> One sample of Quaker Old Fashioned Oats measured at more than 1,000 parts per billion of glyphosate.

That's 1 part per million (ppm), found in one particular sample. I imagine this was the most extreme outlier, as otherwise it would not be mentioned as prominently.

And then, right in the next sentence:

> The Environmental Protection Agency has a range of safe levels for glyphosate on crops such as corn, soybeans, grains and some fruits, spanning 0.1 to 310 parts per million.

So one sample measured within the bounds that are deemed safe. On the one hand, 1ppm is well above the 0.1ppm that is deemed safe for some of these crops by the EPA. On the other hand, this egregious sample is way lower than the 310ppm deemed safe for some other crops by the EPA.

What gives. What is this article trying to say? It seems like it is trying to be sensationalistic.

Can someone explain if I am reading this wrong? Maybe there's a typo in the article?

- A: Getting as much hits as possible so they have more income from ads.

Also: "Cancer-linked herbicide, sold as Roundup by Monsanto, present in 45 products including granola, snack bars and Cheerios" is very sensational because there are a lot of types of herbicides.

Glyphosate is possible connected to cancer but there is not much proof for it.

Edit: (disclaimer) I think it's still crazy companies are allowed to add toxic synthetic chemicals to nature.

For example: In the US and Netherlands there is now GenX [1] in drinking water because it is unsure if GenX can cause any harm. Well imho that should be the other way around: only allow chemicals to be dumped in open water if you are 100% sure it can't do harm.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenX

These are the levels deemed safe for levels in food[1]. The median seems to be about 0.2ppm for glyphosate levels in food meant for human consumption.

[1] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=0f2a0a6738...

Even at 1 ppm it is above the line, so they didn't need to sensationalize it.

The 310 ppm mentioned in the article is the limit for "grain aspiration fraction", which I believe is the stuff that falls off grain when you clean it with air(?), which is not something you'd normally be eating, so I don't know why the Guardian pulled that number out. The highest limit I saw in the EFCR tables for anything people would be eating seemed to be mint at 200ppm; most everything else was under 100ppm for human consumption, and the things with 200, 300, 400 ppm limits was animal feed.

Combine that with a "think of the children" perspective and it makes great sensational-but-vacuous news.

As they say, the dose makes the poison...

Looks like they were wrong.

(Note that I'm not saying that RoundUp is worse than other stuff, or that there's more of it in our food that of other stuff.)

Glyphosate is sometimes used on wheat and oats when the plant is at the end of its lifecycle when it is fine, if not desirable, if it kills the crop. We can reasonably conclude that the traces showed up because of the crop being non-GMO, delaying application until the plants are old.

That's not true at all. Many companies offer Non-GMO oats. There's is a big difference between crops being sprayed with glyphosate and crops coming from non-GMO seeds.

Being a grain farmer, I know. :)

Here's something a little more reputable. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roun...

That's a bit of an oversimplification.

This article helps clarify the situation: https://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/glyphosate-cause-cancer/

An important point is the following:

> "An FAQ page on WHO’s website clarifies why the IARC’s and the pesticide residue experts’ conclusions aren’t contradictory.

> "The 2015 IARC conclusion aimed to identify any potential cancer hazard glyphosate may pose to humans at some level of exposure, WHO explains. But in 2016, the pesticide residue experts at WHO and the U.N. assessed the actual cancer risk the herbicide poses to consumers at a specific level of exposure, namely the level commonly found in foods."

Further:

> "In fact, a yet-to-be-published study that found no link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, may have changed IARC’s 2015 analysis of the herbicide had it been published."

It's also worth noting that the IARC's finding is somewhat speculative, as described in https://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-... :

> "The IARC review notes that there is limited evidence for a link to cancer in humans. Although several studies have shown that people who work with the herbicide seem to be at increased risk of a cancer type called non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the report notes that a separate huge US study, the Agricultural Health Study, found no link to non-Hodgkin lymphomas. That study followed thousands of farmers and looked at whether they had increased risk of cancer.

> "But other evidence, including from animal studies, led the IARC to its ‘probably carcinogenic’ classification. Glyphosate has been linked to tumours in mice and rats — and there is also what the IARC classifies as ‘mechanistic evidence’, such as DNA damage to human cells from exposure to glyphosate."

