Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Jealous-Pop-8997 OP t1_ixsx4lp wrote

Reply to comment by Decapentaplegia in Glyphosate associated with lower birth weights by Jealous-Pop-8997

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

−3

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.

5

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.

−4

Decapentaplegia t1_ixzv21m wrote

You could say that about literally any chemical. Why focus on glyphosate?

5

Jealous-Pop-8997 OP t1_ixzurj5 wrote

Hence why other studies have demonstrated the harms

−3

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.

3

Jealous-Pop-8997 OP t1_ixzx3lc wrote

No I mean harm done in the doses regularly found in residues

−3

Decapentaplegia t1_iy0086b wrote

Can you cite some example studies?

5

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.

1