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
theres at least 48 weeds species that are resistance to glyphosphate, only matter of time that becomes more species, grasses, horseweed, russian thistle are notable ones.
Fucking Russians, man!
The supposed HFF website does not state their exact findings, nor have a scientific paper regarding their findings, nor have any sort of transparency like who’s even operating and funding the website.
There is a link to a form supposedly allowing anyone to report about “bad” food, but that’s suspicious.
Domain name is about 34 days old. https://whois.domaintools.com/exposingfoodtoxins.com
Very sketchy.
As far as I am aware, this is a new initiative from Florida’s government, see:
Governor Ron DeSantis, First Lady Casey DeSantis, and Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo announced new food safety findings under the Healthy Florida First initiative, with the release of bread product testing results conducted by the Florida Department of Health (DOH) to increase transparency for Florida families and reinforce accountability for everyday food products.
Those are definitely valid criticism that should have been addressed on their website
They spend lots of time and money on worrying about ingredients; they could as well sell bags of chia seeds or space protein goo in jars.
Unless they provide more information, it feels like there’s a profit motive in what appears to be meaningful activism against supposedly “harmful” food. Knowing DeSantis being a clone copy of Mussolini, I’d consider following the money.
deleted by creator
So this is based on numbers from the same site that was putting out the arsenic levels in candy that was like 100x higher than the WHO numbers? The ones that said you could only have like 240 tiny Nerds per year?
At this point I’m more skeptical of what agenda is trying to be pushed from these tbh, because I’m not seeing any methodology to support any of these findings.
because I’m not seeing any methodology to support any of these findings.
I agree, as another commenter mentioned, the information could have been better presented by the government of Florida, and more details provided to those that might want to dig in on the results from Florida Department of Health
It’s in literally all processed foods.
It’s in the flour, its on the veggies too
Ya, it’s in basically everything. Anything with wheat, oats, beans, soy etc etc etc. If you don’t eat organic items, you are eating glyphosate.
Organic foods can still have synthetic pesticide used.
most of them are grown right beside non organic fields and winds blow.
And organics have residues of the “natural” pesticides they use, which are often just as bad if not worse.
What’s an example of worse?
Presumably copper
Yes, plus, organic farms near non-organics can have the chemicals, too.
To be clear, different organic certification standards exist, and some, like oregon tilth, test soil for drift from the neighbouring fields. Part of why organic food is more expensive, it’s an externality from conventional agriculture.
The linked Healthy Florida First page gives measurements found but nowhere suggests what a reasonable limit is. The dose is the poison, people.
Imagine if they just published arsenic levels found in various fish but gave no context.
I wrote the above, and then I checked their site. They only have 3 categories, and arsenic is in the candy one. They give the safe consumption limit there. I guess they’re implying no level of glyphosate is safe?
Prioritize Nutrition as the Root Cause of Chronic Diseases
That’s a weird goal. Do you think they just didn’t proof read it?
There are genuine research bodies, and then there are “research” bodies – covertly funded by corporations – that borderline scaring people into buying a specific product because it’s “safer” or “recommended” by an equally sketchy group of supposed “professionals”.
“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”.
What’s the safe level?
We can’t find any effects in farm animals.
The rest of this research is mostly lab-based garbage where they inject or feed ridiculous levels to rodents. This is a fucking industry of junk science.
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.
Can you avoid the sun the same as you can avoid glyphosate?
Ask your local goth community.
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.
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.
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?
This is a big contributor to why cancer rates are elevated in Iowa. Lots of farm land means lots of chemicals sprayed. Fortunately our fearless governor, Kim Reynolds, and her band of merry assholes are trying to protect Monsanto from legal liability by making it illegal to sue them. It passed in the Senate but failed to get back through the house… So far. Not for lack of trying from Beyer and the aformentioned conservative ill running the state.
This is a big contributor to why cancer rates are elevated in Iowa.
Map of US cancer rates: Iowa about average.
Map of US obesity rates:
Florida Man for the win?
I doubt it’s just Florida buddy
Oh for sure. I was just pleasantly surprised that the news was from there. Thanks Florida Man!
EU joins the chat. I wonder how spread it is over here.
Glyphosate has been assessed 3 times in the EU. The first assessment resulted in initial approval of glyphosate in the EU in July 2002. The second assessment, which was carried out between 2012 and 2017 , led to the first renewal of approval.
The most recent assessment was carried out between 2019 and 2023 by Member State Competent Authorities, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), and showed that there is currently no scientific or legal justification for a ban. This led to the renewal of approval of glyphosate in 2023.
Under the conditions of approval and by following good agricultural practices, glyphosate is considered not to pose any harmful effects on human health or unacceptable effects on the environment.
Yeah, I know lobbiest did good, I meant how spread in food it is
deleted by creator
