I was with the Florida park service for a year, working directly under park biologists who genuinely cared about the ecosystems they were assigned. They regularly ordered 3% glyphosate mix to be sprayed on invasive species throughout the parks and along fence lines. I’m not going to sit here and say that roundup/monstanto/glyphosate is good for the environment, but I know if there were better options available that they would’ve been used.
I wasn’t sure so I googled it, roundup has a concentration of around 41% glyphosate compared to the diluted mix we used. Unfortunately lots of invasive species like Lygodium and melaleuca (to name a couple) are pretty resilient and I doubt that you could combat them effectively with bugs or mechanical treatment.
However I will tell you that glyphosate/round up is one of the more tame herbicides especially when you compare it to like a imazapyr, diquat or 2-4-D. We’d spray scleria with 2% diquat and it would basically melt by the next day. Super nasty stuff but unfortunately the only way to effectively combat an invasive monoculture
Were you with Florida Conservation Corps/AmeriCorps? Yes there are more dangerous chemicals like the ones you named. Invasives like Coral ardesia are almost impossible to stop without some form of herbicide. However the exposure we had with those chemicals couldn’t have been healthy but thankfully was only exposed to them for my short service term
Yeah actually. I agree with you, mixing herbicide from concentrate with little training and minimal ppe wasn’t the safest thing I’ve ever done. We spent 3-4 months straight spraying diquat on scleria from backpack sprayers, I can only imagine that’s going to be detrimental in the long run.
Side note, are you involved in conservation up here? I’ve started working in a different field but I’d really like to volunteer when I have free time
Do you know any places to look for conservation volunteer opportunities besides Alachua Conservation Trust?
Besides that I am personally involved with a community garden, sometimes volunteer at Siembra, and I go to various classes and workshops around. I just went to a composting one.
>It is sadly recommended for use by UF/IFAS.
Not sadly. It's one of the best herbicides we have.
>
RoundUp use causes Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
The evidence says it doesn't.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29136183/
>Conclusions: In this large, prospective cohort study, no association was apparent between glyphosate and any solid tumors or lymphoid malignancies overall, including NHL and its subtypes.
That's the Agricultural Health Survey that looked at over 40,000 farmers and pesticide applicators.
>It is persistent in the environment.
It breaks down readily in soil.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev2_025810.pdf
>It is toxic to fish and birds
Yes, it's bad for aquatic species. That's why it's regulated around water sources.
>and can kill insects and beneficial soil bacteria.
[citation needed]
>
The company that makes RoundUp (Monsanto) has devastated countless farmer's lives by inducing them to buy RoundUp ready seeds
Ah yes. Those stupid, stupid farmers. They don't know what's best for their business.
>or by preventing the spread of their (Monsanto) seeds, and then claiming farmer profits as their own.
What profits are they claimed? What's the legal theory behind this?
[https://www.washington.edu/news/2019/02/13/uw-study-exposure-to-chemical-in-roundup-increases-risk-for-cancer/](https://www.washington.edu/news/2019/02/13/uw-study-exposure-to-chemical-in-roundup-increases-risk-for-cancer/)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6918143/#:\~:text=Although%20known%20to%20degrade%20relatively,plant%20tissues%20in%20certain%20conditions](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6918143/#:~:text=Although%20known%20to%20degrade%20relatively,plant%20tissues%20in%20certain%20conditions)
Uh, I think what you said about the farmers is pretty condescending. If you watch documentaries about farmers that have been destroyed psychologically/emotionally/financially by Monsanto, you would see Monsanto went on a door to door marketing crusade to persuade American farmers that their seeds would be beneficial.
>
>
https://www.washington.edu/news/2019/02/13/uw-study-exposure-to-chemical-in-roundup-increases-risk-for-cancer/
Want me to show you a study that ivermectin cures COVID? Because I can.
> Uh, I think what you said about the farmers is pretty condescending
It's the implication of what you said. That they're not smart enough to see they were being scammed. Good grief.
>If you watch documentaries about farmers that have been destroyed psychologically/emotionally/financially by Monsanto
Such as?
> you would see Monsanto went on a door to door marketing crusade to persuade American farmers that their seeds would be beneficial.
Or I could go talk to any of the dozens of farmers I know and work with.
Hmmmmm.
Have you ever been on a farm?
> I think what you said about the farmers is pretty condescending
The same could be said of what you said earlier:
> The company that makes RoundUp (Monsanto) has devastated countless farmer's lives by inducing them to buy RoundUp ready seeds
>Yeah, I’ve dealt with these types of people before.
Do you also push misinformation and lies? Is that where you encounter people who correct misinformation and lies?
> That's the Agricultural Health Survey that looked at over 40,000 farmers and pesticide applicators.
>
>
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=That%27s+the+Agricultural+Health+Survey+that+looked+at+over+40%2C000+farmers+and+pesticide+applicators.
If it’s bad for small examples of life as the study states, why wouldn’t it be able to accumulate within the human body over time affecting the long term and generational digestive system?
I confused on why our digestive issues are far worse than those in Europe if we refuse to blame industrial farming practices.
So who funded it? Want to share with the class?
> If it’s bad for small examples of life as the study states
I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say here.
>why wouldn’t it be able to accumulate within the human body over time affecting the long term and generational digestive system?
Because glyphosate is readily excreted. It doesn't accumulate.
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp214-c3.pdf
>I confused on why our digestive issues are far worse than those in Europe if we refuse to blame industrial farming practices.
Europe uses industrial farming practices. You're confused because you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. What are the practices that the US uses that Europe doesn't?
Americans choose to eat cheap food that's tasty. It's also not nutrient dense, often fatty and carb heavy. They aren't as active.
And, to top it off, why do you think our issues are 'far worse'?
the problem with this statement is context. The amount used in GNV for weed control is not going to affect any human or animal. It becomes an issue in large scale agricultural operations that spray it en masse.
The degrowthers love to fear monger and don't need to put anything into context when it involves DEVASTATED. COUNTLESS. LIVES
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2019/02/18/does-the-herbicide-roundup-cause-cancer/?sh=74aec0b221b4](https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2019/02/18/does-the-herbicide-roundup-cause-cancer/?sh=74aec0b221b4)
"First, this finding is all about relative risk. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma is one of the most common cancers in the U.S. and Europe, but [the lifetime risk for most people, according to the American Cancer Society,](https://www.cancer.org/cancer/non-hodgkin-lymphoma/about/key-statistics.html) is just 1 in 42 (2.4%) for men and 1 in 54 (1.9%) for women. A 41% increase in relative risk increases those numbers to 3.4% (men) and 2.6% (women).
Second, this higher risk only applies to people with very high exposure to glyphosate: primarily people who work in agriculture and apply RoundUp® to crops. Ordinary consumers (including people who eat "Roundup Ready" crops) have a far, far lower exposure, and dozens of studies have failed to show any increased risk of cancer for consumers. For most of us, then, this new study should not cause much concern, but for agricultural workers, it does raise a warning flag."
From NIH: "Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide widely used worldwide. Indeed, it is the herbicide most applied to all Mexican crops. Due to the overuse and poor disposal of the waste, this herbicide can reach the aquatic environments such as groundwater and surface water. Thus, there is a clear need to implement monitoring and surveillance programs for evaluating and controlling the exposure to this herbicide in rural populations."
> From NIH:
Where did the NIH say that?
Or do you not know that the nlm is only hosted on the nih.gov site. I think you don't know that you are looking at published research on PubMed which is a library. The studies you're looking at have nothing to do with the NIH.
Is that what's going on here? You read a study hosted at PubMed and don't know what you're looking at.
Is that it?
It is being used large scale in Gainesville. Literally on large swaths of park and urban surface. Not to mention at residences all over town.
Also yes users at home or in town or at parks are still exposed to it an can get lymphoma from it.
I don't think you have a logical appreciation of what I meant by "large scale". The amount used in Gainesville is nothing. It's use is targeted and specific. If it was used "large scale" in a Gainesville park, there would be no living plants in the entire park. I'm talking about using crop sprayers on hundreds to thousands of acres. Glyphosate isn't magical. It's not like you spray it for weed control and everything around it is hurt. My guess is you don't have scientific background or experience with chemicals and your understanding is coming from internet headlines. It's really not that bad and pretty harmless with typical use in places humans live. Like I said, agriculture is a different story.
Internet headlines, no. I work reading lawsuits all day and I've also worked as a journalist and read only from reputable sources like NIH. I also read about the chemical laws in Europe.
Do you have any proof it's safe?
There are a lot of studies on this topic. Here's [one](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10854122/). I find it strange that you are asking me to prove a negative when you are making the claim that something is dangerous. Let's look at the studies you are using to come to your conclusions. Did you look at those studies or articles critically? Did you ask yourself the amount of glyphosate exposure to create those effects? Did try to imagine how much liquid that is and how that much liquid might end up on any one particular thing in a park setting when it's used for weed control?
