Live data from Hacker News

Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

modernfarmer.com

41–50 of 337 posts

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

#41
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't so much an argument as it is innuendo. If you get glyphosate carcinogenicity wrong, you increase carcinogenic agriculture, because that's what the market alternatives to it are: clearly known human carcinogens.

That isn’t so much an argument as a false dichotomy, predicated on a system of agriculture which allows a near 50% rate of wasteage in the West. The alternatives include less productive, yet still sufficiently productive methods which do not include carcinogenic compounds. Edit: Your state of being persuaded is immaterial, because what I said isn’t really controversial. One known alternative to herbacides is tilling,…

It would be a false dichotomy if glyphosate hadn't literally displaced herbicides that were known to be human carcinogens and allowed anyways, but it did, so your logic isn't persuasive.

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

#42
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This conveniently ignores the other side of the coin where interests are aligned and it's the conspiracy theorists that are harmful (e.g. vaccine manufactures and autism). All functioning economies have vested interests in things good and bad. The only thing a vested interest means is that scrutiny is needed on the actions of the vested parties.

On what planet is the jury out about vaccines and autism? There's not a single research paper suggesting a link between those.

You are falsely conflating scientific consensus with public opinion.

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

#43

I would prefer to eat most weeds than glyphosate. Also, what do this imply politically? Testing for Round-Up in our food supply is now a states rights issue?

That's not how it works. Weeds don't somehow get into grains when they're collected. What they do is reduce yields of the crops we're actually interested in collecting. Lower yields for the same farming effort means higher prices. So what ultimately happens when the consumer sees two identical loaves of bread on the supermarket shelf and one is $2.50 while the other is $3.50?

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

#44

I would prefer to eat most weeds than glyphosate. Also, what do this imply politically? Testing for Round-Up in our food supply is now a states rights issue?

So when weeds reduce the food supply and drive prices up, what then? Then there’ll be articles about how only rich people can afford food.

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

#45
This reminds me of all the news reports of tests showing arsenic presence in rice (often due to rice being grown on soil where arsenic had been used as a pesticide for non-food crops such as cotton in the past).

But what (if any) health effects did the detected amounts of arsenic in rice have? How how much arsenic in rice would be safe? The FDA investigated these questions and finally came out with a report: [1][2]

Among their findings:

"In the general population, limiting levels of inorganic arsenic to 200 ppb or higher would not change the cancer risk significantly. Setting a limit below 200 ppb of inorganic arsenic in rice and rice products would decrease the risk. Setting a limit of 150 ppb of inorganic arsenic in rice and rice products would decrease the risk between 0% and 23%. The risk reduction is between 2% and 47% at a limit of 100 ppb of inorganic arsenic in rice and rice products. Finally setting a limit at 75 ppb of inorganic arsenic in rice and rice products would decrease the risk between 17% and 79%. The percentage of risk reduction is dependent on the product (see Table 5.6)."

"Setting a maximum level for inorganic arsenic in rice and rice products could affect availability in the U.S. market. For example, were we to set a maximum level of 100 ppb in these foods, the availability in the marketplace might decrease by 4% to 93%, depending on the type of rice."

"In the general population, the cancer risk would decrease in proportion to decreases in serving size and frequency of consumption of rice and rice products. Conversely, the risk would double over a lifetime if the consumption frequency were increased from 1 serving per day to 2 servings per day during that entire period (see Table 5.9)."

"Eliminating rice and rice products from the diets of infants and of children up to 6 years old could reduce the lifetime cancer risk from inorganic arsenic in rice and rice products by 6% and 23%, respectively. In other words, the risk model predicts that an infant not fed any rice or rice products has an approximately 6% lower chance of developing lung or bladder cancer from arsenic contamination of these foods, over the lifetime, compared with an infant who is fed these products (see Table 5.7)."

Based on their research, the FDA proposed a limit of 100 parts per billion for inorganic arsenic in infant rice cereal.[3] Unfortunately, they did not propose any limits on arsenic in rice or rice products apart from infant rice cereal, so how much rice is safe to eat is still an open question.

Still, their research and report are quite helpful in understanding the risk of arsenic exposure in rice, so consumers can now make informed decisions in regards to their own rice consumption. I hope the FDA will do something like that for glyphosate in food.

Also, such research and limits are prime examples of good work done by a government agency to keep us all healthy in the face of a food industry and "free market" which are clearly not able or willing to effectively regulate themselves.

[1] - https://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodborneIllnessContaminants/Metals...

[2] - https://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/RiskSafetyAsses...

[3] - https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/u...

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

#47
post #12

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.

Statistical analysis is generally universal and independent of a given discipline; nor does it require a PhD.

Society encourages everyone to draw simple, binary boxes around people, but people are more complicated than that.

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

#48
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't so much an argument as it is innuendo. If you get glyphosate carcinogenicity wrong, you increase carcinogenic agriculture, because that's what the market alternatives to it are: clearly known human carcinogens.

That isn’t so much an argument as a false dichotomy, predicated on a system of agriculture which allows a near 50% rate of wasteage in the West. The alternatives include less productive, yet still sufficiently productive methods which do not include carcinogenic compounds. Edit: Your state of being persuaded is immaterial, because what I said isn’t really controversial. One known alternative to herbacides is tilling,…

And what you're proposing is letting perfect be the enemy of the good. No matter how sustainable and green your alternative is, "less productive" anything won't fly in today's world economy. Until we change 8 billion humans' economic motives, maybe we can start with getting the facts straight on one substance.

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

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterexamples: asbestos, tobacco, alcohol, fossil fuels, climate change. (On the latter two, the studies mostly have the correct outcome. What is difficult is convincing half of the American population that that matters.)

Who has supported the asbestos industry? Has there ever been a company that actually promotes asbestos?

Yes, in fact asbestos is still mined and marketed today: https://youtu.be/cy3piCUPIkc

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

#50
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This conveniently ignores the other side of the coin where interests are aligned and it's the conspiracy theorists that are harmful (e.g. vaccine manufactures and autism). All functioning economies have vested interests in things good and bad. The only thing a vested interest means is that scrutiny is needed on the actions of the vested parties.

On what planet is the jury out about vaccines and autism? There's not a single research paper suggesting a link between those. You are falsely conflating scientific consensus with public opinion.

SO what about cell phone radiation and cancer, or maybe GMO food and cancer?
Post reply on HN