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

  • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 hours ago

    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.

  • lechekaflan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    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.

  • canthangmightstain@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 hours ago

    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.

    • pdqcp@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      16 hours ago

      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

  • AmidFuror@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 day ago

    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?

    • lechekaflan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      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”.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Arsenic occurs naturally in many plants. Glyphosate does not.

      So no, no amount of it is safe to consume.

  • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day 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
        ·
        10 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
          ·
          10 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
            ·
            4 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
              ·
              3 hours 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?

  • BassTurd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

        • HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          17 hours ago

          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.

          https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/pesticides/approval-active-substances-safeners-and-synergists/renewal-approval/glyphosate_en