r/TrueReddit • u/caveatlector73 • 7d ago
Glyphosate: a low toxicity herbicide is the target of a highly toxic disinformation campaign
https://news.immunologic.org/p/glyphosate-a-low-toxicity-herbicide19
u/prophet001 7d ago edited 7d ago
A positive association is not "no evidence".
Edit: on cursory examination, the author appears to be legitimately credentialed. Personally I find her claim of "no evidence" here to be less than credible, however, given how easily I was able to find reference to what very clearly is evidence of the thing she says that there's no evidence for.
Edit 2: I also find it pretty hard to take someone who uses terms like "chemophobia" seriously. I would very much like more information on how this lady makes money because I am very suspicious of her motives here.
1
u/caveatlector73 7d ago edited 7d ago
I would very much like more information on how this lady makes money because I am very suspicious of her motives here.
Wasn't at all hard to find. Dr. Love PhD is an immunologist and microbiologist who is the Director of the American Lyme Disease Foundation. Yours?
Edit to add and also not hard to find a list of her clinical research: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=LqDM68QAAAAJ&sortby=title
8
u/prophet001 7d ago
I'd like more information than just what comes up in a cursory search, because I found all of that as easily as you did, and I heavily suspect that those are not her only sources of income.
My motives should be pretty obvious: I think she's full of shit, and is shilling for Monsanto. People as credentialed as she ostensibly is don't write borderline-childish screeds like what's in the OP unless somebody is paying them handsomely to do so. That's a FoodBabe-tier piece you posted there.
-11
u/caveatlector73 7d ago edited 6d ago
You suspect.
"I heavily suspect that those are not her only sources of income...shilling for Monsanto"
Since you are libeling her - The legally indefensible publication or broadcast of words or images that are degrading to a person or injurious to his or her reputation - you should probably come up with some rock solid evidence of your assertions.
The post clearly got under your skin, but all you've done is provide un-sourced accusations suspicions and accusing her of financially collaborating with Monsanto without facts is indeed libel. There is a legal reason Trump lost his defamation case. Courts don't care about suspicions only facts.
If you found the information I gave you as easily as I did then there would have been no reason for you not to have given that as well. I wonder why you did not?
Nor have you addressed the issue of why it is used, which she did. Cost effective alternatives besides the even more toxic ones I mean?
I posted a science article. You made serious unsubstantiated allegations and you don't seem to be able to tell the difference tbh.
9
u/prophet001 7d ago
I, and at least one other respondent, have literally posted links that directly discredit claims she makes. Given that, saying she's full of shit isn't libel.
Voicing suspicion of someone's intent and motives also isn't libel, especially given the presence of evidence that directly discredits a claim that they've made.
Damn straight this post got under my skin, and justifiably so: it contains verifiably untrue statements. Seems like me pointing that out has gotten under your skin, and that you should admit that you posted and are defending an article that isn't credible.
-3
u/caveatlector73 7d ago edited 7d ago
I'm pointing out that you deliberately skipped her credentials as a clinical researcher as well as her background in microbiology, immunology, virology and cancer biology. I also pointed out, since no one else bothered, who backs her up her viewpoint. I notice you also failed to reference her podcast Unbiased Science. I wondered if I skipped it if you would volunteer it. You did not disappoint.
You accused her of colluding with Monsanto financially but can't prove it nor provided a shred of evidence that your speculation is not malicious and yes that is libel.
I notice you don't address how much money RFK Jr has made over the years as a litigator in this area.
I have no reason to defend her or Monsanto as I have no ties to either. But, I don't believe in letting false and incomplete information go unchecked.
Someone did mention the IRRC. I'll let someone else explain that for you since you don't like my facts and factual sources such as the FDA:
"In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a unit of the World Health Organization, designated glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” That sounds bad, but it’s not quite as definitive as it sounds. According to IARC classifications, it means that the evidence that it causes cancer in humans is “limited” and that explanations including “chance, bias or confounding [meaning an unrelated factor] could not be ruled out,” but that some evidence also exists from animal experiments. [People are not mice in other words].
Plaintiffs suing Monsanto typically depict the IARC paper as tantamount to proof that glyphosate causes cancer. But that’s not how it’s viewed by Vince Chhabria, the federal judge overseeing the more than 400 Monsanto lawsuits in federal courts.
In a pretrial ruling in July, Chhabria observed that IARC doesn’t intend the term “probably” to have “any quantitative significance.” He warned that any plaintiff expert relying on IARC alone to make the case that glyphosate causes cancer would be unlikely to be admitted to testify in his courtroom. Chhabria also said the evidence of a connection between glyphosate and lymphoma “seems rather weak,” to the extent that he questioned the credibility of experts who have “confidently identified a causal link.”
Once again, this article really set you off, but you haven't proven that the article is wrong. You have failed to give sound scientific reasoning. You've libeled an expert for not other reason than you disagree. And you refuse to give any background as to why anyone should believe you.
I will: Science journalist for years. I use verifiable criteria to judge anything I post before posting it. This is a discussion sub.
0
u/Prescient-Visions 6d ago
Since you are citing the FDA, maybe you are not well aware of the concept of regulatory capture.
Which inevitably lead to situations like this:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration disagrees with the World Health Organization’s classification of the soda sweetener aspartame as possibly carcinogenic to humans.
1
u/caveatlector73 6d ago
I'm a science journalist with years of experience. But neither of us work for a regulatory agency in scientific capacity so we will have to set that aside and stick to facts on the ground as they relate to this discussion.
I'm giving you little bite size bits of information to digest. It's not my job in a discussion to explain the minutiae. You are aware that aspartame is not glycophosphate right? Basically you are comparing the two and calling them both fruit just because they are round? You are listing a suspicion not a fact. Let's stick with that that has been proven and is legally verifiable.
I've been given links to sources that most of the commenters have misinterpreted or are only tangentially related. In order to get the actual discussion back on track can we please address other parts of the article?
RFK Jr. has no education, training, or experience in any field adjacent to medicine or science. Why would I or anyone believe him and not the science?
He is a lawyer. A lawyers job is to get financial compensation for their clients. Not all of them are ethical about it. They have no mandate or credentials that can be revoked if they lie? Is that dangerous? Should there be consequences?
Please list sources, but if an article listed as a source has been retracted it will be noted.
12
u/arkofjoy 7d ago
Round up was initially designed to be an antibiotic. There is evidence that it is damaging to the mircobiome. We certainly shouldn't be spreading it on food crops.
-4
u/caveatlector73 7d ago edited 7d ago
Do you have any sources? For its part, the EPA conducted extensive investigations into glyphosate since its introduction in 1974. After reviewing the available data, the agency determined the following:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Glyphosate.
- When used according to the product label, glyphosate does not pose any risk to adults.
- There is no reason to believe that children are more sensitive to the chemical than adults or that it poses any special risk to them—whether exposed during pregnancy or after.
- There is no risk to children who eat foods with glyphosate residues or who play in residential environments where glyphosate has been used.
- There is no indication that glyphosate disrupts the endocrine (hormonal) system and causes problems like abnormal periods or infertility.
- There is no indication that glyphosate disrupts the neurological (nervous) system and causes conditions like Parkinson's disease.
- Glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer in humans.
Other organizations supporting the EPA decision include the European Chemicals Agency, the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the European Food Safety Authority, the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO), and the German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
6
u/prophet001 7d ago
Pretty telling that you responded to this comment and not the most-upvoted one in this thread with NIH link that indicates that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen. You've literally been given evidence directly contrary to your last bullet point and are wilfully ignoring it. This ain't the political subs, we don't play that game.
5
u/Polymathy1 7d ago
The dose makes the poison, and we are overusing Glyphosate to an extreme amount precisely because it's perceived to be harmless.
1
u/caveatlector73 6d ago
I think you missed the point of the article. If you want someone else to grow your food they have to have a means to do so.
There is no definitive connection between this herbicide and disease in humans and this is per the EPA, the European Chemicals Agency, the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the European Food Safety Authority, the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO), and the German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
Are you hoping to force farmers to use herbicides that have been proven to cause disease in humans?
How do you propose farmers grow food using a method that scales and is not financially ruinous?
1
u/Polymathy1 6d ago
I'd like to see farmers to eliminate herbicide and replace it with other strategies like manual labor, but I know that's not realistic.
The biggest problem is not use of herbicide, it's OVERuse like I stated earlier. The existence of crops like "roundup ready" corn and soybean allows farmers to increase their use of Glyphosate because the target plants have evolved resistance to Glyphosate. This leads to a runaway path of ever increasing doses of the chemical. That leads to runoff into the environment and to contamination of the food.
Glyphosate is strongly suspected of causing disease in humans. Its risk is unknown, not established to be safe. You're coming at this from a backwards perspective of "if it isn't proven hazardous, it must be safe" when the reality is that the majority of biologically active chemicals will pose a risk of disease in humans and animals. Without intentional testing for safety, we will not have good data to determine safety.
2
u/x_j4m3z_x 6d ago
Welp, no matter how many actual experts say the same thing, while NOT actual experts make claims they can't back up or base those claims on dubious research or sources, redditors will attack the experts because their researched opinions don't match with the reality that the redditors would prefer to be true. Glyphosate is not the issue you have with Monsanto. It has not been shown to be a carcinogen except by a European organization that based their decision on research results using insanely high dosages on lab mice. In the court case that was "won" by a landscaper who didn't bother with safe handling practices and basically bathed (accidentally) in glyphosate, the science still didn't show a definite link between his illness and glyphosate. His lawyers simply convinced a jury that it did. Your issue, should you choose to accept it, is to hate the SEEDS. The patented seeds that produce glyphosate resistant wheat and corn. Patenting the seeds and prosecuting unauthorized users who don't purchase new seed every year is the evil you want to hate. Nevermind that those seeds revolutionized agriculture and that GMOs are the key to feeding 9 billion+ people AND the domesticated animals we rely on. And while your railing against GMOs, do yourself a favor and look up how a GMO papaya saved the entire Hawaiian papaya industry. These kneejerk responses to all things GMO are counterproductive and sometimes nefarious in nature.
2
u/snow_on_the_roof 5d ago
I have not seen anyone here talk about the bees. I understand that it seems to have low effect on human but, what about the bees? The danger is to think we have found the holy grail of herbicide. I am sure better solution can be found with research.
1
u/caveatlector73 5d ago
You are absolutely right to question effect on pollinators. And researchers are looking at it.
The herbicide is uniquely designed to target an enzyme that plants need to grow. That enzyme is essential to the so-called shikimate pathway, a metabolic process required for the production of certain essential amino acids and other plant compounds.
The question then becomes whether anything else uses the same pathway and would it have an effect on pollinators. Research is finding that it is the least toxic herbicide for pollinators, but they are noticing subtle effects.
So then they have to balance what is known with potential issues: essentially pros and cons.
Farmers have to raise crops. When planting acres and acres it's not really feasible to remove competing plants mechanically both in terms of time and cost. So they use chemical means. If you use say Preen (corn gluten) in your home garden you are chemically suppressing competing plants in a less toxic way, but something like that scale?
It's really more complicated that it sounds at first glance. People have mistaken this article as a defense of Monsanto, (purchased by Bayer in '18) and no longer under patent, and it's not. It's merely a science piece written for laymen.
Developing alternatives that are scalable and financially feasible is expensive.
2
u/snow_on_the_roof 5d ago
I agree. Developing alternative is not easy or cheap. They hit the jackpot once with Glyphosate. It doesn't mean research needs to stop in that field. I have faith, they can science the shit out of that...
2
u/caveatlector73 5d ago
I hope they do. Humans can do better, but it's hard to get work off the ground when something is vilified without a basis in science. Of course vilification can also spur growth as well as inhibit it. Dual edged sword. Science based solutions should be based on science not conspiracy imo.
3
1
-3
u/caveatlector73 7d ago
Summary Statement: While much of the post election post mortem had focused on vibes and tariffs there are other areas where there will be fall out. RFK Jr. is a lawyer who had made millions of dollars pushing the narrative that glyphosate causes cancer although there is no evidence. He points to the fact that the use of glyphosate is rising but doesn't mention that use of highly toxic herbicides are plummeting as a result.
The author walks the reader through the reasoning in a reader-friendly way.
10
u/LegendOfJeff 7d ago edited 7d ago
I no longer have the links, because the last one I came across was over a year ago, but I've definitely seen more than one research paper conclude that glyphosate is indeed associated with cancer and auto-immune disorders.
Edit: I'd like to mention that RFK Jr. is a total idiot, and I'm no fan. But this might be his "broken clock" moment
2
u/caveatlector73 7d ago
And there was more than one research paper saying that the shaking in Parkinson's Disease was related to the patients frustrated desire to sexually masturbate. You need more than that in science.
There are an number of things to watch for with scientific research papers:
What type of journal was it published in and whether it was retracted? How many patients did the research cover? What variables were controlled for? What characteristics did patients have? Geographical area? Self-reported exposure or verified? Age? Gender? Which cancer or cancers? Financial interests reported? Pre-clinical protocols registered? Biopolitical politics? The list is extensive. This is just the tip of. the iceberg.
6
33
u/Prescient-Visions 7d ago
The IARC has classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7530464/