Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

modernfarmer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 337 posts

Re: Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

#11

Post by tptacek »

fncypants wrote: post #6

I've noticed that Monsanto appears to be on an astroturfing campaign. Half of the ads appearing in my Reddit front page are promoted posts that are pro-glyphosate. They point to legitimate news articles, for example, that report on a study finding that glyphosate is not a carginogen. Of course, these studies contradict other studies that glyphosate is a carcinogen or otherwise a concern. In truth, I was ready to beli…

There are no credible studies indicating that glyphosate is a carcinogen, and it would be a little bit surprising it if was, since it targets a metabolic pathway not present in animals. Meanwhile, many of the herbicides that glyphosate displace, plenty of which remain in use, are known human carcinogens.

The most widely reported declaration of glyphosate's carcinogenicity, by IARC, was disavowed by the WHO, IARC's parent organization.

Re: Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

#12

Post by zasz »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #3

From the article: “All of the official samples passed the test and were within the legal limits of glyphosate residue. But those off-the-record, unofficial samples, though done with the same equipment and tested by the same chemists, showed glyphosate. That’s right. The chemists found glyphosate residue on just about everything: crackers, granola, cornmeal, honey, oatmeal, baby food, and even corn. Their surreptitiou…

I'm no fan of toxic chemicals in our food and I don't trust the government or corporations to do enough to protect it, but it seems fair to me to say that a PhD in philosophy and a master's in physics are not particularly relevant to claiming expertise in evaluating toxicological claims.

Re: Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

#14

Post by random4369 »

dfxm12 wrote: post #5
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #3

From the article: “All of the official samples passed the test and were within the legal limits of glyphosate residue. But those off-the-record, unofficial samples, though done with the same equipment and tested by the same chemists, showed glyphosate. That’s right. The chemists found glyphosate residue on just about everything: crackers, granola, cornmeal, honey, oatmeal, baby food, and even corn. Their surreptitiou…

I remember watching a lecture from Vandana Shiva who claimed that glyphosate was harmful and making it in to our food. She cited some European studies that found glyphosate in a wide variety of products. She claimed that there were shady things going on in the US government that seemed to obscure these facts. While this might prove her true that the US government is trying to hide the glyphosate levels in food, does…

Every time the jury is out on a topic where one side has a vested interest and a billion dollar budget to protect it, you can be reasonably sure what the outcome will be.

See: pesticides and bees, fossil fuels and climate change, food packaging plastics and cancer, pain treatment meds and addiction.

The answer in all those cases is the harmful effects eventually became known, but the jury was out long enough for the vested interests to make a ton of profit and cause a ton of damage which they'll never pay for repairing. All made possible with a series of comparatively small investments to buy scientific research to keep the jury out. The Wikipedia section that the parent post links to straight up says that the only research that found no links was sponsored by Monsanto.

Edit: to be really clear, 'jury being out' refers to scientific consensus. We are not talking about issues where public opinion is uncertain despite scientific consensus, such as vaccines+autism. We are talking about issues where scientific evaluation of some phenomenon is actively prolonged or hindered by vested interests to delay regulatory action.

Re: Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

#16

Post by phs318u »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #2

>Shortly thereafter, a string of studies and reviews indicated that glyphosate should probably be further studied, and in March of 2015, the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization declared glyphosate a “probable carcinogen.” That is outdated. In 2016, the Joint WHO/FAO "Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet." http://www.who.int…

> "Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet."

> "...through the diet"

Because official food sample testing showed no/low levels of glyphosate? As opposed to the unofficial samples tested?

Hmmm...

Re: Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

#18

Post by themarkn »

zasz wrote: post #12
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #3

From the article: “All of the official samples passed the test and were within the legal limits of glyphosate residue. But those off-the-record, unofficial samples, though done with the same equipment and tested by the same chemists, showed glyphosate. That’s right. The chemists found glyphosate residue on just about everything: crackers, granola, cornmeal, honey, oatmeal, baby food, and even corn. Their surreptitiou…

I'm no fan of toxic chemicals in our food and I don't trust the government or corporations to do enough to protect it, but it seems fair to me to say that a PhD in philosophy and a master's in physics are not particularly relevant to claiming expertise in evaluating toxicological claims.

It's fair to say that, because it's true, but it's not in and of itself a reason to write somebody off as a nut, or assume they have not found any other way to gain expertise on the thing they are talking about. I think OP's point was just that people used her unrelated qualifications as a way to dismiss her without reference to her actual argument.

Re: Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

#19

Post by jMyles »

zasz wrote: post #12
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #3

From the article: “All of the official samples passed the test and were within the legal limits of glyphosate residue. But those off-the-record, unofficial samples, though done with the same equipment and tested by the same chemists, showed glyphosate. That’s right. The chemists found glyphosate residue on just about everything: crackers, granola, cornmeal, honey, oatmeal, baby food, and even corn. Their surreptitiou…

I'm no fan of toxic chemicals in our food and I don't trust the government or corporations to do enough to protect it, but it seems fair to me to say that a PhD in philosophy and a master's in physics are not particularly relevant to claiming expertise in evaluating toxicological claims.

A high school dropout can be a source of expertise if she commits herself to learning the subject material and understanding the context of the claims she is making.

When someone with a PhD in philosophy is per se blacklisted regarding other matters of worldly concern, credentialism has gone too far.

Re: Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

#20

Post by pmoriarty »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #7

Measurement techniques are getting better and better and we'll find more and more articles finding x in y. I have not analyzed this case but did just finish reading a highly relevant piece on measures of toxicity that included glyphosate. Highly recommended for your mental models. https://thoughtscapism.com/2018/05/07/measures-of-toxicity/

That's a very interesting and informative article. However, after reading it I came away more confused than I was before -- especially when looking at their "Acute toxicity" and "Chronic toxicity" tables.

According to the acute toxicity tables, caffeine is only slightly more toxic than lead, and Vitamin D3 is 5 more times toxic.

According to the chronic toxicity tables, both caffeine and Vitamin D3 are about 3 times more toxic than lead.

The dangers of lead exposure are widely appreciated, so I suppose the main difference must be that lead accumulates in body tissue while caffeine and D3 don't, and that's what makes lead so much more dangerous?

I wish there were some more tables that showed us the more relevant dangers of these substances, with issues such as accumulation in body tissue, route of administration, and other relevant factors taken in to account.

Post reply on HN