>professional, career toxicologists and epidemiologists at national regulatory agencies around the world

Regulatory agencies and industry share experts. EFSA included. I've read their 2015/17 decision and the references too. If you notice, they discount papers which dont use pure glyphosate. Pure glyphosate is never applied alone. It's a dodge commonly used. They also give a lot of weight to outdated studies and ignore hormonal findings because they were not 'consistent'.

Considering EFSA has a mandate as safety authority, you would think that they would sponsor some lab bench research. Ah well, we will keep doing it with or without them. Now there is about 7 years more worth of publications.

In 2015 glyphosate had only been available to independent researchers for a short while.

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

Does anyone find it interesting that the only time animal model studies and high exposure are called into question is when the agent being tested is an agricultural chemical?

There are studies every day posted in this sub regarding animal studies, cell cultures, in silico, etc finding effects of various stressors but rarely does someone disparage methods like they do with Glyphosate

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?

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.

It says glyphosate is an organophosphorous compound in the first line of the Wiki. How do these people bring up such nonsense in good faith?

Every year more studies come out showing toxicity and every year they claim its not enough. Unfortunately this is the result of propaganda being pushed on Reddit by Cornell's industry mouthpiece "Alliance for Science" and 'geneticliteracyproject' who unsurprisingly also claimed Neonic pesticides don't harm bees.

It's funny how the people with claims of "activist research" seem to ignore a growing body of evidence being produced by a large number of researchers around the world. Like how big is this conspiracy they are claiming?

In research science we rarely if ever rely on one paper and rarely if ever publish a definitive result based on single tests. Since Glyohosate came off-patent there has been a steady stream of publications showing toxicity and interaction with hormones etc. Many many papers have led up to this human study.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=glyphosate+estrogenic

The real red flag is reddit 'scientists' who compartmentalize research papers and discredit them based on the false assumption they are meant to stand alone. In scientific research we look over all the publications

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=glyphosate+microbiome

I think you will find the number of researchers groups and research topics is far too broad to be painted with the same brush. When they claim 'activist research' and 'predatory journals' I wonder just how big they think the conspiracy is. Imagine the level of coordination necessary to ha e hundreds of researchers from around the world all 'making stuff up' to disparage a chemical. It's laughable.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=glyphosate+embryo

Perhaps one day r science will have an honest scientific discussion on this subject. I have been waiting 10+ years for it and it hasn't happened yet. I've been involved in this discussion for 3 decades, the first decade they said it can't have an effect on animals be abuse they lack the shik pathway. The second decade they said yes it does affect animals but it isn't toxic or carcinogenic. The third decade they switched gears (thanks to Jon Entine) to claims the studies aren't good enough. Fact is that in research we make stepwise progression and build on previous conclusions. Initial studies are often broad and find hints. Those hints are studied and appropriate tests are formulated with current detection methods. If those tests show possible results, other researchers will notice and investigate closer based on their group's expertise.

This is all normal in the course of research. Don't pay attention to those who would rather shoot the messenger than discuss the data.

This comes as no surprise. Recent findings leading up to human studies have shown endocrine interaction and reproductive effects.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749118330197

>The results showed decreases in body weight gain and, ovary and liver weight in glyphosate-treated mice. Additionally, histopathological alterations in the ovary including increased atretic follicles, interstitial fibrosis and decreased mature follicles were observed in the groups treated with glyphosate. The serum concentrations of both progesterone and estrogen were markedly altered after glyphosate exposure, and there were also changes in the expression of GnRH, LHR, FSHR, 3β-HSD and Cyp19a1 genes at the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis. Furthermore, oxidative stress was observed in the treated mice, increasing the activity of T-AOC, CAT and GSH-Px, as well as the MDA content in both the serum and ovary. With regard to litters, the sex ratio was significantly altered by pure glyphosate. These results show that glyphosate is able to cause several effects on pregnant mice, such as ovarian failure, interference with hormone secretion by affecting the steroidogenesis-related gene expression, and oxidative stress. The sex ratio of litters was also influenced by prenatal exposure to pure glyphosate.

>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

I didnt remove it.

The density of insults in your comments shows your personality. It's all you have.

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/robin-mesnage

I would love to see what people come up with regarding his reputation.

That single Seralini paper was retracted due to industry pressure. Read the journal's retraction notice and comments to see they never even alleged 'fraud'. Unfortunately, those who would rather support outdated industry findings than follow current science become fixated on shooting the messenger. Seralini has authored dozens of papers since none of which have been 'retracted'

Fact is that the OP paper is just the latest in an unending stream of research articles produced by independent researchers since Glyphosate went off-patent whi h shows negative outcomes from Glyphosate exposure. Did you notice that nearly every single woman in the study had glyphosate in their urine.

It is now near impossible to avoid exposure and yet we are still looking at decades old rat studies for deciding allowable exposure

By the way, my comment is still there. Maybe you blocked me out of habit,

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/z4g1ab/glyphosate_associated_with_lower_birth_weights/ixxyetj/

>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? >

Again, if it was a standalone paper you might have a point however there has been a steady stream of independent research showing toxicity in a wide array of non target organisms ever since Glyphosate came off-patent.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278691518303004

>Our results showed that a postnatal subacute treatment with GBH induces endocrine-disrupting effects in the male mammary gland in vivo, altering its normal development.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278691518303880

>The data from this study indicate that glyphosate can induce cell growth in ERα positive CCA cells through non-genomic estrogen receptor/ERK1/2 signaling pathway

"big load of nothing" huh

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.

And yet they just keep coming year after year and you keep ignoring it.

A lot has changed since 1981

And yet they just keep coming year after year and you keep ignoring it.

A lot has changed since 1981

>As our previous low-risk cohort found an association with GLY and shortened pregnancy, we sought to conduct a larger study of more diverse women with higher risk pregnancies living across the state of Indiana.

This is the continuation of earlier studies.

Are you aware that Seralini continues publishing?

If it was the only study laiming harm your point may be valid, however all the independent research is pointing this way. Glyphosate and AMPA seem to have endocrine effects, they certainly disrupt development on lower life forms.

Researchers can't justify projects like this without background evidence. It's not like they just woke up one day and published on what if Roundup disrupts difficult pregnancies

It's accurate

That massive leap in efficiency came from mechanization. The minor contribution of pesticides is not worth the chronic exposure of our population.

Organic agriculture needs to be properly optimized. Soil science is where it's at.