Let's Raise a Glass to Monsanto!
Wednesday, March 13, 2019
Michael Fumento offers a welcome dose of sanity to the latest scare-mongering about glyphosate, the active ingredient in the widely-used weed killer, Roundup. Among other things is the following, which also occurred to me when I heard similar foolishness about the chemical popping up in breakfast cereals last year:
But just in case anyone might still wonder why we aren't all fighting cancer by now, Fumento reviews the extensive testing this chemical has already undergone -- which has also indicated that it is unlikely to be a carcinogen. He also brings up a point the scare-mongers keep cynically using: You often can't disprove a negative.Don't be surprised if you see more ominous headlines about glyphosate turning up in more foods. It's the world's most widely used weed killer -- the most widely used pesticide of any kind, in fact -- and it's been around for over four decades.
Image by Pexels, via Pixabay, license.
So it's bound to appear in trace amounts in virtually any grain product. It's even been found in "organic foods," either because of contamination from sprayed fields or because organic farmers are secretly using it. It's so widely used because it works so well and so cost-effectively. Without it, that bowl of Cheerios you ate this morning or the Bud you'll drink tonight might be might be prohibitively expensive. [bold added]
Thank you Mr. Fumento, for putting your knowledge and incredible patience to work to tamp down yet another chemical panic. I'll raise a glass to you and to Monsanto this evening, not only because it is safe to do so, but because it's the right thing to do.
-- CAV
6 comments:
The concerns about glyphosate that I'm familiar with don't mention *cancer* (which can be virtually impossible to attribute to any specific cause, considering it can take decades to develop and has a billion or more potential causes)--they mention its effect on your gut and gut flora. It DEFINITELY has an effect there.
The problem (from what I've read) is that nobody actually knows how that system works. It's super-complicated. At the moment it really boils down to "your gut should be doing X, Y, and Z. If it's NOT doing those things, try eliminating things that potentially screw with your gut until you feel better." It's not that any one of those things is necessarily terrible in isolation, it's just that your particular "gut cocktail" is producing inflammation that makes you sick and weak and full of pain.
So, while glyphosate is fine for the vast majority of people, I think it's somewhat disingenuous to look at people who have been sick and miserable for most of their lives and tell them "science says it's safe!" when they've gotten positive results from diet restriction.
Of course, it's not fair to demonize Monsanto for "poisoning" people due to a small population of people with a rare problematic reaction.
Jenn,
Saying that something shouldn't be banned, and that it on balance helps most people is not the same thing as implying it is perfectly safe at all concentrations for everyone.
That said, the amounts of glyposate being found are minuscule.
Gus
Individual variation must always be taken into account when reading anything involving metabolic processes. That's just the nature of biology--as I always say, the entire field is a series of exceptions with just enough rules to keep it from flying completely apart.
Here's the issue: If you use the logic "Glyphosate causes problems in some people, therefore it warrants government intervention", you basically say that government can control diet. Peanuts, wheat, milk, meat (thanks to a variety of tick), citrus, and many, many others trigger problems in people that are even more acutely severe and which affect a larger number of people. If you accept the rates of glyphosate problems as your minimal cut-off for government intervention, you are in fact saying that government can regulate ALL food.
I know that's probably not what you intend to say, but it's the necessary conclusion of this line of reasoning.
The other alternative is a combination of 1) a variety of goods and services (always available in an even reasonably free market, and always crushed by government intervention) and 2) consumer awareness (atrophied by government intervention). This is where movements like veganism and organic farming come in--I think both are idiotic, but they violate no one's rights and provide a choice for those who have a want--or need--for such choices.
Thanks, Dinwar. You are correct that even if such concerns were behind the headlines, they would not be reason to ban glyphosates.
I will also take this opportunity to second that I am pretty sure Jenn was not advocating a ban on glyphosates.
Gus, I'd like to expand on your comment regarding the minute levels of glyphosate which have been found in food stuffs to emphasize a very important point about dosage. Clearly while many people seem to understand intellectually that the dose makes the poison, they don’t always take it to heart or apply it logically to their own real-world situations. I’ve had this same argument wrt second hand smoke and radiation from nuclear reactors, even from other scientists who should know better.
While glyphosate does have anti-fungal properties at high concentrations and probably anti-bacterial properties at very high concentrations, I find it very hard to believe that the miniscule amounts that have been found could possibly have a discernable effect on anyone’s gut flora, especially when there are so many other things at much higher levels which are known to effect glut flora (including switching to a different restaurant for lunch, changing the amount of leafy vegetables in your diet etc.). I certainly don’t know of any scientific studies which prove such effect and how would you measure this anyway? When you change your diet, you change multiple factors (everything that’s in the food) – to isolate the one which made the difference would be almost impossible.
Also, I don’t believe it is disingenuous to claim that the best available science confirms that glyphosate at the levels anyone is likely to ingest is safe. That’s what the science does say and while science isn’t perfect, and conclusions can change over time, we have no better alternative than to make these conclusions using the best available evidence.
Steve,
You confirm suspicions I had, but don't have time to look into today. Thanks for your knowledgeable comment.
Gus
Post a Comment