Monsanto, and its German owner Bayer, maintain that glyphosate does not pose a health risk, and government officials say that residues of glyphosate and other pesticides found in food products are almost always so low that they are not considered harmful.

But international scientists affiliated with the World Health Organization have classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans, and recent studies out of Europe have found glyphosate herbicides pose not just cancer, but other health risks.

You can find the results on Healthy Florida First

  • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    23 hours ago

    “Thing found” is very different from “dangerous levels of thing found”.

    Yeah - I know you think that “there is no safe level” but that’s not true.

    Also - “probably carcinogenic” is a pretty low bar for the WHO. See also “cooked meat” for things that are “probably carcinogenic”.

      • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I’ll answer your question with a question as I suspect you’re not being serious.

        What’s the “safe level” of exposure to radiation from the Sun? A well known carcinogen.

        • xep@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          I’m dead serious, since you state that it’s not true that there’s no safe level, what is it?

          My answer to your question is I don’t know, but it’s irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

          • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 hours ago

            First you need to define “safe”. Nothing, and I mean nothing, is safe at any level. Water is a poison at high enough doses.

            So the FDA generally looks to studies to find a “no observed adverse affect level” of exposure. Often from animal studies since you can’t ethically do since research on humans.

            They then set targets at 1/100th that amount to account for uncertainty.

            This isn’t a static assessment either, it’s updated as new evidence arises.

            • xep@discuss.online
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              48 minutes ago

              I don’t have to define anything, since you made the claim, unless you meant that it’s important to first define what safe means. In that case please, again, provide some details for your claim that it’s untrue that there is no safe level of Glyphosate consumption. What is safe?

              Comparing Glyphosate to water is being disingenuous, would you agree?