Submitted by Jealous-Pop-8997 t3_z4g1ab in science
Decapentaplegia t1_ixscg2y wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Glyphosate associated with lower birth weights by Jealous-Pop-8997
This is simply not accurate. All agrochems have to pass regulatory standards for agencies relevant to their use.
For example, in the US all pesticide residues are regulated to be at least 100x lower than the no-observed-affect level.
As for funding those studies... of course they are funded by the manufacturers, who else would? Many required studies are, however, conducted by independent certified testing labs.
fasthpst t1_ixx8ptl wrote
It's accurate
Jealous-Pop-8997 OP t1_ixsx4lp wrote
But it’s still effectively “safe until proven unsafe” because they merely reify the fact that they know what a safe level is, and that they understand every potential mechanism by which glyphosate can harm us, and that they know and have measured the full extent of the effects of the safe amounts of residue
Decapentaplegia t1_ixzs5qn wrote
It just sounds like you aren't familiar with how OECD toxicology studies work. There are standardized protocols to assess chemical interactions with cell culture and animal models.
Jealous-Pop-8997 OP t1_ixzuqa5 wrote
I could essentially just reply with the same exact comment.
Still effectively “safe until proven unsafe” because they merely reify the fact that they know what a safe level is, and that they understand every potential mechanism by which glyphosate can harm us, and that they know and have measured the full extent of the effects of the safe amounts of residue.
Decapentaplegia t1_ixzv21m wrote
You could say that about literally any chemical. Why focus on glyphosate?
Jealous-Pop-8997 OP t1_ixzurj5 wrote
Hence why other studies have demonstrated the harms
Decapentaplegia t1_ixzvbuw wrote
I'm not denying that glyphosate does harmful things to cells if you expose them to preposterously high concentrations. I'm arguing that such studies have no relevance. Consumers ingest about 0.5 mg of gly daily, that's far lower than any of the studies showing harm.
Jealous-Pop-8997 OP t1_ixzx3lc wrote
No I mean harm done in the doses regularly found in residues
Decapentaplegia t1_iy0086b wrote
Can you cite some example studies?
eng050599 t1_iy11w2i wrote
There's nothing capable of showing causal effects.
All of that data supports the current toxicity metrics.
What we tend to see are underpowered studies with little replication...if any, non-standard techniques, unsubstantiated deviations from established protocols, and of course, passing off of molecular fishing expositions, as being able to accurately determine treatment effects.
Consider that the OP posted a study where the authors state that their results shouldn't be extrapolated to represent normal pregnancies.
Having the entire study population comprised of high risk pregnancies is a major issue.
[deleted] t1_ixscpa3 wrote
Uh huh. Then why did it take decades to show that glyphosate is toxic despite opponents saying it for so long?
Decapentaplegia t1_ixse7cn wrote
eng050599 t1_ixwt46l wrote
You do realize that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, and regulatory agencies agree that it is not a significant risk at the current regulatory limit, right?
Let me guess, you read about the IARC's classification, and the studies used to spread fear by the various anti-biotech blogs, but haven't actually looked into the full docket?
In fact, I'm going to bet that you can't tell me the difference between how the IARC assesses chemicals, and how literally every regulatory agency does.
Jealous-Pop-8997 OP t1_ixzkizm wrote
The problem with this is that truth is not voted on democratically. There used to be a consensus that malaria was contracted from the soil and those who believed it to be caused by mosquitoes were very few and considered fringe. Consensus doesn’t determine reality. We cannot just vote on what we want the laws of physics to be. Things are as they are.
Not to mention the consensus manufacturers gets to choose what scientists/what data to include
Decapentaplegia t1_ixzqsgt wrote
>truth is not voted on democratically.
Nobody is saying this. We are applying the hierarchy of evidence.
eng050599 t1_iy0o09r wrote
No, that's not how it works.
At the present time, all of the data regarding causal effects from glyphosate exposure indicate that there is no increased risk of any harm at the current exposure limits.
None of the studies claiming to show harm have an equivalent power of analysis, and are weighted lower than the compliant studies.
The data gets worse for the anti-glyphosate types when we also consider that, among the observational studies, the one with the largest power of analysis, the AHS, doesn't even show a significant correlative association to harm.
This is the reason why the scientific and regulatory communities overwhelmingly reject claims of harm.
What you are advocating is for scientists to weight studies based on how they align with your ideology, not in the strength of their design.
The key point is that we have data for causal effects from glyphosate exposure.
We have it for chronic exposure
We have it for acute exposure
We have it for carcinogenicity
We have it for cytotoxicity
Even though they've had decades to perform studies to show that those studies are flawed, either methodologically, or analytically, we see nothing that even comes close to the minimum standards in toxicology.
Back to the original study for this thread, it's design was so weak that even the authors state that their results are not representative of normal pregnancies.
That's a far cry from what we can determine from the compliant studies.
Jealous-Pop-8997 OP t1_iy0q3r6 wrote
No what you’re doing is presupposing that you can measure and completely control in order to find harm. You’re also disqualifying or not counting studies that reject your hypothesis, and yes that glyphosate in the residual amount is safe is a hypothesis and not a conclusion.
You’re the one advocating that studies are weighted based on their alignment with your ideology rather than their adherence to the scientific method or their rigorousness
eng050599 t1_iy0udvj wrote
...you do know that power of analysis isn't a subjective metric, right?
It's quite literally something that we calculate during the design stage of an experiment.
It's also why methods like the OECD designs include multiple guidance documents specifically to ensure that researchers will have data of sufficient strength to test for the causal effects for which the methods were designed.
There is a very real hierarchy in terms of statistical power, and the methods like those from the OECD Guidelines, along with their regional equivalents are only superceded by studies like DB+RCT
All but the largest prospective cohort studies rank below this, and in the case of. Glyphosate, it's actually hilarious that the AHS, a prospective cohort study, that doesn't have the statistical power to counter the OECD-compliant ones, it does have the power to counter the other lesser observational studies.
Guess what?
The AHS shows no significant link between glyphosate exposure at the current limits and harm.
Until data from studies of comparable power to the OECD methods materializes, there's no justification to change the toxicity metrics of glyphosate.
[deleted] t1_iy0lpe5 wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments