody who has all of zero understanding of the topic.
Recall when the WHO classified nitrate cured meat as being enough of a confirmed carcinogen that they classified it on the same level of certainty that they have of tobacco being carcinogenic.
Media headlines everywhere were then claiming that the WHO claimed that nitrate cured meats were as carcinogenic as tobacco. It got bad enough that the WHO had to clarify that nitrate cured meats are a very weak carcinogen, compared to tobacco which is a very strong one. All that they were saying is that they're equally certain that both are carcinogenic. They also clarified that, unlike with tobacco, they weren't advocating towards limiting or eliminating nitrate cured meats, because it's very unlikely that consumption of it will ever result in somebody getting colon cancer within their lifetime.
This is very much applicable:
https://xkcd.com/1252/ [xkcd.com]
Nonetheless, people like you still couldn't tell the difference, so the meat industry has to pull a little semi-scam just to keep people like you happy. They started advertising meat as being nitrate free in big text, except it wasn't. There's a tiny disclaimer on the bag saying "except for nitrates naturally found in celery juice."
They know that people like you stupidly assume natural is better, and most of you fall for it. Except the fact is that whether it is natural or not doesn't make a difference. Whether it's cured with ordinary nitrate salts or celery juice, the outcome is the same: it's still mildly carcinogenic.
But sure enough, after reading my post, you'll tell yourself that I'm lying and that your god "mother nature" knows best, so back to naturalnews.com you go.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
they're going to be targeted for boycotts by the food religion,
Food religionists should consider moving to Sri Lanka, they banned synthetic fertilisers and pesticides more than a year ago, the place must be an absolute paradise by now.
Re: (Score:2)
"Meaning you literally have to come into direct contact with it in its purified form over long periods of time."
As with just about everything in the real world, there's a probability distribution involved. You still may or may not become ill.
Re: (Score:2)
I shouldn't be surprised your post got nuked with, "Overrated," mods, but I still am. As of typing this, it's -1 with 2 overrated, yet your points seem properly reasoned and acknowledged valid points (although I don't know about the acrylamide statement), but you're going against the food religionists.
Re: I predicted this in the 80's. (Score:2)
Yeah I'm used to it, it's pretty typical on slashdot. It's also telling that the guy who compared my post to defending tobacco is rated insightful when I didn't do anything of the sort.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't target only weeds. It kills a lot of plants. Farmers who use it generally also use crops that were bred or engineered to be glyphosate tolerant. But it is very selective to a plant enzyme, and there's no known mechanism for it to cause health problems in mammals. (The evidence for carcinogenicity is mixed at best, and national health authorities mostly do not share the WHO assessment cited in TFS.)
On the other hand, a lot of weeds have developed glyphosate tolerance now too.
Yes, there is. Endocrine disruption [wikipedia.org]. There is some debate about whether it is an endocrine disruptor [sciencedirect.com], but the evidence is mounting that it's a bingo.
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.epa.gov/ingredient... [epa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
I thought his comment was a joke based on the word "weed" being pejorative term for weak people, as-in an alternative to "wimp".
Re: (Score:2)
We should just genetically engineer ourselves to be glyphosate tolerant. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The total cancer rate does not increase, it is nearly exactly the same. So they looked at many different kinds of cancer. And for one type of cancer they found that the cancer rate increased with 95% confidence. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, to be specific.
When looking at 20 cancer rates one of them will look increased with 95% confidence just by chance. That is all that happened.
Re: (Score:2)
So I can kill my lawn by peeing on it?
Re:I predicted this in the 80's. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's also by Monsanto. A company that we know in filling the pockets of even more politicians than the tobacco companies.
Re: (Score:2)
We know that because Monsanto no longer exists.
They exist, they are just called "Bayer" now.
Re: (Score:2)
They exist, they are just called "Bayer" now.
Kind of, but not really. When one company buys [bayer.com] another company, you don't usually say that the purchased company "changed its name". In the wreckage of failing companies, there are still scraps of value that another company will be happy to scavenge.
Re: (Score:2)
There are three important parts to evaluating cancer risk: whether a substance is carcinogenic, the risk from various levels and types of exposure, and the benefits we get from whatever causes those exposures.
