I’ll leave this here…glyphosate

giphy.gif



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Monsanto/Bayer: our product is perfectly safe, heck you can probably drink it.
"However, even though the current approval of glyphosate expires at the end of this year, this is only expected to come in summer 2023 after the agency recently announced a delay in the assessment process due to an avalanche of stakeholder feedback."

Independent studies: No it isn't and here's the science behind it.

Bees everywhere: WTF humans?

The Government: Ummmm we have to go with the big money guys here right? I mean they did do their own safety studies with colored graphs, charts and stuff.
"For its part, the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has previously evaluated the substance as “probably carcinogenic,” while the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has concluded it is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk” to humans when consumed through their diet."

Me: Roundup has been on the market for 50 freaking years and you guys are still arguing if it is safe for just anyone with $30 to use it? :emoji_dizzy_face:
 
I used to work with pesticide certification training as well as Extension and Outreach for two major universities in the Midwest. I cannot tell you how many times I had to respond to questions about the safety of glyphosate. Even amongst some of my peers in academia. "But a court in California just awarded a school janitor $100 million!". Nearly all of the peer-reviewed research this side of the pond did not show a causal link at the time. The European courts had a different burden of proof, which is what was used in the civil case in California (which also has a different burden of proof than what most are familiar with). This all to say, this outcome was very predictable. It is one of the most used and studied chemicals in the environment. I'm not saying it doesn't have environmental implications, but hysteria over it is akin to how the public views GMO's.

We really need to focus on science literacy, for everyone.
 
I used to work with pesticide certification training as well as Extension and Outreach for two major universities in the Midwest. I cannot tell you how many times I had to respond to questions about the safety of glyphosate. Even amongst some of my peers in academia. "But a court in California just awarded a school janitor $100 million!". Nearly all of the peer-reviewed research this side of the pond did not show a causal link at the time. The European courts had a different burden of proof, which is what was used in the civil case in California (which also has a different burden of proof than what most are familiar with). This all to say, this outcome was very predictable. It is one of the most used and studied chemicals in the environment. I'm not saying it doesn't have environmental implications, but hysteria over it is akin to how the public views GMO's.

We really need to focus on science literacy, for everyone.

Lawsuits are not started because lawyers know they will win, they know that they can get a big settlement out of a company.

Like anything else, follow good safety procedures and you will be okay.
 
I used to work with pesticide certification training as well as Extension and Outreach for two major universities in the Midwest. I cannot tell you how many times I had to respond to questions about the safety of glyphosate. Even amongst some of my peers in academia. "But a court in California just awarded a school janitor $100 million!". Nearly all of the peer-reviewed research this side of the pond did not show a causal link at the time. The European courts had a different burden of proof, which is what was used in the civil case in California (which also has a different burden of proof than what most are familiar with). This all to say, this outcome was very predictable. It is one of the most used and studied chemicals in the environment. I'm not saying it doesn't have environmental implications, but hysteria over it is akin to how the public views GMO's.

We really need to focus on science literacy, for everyone.
You lost me at California
 
You lost me at California
Sorry. It's a state in the United States on the west coast that would have a top 10 GDP if it were a country.
 
Sorry. It's a state in the United States on the west coast that would have a top 10 GDP if it were a country.
Yes and the birds fly upside down there because there isn’t anything worth shitting on. I wouldn’t trust anything that comes out of that so called state.
 
Cigarettes were safe and certain brands were advertised as "recommended by 9 out of 10 doctors" back in the day, until the evidence piled up and they couldn't deny they weren't safe anymore. They knew, they just kept padding pockets and denying. Remember the packs of gum sold to kids that had powder on the outside so you could pretend to smoke?

Asbestos was the wonder material used in quite literally everything from brake pads to ceiling tiles to being sold in a box as fake snow as a Christmas decoration, until it wasn't.

Oil companies sold the population on using it's new product, Plastic, and claimed it doesn't harm us or the environment and it was recyclable.. until it wasn't and now we are learning about micro-plastics that contaminate everything and can be found everywhere including in the waters we drink.

Lead pipes and lead paint was the shizzle, until they realized it was killing our children. The Romans died off because of lead yet here we are in the modern day, I'll use Flint Michigan as the example.

Historically speaking, any entity that has a lot of money just needs to pad the right pockets to get their product on the market, safe or not, can we agree on that? The companies provide their own safety data and if you think it is an honest system I can respect that to an extent because there is no smoking gun (pun intended :) Parquat anyone?
 