There's a good amount of research showing no cancer links in practice at realistic levels, though, for example. Here are a couple of studies (one of which is mentioned above):

Cancer Incidence among Glyphosate-Exposed Pesticide Applicators in the Agricultural Health Study - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253709/ - "Glyphosate exposure was not associated with cancer incidence overall or with most of the cancer subtypes we studied."

Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and cancer: A review - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027323001... - "Seven cohort studies and fourteen case-control studies examined the association between glyphosate and one or more cancer outcomes. Our review found no consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between total cancer (in adults or children) or any site-specific cancer and exposure to glyphosate."

In short, this is not an issue that justifies running around with one's hair on fire, unless that happens to be your hobby, which it does seem to be for some people.

BTW: "drivel" my arse, as they say there.

Do you have any substantial sources for such a tragic claim?

For example here[1] is an EU funded meta-review from 2014 which finds: " the frequency of occurrence of pesticide residues was found to be four times higher in conventional crops, which also contained significantly higher concentrations of the toxic metal Cd. "

I personally have some faith that professional scrutiny involved in developing organic standards, selects the permissible pesticides with some insight and success. Not without possibility of some errors - to which the national and international trading standards are also susceptible, however the organic standards are a refined subset of those protections.

[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-n...

why does that matter when the still spray as much pesticides you want and still call it "organic"? call it the "pesticide free movement" or something, but don't conflate it with "organic", which is essentially a meaningless marketing term at this point, at least when it comes to food safety.

"Hydrogen peroxide and potassium bicarbonate, two familiar substances that are relatively new as fungicides, are also permitted."

"Various natural substances have been tried as herbicides with mixed success. Clove oil is a botanical that is effective."

Organic labelled produce cant, it is subject to greater restrictions of pesticide use than general international farming regulations. Honestly, if you dont acknowledge this very basic reality of organic certification then your arguments against it are besides reason.

Organic certification is not a "meaningless marketing term" like for example "family farm" can be. It means the farm has been advised and reviewed to follow restrictions on pesticide, fertilizer use and other practices which are applied in addition to regional and national farming regulations.

Kinds, yes, which often results in greater and more environmentally harmful quantities. And the kinds are not based on any scientific evaluation of safety or health, but on what amounts to religious preference.

Organic certification is like kosher or halal certification.

Do you have any substantial references of such results happening "often" or is that idea just gathered from anecdotes and casual articles ?

Organic standards are not so simply drawn as to focus on the weight or mass or price of pesticides - they concern the ecological impact and risk of agricultural materials and practices.

is that a feature of some organic certification programs, or just some?

[0]https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/organic-certification/beco...

and couldn't find anything saying you can't "spray as much pesticides you want", only that you can only spray certain pesticides. can you provide a link to the regulation preventing unlimited usage of allowed organic pesticides?

Where there may be substances used for pest control which are not limited by organic certification or EPA or USDA general standards, those substances will almost certainly be ubiquitous in nature with zero conceivable impact on health and environment.

Organic standards most contentious pesticide is perhaps Copper sulphate, which has potential to taint soil biology.

Here is description of its controls and others.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/04/2018-06...

"Copper Sulfate—for use as an algicide in aquatic rice systems, is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to those which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent."

It's less toxic (LD50) than table salt. There's no evidence that the glyphosate residues in food could cause cancer. It's even much safer for farmers than many other pesticides, despite the fact that farmers get in contact with much greater quantities. It's not linked to cancer in farmers, except in case of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, but even this link is weak, and debatable at least: https://plantoutofplace.com/2018/08/glyphosate-and-cancer-re...

So the June rule ensures that any U.S. companies who want to use asbestos in all its nonbanned uses—products like reinforced plastics, millboard, floor tiles, and roofing felt—are subject to EPA review. As the EPA points out, without the June rule, any company could start importing or processing asbestos for floor tiles whenever it wanted. (Note: You can still comment on this rule through the Federal eRulemaking Portal until Friday.)”

https://slate.com/business/2018/08/the-trump-administration-...

I have nothing to do with asbestos nor did I vote for Trump. But the knee-jerk reaction does nothing to inform anyone of reality.