Submitted by Jealous-Pop-8997 t3_z4g1ab in science
fasthpst t1_ixy35sn wrote
Reply to comment by eng050599 in Glyphosate associated with lower birth weights by Jealous-Pop-8997
I haven't removed any comments.
>There are several reasons why the formulated mix isn't used for the standard toxicity metrics
Glyphosate is never applied without the associated chemicals.
>Attacking the source of any study without evidence derived from experimental data of equal or greater powe
Yet you seem comfortable with doing it.
>as there is a mandatory period, normally 2-3 weeks, where a farmer cannot harvest their crop after an application of pretty well any GBH
Pre harvest application to dry crops is common. EPA os just fine with 3 days before harvest if I remember correctly.
It's pretty funny that you are speaking to some mythical list as if they are all the same. It's also pretty funny that you assume that I don't have more experience in this subject than you.
At what point does a steady stream of results demand attention? In your expert opinion? Like how many studies showing toxicity in a wide variety of organisms are necessary for you to take it seriously?
It would seem to me that you are satisfied with industry and regulator studies from decades past, do modern techniques not impress you? Hmm.
eng050599 t1_ixy5ivd wrote
Three days for swathing, 7 for harvest in wheat...and you don't know much about endosperm development in wheat do you?
When the crop reaches the point where harvest begins, how much head filling is still happening?
Almost nothing, and the plant is already starting the senesce at this point. There's almost no additional nutrients being transported to the harvested tissues, and that's why pre-application isn't an issue.
Want to know what evidence will change my mind?
The exact same evidence that my peers in the scientific community expect.
Empirical evidence from a study design that meets or exceeds the statistical power of the OECD compliant studies, or their regional equivalents.
You really don't seem to get that you have literally NOTHING like this.
That's actually one way that I know you're not a scientist, and most certainly are not up to speed on even the rudimentary aspects of toxicology.
As for the age of the studies...since there's been nothing to indicate that those ones are in error, you really don't have anything to justify excluding them.
I on the other hand can use the fact that the studies you laud lack the capability of testing for causal effects to assign them a lower weight in the Weight of Evidence Narrative section of the regulatory assessments.
fasthpst t1_ixy5r9j wrote
>and that's why pre-application isn't an issue.
Isn't an issue for crop yield, it is an issue for residues being found in consumer products. Your misdirection in this discussion shows you to be disingenuous.
> >The exact same evidence that my peers in the scientific community expect.
Doesn't really seem that way. Are you claiming all these studies bypassed peer review? >
eng050599 t1_ixy7a97 wrote
...look up what head filling is.
Glyphosate requires active transport for it to be systemic, and active transport to the wheat head stops after head filling is finished.
At this stage the plant is literally dying, but in a controlled manner. Nutrients aren't being transported to the head any longer, and as such, neither is the glyphosate.
Again, you're showing that you have no understanding of any of these topics.
>Doesn't really seem that way. Are you claiming all these studies bypassed peer review?
...seriously?
Peer review isn't the issue.
The issue is that there are literally no studies that can counter the compliant studies conducted to date.
Perhaps you're a bit more dense than even I thought, so I'll take this a bit slower.
Not all studies are created equal.
A basic component of experimental design is that a study need to provide enough power of analysis to accurately distinguish treatment effects from background noise.
Power of analysis isn't some subjective metric. It's a literal calculation that takes elements of the study such as sample size, population variance, and cutoff for significance into account.
The OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals were developed to ensure that studies used to assess the toxicity of chemicals had sufficient power to test for direct causal effects. Additionally, the standardized methods make falsification of the data much more difficult, as replicating such results is almost impossible without the same manipulation conducted each time.
The studies that you are relying on do not have the statistical power to test for causation. This isn't an arbitrary thing, and it's directly based on the ability of a study to accurately tease apart results from noise.
To date, not a single study capable of showing causal relationships has indicated anything other than there being no increased risk at the current exposure limits.
It really is that simple.
The standards in toxicology apply across the board here, and it's quite telling that you would exempt statistically weaker studies from these requirements just because they align with your pre-existing beliefs.
Again, this is good evidence that you are not a scientist.
fasthpst t1_ixz2rqg wrote
>Glyphosate requires active transport for it to be systemic
But not as residue on harvested product, which is the topic of discussion.
>The studies that you are relying on do not have the statistical power to test for causation
Which studies? What I rely on is the steady stream of publications that is being produced by independent researchers. Relying on one or a handful of papers is how you get stuck in the past.
Perhaps you arent aware
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Glyphosate+ampa+tocixity
eng050599 t1_iy0ryhg wrote
No, you're missing a key component here, and not taking the complete dataset into account.
We have multiple OECD-compliant studies showing that adverse effects are not significantly associated with exposure below the current limits.
This study claims that this isn't the case, but it does not have the statistical power to counter the ones that have the ability to test for causal effects.
Additionally, even the authors of this study concede that their results shouldn't be applied to normal pregnancies, and that their overall PoA is insufficient to account for a range of confounding and lurking variables.
As for your link, go through them and check if they can test for causation, or are just correlative assessments.
Your 15min at the U of Google doesn't quite equate to decades at the bench, and it's pretty obvious that you haven't actually taken a comprehensive look at the studies you elect to cite.
The number of studies doesn't really matter when it comes to topics like this, and the key metric is the design and strength of the studies involved.
Multiple weak studies, do not trump studies with a far greater PoA,.
Until you can wrap your mind around this fact, you will be doomed to see the scientific and regulatory communities reject your position.
Want to change things?
Commission a study with comparable statistical power to the OECD designs, and generate data that actually would be capable of countering the earlier studies conducted over the past 40 years.
Just make sure to adhere to the standards of this field in regards to experimental design and GLP in general.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments