
Glyphosate found in granola, crackers and oatmeal - Trisell
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/30/fda-weedkiller-glyphosate-in-food-internal-emails
======
njx
When I visited our friends/family in Toronto, I was walking through the
community and noticed how the lawns had weeds everywhere. I was very
intrigued. Don't they have laws, HOA etc. I talked about this to my friend and
he said weed killers are prohibited for home use, only golf courses are
allowed etc. That was an awesome news for me. I really wish weed killers are
abandoned everywhere. Let nature grow, if you don't like it then just mow.

~~~
jasongill
Weeds choke out food crops - you can't just mow a soybean field.

"Natural" alternatives like vinegar can be just as harmful to the soil &
environment as commercial herbicides, and other methods can be economically
unfeasible.

Unfortunately, to sustain the growth of population and increasing consumer
"appetite", herbicides are the only way (at this time).

Nobody, including those who live in rural areas like I do, WANT to use
herbicides (they aren't cheap) - it's just the only way to stay in business.
There is no scaleable alternative at this time.

~~~
ItsMe000001
I read an article a few years ago but I cannot for the live of me remember
even the larger context, so I don't even know what to ask Google to find it
again. Might have been in the context of "The omnivores Dilemma" and the
"grass farmer" he visited and described? Don't know if I got it form that book
itself or something else I read.

It mentioned that when they (don't remember who "they" was either) studied the
productivity of rice production somewhere in Asia they found that
traditionally worked land was much less productive than industrial-style rice
agriculture. _BUT_ \- and there was a huge "but": They studied _only_ rice,
and that is how they came to that conclusion. Turned out they completely
ignored that the traditional method produced not just rice but a long list of
other stuff too. So yes, it was "inefficient in producing "just rice".

Nature is a huge complex system. How about instead of continuing on a path
that surely is not just sub-optimal, but probably even dangerous because it is
counter to how nature works and you have to brute-force your way to "success"
we give up the idea of gigantic monocultures, and instead go for complexity?
That means fields that don't actually look like fields. Where lots of very
different kinds of plants all grow together.

Yes, that won't work with our current machinery, and not with current
knowledge. But I think that you can create biological systems that are far
more productive than anything we can get from monocultures, plus none of the
dangers. That requires huge amounts of research, experiments - and IT!!
Because all that knowledge is too complex to give to every farmer. We need to
put that knowledge into systems that then are easy to use.

I think trying to force our way to food victory won't work, over time you have
to add more and more fixes for all the shortcomings that slowly accumulate in
that system, from soil quality to side effects such as the wide distribution
of poisons.

With enough knowledge we might truly create the Garden of Eden on earth: We
let nature do all the work (#) and only go in to grab our food. Like it used
to be in hunter/gatherer times, but now managed by us based on the vast
amounts of knowledge and "magic tools" (that contain lots of that accumulated
knowledge and free the user from having to know even a fraction of it) we
created so that it scales to the billions of people. It will also help us when
we think about terraforming new planets :-)

(#) Nature has trillions and trillions of little machines powered by sun
energy working in unison. This is not far-fetched. We already know quite a bit
about biological systems, and we have successfully created reasonably complex
and large biological systems in some areas.

~~~
saalweachter
I mean, modern corn is fucking astounding from a productivity standpoint.

Pre-industrialization corn and wheat yielded something like 10-20 bushels per
acre. I have a book from the turn of the century I keep for the cover titled
"How to Grow 100 Bushel Corn in Poor Soil" (spoiler: guano), and now corn
harvests are something like 180 bushels an acre and wheat something like 60.

There's a lot of reasons for this (mechanization, fertilizers, pesticides,
selective breeding and genetic engineering) but the short story is when you
talk "traditional" versus "modern" agriculture, you're talking _an order of
magnitude_ productivity increases on a per-acre basis, along with another
order-of-magnitude increase on the acres worked per farmer.

~~~
r00fus
> corn harvests are something like 180 bushels an acre and wheat something
> like 60.

Except they're infested with glyphosate. Yum!

------
sampo
> a weedkiller linked to cancer

This is controversial to say the least. And very one-sided reporting from The
Guardian.

Every research agency but one considers glyphosate safe and not linked to
cancer. Bodies like WHO (World Health Organization) and FAO (Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) [1], EFSA (European Food
Safety Authority) [2], and ECHA (European Chemicals Agency) [3] have concluded
that there is no evidence for glyphosate causing cancer.

