Not-so-hot take: Both of you are wrong to state with certainty whether this discovery of glyphosate in our urine is good or bad for us, or whether we should discard this because of "data torture". From the article:

>Cynthia Curl, Boise State University assistant professor of community and environmental health, said it was “obviously concerning” that a large percentage of the US population is exposed to glyphosate, but said it is still unclear how that translates to human health.

Only one of these people is wrong because only one is making or implying a statement of fact concerning a causal link that isn't shown in this paper and has never been shown in the past. Neither tried to make the claim that glyphosate in urine is a good thing.

Don't see any citations on either side of this discussion.

WHO says yes [0] while EPA says "not likely" [1]. Until the experts agree people can decide for themselves what risks they consider acceptable. Or at least they can if they can afford buying from farmers who don't yet use the chemical.

[0] https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-gly...

[1] https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-releases-draft-risk-asses...

WHO doesn't say "yes" they say "probably". Same category as very hot water (65c).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IARC_group_2A

To be fair, being submerged in hot water for long enough might cause cancer, if you somehow survive.

From what I can tell, the WHO only categorises a single chemical as "Group 4: the agent (mixture) is probably not carcinogenic to humans".

Just a nit (thanks for sources!!) it’ll be stronger with a peer reviewed citation rather than a regulatory notice. There’s a lot of skepticism about the neutrality of regulators in this topic. Sadly with regulatory capture so rampant and regulators being political footballs they’re poor sources of information.

While I understand your view, and shared it, I was recently diagnosed with exactly that and have had to reevaluate my position.

I don’t know WHY it happened or what caused it, but it’s absolutely a real thing. It’s also absolutely miserable; trying to navigate all of this without the woo and without others telling you that you are crazy or peddling woo is a hell of a needle to thread.

There’s not a well established link between gluten intolerance and glyphosate, but:

> Fish exposed to glyphosate develop digestive problems that are reminiscent of celiac disease. Celiac disease is associated with imbalances in gut bacteria that can be fully explained by the known effects of glyphosate on gut bacteria

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/

This isn’t made up woo. It’s a real potential link that needs to be fully explored not dismissed.

> It’s a ... potential link that needs to be fully explored not dismissed

Sure. Explore/research away but that doesn't justify the comment...

> that's ridiculous it also messes up digestive systems, gluten intolerance.

Anyone making a definitive statement on a causal link between glyphosate and cancer is not being informed by science. There might be a link, I don't really care. If there is, I'd definitely support getting it out of food. I really don't have an opinion on glyphosate/monsanto/miscellanious megacorp/chemical but what I do care about is people not perverting science to do their bidding.

It's further frustrating because these arguments all originate from the same mindset as all the other nonsense that you may or may not believe depending on various cultural influences (anti-vax, homeopathy, chiropracty, global warming, "supplements", etc).

> global warming

Don't lump this in with those others. It totally spoils your credibility.

Going off about not perverting science, but then in the next breath lumping global warming in with homeopathy? Yikes.

How come? Is it not true that ~0.75% of Americans have celiac disease?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coeliac_disease

How can that be relevant? I mean, this is just the grossest of correlations "Americans have X, and are also exposed to Y, therefore Y causes X"? If anything, it means actually establishing a causal relationship (assuming one existed) would be difficult because the background rate of this disease is so high.

I was responding to the parent commenter’s claim that “gluten intolerance” (quotes theirs) was a “strong warning sign of woo”.

We know that environmental factors contribute to the development of celiac disease, so we should understand the degree to which glyphosate may be one of those.

It's a strong sign of woo because it's very trendy and brought up for all sorts of environmental effects with little actual evidence. Most of those claims must be false.

It’s also true that 12% of Americans are left handed. But that doesn’t mean it’s caused by Roundup.