Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Decapentaplegia t1_ixzrxqd wrote

Reply to comment by fasthpst in Glyphosate associated with lower birth weights by Jealous-Pop-8997

>Initial studies are often broad and find hints.

They also use unrealistically high doses to search for effects that might be hard to notice at realistic doses.

4

fasthpst t1_iy01vm8 wrote

Yes, that is how initial studies work Decap!

First we chuck a load at some cells to see if something happens. If we see an effect then we reduce the amounts to see at what level. Then we take those results and look closer to see what mechanisms are affected. Once we see the systems, pathways etc it affects change in, we study other organisms which also rely on those pathways.

Realistic doses are different under different circumstances too right? And once a substance become so prevalent that it is in everything and unavoidable, then we look at chronic low level exposure.

That is the stage we are at now. Apologists like yourself have enabled the ag-chem companies to continue selling Glyphosate well beyond the time we knew it was killing off target organisms. Now a decade later we see 99% of mothers in this human study are living with Glyphosate in their bodies 24/7

Still you will claim it is safe and just like always there will be more and more accurate papers published showing harmful effects. Science won't stop.

0

Decapentaplegia t1_iy04r43 wrote

Can you describe in more definite terms what kind of studies you are looking for? Because there are literally entire textbooks dedicated to glyphosate. It's the single most studied pesticide, and there is good reason for it to be the most widely used. It breaks down quickly, works at a low dose, has minimal off-target toxicity, binds soil to prevent runoff, and works as a post-emergent broad-spectrum spray.

>beyond the time we knew it was killing off target organisms

No industrial chemical is going to have zero consequences. How does it compare to the alternatives? How can we mitigate damage further?

>99% of mothers in this human study are living with Glyphosate in their bodies 24/7

Dose matters. 100% of mothers have arsenic in their bodies 24/7. This is not a good approach to evaluating toxicity.

>Still you will claim it is safe

The benefits strongly outweigh the harms, but I still strongly encourage mitigating those harms!

Look how the minimal toxicity of glyphosate has reduced the overall burden of toxicity for agriculture:

Although GE crops have been previously implicated in increasing herbicide use, herbicide increases were more rapid in non-GE crops. Even as herbicide use increased, chronic toxicity associated with herbicide use decreased in two out of six crops, while acute toxicity decreased in four out of six crops. In the final year for which data were available (2014 or 2015), glyphosate accounted for 26% of maize, 43% of soybean and 45% of cotton herbicide applications. However, due to relatively low chronic toxicity, glyphosate contributed only 0.1, 0.3 and 3.5% of the chronic toxicity hazard in those crops, respectively.

Consider how glyphosate has contributed to a reduction in emissions from agriculture:

The adoption of GM insect resistant and herbicide tolerant technology has reduced pesticide spraying by 775.4 million kg (8.3%) and, as a result, decreased the environmental impact associated with herbicide and insecticide use on these crops (as measured by the indicator, the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ)) by 18.5%. The technology has also facilitated important cuts in fuel use and tillage changes, resulting in a significant reduction in the release of greenhouse gas emissions from the GM cropping area. In 2018, this was equivalent to removing 15.27 million cars from the roads.

4

fasthpst t1_iy088qv wrote

Decap, we both know no-till farming was invented well before Glyphosate and that there are many different metrics to assess environmental impact. Electric tractors are right now reducing agricultural emissions too, so what will your excuse be then?

It's pretty comical when you guys bring up the old more toxic pesticides because we were against those too! Agricultural chemical companies selling even more toxic stuff in the past and the government regulators approving more toxic stuff before glypuosate isn't the win you think it is. All it shows is that ag chem companies will happily sell poison and regulators don't look very closely at profitable products.

Which leads in to your claims:

>breaks down quickly,

Yet it is persistent in humans because of constant exposure

>works at a low dose,

Like other endocrine disruptors, yes

>has minimal off-target toxicity,

"Minimal" is a weasel word, subjective and brushes aside the lives of aquatic creatures, insects, etc

>binds soil to prevent runoff,

Which would be fine if it wasn't the most sprayed ag chem in the world constantly running past that bound soil

>nd works as a post-emergent broad-spectrum spray

Which ensures consumer exposure too right?

>Can you describe in more definite terms what kind of studies you are looking for?

Well, i have posted plenty in this page and we have been discussing this back and forth for a decade right. The studies I search for are ones that look at exposure to Glyphosate and it's associated chemicals. I read all of them. Many say they don't see effect from pure Gly but do see effects from Roundup formulations. As Glyphosate is never applied pure, both are relevant. I personally like seeing 'omics and methylation data because we knew there would be effects but the field is new. I also look for studies on microbiota because as we know now, your gut bacteria has effect on brain function.

>No industrial chemical is going to have zero consequences

Correct. . and the closer we look the more we find

>How can we mitigate damage further?

Apply the same level of R&D money to Organic Agriculture and soil science so we can end the use altogether

−1

Decapentaplegia t1_iy0f77l wrote

> many different metrics to assess environmental impact. Electric tractors are right now reducing agricultural emissions too, so what will your excuse be then?

Oh no... you think emissions from tilling come from tractors... okay, have a nice day.

My advice: if this stuff interests you, seek out an actual education in it. :)

2