The IARC clarification of glyphosate as a "probable carcinogen", like the classification of alcoholic beverages as known carcinogens, only addresses the first factor.
Re: I predicted this in the 80's. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not about 'targeting weeds', these herbicides interact with structures in plant cells that non-plants literally don't have. This stands in contrast to things like insecticides.. insects are close enough to humans that most of the things that are toxic to them are toxic to people too on some level.
Glycophosphate is an interesting case. It's been almost ubiquitous for about 60 years in the western world. There have not been obvious observed population level effects, we've looked. It's not clear what mechanism of action glycophostphate could cause problems by. Studies that have claimed to find carcinogenic links have found very weak evidence, the most compelling of which has been forms of leukemia rare enough you wouldn't see it in the general population if you tried.
That's all to say the whole issue is very far from clear cut. A lot of the argument seems to boil down to "well its a chemical, so it probably causes cancer." Heck that's pretty much the rationale of California's carcinogen warnings.
What bothers me most is this is basically being decided in the court of public opinion at this point, instead of by technical experts. The idea that you can just pull a dozen random people off the street and say "hey, decide this incredibly technical question you have no expertise in, and on which the government regulator in charge has already made a decision" bothers me. It's done in a lot of different fields, and it seems ridiculous. Civil suits feel out of control.
Re: (Score:2)
So the claims that it messes with microbes are false?
I thought the fact that it messed with bee gut bacteria was established (but the ramifications not necessarily).
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible, depends on the microbe.
Re: (Score:2)
So it's toxic to at least some non-plants?
Re: (Score:2)
So it's toxic to at least some non-plants?
Why do so many people struggle with basic logic?
"It's possible" does not mean "there is at least one" or "there are some". It means "there could be, we can't rule it out".
Re: (Score:2)
So it's toxic to at least some non-plants?
Glyphosate is often applied with surfactants that cause it to adhere better to leaves. These surfactants can be toxic to fish.
This can be a problem when it is applied excessively with no control of runoff.
You'd think farmers would have enough sense not to spray expensive chemicals on their crops just before a big rain, but like in all professions, there are dumb farmers too.
Re: (Score:2)
"Surfactant" is an extremely broad term - it's anything that can alter the surface tension of a fluid. Since all organisms on Earth that we know of have a fatty acid/ phospholipid cell wall that keeps their cell contents inside and the rest of the universe outside, then something that is an effective surfactant is likely to affect a broad range of organisms outside the ones you're intending to affect.
Use them carefully. Expect side-effects.
Caveat - there is at
Re: I predicted this in the 80's. (Score:2)
No but that is among one of the two natural sciences I studied in college, the other being chemistry, so I know a thing or two but I'm not an expert.
You don't need to be an expert to understand that microbes are the precursors to both flora and fauna, (as well as others) likewise they can have traits of one or both. Although you may occasionally hear gut bacteria being referred to as gut flora, it's falling out of use because it's a misnomer.
Re: (Score:2)
If that claim is true (I'm not taking a position on that point, at all) then that only contradicts other statements that it affects plant but not animals if you assume that "microbe" includes some, or includes exclusively "animals".
The last I looked, "microbe" was a size category (needs microscope to see it), not a phylogenetic grouping of any evolutionary or biochemical significance.
Plants and animals are both members of the small, restricted grouping
Re: I predicted this in the 80's. (Score:4, Insightful)
What bothers me most is this is basically being decided in the court of public opinion at this point, instead of by technical experts.
This is very similar to the "cellphone causes cancer" meme that was so popular since before 2000 until around 2010, probably because people got distracted with the subprime disaster.
If Glyphosate or cellphone really do causes cancer, it would have been very easy to track increases in cancer cases that correlates with their introduction around the world. The obvious absence on that front, while may not be conclusive, did provide a strong support that either of these things aren't that harmful.
Doesn't mean it is wise to eat Glyphosate needlessly, but rather than fear mongering, a better solution is to regulate its uses to less remain on the food we eat.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the hallmark of
Sounds good (Score:5, Funny)
I don't want weeds growing in my toilet.
Re:Sounds good (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Sounds good (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no! (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll have to stop pissing on my lemon tree.
In other news, every sample of piss contains a measurable amount of plutonium, and (statistically certain) atoms that were once part of Hitler.