Only one agency, IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) in France,
has classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen, but their work has raised
some suspicion [4].

[1]
[http://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf](http://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf)

[2]
[https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/151112](https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/151112)

[3] [https://echa.europa.eu/fi/-/glyphosate-not-classified-as-
a-c...](https://echa.europa.eu/fi/-/glyphosate-not-classified-as-a-carcinogen-
by-echa)

[4] [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-who-iarc-glyphosate-
speci...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-who-iarc-glyphosate-
specialreport/in-glyphosate-review-who-cancer-agency-edited-out-non-
carcinogenic-findings-idUSKBN1CO251)

------
DiabloD3
I've been anti-glyphosate for awhile. But first, my point of view:

A lot of crops require "Roundup Ready" varieties, and Monsanto (ab)uses patent
law to enforce licenses on their RR seeds, even in situations where it is
clear Monsanto crops contaminated someone else's field.

Worse yet, due to horizontal gene transfer in some grasses and weeds, we now
have RR weeds, and that is a one way process. Due to this, Glyphosate-based
products are no longer useful for new weed eradication solutions, only for
existing solutions until their last users are overtaken by RR weeds.

Roundup had its time, and now it is essentially a commercial failure after the
fact.

All of that said, I'm anti-glyphosate because, frankly, it should have never
been cleared for use. It kills valuable crops that have not been supplied with
the RR gene (which has happened repeatedly due to overspray effecting
neighboring fields), they've known since day one that horizontal gene transfer
could produce RR weeds, and now we've lost an important tool in weed control
due to the overuse and abuse of glyphosate.

Due to this overuse and abuse, the American public has been unwittingly used
as guinea pigs due to bad science stating that it doesn't harm us, but very
little (until recently) was done to see how it interacts with our gut flora.

We now know that in at least some of the population, glyphosate exposure has
side effects. Maybe it screws with our gut bacteria (most likely not the
pathway described in Glyphosate II (Samsel 2013)), maybe it is because of APMA
(a metabolite of glyphosate) which mimics glutamate toxicity (and want some
extra fun? Look at the relationship between autism and glutamate). I don't
know.

I don't need to know the exact mechanism (although I'd like to us to know, to
prevent future mistakes from harming people due to accidentally using the same
pathway), I just need to know that there is enough science to link glyphosate
exposure to modern diseases and disorders.

Well, that, and it doesn't really work anymore in a lot of crops, especially
RR ones.

~~~
jakewins
Not to be a Monsanto shill, but:

> [forces patent compliance] even in situations where it is clear Monsanto
> crops contaminated someone else's field

Can you provide any example of this? The only cases I'm aware of are the likes
of Bowman. The supreme court finding in that case makes it pretty clear
Monsanto was in the right:
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf)

> we now have RR weeds, and that is a one way process

No, it is not. This is the same nonsense as people touting antibiotics
resistance as a dead-end street. It costs energy for these organisms to
maintain resistance. Once you remove the antibiotic, or glyphosate, from the
environment, the biologically ideal thing to do is to lose resistance,
redirecting that energy to other things that actually serve a purpose.

> I don't need to know the exact mechanism

If you are going to be implying glyphosate causes autism, for some "extra fun"
as you say, then you should perhaps reconsider this. Pointing out they've both
followed the curve of modern industrial chemistry expansion and implying that
correlation to be causative is irresponsible.

~~~
alexandercrohde
> If you are going to be implying glyphosate causes autism, for some "extra
> fun" as you say, then you should perhaps reconsider this.

No. The burden of proof is on those defending a chemical. Even if there's a
1/1000 chance that glyphosate explains 5% of autism cases, then it should be
banned.

The world doesn't need more food, America throws away half its food. The world
needs better health -- the sperm count in America has dropped 50% in the last
30 years, autism is at about 1/52

~~~
fredch
Suicide is the purest expression of the precautionary principle. Think about
it.

Seriously, oxygen is a known carcinogen, responsible for the massive
generation of free radicals in the body. Realize: look at how oxygen burns
wood, it can even eat steel! And you're sucking this extremely hazardous and
potent oxidizer into your body with every breath.

~~~
insensible
You are demonstrating your ignorance of the Precautionary Principle. Hint:
it's about tail risks.