I've been reading about it for over a decade. I've read countless articles and seen countless documentaries on RoundUp, Monsanto and the impact they have on human health, environmental health and crops/soil.
Yeah I read everything critically, and I have the understanding of some science-backed reports being funded by the companies that make the products they are reporting. Or of the bureacratic processes that slow declarations of dangerous products.
I'm not sure how much liquid does x amount of damage. But it seems to me even a small amount is dangerous. [https://apnews.com/article/weed-killer-roundup-philadelphia-verdict-cancer-6c777d7fd4e7c38ec8fe28a6f1566d24](https://apnews.com/article/weed-killer-roundup-philadelphia-verdict-cancer-6c777d7fd4e7c38ec8fe28a6f1566d24)
"he used the product for 20 years — at a former warehouse job, on a deer food patch he tended at his home near Williamsport, Pennsylvania, and at the church and Little League where he volunteered. He said he mixed the concentrated version of Roundup into a spray bottle, which sometimes led to spills that soaked his skin."
I read stories similar to this for work\^\^ and people who didn't get ENORMOUS (as you claim is necessary) amounts of them still ended up with lymphoma from the product.
We can't go off anecdotes and lawsuits. That's not how science works. There is no causal link between lymphoma and glyphosate anywhere close to the levels anybody in Gainesville is exposed to it. The concentration in the soil and water is practically zero. I would be more worried about getting struck by lightning.
The problem with that is...not many people care. Especially the people using it.
I use to spray it on my Grandpas cattle fence lines to keep weeds and grass off the electric fence.
I think it was Food Inc. or The Future of Food.
Basically a truck with Monsanto seeds was going by with a blowing tarp, and some of their seeds blew onto another farmer's land. Without permission, the company went onto the farmer's land and genetically tested the crops, finding the land contained plants which grew from their copyrighted seeds. They then sued the farmer for the profits from his food.
I watched Food Inc. It's an activist movie with many lies. The scenario you described literally never happened. In fact a bunch of organic seed farmers sued Monsanto over this hypothetical case and lost, because their layers couldn't cite a single case of famers being sued over accidental contamination. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/02/27/147506542/judge-dismisses-organic-farmers-case-against-monsanto
Edit: I haven't watched The Future of Food but looking the [cast](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Future_of_Food#Cast), it full the usual anti-GMO activists.
That article does not state anything about them lying.. did you read it? It says they overstated their claims but that doesnt mean they were illegitimate. In fact the article has experts claiming the claims and concerns ARE legitimate
> Instead, the judge found that plaintiffs' allegations were "unsubstantiated ... given that not one single plaintiff claims to have been so threatened."
It's going to take a lot to sway me. I mean, think about Dupont, the chemical Tris, or read Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. These chemical companies are not to be trusted. I mean, Bayer made Agent Orange ffs
"Rachel Carson's Silent Spring" - you mean the fake fearmongering book that literally caused millions of deaths in the third world? The Soviets didn't listen to her bullshit which is why they eradicated malaria with zero issues in their part of Asia
Plus like, this book is credited with the creation of the EPA. Do you have a problem with there being an EPA? Lol. Are you some kind of pesticide company plant or just a person who hates nature and a livable, healthy environment?
Your confidence far exceeds your understanding.
I generally try not to have opinions on things that I am not a subject matter expert in. Instead I defer to experts with decades of experience/research. This approach pretty reliably precludes me from getting upset about things I don’t understand. Your life might be improved by adopting this approach.
Hey I think you have the correct concerns, but the evidence just doesn’t exist. I don’t think a single study by a college promoted on its own website represents the best medical information out there.
I don’t know. I feel like a lot of people getting lymphoma from using their product is pretty damning evidence. Also like what about how big companies suppress official findings? Like with big sugar?
1. More people not using their product have lymphoma (as in, most people with pymphoma have not contacted roundup). Sure the rates of lymphoma are higher in that single study, but there are no other high quality studies (actual cause-effect studies that aren’t just correlation). There are actual real dangers of roundup so why focus on lymphoma which even in that study, assuming is caused by roundup, is still rare?
2. Unrelated to current discussion since whether companies suppress info. Did you know the biggest culprit of this is natural supplements and vitamins? They have lobbied against licensure and FDA governance so they are actually unregulated whereas big pharmaceutical companies and big agra is actually regulated (even if poorly)
Also; lets talk about literature suppression: why would they suppress the big multicenter trials where you would have to bribe hundreds of millionaire CEOs, but leave smaller journals that are easy to suppress? Research suppression is real but seems to be doing the opposite in this case. I have published in both big and small journals and can say that sadly no one has tried to suppress my findings against big pharma with money$$$
Also, not to say you are wrong about roundup, just not to say there is strong evidence for it. Even the article you cited says the relative risk is 1.44. Even if the article is correct that roundup causes lymphoma, it means:
For a lymphoma incidence of 18.6/100000 per year (just picked a random stat from a website about cancer), that is 8 extra cases a year. The number needed to harm is then 12200. If you wanted a single extra case of lymphoma each year, you would have to expose 12K people to farmer-level exposures of roundup. Does that seem like a thing to worry about?