So f@#$%ing what?? Oxygen (as a strong oxidant) is a known carcinogen.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have problems reading peoples emotions and like repetition?
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that on the order of a million tonnes of Glyphosate have been produced and applied in America since the mid-70s, it would be implausible to find a single American who didn't have several milligrammes of the stuff in their bodies on any random Wednesday afternoon. But the same person would go through several kilogrammes of oxygen every day.
At what concentration? (Score:5, Insightful)
I see no indication of the concentration of glyphosate that is "probably" dangerous to humans, and no indication of the concentration found in the urine. If 1 part in 1000 is dangerous, and they found 1 part in a million, it is a non-story. Considering they didn't provide that information, it being a non-story is the most likely reality.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I see no indication of the concentration of glyphosate that is "probably" dangerous to humans, and no indication of the concentration found in the urine. If 1 part in 1000 is dangerous, and they found 1 part in a million, it is a non-story. Considering they didn't provide that information, it being a non-story is the most likely reality.
+1, My "sky-is-falling-o-meter" broke a few years back . . . too many false positives.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
Further, a serious analysis should include cost vs benefit.
For example, if this increases the chance of cancer by 0.001% lifetime that's bad, but if the use of the chemical increases harvests worldwide by 10% alleviating actual starvation for 500 million people, I think most people would agree the benefit is worth the relatively tiny cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the reason that it's only 1 part in 1000 in your urine is because some of it accumulates in your body, or leaves via other means.
Re: At what concentration? (Score:2)
How about you go through a gallon of pure water every day, for a year and see if you can post a reply at the end?
Re: (Score:2)
Healthy kidneys can flush about ~25L of water a day.
That's a little bit more than a gallon.
Re: (Score:3)
Turns out the American gallon is about 3.7 litres, and I drink about 2 litres of water every day so probably quite doable.
Re: (Score:2)
I was wondering how much a gallon was actually because I live in the 21st century.
So do I, and I'm quite familiar with what a gallon is, as well as a liter, because volumes of liquid are sold labeled in both measures in the US, and have been my entire life ;)
and I drink about 2 litres of water every day so probably quite doable.
Ya, I'm worried about the health of anyone who thinks that a gallon of water a day is dangerous. I mean, it's a bit much... but I have days where I drink a gallon, easily, and I don't even live in a really hot area.
Re: (Score:3)
Thats what Pure Water is... its w/o the electrolytes. I wasn't even talking about the "over drinking" thing. People think "water is good" and don't realize that a lot of crap gets added to Pure Water just so it doesn't slowly kill you.
Back in my day, we had this thing called "Distilled water" and it came in gallon jugs and was used in radiators. It was common knowledge that you didn't pour that right in and you certainly didn't drink it. The original poster was saying drink a large and concentrated many
Re: (Score:2)
I'll save time, I drink about a gallon of water a day and I'm still here.
Re: At what concentration? (Score:2)
[facepalm]. I miss the /. days when you can have conversations without having to explain every obvious thing.
I doubt you have ever had pure H2O in your life. Go Google "ultra pure water". It's the poster child of "Everything is bad for you at enough quantities."
Re: (Score:2)
This story being meaningless doesn't mean there isn't a danger. Just that there is no sign of danger from the story. There is an infinite of possible dangers out there, and many of them (including this one) should be investigated to see if the danger is real. But nothing in this story seems to indicate there is a real danger.
When are the bees exposed? (Score:4, Interesting)
The article did not really say exactly where or how they think the exposure came from. Nor did they correlate it with the international agreements on maximum residue limits (MRLs). Europe is very strict and nearly all crops destined for Europe cannot be sprayed with glyphosate pre harvest, but spring use in-crop or pre-seeding is perfectly fine because there is no residue from that that has ever been found in the seed. So clearly not all uses of glyphosate are the same or pose the same health risks. I've always felt that pre-harvest glyphosate use is risky, and will likely be banned sooner than later, if for economic reasons. Too many farmers are tempted to spray it too early, which leads to MRL issues.
