
Significant levels of glyphosate found in popular breakfast cereals - walterbell
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/16/weedkiller-cereal-monsanto-roundup-childrens-food
======
koliber
I don't understand what this article is trying to convey.

> One sample of Quaker Old Fashioned Oats measured at more than 1,000 parts
> per billion of glyphosate.

That's 1 part per million (ppm), found in one particular sample. I imagine
this was the most extreme outlier, as otherwise it would not be mentioned as
prominently.

And then, right in the next sentence:

> The Environmental Protection Agency has a range of safe levels for
> glyphosate on crops such as corn, soybeans, grains and some fruits, spanning
> 0.1 to 310 parts per million.

So one sample measured within the bounds that are deemed safe. On the one
hand, 1ppm is well above the 0.1ppm that is deemed safe for some of these
crops by the EPA. On the other hand, this egregious sample is way lower than
the 310ppm deemed safe for some other crops by the EPA.

What gives. What is this article trying to say? It seems like it is trying to
be sensationalistic.

Can someone explain if I am reading this wrong? Maybe there's a typo in the
article?

~~~
darpa_escapee
The levels the EPA considers safe is for use _on crops_.

These are the levels deemed safe for levels _in food_ [1]. The median seems to
be about 0.2ppm for glyphosate levels in food meant for human consumption.

[1] [https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-
bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=0f2a0a6738...](https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-
bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=0f2a0a6738e34d3b1a361bd25d49aafb&n=pt40.24.180&r=PART&ty=HTML#se40.26.180_1364)

~~~
saalweachter
In the case of oats (and cereal grains in general), it's 30 ppm (30,000 ppb).

------
nealdt
All the more reason to select organic produce and where possible start growing
your own veggies or link up with local co-operatives. It's something we've
done and having a close relationship with local growers and knowing about your
food is fantastic and something kids love. The [roduce tends to have more
nutrients as well (yet more positives). Can it be done large scale? I remember
hearing in a talk about permaculture that a hectare of land can support a
hundred people throughout a year.

~~~
darpa_escapee
While you won't have to worry about glysophate on organic food, just as much,
if not more, pesticides are used on organic crops.

~~~
strainer
Considering reduction of pesticide use and exposure is one of the main
objectives of the organic movement, which has been developing for over 60
years now - it would be a hopeless situation if it resulted in "just as much,
if not more, pesticides".

Do you have any substantial sources for such a tragic claim?

For example here[1] is an EU funded meta-review from 2014 which finds: " the
frequency of occurrence of pesticide residues was found to be four times
higher in conventional crops, which also contained significantly higher
concentrations of the toxic metal Cd. "

I personally have some faith that professional scrutiny involved in developing
organic standards, selects the permissible pesticides with some insight and
success. Not without possibility of some errors - to which the national and
international trading standards are also susceptible, however the organic
standards are a refined subset of those protections.

[1] [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-
of-n...](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-
nutrition/article/higher-antioxidant-and-lower-cadmium-concentrations-and-
lower-incidence-of-pesticide-residues-in-organically-grown-crops-a-systematic-
literature-review-and-metaanalyses/33F09637EAE6C4ED119E0C4BFFE2D5B1)

~~~
gruez
>Considering reduction of pesticide use and exposure is one of the main
objectives of the organic movement

why does that matter when the still spray as much pesticides you want and
still call it "organic"? call it the "pesticide free movement" or something,
but don't conflate it with "organic", which is essentially a meaningless
marketing term at this point, at least when it comes to food safety.

~~~
strainer
"they still spray as much pesticides you want"

Organic labelled produce cant, it is subject to greater restrictions of
pesticide use than general international farming regulations. Honestly, if you
dont acknowledge this very basic reality of organic certification then your
arguments against it are besides reason.

Organic certification is not a "meaningless marketing term" like for example
"family farm" can be. It means the farm has been advised and reviewed to
follow restrictions on pesticide, fertilizer use and other practices which are
applied in addition to regional and national farming regulations.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Organic labelled produce cant, it is subject to greater restrictions of
> pesticide use than general international farming regulations

Kinds, yes, which often results in greater and more environmentally harmful
quantities. And the kinds are not based on any scientific evaluation of safety
or health, but on what amounts to religious preference.

Organic certification is like kosher or halal certification.

~~~
strainer
> which often results in greater and more environmentally harmful quantities.

Do you have any substantial references of such results happening "often" or is
that idea just gathered from anecdotes and casual articles ?

~~~
tedunangst
Without knowing more, it seems a logical deduction. If the "organic"
pesticides were more effective than the "chemical" pesticides, farmers would
always choose to use them. If the alternatives aren't as effective, then you
need to spray more for the same result.

~~~
strainer
So this then claim stems not from knowledge but from a "seemingly logical
deduction". It is clear that there is no actual substance to this idea that
"organic farms often use more pesticides" \- even the notion is false that
"more pesticides" is a meaningful concept as it alludes only to pesticide
weight or mass and ignores all qualities of the substances involved - in the
accompanying "logical deduction" \- such as ecological and biological impact.

Organic standards are not so simply drawn as to focus on the weight or mass or
price of pesticides - they concern the ecological impact and risk of
agricultural materials and practices.

------
zeroego
I work for the customer service department of one of the companies listed.
Yesterday was hell and today is shaping up to be pretty terrible. People
aren't even reading the article and they're calling in telling us how we're
personally killing their children. I just had a customer telling me how GMO's
are toxic and how I'm personally complicit in giving her young son cancer.
Read the original article people. At least know the difference between GMO's
and glyphosate for Pete's sake.

------
beenBoutIT
It'll be interesting to see if the mountain of lawsuits against Bayer grows to
include parents of autistic children.
[https://www.csail.mit.edu/research/toxic-environmental-
chemi...](https://www.csail.mit.edu/research/toxic-environmental-chemicals-
and-human-diseases)

------
Grue3
Wait until they learn about dihydrogen monoxide. This chemical has a 100%
mortality rate!

------
TsomArp
I don't understand why aren't they forbidden from selling that shit.

~~~
simontc
The Trump administration just allowed the usage of asbestos. I don't think
there is a chance of getting a Monsanto product banned.

~~~
votepaunchy
“A little background: In 1989, the EPA tried to ban asbestos outright, under a
1976 law called the Toxic Substances Control Act. The phased prohibition was
overturned by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991, and the agency
succeeded in halting only six then-obsolete uses of asbestos, including
corrugated paper and flooring felt.

So the June rule ensures that any U.S. companies who want to use asbestos in
all its nonbanned uses—products like reinforced plastics, millboard, floor
tiles, and roofing felt—are subject to EPA review. As the EPA points out,
without the June rule, any company could start importing or processing
asbestos for floor tiles whenever it wanted. (Note: You can still comment on
this rule through the Federal eRulemaking Portal until Friday.)”

[https://slate.com/business/2018/08/the-trump-
administration-...](https://slate.com/business/2018/08/the-trump-
administration-is-not-bringing-back-asbestos.html)