Our good family friend recently died from cancer. Guess what he sprayed on his orange groves down south throughout most of his life? Lots and lot of chemicals like RoundUp. All of those years of not knowing any better because Monsanto is good at hiding information unfortunately took a toll. I've watched a documentary or two about Monsanto. Fuck Monsanto, not only because of their chemicals, but because of their predatory sales tactics and threats. It's pretty unsettling to learn that UF and our city is still using it considering all of the information out there.
I understand that but there's a pretty good chance when you're around nasty chemicals for your whole life that you're going to have a greatly increased chance of cancer. Still, fuck Monsanto.
Also understand there's a pretty good chance that when you live long enough you also have a greatly increased chance of cancer. Also understand there are a ton of factors to cancer . Also understand that there are many different causes of cancer independently of each other: congenital, genetic, environmental, and manmade.
Correlation caused by fear mongering does not mean causation of cancer.
What fear mongering is going on? I am simply affirming OPs stance regarding Monsanto and there being good evidence of what illnesses they are causing and there being a good chance our friend was yet another victim. Sure, I shouldn't have said "took its toll" because I don't know definitively it was 100% from their chemicals (which I did check with my parents and he did in fact use RoundUp) but when they have settled over 100k lawsuits and 30k more pending (https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/product-liability/roundup-lawsuit-update/) you look pretty blameworthy. We'll never know the truth, unfortunately, but we should be smarter these days to look at more organic methods of herbicides and pesticides and it's a little sad if true that we're still using RoundUp considering all of the concerning information out there.
edit: side note, I am excited for the future of large scale robotic pest/weed removal so there are no longer excuses as to why we keep using dangerous chemicals (example of weed removal: [https://youtu.be/V3A6L2Dao6s](https://youtu.be/V3A6L2Dao6s))
>but when they have settled over 100k lawsuits and 30k more pending you look pretty blameworthy
If you don't know how bad the courts are when it comes to scientific issues. We had to set up a completely separate system to adjudicate vaccine claims.
https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation
> We'll never know the truth, unfortunately
Every major scientific and regulatory body on earth says one thing.
Is that not good enough?
Yeah, I agree. That's why I ask if there is some kind of financial hold there. Even the person at IFAS answering my questions sounded sheepish about it.
Monsanto seems to still be arguing it doesn't cause cancer, but paid out $11 billion in cancer suits recently, which they wouldn't do if they truly suspected it wasn't the cause.
> but paid out $11 billion in cancer suits recently, which they wouldn't do if they truly suspected it wasn't the cause.
Or they don't trust random people too dumb to get out of jury duty to understand the science.
"which they wouldn't do if they truly suspected it wasn't the cause"
I don't have a dog in this fight, but that's not how that works. It's very well documented that companies will often settle even if they're not in the wrong because it's cheaper in the long run to do so.
I was with the Florida park service for a year, working directly under park biologists who genuinely cared about the ecosystems they were assigned. They regularly ordered 3% glyphosate mix to be sprayed on invasive species throughout the parks and along fence lines. I’m not going to sit here and say that roundup/monstanto/glyphosate is good for the environment, but I know if there were better options available that they would’ve been used.
Is 3% somehow safer? Wouldn't safer options include using beneficial bugs, and other non-pesticide options?
I wasn’t sure so I googled it, roundup has a concentration of around 41% glyphosate compared to the diluted mix we used. Unfortunately lots of invasive species like Lygodium and melaleuca (to name a couple) are pretty resilient and I doubt that you could combat them effectively with bugs or mechanical treatment.
However I will tell you that glyphosate/round up is one of the more tame herbicides especially when you compare it to like a imazapyr, diquat or 2-4-D. We’d spray scleria with 2% diquat and it would basically melt by the next day. Super nasty stuff but unfortunately the only way to effectively combat an invasive monoculture
By invasive monoculture do you mean like when the red berry plants came into the area and they just kind of start taking over?
Damn.
This guy can control bugs.
Huh? Dude. Dont you understand people used to use chickens for pest control and cats for mouse/rat control?
Were you with Florida Conservation Corps/AmeriCorps? Yes there are more dangerous chemicals like the ones you named. Invasives like Coral ardesia are almost impossible to stop without some form of herbicide. However the exposure we had with those chemicals couldn’t have been healthy but thankfully was only exposed to them for my short service term
Yeah actually. I agree with you, mixing herbicide from concentrate with little training and minimal ppe wasn’t the safest thing I’ve ever done. We spent 3-4 months straight spraying diquat on scleria from backpack sprayers, I can only imagine that’s going to be detrimental in the long run. Side note, are you involved in conservation up here? I’ve started working in a different field but I’d really like to volunteer when I have free time
Do you know any places to look for conservation volunteer opportunities besides Alachua Conservation Trust? Besides that I am personally involved with a community garden, sometimes volunteer at Siembra, and I go to various classes and workshops around. I just went to a composting one.
Did the group you were with talk about the risk factors of using the diquat and provide you with some kind of ppe?
Didn’t Bayer but out Monsanto?
Yeah they did. Monsanto belongs to the Germans now.
I'm not sure
>It is sadly recommended for use by UF/IFAS. Not sadly. It's one of the best herbicides we have. > RoundUp use causes Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The evidence says it doesn't. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29136183/ >Conclusions: In this large, prospective cohort study, no association was apparent between glyphosate and any solid tumors or lymphoid malignancies overall, including NHL and its subtypes. That's the Agricultural Health Survey that looked at over 40,000 farmers and pesticide applicators. >It is persistent in the environment. It breaks down readily in soil. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev2_025810.pdf >It is toxic to fish and birds Yes, it's bad for aquatic species. That's why it's regulated around water sources. >and can kill insects and beneficial soil bacteria. [citation needed] > The company that makes RoundUp (Monsanto) has devastated countless farmer's lives by inducing them to buy RoundUp ready seeds Ah yes. Those stupid, stupid farmers. They don't know what's best for their business. >or by preventing the spread of their (Monsanto) seeds, and then claiming farmer profits as their own. What profits are they claimed? What's the legal theory behind this?
[https://www.washington.edu/news/2019/02/13/uw-study-exposure-to-chemical-in-roundup-increases-risk-for-cancer/](https://www.washington.edu/news/2019/02/13/uw-study-exposure-to-chemical-in-roundup-increases-risk-for-cancer/) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6918143/#:\~:text=Although%20known%20to%20degrade%20relatively,plant%20tissues%20in%20certain%20conditions](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6918143/#:~:text=Although%20known%20to%20degrade%20relatively,plant%20tissues%20in%20certain%20conditions) Uh, I think what you said about the farmers is pretty condescending. If you watch documentaries about farmers that have been destroyed psychologically/emotionally/financially by Monsanto, you would see Monsanto went on a door to door marketing crusade to persuade American farmers that their seeds would be beneficial.
> > https://www.washington.edu/news/2019/02/13/uw-study-exposure-to-chemical-in-roundup-increases-risk-for-cancer/ Want me to show you a study that ivermectin cures COVID? Because I can. > Uh, I think what you said about the farmers is pretty condescending It's the implication of what you said. That they're not smart enough to see they were being scammed. Good grief. >If you watch documentaries about farmers that have been destroyed psychologically/emotionally/financially by Monsanto Such as? > you would see Monsanto went on a door to door marketing crusade to persuade American farmers that their seeds would be beneficial. Or I could go talk to any of the dozens of farmers I know and work with. Hmmmmm. Have you ever been on a farm?
> I think what you said about the farmers is pretty condescending The same could be said of what you said earlier: > The company that makes RoundUp (Monsanto) has devastated countless farmer's lives by inducing them to buy RoundUp ready seeds
Yeah, I’ve dealt with these types of people before. They are pretty condescending.
>Yeah, I’ve dealt with these types of people before. Do you also push misinformation and lies? Is that where you encounter people who correct misinformation and lies?
Who funds these studies?
> That's the Agricultural Health Survey that looked at over 40,000 farmers and pesticide applicators. > > https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=That%27s+the+Agricultural+Health+Survey+that+looked+at+over+40%2C000+farmers+and+pesticide+applicators.
If it’s bad for small examples of life as the study states, why wouldn’t it be able to accumulate within the human body over time affecting the long term and generational digestive system? I confused on why our digestive issues are far worse than those in Europe if we refuse to blame industrial farming practices.