As a farmer I'm the first to admit glyphosate is over used, particularly in certain regions. In the midwest everything except wheat is glyphosate tolerant now, so it's sprayed several times a spring every year for years. Very bad practice. Plus resistant weeds will pretty much make it unworkable in just a few years. For me it's a valuable tool in the early spring to prepare a field for planting, or in the late fall to kill perennial weeds before freeze up. And on occasion, a glyphosate tolerant crop will clean up weeds and stop herbicide resistance as a rotation. But no more than once every four years.
As an aside, the summary also mentions research on the harmful effects of glyphosate on bees. These studies never seem mention exactly how they expect the bees are exposed out in nature. Glyphosate is not generally used during the time when bees are pollinating. Are they claiming exposure through the pollen weeks after the plant has metabolized it?
Re: (Score:2)
I'll tell you where it's coming from, ground water [nih.gov].
Proponents of glyphosate (which is a weird thing to say, it's a bit like saying Supporters of Hitler given Monsanto's long history of manslaughter for profit) claim that it does not persist in the environment, but that's a gross lie because it does persist in anerobic conditions, and most farming creates anaerobic conditions because of use of machines which create hardpan.
I'm glad you, as a farmer, admit chemicals are sometimes overused. People also like to
Re: (Score:2)
Assume the worst, hope for the best...
Ob DHMO (Score:4, Funny)
I also read that an alarming number of Americans have high levels of DHMO in their urine. DHMO is a major ingredient in pesticide sprays. Coincidence?
DHMO kills thousands of Americans per year, is the leading cause of death of toddlers, and disproportionately affects African American children.
Yet due to corporate lobbying, it remains a legal food additive.
https://www.dhmo.org/facts.htm... [dhmo.org]
Re:Ob DHMO (Score:4, Informative)
You forgot to mention that DHMO is one of the key chemicals in both acid rain and snake venom, and it is a widely used industrial solvent.
Exposure has gone through the roof recently (Score:3, Informative)
Originally Glyphosate was used solely as a weed-killer, and many major industrial crops today have been developed to be Glyphosate tolerant, allowing large doses of the herbicide. However, the idea was that the application was done early in the season and that most of the chemical had decomposed by the time it was harvested for consumption.
However, about a decade ago some genius noticed that if it was applied in a massive dose shortly before harvest it would act as a desiccant, allowing the crops to dry out much more quickly. Farmers refer to this as "pre-harvest treatment". The mechanism is quite simple: the dose is so large that it quickly kills even these Glyphosate resistant plants.
The end result is that not only has the dispensed quantity gone way up, but its late application means that is does not have any time to decompose, and the residual amount left in food products has sky rocketed by orders of magnitude.
Note that trace amounts in certified organic products have also gone up. The popular hypotheses is that this is due to overspray or runoff. These amounts are also typically a fraction of a percent of non-organic.
Re: (Score:2)
citation needed.
https://extension.okstate.edu/... [okstate.edu]
For those unfamiliar with the wheat plant, it is important to note that the grain is not exposed prior to harvest. Individual grains are encased in the glume ...
Because the glume is discarded, the wheat coming into the consumer market does not have unsafe levels of herbicide residue on it from late season glyphosate applications.
Re: (Score:2)
If the outer skin of a plant really keeps glyphosate out of the inside, then how is it able to kill weeds?
Re: (Score:2)
If the outer skin of a plant really keeps glyphosate out of the inside,
Outer skin? No, plants do not have skin, and that is not what "glume" means.
then how is it able to kill weeds?
You should google, but tl;dr, it inhibits a growth enzyme.
So for example, if a plant is dormant, glyphosate will have no effect.
Perhaps you were under the impression that glyphosate will kill seeds? That is not true.
Re: (Score:2)
You're overthinking it.
My point was: If glyphosate can soak into a plant (which it has to, to kill weeds), then it can get distributed to the internal parts of that plant (which it has to, to kill weeds). And a seed is an internal part of a plant.
It doesn't matter exactly what "glume" means or what plant enzymes it affects. Those details are irrelevant to how glyphosate to show up in human piss.
Re: (Score:2)
You're overthinking it.
My point was: If glyphosate can soak into a plant (which it has to, to kill weeds), then it can get distributed to the internal parts of that plant (which it has to, to kill weeds). And a seed is an internal part of a plant.
Sorry? We understand basic logic, right? That does not imply all parts are affected. The linked article explains.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, we can refer to this article, written by three people who are *not* objective, but work in supporting the existing wheat industry at an institution in a huge wheat-growing state.
