This article reads like a political agenda providing few verifiable facts, and many broad, unsubstantiated claims. If one is going to make bold claims, they should be substantiated by fact, not by other bold claims.

I am no expert on glyphosates, but that article has left me less than convinced that they are "safe".

I came here to write a very similar thing.

While activists exaggerate to persuade people it's not safe because it might be carcinogenic, the author is on the other extreme: it's safe until proven otherwise.

It also sports a fair share of whataboutism: "what about bacon, that's also considered carcinogenic!?".

I recall my chemist teacher repeating the age old phrase "the dosage makes the poison" so often that I'm basically immune to anyone crying "X is poison".

It's all about "how much?" and "over which time period?" and "where did you put it into your body?" to determine if something will kill you or cause cancer.

I haven't yet had time to properly investigate, but I have heard that wheat crops are sprayed liberally with glyphosate directly before harvest as a desiccant to make harvesting easier. (perhaps also increasing yield, I don't know) So the dose may be quite a bit higher than you'd generally expect.

Also note that glyphosate is Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) by the FDA, which means that it can be used in any quantity. With that designation, arguments about dosage carry less weight for me. If a regulatory agency were concerned with dosages in final food products, I'd feel a lot more comfortable.

I live in Europe so things are different. As such the maximum dosage that is allowed in food is 0.1mg per kg of body weight and per day.

Thusly my argument on dosages in final food products hold and I feel fairly comfortable. I suggest either petitioning the FDA to introduce food safety standards or moving to another country with food safety standards.

Moving is a rather drastic step. Instead, I buy USDA Organic wheat, which doesn't allow the use of glyphosate.

True. Glyphosate opponent target the fact that everybody ingest glyphosate (and that's supposed to be bad). But the dose we ingest (at least in western europe) is too small to be really dangerous, and i think this arguent is a bad one. However, i am concerned about farmer and gardener using the product, as well as kids living near them.

Most natural pesticide and herbicide show bad affect on young people brain developpement. I would be really surprised if a chemical, more potent one was harmless.

It really depends, mostly on whether or not Glyphosate can cross the Blood-Brain barrier and how easily it does.

If it barely or not at all goes through then there should be less of an impact.

> I recall my chemist teacher repeating the age old phrase "the dosage makes the poison" [...]

Indeed it's the dosage and not the substance, even if it will sound stupid when somebody on your funeral says that you were crushed by a ton of cherries.

I think I'll put it on my last will that if I was to be crushed by a truckload of cherries, the phrase "the dosage makes the poison" must be mentioned during my funeral.

What bold claim are you referring to? Where the IARC places it on its list is a verifiable fact, and let's assume the IARC is doing a reasonable job.

It's a poison, let's be clear about that. So treat it carefully and with respect. But when you do, the end result to human life is more save than bacon.

The whole point of the articke is that the IARC does not do a reasonable job, and calls just about everything carcinogenic without scientific evidence, qualification around dosage, etc.

No. Why do you conclude the IARC does this "without scientific evidence". And why do you conclude the article claims it is doing a bad job?

Basically, the article claims people don't understand HOW the IARC does its job, what its reports mean. And that its data is easily misused for fear mongering. Eg scary fact, did you know your water contains lots of dihydrogen monoxide?

First and foremost it judges on hazard, which is how much an effect it could be in the worst exposure cases. Only secondly is its job to assess risks, that is how much is the effect under normal/expected exposures.

My thoughts precisely.

Few things pisses me off as much as people saying you have to listen to science without presenting the science and in turn only use hyperbole and stupid arguments such as "Bacon causes cancer, so no worries... smoke your cigarettes"

It's not a scientific article about the toxicity of glyphosate.

More a social/political article about the toxicity of legal firms (in pursuit of class action lawsuits) paying activists along with the toxicity of non-scientific alarmist public opinion.

A fact that is regularly ignored when this discussion comes up again and again on HN.

Few verifiable facts? I'm sure you can verify that the author really has a garden and controls weeds using round-up (why remove weeds by hand which is totally feasible, part of growing a garden responsably, and an infinite source of satisfaction upon achievement?), and has had no symptoms of intoxication (yet). Point proven!

We will gladly burn them in multiple fires, I like to eat healthy food, without influence of greedy multinationals that even impose patent suits into farmers.

This article raises some valid points. If anything, it makes me want to learn more on glyphosates and have an informed opinion. I'd like to hate Monsanto, but for valid reasons! Many commenters here criticise the article without providing any argument other than "you are brainwashed/paid by the lobbies". Not the standard of argumentation one expect on HN!

Guess who is paid by Monsanto...

Good ol' shill gambit.

