Quote (Goomshill @ Jun 27 2026 09:06am)

you mean like:

>In February 2020, after receiving and considering public comments on the glyphosate proposed interim decision, EPA published the interim decision registration review decision (ID) for glyphosate. As part of this action, EPA found that there are no risks of concern to human health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label. EPA also found that glyphosate is unlikely to be a human carcinogen.

>The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday reaffirmed its finding that glyphosate, the world's most popular herbicide, is not a cancer risk to users.
>"There’s no evidence that glyphosate causes cancer," said Alexandra Dunn, an EPA assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention. "There's no risk to public health from the application of glyphosate."

>The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) completed a comprehensive peer review of glyphosate, concluding that it did not identify any "critical areas of concern" for human, animal, or environmental health
>The EFSA’s assessment, in which 90 experts appointed by EU member states reviewed a 180,000-page dossier containing 2,400 total studies, was the most comprehensive and transparent assessment of a pesticide that EFSA and the EU Member States had ever carried out.

>One analysis of Ag Health Study data found no associations between glyphosate use and overall cancer risk, including Non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Prior to its commercial release and periodically since, glyphosate has undergone rigorous regulatory evaluations by the EPA and has consistently met the strict standards of safety.

>The Food Safety Commission of Japan (FSCJ) conducted a risk assessment of glyphosate (CAS No. 1071-83-6), an amino acid herbicide, based on results from various studies. Major adverse effects of glyphosate were observed on reduced gain of body weight, GI tract (diarrhea, increased cecum weight, bowel dilatation, thickening of intestinal mucosa), and liver (increased alkaline phosphatase (ALP), hepatocellular hypertrophy). Glyphosate had no neurotoxicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, teratogenicity, and genotoxicity.

>Health Canada scientists conduct a thorough risk assessment to confirm that eating foods treated with a pesticide would not result in any human health concern to any segment of the population, including pregnant women, infants, children and seniors.
>During this re-evaluation, Health Canada assessed the potential human health risk of glyphosate from drinking water, food, occupational and bystander exposure, as well as the environmental risk to non-target organisms. The dietary exposure assessment determined that the levels found in food would not be a health risk to Canadians.

>The APVMA assesses the safety of glyphosate products, and registered products are considered safe to use when the instructions on the label are followed.
>Glyphosate has also been assessed by other government regulators and independent scientists around the world. These assessments consistently found that glyphosate has low toxicity for humans, animals, fish, insects (including bees) and other invertebrates.

How many countries and health agencies have to thoroughly examine a chemical to establish its safety when there isn't even a credible theory of how it could be hazardous to humans?
Its excreted from our bodies rapidly and it is biologically and chemically inert, interacting only with a pathway that doesn't exist in mammals or most animals.
Its not a significant endocrine disrupter or genotoxic, its not a neurotoxin or acute toxin, it doesn't build up over time in tissue.

But a lot of people who stand to make money off litigating against glyphosate and people who just hate farmers and corporations and science in general, will oppose it no matter what

Quote (doomchaser @ Jun 27 2026 11:11am)

Hmm I guess it all boils down to the trust you have in the Agencies you named off, that you quoted the research from.. :rolleyes: or the independent ones that disagree with said research

Quote (Goomshill @ Jun 27 2026 09:45am)

The same ones who said that Covid-19 wasn't contagious between humans during the height of its initial spread?
There are no independent researchers, all scientists have a bias. Some have clear ideological motivations that make them arrive at a conclusion regardless of the evidence, some are willing to arrive at conclusions that contradict their own bias. The latter is far more convincing. And glyphosate was found non-carcinogenic, non-genotoxic, non-hazardous at realistic exposure levels whether acute or chronic- by researchers from countries and organizations with motive to oppose it. Meanwhile the claims against it are from sources that either blatantly lie about it, or got caught taking bribes to rail against it. All discerning people can do is follow both the weight of the evidence and its sources, and understand the mechanics.

There's no realistic theory for how glyphosate could cause cancer, and the studies making such claim are easily dismissed as spurious p-hacking that could link any two phenomenon without causation. They aren't based on some provable mechanic that can be replicated in a laboratory, its based on looking at populations and claiming that old white men farmers develop cancer at higher rates than obese black people in cities who die young from bullets and pork chops. If you could wave a magic wand and actually control for confounding variables what % of all published statistical studies would vanish overnight? Gee, I'd need a statistical study to figure out that %.

It boils down to science vs anti-science and the academia is absolutely poisoned by anti-science too

Quote (Goomshill @ Jun 28 2026 12:59am)

Tobacco, asbestos and lead all have clear mechanisms to be harmful. Glyphosate and PFAS don't. In glyphosates case we can rule out most chronic impacts from the extensive studies and the body excreting it rapidly. The difference at play isn't dirty corporations vs regulators, its between the scientists and the anti-science mob. You know, the science that established that tobacco is addictive and its contaminants when smoked damage the lungs directly. That asbestos fibers rip up your lungs and cause chronic inflammation when the body fails to dislodge them. That lead is a neurotoxin that binds to gluathione and disrupting heme synthesis of hemoglobin. Direct chemical interactions or physical trauma. Not "this chemical is spooky and foreign", because it turns out your body is filled with all kinds of random particles of foreign chemicals at any time, and not all of them are destructive.

What chemical in history has ever been studied by as many people angling to prove its toxic, and failing?

Quote (addone @ Jun 27 2026 04:37pm)

People are cautious from the earliest of times eating unfamiliar berries or drinking from the dubious puddle of water. When you see animals die because of it and humans develop adverse health effects even death you trust less.
Yes there are lots of loons out there who will greatly exaggerate things but there are lots of valid and measurable cases that are being downplayed/ignored by the regulators. Government has a history of telling people lies around the severity and effects of cures. Maybe maliciously or inadvertently.
You mentioned covid in your previous post. The science around covid drama was clearly devided. Government was pushing an agenda and it cherrypicked data/science to support it, just as you are doing now around roundup. Telling other people its "safe" while not adhering to same imposition.

You can cite all the favourable data in the world but when you fail to drink from the same cup you immediately lose all credibility.
Until that day you pay.

Quote (Goomshill @ Jun 28 2026 10:41am)

oh its absolutely true that the government has been the single worst offender at jeopardizing trust in institutions. In covid as well as in all other sorts of services. Ronald Reagan told his joke about 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help' decades before covid. Credibility was lost for a reason. And that makes it so much harder for the legitimate cases to be recognized and for conspiracy theories to fester, when no credible authority exists. And I'd say the problem is much worse than that. The very academia and hard sciences are themselves compromised by political actors, activists seeking to push an agenda on far more subjects than just chemicals. Just look at the social sciences and psychology and what a mess that's become.

But the claims either resolve true or false. And there has been a herculean amount of research over decades to confirm that glyphosate is safe in pretty much every relevant way, from sources both biased towards and against it. The counter claims are usually with absurdities like feeding mice 100x their body weight, or hacking away at statistics until you get the correlation you want. That's where we get the scientific consensus and replicable, verifiable facts that we didn't have for something like MRNA vaccines that shortcutted normal testing.

Quote (thesnipa @ Jun 25 2026 12:22pm)

bit tangential to the topic, but do you personally think Roundup is causing cancer in humans?