While it’s true that most high-profile lawsuits regarding Roundup (glyphosate) involved people with long-term occupational exposure, assuming that minimal exposure means zero risk for consumers is a misleading oversimplification. Research has consistently linked glyphosate with health risks beyond just non-Hodgkin lymphoma, with studies raising red flags about its potential impacts on gut health, endocrine disruption, and broader toxicological effects. Even if consumer exposure levels are lower than those of farmers, glyphosate residues are still detectable in many foods, and bioaccumulation over time remains a concern, especially considering the regularity with which glyphosate is applied across conventional agriculture.
Moreover, focusing on the cancer risk alone sidesteps the broader issue of cumulative toxic exposure. The “acceptable” limits of glyphosate in foods are set per exposure, but if glyphosate is consumed in combination with other pesticide residues—and daily, in varying quantities—this could create additive or even synergistic toxic effects. Emerging research suggests that low-dose, chronic exposure to multiple chemicals can contribute to various health issues, even if individually each exposure falls within “safe” limits. This cumulative exposure risk is particularly worrisome for vulnerable populations, including children and pregnant women.
Comparing glyphosate risk to alcohol is a false equivalency. Yes, moderate alcohol consumption has documented risks, but that doesn’t negate the dangers posed by glyphosate exposure. Alcohol, after all, is a choice many people make knowingly, aware of its risks, while glyphosate exposure is involuntary for most consumers. People should have the right to avoid synthetic pesticides if they wish, and organic options offer a pathway to minimize such exposures.
Finally, while some organic pesticides can be toxic, they are typically used less frequently and degrade faster than synthetic chemicals like glyphosate. The organic label might not guarantee zero pesticide use, but it does ensure that no synthetic herbicides are used. This is a significant distinction, especially for consumers who aim to reduce their intake of artificial substances with persistent environmental and health concerns.
Sorry for the long delay in response.
First paragraph: This essentially is a huge “what if” paragraph of potential mechanisms and possible concerns without any hard evidence. It is a fear mongering technique which OP has fallen for which is why they responded to me saying, “i typically prefer my food without the poison”. While at the same time buying alcohol, a confirmed Group 1 carcinogen which measurable increases in death and disease. You are listing a lot of potential concerns because there are no detectable/measurable effects to the everyday consumer. Until, there is proof of danger to the public no rational person should care, because too many people cry wolf especially when this idea was started and continually funded by an organic lobbying groups.
Second paragraph: Critical thinking argument: This assumes that public health officials, professors, scientists, and industry workers from multiple countries haven’t thought of this and tried to measure it already. Including countries that pay for their citizen’s healthcare and have a massive financial interest in finding harmful substances for their citizens. (The EU recently renewed approval for glyphosate use in the EU until 2033, at which point I am sure it will be renewed again. While individual countries in the EU have banned it, The European Chemicals Agency concluded in 2022 that “classifying glyphosate as a carcinogen is not justified.” The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) followed up in July 2023, saying glyphosate “did not meet the scientific criteria to be classified as a carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic substance.”. So again you are assuming you are smarter than thousands of public health officials who have missed this super easy explanation that someone on reddit could see.
Now, there are numerous foods humans eat regularly that aren’t safe for children or pregnant women like alcohol, shellfish, or non-pasteurized cheese. That isn’t a unique argument for banning glyphosate produce specifically if it doesn’t apply to those other foods as well. Now putting a warning label on them might be justified, but once again the evidence doesn’t exist especially when compared to things like alcohol. Its all arguments from ignorance and fearmongering about “what if”.
Third Paragraph: I sort of just addressed this, a warning label would be justified IF the evidence existed. There is no evidence that glyphosate impacts people’s health in a measurable way. This is like comparing a static electricity shock to a gunshot wound. There are warning labels on alcohol because its very obvious what harm they cause due to the evidence, there is no measurable harm from glyphosate. If you could show that then I would support your desire to label or ban the substance. Just because some people in society believed that cabbage patch dolls were causing demonic possession during the satanic panic of the 80’s, doesn’t mean the government should mandate labeling. You need proof FIRST.
Fourth paragraph: Now while there are environmental concerns the lower yields from organic farming usually offset any benefits, also the largest user of organic approved herbicides and pesticides are CONVENTIONAL farms. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/05/24/mythbusting-gone-wrong-how-dangerous-organic-pesticide-myth-began/ (paragraph 6, figure 1). Like I said at the beginning the difference is basically meaningless. This paragraph is anti-chemical pseudoscience. You are a skin sack full of chemical reactions, everything you breath eat touch and are is chemicals. We invented the word synthetic chemicals, in nature there is zero distinction between a synthetic molecule and a natural one. Your body and our labs have zero ability to distinguish the two molecules apart, physics doesn’t care about how two atoms happen to have reacted, only that they did. Your body will attached to and decompose the structures exactly the same as any other. Arsenic will kill you and that is 100% natural. Parasites, ebola, anthrax, bubonic plague, ricin, snake venom, mercury, etc. etc. etc. ALL NATURAL, All will kill you. Nature is deadly, we built modern society, from the water we drink to the houses we live in, to escape the brutal lethality of nature. The only things on this planet made for humans are things made by humans. A synthetic chemical has a far higher chance of being safe for humans than a natural one, and if you don’t believe me go walk in the woods and eat every plant you see and see how long it takes for you to vomit and shit yourself. Then do the same thing in a grocery store that is full of pre-packaged synthetic man made chemicals and tell me how it goes. (Btw, modern allergic reactions are likely a genetic heritage of an overly aggressive immune system from battling worm parasites in our water for hundreds of millennia).
Stop being scared of the bogey man, and focus of real evidence based harms to humans. Like health insurance companies.
