Call it RoundUp, glyphosate, or any of the related herbicides. Monsanto and their shills would have you believe it poses zero human threat. Though they have billions to lose at stake in their opinion, they do have a few genuine reasons to take it. After all, glyphosate was specifically formulated to attack vegetation, not human biology. And to be fair, in chemistry, the dose makes the poison. No agent is inherently at all levels of exposure carcinogenic or deadly. But the subject is murky, given various attempts to show its safety have failed abysmally.
Namely, in animal studies, the first low-dose-exposed generation and offspring may show little symptoms, while the next generations have markedly increased risk of health concerns: https://news.wsu.edu/…/wsu-researchers-see-health-effects-…/
Again, the pushback can come in the form of “well, those are rats, not humans.” I get it. The World Health Organization currently understates the threat at “probably causes cancer.” And the EPA’s current stance is “unlikely to pose a cancer risk to humans.” At the same time, findings suggest pretty strong links between these classes of herbicides and non-Hodgkins Lymphoma: https://www.sciencedirect.com/…/artic…/pii/S1383574218300887
Do people need not toss and turn at night over the debate and whether a picogram is going to give you cancer? There isn’t a good consensus. Statistically, it’s hard to pin down, because there are many contributing factors leading to the explosion in unhealthiness worldwide since the adoption of these herbicides. But like I said, it’s murky.
Like with any other subject, I don’t care to get bogged down in battles of opinions. What’s the mechanism?
Glyphosate itself doesn’t have any obvious mechanisms applicable to humans. Its action is indeed regarding plant enzymes. HOWEVER, the “inert” ingredients may be what we really need to pay attention to: https://www.scientificamerican.com/…/weed-whacking-herbici…/
This is an incredibly recent part of the debate. And it’s been changing a lot just this calendar year. It’ll be interesting to keep notes as greater and greater specificity is utilized in the discussion. And I can’t help but wonder, as more damning evidence is forthcoming with the solvents and additives in pesticides, if your next trip to the hardware store involves inquiries for “pure glyphosate.” I’m imagining an evolution in the sophistication of the consumer, wherein you ask the clerk at the store, “may I have the POEA-free RoundUp?” And she’ll say, “aisle 6 is all of the additive-free glyphosates.”
Namely, in animal studies, the first low-dose-exposed generation and offspring may show little symptoms, while the next generations have markedly increased risk of health concerns: https://news.wsu.edu/…/wsu-researchers-see-health-effects-…/
Again, the pushback can come in the form of “well, those are rats, not humans.” I get it. The World Health Organization currently understates the threat at “probably causes cancer.” And the EPA’s current stance is “unlikely to pose a cancer risk to humans.” At the same time, findings suggest pretty strong links between these classes of herbicides and non-Hodgkins Lymphoma: https://www.sciencedirect.com/…/artic…/pii/S1383574218300887
Do people need not toss and turn at night over the debate and whether a picogram is going to give you cancer? There isn’t a good consensus. Statistically, it’s hard to pin down, because there are many contributing factors leading to the explosion in unhealthiness worldwide since the adoption of these herbicides. But like I said, it’s murky.
Like with any other subject, I don’t care to get bogged down in battles of opinions. What’s the mechanism?
Glyphosate itself doesn’t have any obvious mechanisms applicable to humans. Its action is indeed regarding plant enzymes. HOWEVER, the “inert” ingredients may be what we really need to pay attention to: https://www.scientificamerican.com/…/weed-whacking-herbici…/
This is an incredibly recent part of the debate. And it’s been changing a lot just this calendar year. It’ll be interesting to keep notes as greater and greater specificity is utilized in the discussion. And I can’t help but wonder, as more damning evidence is forthcoming with the solvents and additives in pesticides, if your next trip to the hardware store involves inquiries for “pure glyphosate.” I’m imagining an evolution in the sophistication of the consumer, wherein you ask the clerk at the store, “may I have the POEA-free RoundUp?” And she’ll say, “aisle 6 is all of the additive-free glyphosates.”