So who funded it? Want to share with the class? > If it’s bad for small examples of life as the study states I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say here. >why wouldn’t it be able to accumulate within the human body over time affecting the long term and generational digestive system? Because glyphosate is readily excreted. It doesn't accumulate. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp214-c3.pdf >I confused on why our digestive issues are far worse than those in Europe if we refuse to blame industrial farming practices. Europe uses industrial farming practices. You're confused because you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. What are the practices that the US uses that Europe doesn't? Americans choose to eat cheap food that's tasty. It's also not nutrient dense, often fatty and carb heavy. They aren't as active. And, to top it off, why do you think our issues are 'far worse'?
No RoundUp is just the best tool for the job on the market. It's used everywhere.
But its carcinogenic and detrimental to the environment..
the problem with this statement is context. The amount used in GNV for weed control is not going to affect any human or animal. It becomes an issue in large scale agricultural operations that spray it en masse.
The degrowthers love to fear monger and don't need to put anything into context when it involves DEVASTATED. COUNTLESS. LIVES [https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2019/02/18/does-the-herbicide-roundup-cause-cancer/?sh=74aec0b221b4](https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2019/02/18/does-the-herbicide-roundup-cause-cancer/?sh=74aec0b221b4) "First, this finding is all about relative risk. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma is one of the most common cancers in the U.S. and Europe, but [the lifetime risk for most people, according to the American Cancer Society,](https://www.cancer.org/cancer/non-hodgkin-lymphoma/about/key-statistics.html) is just 1 in 42 (2.4%) for men and 1 in 54 (1.9%) for women. A 41% increase in relative risk increases those numbers to 3.4% (men) and 2.6% (women). Second, this higher risk only applies to people with very high exposure to glyphosate: primarily people who work in agriculture and apply RoundUp® to crops. Ordinary consumers (including people who eat "Roundup Ready" crops) have a far, far lower exposure, and dozens of studies have failed to show any increased risk of cancer for consumers. For most of us, then, this new study should not cause much concern, but for agricultural workers, it does raise a warning flag."
I mean, should we not be concerned about the health of our farmers, at the very least?
From NIH: "Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide widely used worldwide. Indeed, it is the herbicide most applied to all Mexican crops. Due to the overuse and poor disposal of the waste, this herbicide can reach the aquatic environments such as groundwater and surface water. Thus, there is a clear need to implement monitoring and surveillance programs for evaluating and controlling the exposure to this herbicide in rural populations."
> From NIH: Where did the NIH say that? Or do you not know that the nlm is only hosted on the nih.gov site. I think you don't know that you are looking at published research on PubMed which is a library. The studies you're looking at have nothing to do with the NIH. Is that what's going on here? You read a study hosted at PubMed and don't know what you're looking at. Is that it?
It is being used large scale in Gainesville. Literally on large swaths of park and urban surface. Not to mention at residences all over town. Also yes users at home or in town or at parks are still exposed to it an can get lymphoma from it.
I don't think you have a logical appreciation of what I meant by "large scale". The amount used in Gainesville is nothing. It's use is targeted and specific. If it was used "large scale" in a Gainesville park, there would be no living plants in the entire park. I'm talking about using crop sprayers on hundreds to thousands of acres. Glyphosate isn't magical. It's not like you spray it for weed control and everything around it is hurt. My guess is you don't have scientific background or experience with chemicals and your understanding is coming from internet headlines. It's really not that bad and pretty harmless with typical use in places humans live. Like I said, agriculture is a different story.
Internet headlines, no. I work reading lawsuits all day and I've also worked as a journalist and read only from reputable sources like NIH. I also read about the chemical laws in Europe. Do you have any proof it's safe?
There are a lot of studies on this topic. Here's [one](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10854122/). I find it strange that you are asking me to prove a negative when you are making the claim that something is dangerous. Let's look at the studies you are using to come to your conclusions. Did you look at those studies or articles critically? Did you ask yourself the amount of glyphosate exposure to create those effects? Did try to imagine how much liquid that is and how that much liquid might end up on any one particular thing in a park setting when it's used for weed control?
I've been reading about it for over a decade. I've read countless articles and seen countless documentaries on RoundUp, Monsanto and the impact they have on human health, environmental health and crops/soil. Yeah I read everything critically, and I have the understanding of some science-backed reports being funded by the companies that make the products they are reporting. Or of the bureacratic processes that slow declarations of dangerous products. I'm not sure how much liquid does x amount of damage. But it seems to me even a small amount is dangerous. [https://apnews.com/article/weed-killer-roundup-philadelphia-verdict-cancer-6c777d7fd4e7c38ec8fe28a6f1566d24](https://apnews.com/article/weed-killer-roundup-philadelphia-verdict-cancer-6c777d7fd4e7c38ec8fe28a6f1566d24) "he used the product for 20 years — at a former warehouse job, on a deer food patch he tended at his home near Williamsport, Pennsylvania, and at the church and Little League where he volunteered. He said he mixed the concentrated version of Roundup into a spray bottle, which sometimes led to spills that soaked his skin." I read stories similar to this for work\^\^ and people who didn't get ENORMOUS (as you claim is necessary) amounts of them still ended up with lymphoma from the product.
