> When you hear claims that glyphosate
> might cause non Hodgkin lymphoma
> cancer at the allowed levels in food
> you are listening to a fool
Or, you are listening to a judge issue a final (reduced) damage award of
$78,506,418.70 to a man who has only a few years left to spend it before he
dies.
https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/johnson-trial/Order-De
nying-Monsantos-Motion.PDF
https://tinyurl.com/y9v7k5mt
https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/johnson-trial/Johnson-
Notice-of-Remittitur.pdf
https://tinyurl.com/y7wbwquh
> So who to believe--the lab study (where
> the larvae were reared in plastic cups
> and hand fed set amounts of diet),
> or the field study...?
To quote the commercial for taco shells "Why not both?" A field study does
not refute a lab study, nor visa versa. In science, the actual
breakthroughs are never accompanied by shouts of "Eureka!", they are
inevitably heralded by someone looking at a chart plot of a table of
readings, and saying "What the heck?". Two different answers when similar
answers are expected may mean that one has stumbled on something
interesting.
> Recent studies showed that table salt
> is in the category of too little or too
> much is detrimental to health.
> It follows a J type curve.
So, a dose of a chemical generally accepted as not at all harmless can have
a range of doses where "more" does not always cause "more harm". That's
very insightful.
But it should be recalled that any/all views not citable with a DOI number
are simply opinions.
Views citable via a DOI number have satisfied reviewers and refereed science
journal editors as to their firm grounding in fact and observable metrics.
They are much, much more than opinions.
Regardless of individual opinions expressed here as to toxicity, glyphosate
does indisputably persist much longer than anyone was told, yet all that was
required to prove this authoritatively was to sample and measure using
off-the-shelf gear. The lie was so easy to expose, one wonders what took so
long.
Here's some concern that is citable via a DOI number:
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-016-0117-0
"Concerns over use of glyphosate-based herbicides and risks associated with
exposures: a consensus statement"
Environmental Health 2016 15:19
They summarize thusly:
"Our Statement of Concern considers current published literature describing
GBH uses, mechanisms of action, toxicity in laboratory animals, and
epidemiological studies. It also examines the derivation of current human
safety standards. We conclude that:
(1) GBHs are the most heavily applied herbicide in the world and usage
continues to rise;
(2) Worldwide, GBHs often contaminate drinking water sources, precipitation,
and air, especially in agricultural regions;
(3) The half-life of glyphosate in water and soil is longer than previously
recognized;
(4) Glyphosate and its metabolites are widely present in the global soybean
supply;
(5) Human exposures to GBHs are rising;
(6) Glyphosate is now authoritatively classified as a probable human
carcinogen;
(7) Regulatory estimates of tolerable daily intakes for glyphosate in the
United States and European Union are based on outdated science."
So who to believe -- posts by beekeepers on a listserv mailing list, or a
published referred paper in a legit science journal?
That's a tough one.
As usual, I see Europe and California taking the lead, and I will state here
for posterity that the future will be a long slow walkback by the herbicide
manufacturer, similar to the walkback of Bayer between the first reports of
corn-planting-dust killing hives in Germany until the Greg Hunt Perdue paper
confirmed that the very thing that "couldn't happen here" was happening
here.
Comparing people with legit concerns over having been misinformed about
glyphosate persistence to "anti-vaxxers" is precisely the sort of ad
hominem bullying that should cause posts to be rejected. Even if no one is
name-called by name, the name-calling is an attempt to suppress and
discredit what would otherwise be perfectly acceptable views in a discussion
of a relevant issue in agriculture.
The opinions of a small number of people, critiquing legitimate researchers
without doing to hard work of producing some statistically valid data of
their own to back their critique adds no value at all, so there should at
least not be any bullying attached.
I don't know for sure on this one yet - none of us do. But the literature
as a whole gives one the impression that "concern" is a significant
understatement of where the actual (credentialed and published) scientific
community stands on this issue.
My question is why, after being lied to over and over again, do we continue
to accept the word of companies with track records of repeatedly lying about
metrics crucial to toxicological analysis, and then playing the same
foot-dragging game played by the cigarette companies? To quote former
president G. W. Bush, apparently paraphrasing the band "The Who":
"...fool me once, shame on you. Fool me -- we won't get fooled again."
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