Sorry. It's a state in the United States on the west coast that would have a top 10 GDP if it were a country.
I hate to "that" guy, but last I saw it was top 5 GDP
 
Cigarettes were safe and certain brands were advertised as "recommended by 9 out of 10 doctors" back in the day, until the evidence piled up and they couldn't deny they weren't safe anymore. They knew, they just kept padding pockets and denying. Remember the packs of gum sold to kids that had powder on the outside so you could pretend to smoke?

Asbestos was the wonder material used in quite literally everything from brake pads to ceiling tiles to being sold in a box as fake snow as a Christmas decoration, until it wasn't.

Oil companies sold the population on using it's new product, Plastic, and claimed it doesn't harm us or the environment and it was recyclable.. until it wasn't and now we are learning about micro-plastics that contaminate everything and can be found everywhere including in the waters we drink.

Lead pipes and lead paint was the shizzle, until they realized it was killing our children. The Romans died off because of lead yet here we are in the modern day, I'll use Flint Michigan as the example.

Historically speaking, any entity that has a lot of money just needs to pad the right pockets to get their product on the market, safe or not, can we agree on that? The companies provide their own safety data and if you think it is an honest system I can respect that to an extent because there is no smoking gun (pun intended :) Parquat anyone?
Agreed. But I think everyone has a such a hard on to pop glyphosate combined with much greater understanding of literally everything scientifically compared to the past that if there was a link it would be proven by now. To the contrary it seems to continually be disproven. Obviously I have a vested interest in wanting it to be safe given that I use it routinely so hopefully the science is right.
 
Dont know much biology.........

But, without herbicides, pesticides, and synthetic fertilizers someone's going to be without a meal somehwere. It'll trickle down the economic food chain. To do without these things we will need more people and more land to provide for the masses. Certainly gona take more diesel......
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tap
All I know is that if round up was carcinogenic I’d be carcinized. Always try not to get it on me but when your running a 40 foot sprayer on an open tractor…good luck. Then to clean the tank I have to unhook a hose. No matter what I do I end up with a gallon all over me. Maybe the permethrin that my clothes are soaked in counter affects the bad stuff in gly.
 
There are a lot of studies done on this topic, I know not many read them but they can be important. This year alone I used Gly to spray my plot and Polaris AC to spray my knotweed but did so wearing a respirator, long sleeve shirt and pants and goggles.

Here is just a couple quotes from a very long meta-analysis of all the studies. Lots of clickable links to see the individual studies themselves at the bottom if you're interested.


"Several studies report that glyphosate can induce single- and double-strand DNA breaks"
"Numerous studies indicate glyphosate causes oxidative stress including liver, skin, kidney, brain, and plasma."
"The overall evidence from human, animal, and mechanistic studies presented here supports a compelling link between exposures to GBHs (glyphosate-based herbicides) and increased risk for NHL (non-Hodgkin lymphoma).
"Together, all of the meta-analyses conducted to date, including our own, consistently report the same key finding: exposure to GBHs are associated with an increased risk of NHL."
 
Gly is harmless. Gly causes cancer.

Two sides. Been argued about on the interwebs since it existed.

Pick a side. Use gly or don't.

If you think you can avoid consuming gly in your food, you must be living a subsistence lifestyle in a very remote location.
 
Dont know much biology.........

But, without herbicides, pesticides, and synthetic fertilizers someone's going to be without a meal somehwere. It'll trickle down the economic food chain. To do without these things we will need more people and more land to provide for the masses. Certainly gona take more diesel......
I think we're on a path to starving because we rely on all those inputs.
 
Knowing a number of folks on this site are committed to improving soil health it should be noted that glyphosate was also patented as an antibiotic known to kill beneficial organisms. Draw your own conclusions...but I don't use it on my fields.

Also worth noting that .. best memory...2.2 lbs of gly was used on essentially ever ag acre in N. America last measurement I saw. It is showing up in rain, most waterways, breakfast cereals, mothers milk... and the list goes on. Probably just pure coincidence but one of the highest rates of cancer in the world in between Baton Rouge and New Orleans where the confluence of many of the major waterways of our country become concentrated.
 
Everything in life has risks and benefits. We all need to weigh them and have a basic understanding of the scientific method and apply the latest science to our practices. We will NOT always get it right. The basis of science is controlled repeatable testing and a willingness to change your mind when the data changes. We are always learning.

By a huge percent, main-stream science gets it right. Most of the hysteria and those who support it turn out to be charlatans in hindsight. However, every now and then, someone who was considered a pariah by his peers ends up being a profit in hindsight and changes the direction of science.

My take... Gly is a reasonable tool when used judiciously. Most every herbicide we have is more dangerous than gly, but that does not mean we should not use precautions when applying gly, follow the label, and use it only when the benefits outweigh the risks using our best judgment.

Some will choose to use it and others will choose not to use it.

Thanks,

Jack
 
Top