Even they do not claim that the residues are zero (undoubtedly because the herbicide diffuses through the plant as I originally pointed out), and they're all super happy that the residues are lower than the sky-high levels allowed for wheat by the (industry-influenced) EPA.
Gee, they point out that it's not apparently acutely t
Re: (Score:2)
and it works by permeating the plant to terminate its metabolism. ... It is consequently found throughout the plant tissues.
No it is not. You are making a huge, simplistic and unwarranted assumption.
Are we surprised? (Score:4, Interesting)
That shit works though (Score:3)
There's a lot more knowledgeable people even here discussing it's safety implications but this sure seems like antibiotics, overuse of a good thing because it's cheaper or less of a pain in the ass.
However I try not to use chemicals often but when I need to just knockout weeds or a section of vegetation I'll be damned if it's not effective, things are just about gone in like 72 hours, that's some science shit.
Dont ask (Score:4, Funny)
You don't even want to know what else is in your urine.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably something gross, like pee!
Give up glyphosate, add diesel. (Score:4, Informative)
"On average, farmers practicing continuous conventional till use just over six gallons of diesel fuel per acre each year. Continuous no-till requires less than two gallons per acre. Across the country, that difference leads to nearly 282 million gallons of diesel fuel saved annually by farmers who practice continuous no-till instead of continuous conventional till."
https://www.usda.gov/media/blo... [usda.gov]
Giving up glyphosate and friends means we go back to multiple passes over the field for weed control. Plow, disk, drag, then for corn two passes with the cultivator about a month apart.
Crop yield (Score:2)
Hmm, slow starvation and malnutrition due to reduced agricultural production ... or an extra amber tint to my urine. Gee, I dunno.
So are Americans Round-Up Ready(c)(tm)(r) ? (Score:3)
Just like DDT is good for me-e-e!
https://oklahomaconservation.o... [oklahomaconservation.org]
One of the reasons why I have been changing the la (Score:4, Insightful)
Having lawns and non-native ornamentals is just wasteful
I see (Score:2)
So peeing on plants isn't as good a fertilizer than people think?
But it's your right (Score:2)
Excellent! (Score:5, Funny)
In other words (Score:3)
Peeing on your lawn helps kill weeds! ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not glyphosate causes cancer above the background rate of cancer is a testable question. One could imagine control trials in mice or pigs or apes, or perhaps even carefully designed observational studies in the population at large that at least quantify the correlation if not definitively proving causation.
https://www.bmj.com/content/36... [bmj.com]
Now I understand correlation is not causation - but let's say you and your SO are planning on raising a family. Would you buy a house right across from a place aerial spraying glyophosphate?
There are a lot of insurmountable problems in getting a definitive no possibility of error 100 percent causation rate in human effects. 100 percent causation is always impossible, but even a 99.9 percent rate would involve purposely exposing pregnant women to varying levels of thes
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.bmj.com/content/36 [bmj.com]... [bmj.com] Now I understand correlation is not causation
The correlation in that paper is not clearly beyond the margin of error.
I support further research into the topic, but your link isn't very convincing.
Re: (Score:3)
Good thing someone did a study. https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]
Re: (Score:2)
One could imagine control trials in mice or pigs or apes, or perhaps even carefully designed observational studies in the population at large that at least quantify the correlation if not definitively proving causation.
That's the rub. It gives mice cancer.
There is no good evidence that it does so for people, though. Really, it's the stuff along with the glyphosate in the formulation that seem to be more dangerous for humans, but it's unclear if we're exposed as much to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
quite a few bad effects are being supressed and hidden, tabacco industry style.
Note that they weren't being hidden, you just had to know where to look.
Re: (Score:2)
Where are you looking? Only significant adverse health outcomes being suggested in science I see is reduction of testosterone due to developmental exposure.
Based on a small amount of research though. If I wanted to lie in a sensationalist hitpiece, that is exactly the kind of link I would lie about though. So for the moment I'm taking it with a grain of salt.
Re: (Score:2)
For tobacco, there were studies available going back to the 50s showing tobacco was bad. Actually there were studies going back to the 30s and much farther, but those studies were harder to find.