> You can still burn the witch in Europe — if the witch is called Monsanto.

Wait, so Monsanto is a person, not a company? And they've been murdered by a mob?

Oh, wait, no, just their product was licensed for 5 years instead of 15. Yeah, I guess how that's similar to a mob grabbing women and murdering them by fire.

Whatever the brainwash of lobbies, I am sure an herbicide can not be effective and healthy at the same time.

Depends on the dosage. Like any chemist will tell you.

Herbicide can certainly be effective and at the same time not be dangerous to the human body simply because our body mass is higher and thus the effective dosage per kg of body mass is lower.

Or alternatively, herbicides can be made less effective against mammals but more effective against other animals/insects by disrupting cell chemistry not present in mammals (or humans if you want to be more specific on the chemical).

Of course, herbicide is not healthy if consumed in any large amounts, it's after all a poison, small dosages can be made safe for humans while still being dangerous to not-humans.

Any herbicide whether natural or artificial that prevents other organisms from eating your crop cannot be effective and healthy at the same time. This applies also for vegetables that are naturally resistant to pests (e.g. Vegetable strains that are Much more bitter than the wild type ).

The solution is to not to have an expectation that vegetables should be free of any insect or animal contact. But not everybody likes caterpillar bite marks on their vegetables.

Herbicides aren't intended to keep animals from eating crops. That would be an insecticide, in the case of insects. Herbicides are designed to kill plants, and Glyphosate in particular really only does that.

Thanks for the clarification i was not clear with my words

Sure. But the two mandatory questions of banning any pesticide are tough to answer:

- Can we have similar output (quality/quantity/cost) without any pesticide at all?

- If not, are the alternative molecules better or worse?

Caffeine is an effective pesticide, yet it is considered to be healthy too.

Despite claiming your views are not effected by all the propaganda, you are biased against herbicides in a very propaganda smelling 2 dimensional manner.

I hate Monsanto more than the vermin and weeds they poison. But your statement just isn't true. There are differences in organisms' metabolisms, and it's perfectly possible for one substance to be deadly to one (class of) species, yet harmless or even nourishing to others.

Take antibiotics, which kill bacteria but have mild-to-none effects on humans (and most of the negative side effects on humans stem from their killing of even beneficial bacteria).

"I don't want to over-hype it, but it felt a little like mob rule. You can still burn the witch in Europe — if the witch is called Monsanto."

The author may not want to over-hype it, but successfully did so.

Using the same argument, the FDA ban is a witch-burning mob because of its ban on sodium cyclamate, despite its approval in the vast majority of other countries and despite the continued lack of evidence that it's a carcinogen.

What a sad piece of propaganda. If they want to white-wash poison, they should try harder.

The author is really not doing himself any favours with the comparisons.

Would anyone dispute that bacon and sun exposure are risk factors in cancer? Contrary to his assertion, Australia also ran a pretty well-funded campaign against sun exposure in the 80s and 90s.

The reasons why bacon and the sun aren't banned are simply that the former is that eating bacon is a decision people can take individually, and banning it would intrude on peoples' lives and culture much more strongly than banning a pesticide. As for the sun, it is really hard to ban, and has been shown to have benefits that counterweight the cancer risk.

Mocking the risk designation of "working as a hairdresser" is similarly hair-raising: Hair-dressers handle all sorts of chemicals, such as colouring agents. I wonder how easily the author could be convinced to expose himself to the lifetime exposure of a typical hairdresser.

Literally everything you said could go both ways:

The reason glyphosate isn't banned is simply that the decision to use is it is one people take individually, and banning it would intrude on people's lives and culture - for argument sake I assume farmers also count as people.

As for glyphosate, it is really hard to ban, and has been shown to have benefits the counterweight the cancer risk.

Well, the real problem with burning witches was that they were actually Human! I dont see whats the problem with a market illogically choosing to boycott a product, if the market wants a less efficient solution, so be it!

The article mentions that Glyphosates are cancerous, but so is bacon, which people eat in large amounts. But this is only a qualitative measure. How much exposure are we getting? How much exposure gives an equivalent risk factor to eating one portion of bacon a week? Lazy comparisons like this raise a red flag for me. A scientific look at the harm caused by Glyphosates this is not.

It doesn't say Glyphosates are cancerous, it says the same international group (IARC) considers them to be cancerous, even at a higher risk level.

Also the authority and integrity of IARC is at question in this article.

Even if the author is right, and Monsanto is treated unfairly: It borders on immoral to compare the plight of women who were burned alive to environmental concerns hurting a multinational's ability to earn a profit.

I know it's used metaphorically, but it's just the wrong metaphor.