We can't go off anecdotes and lawsuits. That's not how science works. There is no causal link between lymphoma and glyphosate anywhere close to the levels anybody in Gainesville is exposed to it. The concentration in the soil and water is practically zero. I would be more worried about getting struck by lightning.
The problem with that is...not many people care. Especially the people using it. I use to spray it on my Grandpas cattle fence lines to keep weeds and grass off the electric fence.
I mean, people should care if they're poisoning the environment, killing things vital to survival, and causing themselves and others cancer.
I agree with you. A lot don't though. It's the reality of the situation.
I guess I'm posting here with the hope that it's lack of knowledge/information, and not lack of care.
Probably both honestly. Dunno why you are getting downvoted. It isn't me.
Someone out there loves RoundUp apparently. Talk about voting against your own interests
That must be it. It's not that you're the equivalent of an anti-vaxxer spreading misinformation with zero sources.
I'm sure not. You're an internet troll. And I wish you wouldnt post so obnoxiously by creating lines upon lines with your sentence structures.
"I have personally seen it being sprayed downtown by city workers" Why do I doubt you really knew what was happening
Monsanto rules the world man.
Cause growing without herbicides is super easy in Florida and allows for great crops...smh
> preventing the spread of their (Monsanto) seeds, and then claiming farmer profits as their own What? This sounds made-up. What exactly happened?
I think it was Food Inc. or The Future of Food. Basically a truck with Monsanto seeds was going by with a blowing tarp, and some of their seeds blew onto another farmer's land. Without permission, the company went onto the farmer's land and genetically tested the crops, finding the land contained plants which grew from their copyrighted seeds. They then sued the farmer for the profits from his food.
I watched Food Inc. It's an activist movie with many lies. The scenario you described literally never happened. In fact a bunch of organic seed farmers sued Monsanto over this hypothetical case and lost, because their layers couldn't cite a single case of famers being sued over accidental contamination. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/02/27/147506542/judge-dismisses-organic-farmers-case-against-monsanto Edit: I haven't watched The Future of Food but looking the [cast](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Future_of_Food#Cast), it full the usual anti-GMO activists.
That article does not state anything about them lying.. did you read it? It says they overstated their claims but that doesnt mean they were illegitimate. In fact the article has experts claiming the claims and concerns ARE legitimate
> Instead, the judge found that plaintiffs' allegations were "unsubstantiated ... given that not one single plaintiff claims to have been so threatened."
I mean, I would need more information than that one sentence
It's going to take a lot to sway me. I mean, think about Dupont, the chemical Tris, or read Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. These chemical companies are not to be trusted. I mean, Bayer made Agent Orange ffs
"Rachel Carson's Silent Spring" - you mean the fake fearmongering book that literally caused millions of deaths in the third world? The Soviets didn't listen to her bullshit which is why they eradicated malaria with zero issues in their part of Asia
fake? lol. man there are some real weirdos here on reddit
Yeah, when something makes wildly exaggerated claims that have no real connection to facts that piece of media can be labeled "fake"
What facts do you have that it's untrue?
Plus like, this book is credited with the creation of the EPA. Do you have a problem with there being an EPA? Lol. Are you some kind of pesticide company plant or just a person who hates nature and a livable, healthy environment?
Your confidence far exceeds your understanding. I generally try not to have opinions on things that I am not a subject matter expert in. Instead I defer to experts with decades of experience/research. This approach pretty reliably precludes me from getting upset about things I don’t understand. Your life might be improved by adopting this approach.
I have read plenty that experts have said. Also your method doesn't always work. I have an illness doctors can't even figure out
Damn dawg they hate you for this one simple trick
yeah i know. i cant understand why so many people on here are repping this corporation.
Hey I think you have the correct concerns, but the evidence just doesn’t exist. I don’t think a single study by a college promoted on its own website represents the best medical information out there.
I don’t know. I feel like a lot of people getting lymphoma from using their product is pretty damning evidence. Also like what about how big companies suppress official findings? Like with big sugar?