------
rando444
I think the most puzzling part of the article for me was that the article says
they've only been doing testing for this for two years now.

I'm sure I'm missing some critical piece of information, but this seems like
something that agencies should have started testing for decades ago.

~~~
knieveltech
I'm guessing the critical piece of information you're missing is the FDA, like
most government agencies that aren't the military, suffers from chronic
underfunding and lobby-funded political agendas.

~~~
rando444
Not arguing that, but we're talking about Roundup, which we know is a health
hazard and used everywhere.

As a layperson, if the FDA hasn't been testing for this, it makes you wonder
what they have been testing for.. or rather, it almost makes one feel like
they haven't been testing food samples at all for 50+ years.. which even with
an underfunded agency, would be shocking.

~~~
knieveltech
We are in violent agreement here.

------
insensible
A lot of people don't know that RoundUp is sprayed on many (perhaps most)
grains shortly before harvest. It desiccates the grain crop, keeping the
combine from getting gummed up and increasing yields.

When I learned this, I decided enough was enough and switched to strictly
organic grains. I think it actually helps my health quite a bit. I wonder how
many of the health problems we blame on wheat are actually due to the poison
that is routinely sprayed on it.

~~~
khawkins
Snopes has debunked this claim.

"We reject the notion, however, that this “common” practice of U.S. farmers
“saturating” wheat crops with Roundup herbicide as a desiccant before each
harvest has been causing an increase in wheat-related ailments, as these
claims are unsupported even by the research cited in articles making such a
claim."

[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/grain-of-
truth/](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/grain-of-truth/)

~~~
r00fus
How definitive is Snopes.com? I don't see a specific reference as to why they
made their rejection.

Anecdotally, I spent a year in France in the 00's and had minimal issues with
bread I consumed there (before I realized I was sensitive to wheat in
general).

Also I know someone who moved from France to the US and she's had lots more
digestive and allergy issues with fruits/etc in the decade+ she's been here.

------
throwaway84742
Glyphosate is not carcinogenic though, and not dangerous to humans in
concentrations typically found on produce. This is due primarily to its
mechanism of action. The biological pathways it disrupts in plants are simply
not present in humans.

------
stillbourne
Does it matter? Its probably way below the level of toxicity. The ld50 in rats
is 5,600 mg/kg multiply that by 130 and that's close to 1 and 1/2 lbs you
would need to ingest to get half of a lethal dose. So it'd take 3 lbs to kill
you. A couple of specks of it in food in benign. I mean the ld50 of caffeine
is 26 grams people. I don't see people complaining about caffeine killing us
all. Stop it with the chemophobia.

------
myth_drannon
Please, someone. Instead of working on pushing ads into our minds, develop a
software/device that can pick up all these chemicals.

~~~
alexandercrohde
People are working on it, however it's just very very difficult. Contaminants
can have an adverse effect at 1 part per billion, so as you can imagine the
sensitivity of testing equipment must be very advanced.

Currently contaminants can only be reliably detected with advanced equipment
like mass spectrometers that run over a hundred thousand, require clean
conditions, trained operators, advanced software, and routine upkeep.

Improvements in these machines would be a huge step in the right direction.

------
jihadjihad
I am no expert, but isn't this stuff supposed to degrade quickly in soil?
Isn't that the whole reason why we're using it in the first place? If it
behaves differently than expected, the implications are enormous--this stuff
is even sprayed, as one commenter also noted, over the entire crop before
harvest. Can anyone trust Monsanto?

~~~
jakewins
I think you are confusing "degrade" with "run-off"; glyphosate "sticks" to
soils with high organic content - presumably due to opposing electric charges.
The point of that being that it doesn't get washed into watersheds et cetera
when it rains; of course, again, this only applies in high-organic-content
soils.

Glyphosate degrades with a "half-life" of about 1-170 days. If you consume a
product sprayed with glyphosate within about 90 days of the last spray, on
average it will contain about half of the original dose.

Source: [http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-
gly...](http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-
glyphosate/glyphosate-ext.html)

~~~
ItsMe000001
What is the half-life based on? Spontaneous decomposition? Or does it depend
on external factors such as exposure to sun light (certain wavelengths)? If it
depends on such factors half-life is variable depending on those conditions.

~~~
jakewins
It seems this number is for soil decomposition from microbial action. It's
stable to chemical and photo decomposition.

It also seems I was wrong about half-life in plants; the half life given for
some tree species is 9 days. Unsurprisingly, industry does not appear to have
funded research on the half-life in corn, soy and other commonly sprayed
products.

[http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/archive/glyphotech.html](http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/archive/glyphotech.html)

------
xfactor973
For the determined or crazy with a little land there’s always this:
[https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/small-scale-grain-
raisi...](https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/small-scale-grain-raising/)

------
deelowe
Weedkiller, pesticides, fossil fuel emissions, food additives, preservatives,
industrial run off and on and on. Does anyone look at all this at scale? With
all the crap we're pumping into the air, water, and our food, I really wonder.

