> 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