Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

fasthpst t1_iy02pp8 wrote

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

If this was the only study then perhaps your point would stand but there are literally hundreds of studies showing harm and many of them at field realistic doses.

Your tired old excuses are just that. When you brush off research because of high doses it shows that you aren't particularly aware of how research into effected pathways work.

Mice are also more resilient than humans. They can tolerate some things we can't and have extremely quick metabolism meaning they can also clear chemicals they were exposed to faster than us.

There are logical reasons in both directions, yet you guys only seem interested in the ones which support your narrative. Why?

1

eng050599 t1_iy1fwc4 wrote

No, we assign the studies weight based on their design, not on their conclusions, not on their source, not due to what floating around on social media at any given time.

It's good to know that you don't even have a clue how the regulatory agencies determine the exposure limits, as we bake a safety factor right into the development of the ADI, and similar metrics.

We start with the experimentally derived aggregate NOAEL, then apply a safety factor to account for the use of an animal model, along with the variability present in the human population.

I'd normally write that you should take a step back and actually learn some toxicology, but your ramblings are far more amusing to poke holes in.

1