~~~
code_duck
Also plastic is ubiquitous and treated like it is harmless - it’s in close
contact with your skin and your food pretty much continually, plus also in
water and airborne dust.

------
avoutthere
To counter this in fresh produce, is it possible to just do a thorough rinsing
in the sink before preparation/consumption?

------
superplussed
Anyone know if this would likely be true in Europe as well? Or are there
vastly different pesticide policies here?

~~~
ctack
In 2017, the EU voted to allow glysophate use for another 5 years.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Glyphohosate has been extensively studied and is considered safe for humans at
dietary doses.

Per the joint FAO and WHO report

[http://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf?ua=1](http://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf?ua=1)

>Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide. Several epidemiological
studies on cancer outcomes following occupational exposure to glyphosate were
available. The evaluation of these studies focused on the occurrence of NHL.
Overall, there is some evidence of a positive association between glyphosate
exposure and risk of NHL from the case–control studies and the overall meta-
analysis. However, it is notable that the only large cohort study of high
quality found no evidence of an association at any exposure level. Glyphosate
has been extensively tested for genotoxic effects using a variety of tests in
a wide range of organisms. The overall weight of evidence indicates that
administration of glyphosate and its formulation products at doses as high as
2000 mg/kg body weight by the oral route, the route most relevant to human
dietary exposure, was not associated with genotoxic effects in an overwhelming
majority of studies conducted in mammals, a model considered to be appropriate
for assessing genotoxic risks to humans. The Meeting concluded that glyphosate
is unlikely to be genotoxic at anticipated dietary exposures. Several
carcinogenicity studies in mice and rats are available. The Meeting concluded
that glyphosate is not carcinogenic in rats but could not exclude the
possibility that it is carcinogenic in mice at very high doses. In view of the
absence of carcinogenic potential in rodents at human-relevant doses and the
absence of genotoxicity by the oral route in mammals, and considering the
epidemiological evidence from occupational exposures, the Meeting concluded
that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from
exposure through the diet. The Meeting reaffirmed the group ADI for the sum of
glyphosate and its metabolites of 0–1 mg/kg body weight on the basis of
effects on the salivary gland. The Meeting concluded that it was not necessary
to establish an ARfD for glyphosate or its metabolites in view of its low
acute toxicity.

From the above, it seems that glyphohosate is pretty safe, and that it being
found on food items in trace amounts is not big a deal. This seems yet another
article that tries to get clicks by having a scary headline of the form "Look
chemicals!"

~~~
alexandercrohde
(Not a downvoter but)

The problem with this is it's just bullshit.

I'm sorry, but science can not prove a chemical safe (because science doesn't
prove anything). The FDA may consider a chemical safe-enough, but a surprising
amount of the time they later revoke that decision after people have been
exposed.

The FDA process for testing safety involves exposing rats with a much HIGHER
dose for a short period of time and looking for acute effects. However, this
process is now highly disputed by scientists due to the fact that
dose/response relationship of chemicals is non-linear, and sometimes even MORE
severe at LOWER doses! [1]. It's also rightly criticized because you can't
test a rat for a language disability. It's also rightly criticized because
long term effects would never be identified with the FDA procedure, which may
explain the high false negative rate.

[1] [http://endocrinesciencematters.org/non-monotonic-dose-
respon...](http://endocrinesciencematters.org/non-monotonic-dose-
responses-2/non-monotonic-dose-responses-technical-overview/)

------
notadoc
Everyone I know who eats organic food does so to avoid these type of
pesticides.

------
matthewaveryusa
This is the "lead in fuel" equivalent of our generation.

~~~
bryanlarsen
If lead was an effective pesticide or herbicide, it would be considered
natural and organic. cf copper sulfate.