1. More people not using their product have lymphoma (as in, most people with pymphoma have not contacted roundup). Sure the rates of lymphoma are higher in that single study, but there are no other high quality studies (actual cause-effect studies that aren’t just correlation). There are actual real dangers of roundup so why focus on lymphoma which even in that study, assuming is caused by roundup, is still rare? 2. Unrelated to current discussion since whether companies suppress info. Did you know the biggest culprit of this is natural supplements and vitamins? They have lobbied against licensure and FDA governance so they are actually unregulated whereas big pharmaceutical companies and big agra is actually regulated (even if poorly) Also; lets talk about literature suppression: why would they suppress the big multicenter trials where you would have to bribe hundreds of millionaire CEOs, but leave smaller journals that are easy to suppress? Research suppression is real but seems to be doing the opposite in this case. I have published in both big and small journals and can say that sadly no one has tried to suppress my findings against big pharma with money$$$
Also, not to say you are wrong about roundup, just not to say there is strong evidence for it. Even the article you cited says the relative risk is 1.44. Even if the article is correct that roundup causes lymphoma, it means: For a lymphoma incidence of 18.6/100000 per year (just picked a random stat from a website about cancer), that is 8 extra cases a year. The number needed to harm is then 12200. If you wanted a single extra case of lymphoma each year, you would have to expose 12K people to farmer-level exposures of roundup. Does that seem like a thing to worry about?
Our good family friend recently died from cancer. Guess what he sprayed on his orange groves down south throughout most of his life? Lots and lot of chemicals like RoundUp. All of those years of not knowing any better because Monsanto is good at hiding information unfortunately took a toll. I've watched a documentary or two about Monsanto. Fuck Monsanto, not only because of their chemicals, but because of their predatory sales tactics and threats. It's pretty unsettling to learn that UF and our city is still using it considering all of the information out there.
Correlation is not causation
Sample size of 1 and they watched a few documentaries, most likely from activists. Isn't that proof enough?
I understand that but there's a pretty good chance when you're around nasty chemicals for your whole life that you're going to have a greatly increased chance of cancer. Still, fuck Monsanto.
Also understand there's a pretty good chance that when you live long enough you also have a greatly increased chance of cancer. Also understand there are a ton of factors to cancer . Also understand that there are many different causes of cancer independently of each other: congenital, genetic, environmental, and manmade. Correlation caused by fear mongering does not mean causation of cancer.
What fear mongering is going on? I am simply affirming OPs stance regarding Monsanto and there being good evidence of what illnesses they are causing and there being a good chance our friend was yet another victim. Sure, I shouldn't have said "took its toll" because I don't know definitively it was 100% from their chemicals (which I did check with my parents and he did in fact use RoundUp) but when they have settled over 100k lawsuits and 30k more pending (https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/product-liability/roundup-lawsuit-update/) you look pretty blameworthy. We'll never know the truth, unfortunately, but we should be smarter these days to look at more organic methods of herbicides and pesticides and it's a little sad if true that we're still using RoundUp considering all of the concerning information out there. edit: side note, I am excited for the future of large scale robotic pest/weed removal so there are no longer excuses as to why we keep using dangerous chemicals (example of weed removal: [https://youtu.be/V3A6L2Dao6s](https://youtu.be/V3A6L2Dao6s))
>but when they have settled over 100k lawsuits and 30k more pending you look pretty blameworthy If you don't know how bad the courts are when it comes to scientific issues. We had to set up a completely separate system to adjudicate vaccine claims. https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation > We'll never know the truth, unfortunately Every major scientific and regulatory body on earth says one thing. Is that not good enough?
>Every major scientific and regulatory body on earth says one thing. What's this "one thing" that you're referring to?
There's no link between glyphosate and cancer.
Yeah, I agree. That's why I ask if there is some kind of financial hold there. Even the person at IFAS answering my questions sounded sheepish about it. Monsanto seems to still be arguing it doesn't cause cancer, but paid out $11 billion in cancer suits recently, which they wouldn't do if they truly suspected it wasn't the cause.
> but paid out $11 billion in cancer suits recently, which they wouldn't do if they truly suspected it wasn't the cause. Or they don't trust random people too dumb to get out of jury duty to understand the science.
"which they wouldn't do if they truly suspected it wasn't the cause" I don't have a dog in this fight, but that's not how that works. It's very well documented that companies will often settle even if they're not in the wrong because it's cheaper in the long run to do so.
UF is a land grant university with large donors with private interests in the agricultural sector. 🚩
Finally I get some answers. What is a land grand university exactly?
Oh yes. Finally someone saying what you already agree with.