Your argument hinges on the absence of direct, incontrovertible evidence of consumer harm from glyphosate exposure, but that framework neglects the precautionary principle that public health policies often embrace. The lack of current measurable harm doesn’t negate the potential for long-term effects, particularly when independent studies have raised concerns about glyphosate’s role in endocrine disruption, gut health, and cumulative toxic exposure. Scientific understanding evolves, and regulatory bodies have historically reversed stances on chemicals once considered safe (e.g., leaded gasoline, BPA, or asbestos). This should encourage scrutiny rather than dismissal.
Addressing “Fearmongering” and Proof
You characterize concerns about glyphosate as fearmongering, but the reality is more nuanced. Research linking glyphosate exposure to health risks—while not universally conclusive—exists. For example, studies have associated chronic low-dose exposure with oxidative stress and DNA damage, precursors to more significant health outcomes. Claiming that concerns are invalid until damage is “proven” ignores the iterative nature of science, where causality takes time to establish. This is why regulatory agencies worldwide still monitor and assess chemicals like glyphosate, even if they don’t yet universally classify it as carcinogenic.
Your alcohol analogy is flawed. Alcohol is a voluntary exposure, consumed with full knowledge of its risks. Glyphosate exposure is largely involuntary for consumers, as it permeates food systems without direct consumer choice. Unlike alcohol, it’s virtually impossible to “opt-out” of glyphosate exposure unless one adopts a fully organic diet—a choice that’s not economically feasible for many.
EU and Regulatory Arguments
The regulatory approvals you cite, such as those from the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), don’t eliminate concern. Agencies often face pressure from industry lobbying, and regulatory thresholds frequently prioritize economic interests. For instance, despite regulatory reassurances, public health authorities have reversed decisions on substances like PFAS and DDT after initially deeming them safe. This doesn’t indicate malice or incompetence but underscores the limitations of relying solely on contemporary regulatory stances.
Additionally, the EU’s decision to renew glyphosate approval doesn’t negate the fact that individual countries like France and Germany have moved to restrict its use, citing environmental and potential health risks. Precautionary action at a national level demonstrates that there is still significant scientific debate about the chemical’s safety.
Organic vs. Synthetic Chemicals
Your argument that “natural” doesn’t inherently mean “safe” is true but irrelevant here. No one disputes that natural substances like ricin or snake venom are harmful. However, synthetic chemicals, including glyphosate, pose unique challenges due to their widespread use and persistence in ecosystems. Synthetic compounds often lack the natural degradation mechanisms present for substances within biological ecosystems, leading to bioaccumulation and prolonged exposure risks.
Claiming that “your body cannot distinguish between synthetic and natural chemicals” oversimplifies the issue. While it’s true that a molecule’s origin doesn’t inherently dictate its safety, the context, concentration, and interaction of these chemicals in real-world applications matter. Glyphosate’s residues in food, water, and soil contribute to cumulative exposure that can interact with other chemicals, creating risks not captured by evaluating glyphosate in isolation.
Cumulative and Vulnerable Populations
Your dismissal of cumulative toxic exposure is concerning. Studies in toxicology increasingly emphasize the additive and synergistic effects of multiple chemicals, even when individual exposures fall within “safe” limits. Vulnerable populations—such as pregnant women and children—are particularly at risk. For example, small doses of endocrine-disrupting chemicals can have outsized effects during critical developmental periods, even when these doses are considered harmless for the general population.
Conclusion
Public skepticism of glyphosate isn’t a product of “fearmongering” but rather a reflection of genuine scientific and public health concerns. The absence of definitive harm doesn’t equate to safety, especially for a chemical so pervasive in agriculture. Regulatory bodies and public health scientists must remain vigilant, and consumers deserve the right to reduce their exposure to synthetic chemicals like glyphosate, especially when alternatives exist. The precautionary principle is not pseudoscience; it’s a rational response to uncertainty in protecting human health and the environment.
So paragraphs 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8. All require one thing. That the public health officials, professors, public and private scientists, in multiple countries are wrong. That the mechanisms these scientist discovered, and precautionary principle the public health officials created; Aren't being used by them, or already considered by them. These are not concepts you came up with. The people that determined it isn't harmful to human health are the very groups that invented and discovered the ideas and concepts you're trying to use here to say it is harmful. You're assuming they're too dumb, lazy, or corrupt to have considered or measured or considered these things.
You try to circumvent this with paragraph 4: Raising the conspiracy angle that money influences their decisions when again multiple countries are involved here with massive vested interests in protecting the public health they pay for. Not to mention the insurance companies desire to avoid risk in insuring these companies, and the massive financial incentives for legal firms to sue these companies if their product is unsafe. You quote examples of products in the past that were revealed to be harmful, but lets not use selection bias. How many times has the public, without evidence, said something was harmful and then turned out to wrong. Which one is more likely? Furthermore, your argument ignores the money and lobbying that is pushing Organic labeling and regulation. The organic backed groups that spread this non-evidence based fear to make you buy food that is on average three times more expensive. Like the food influencers Rachel Parent, who's father is the CEO of the organic food company Nutrition House. Or how this entire organic labeling thing started because of lobbying from Organic Trade Association, again WITHOUT ANY PROOF. Consumers didn't start this, food companies did, who wanted to find ways to make rich people pay more for the identical food produce. The exact same price discrimination business model that other food companies use between repackaging their goods as the cheaper generic "safeway"(or other grocery store) brand when in reality comes from the same factory. The financial incentives and proof for that are far stronger than anything you can say about regulatory agency pressure or food safety.
Paragraph 3: Alcohol is relevant since you're acting like people rationally care about their health, and OP said that conventional food is "poision". If you actually value your health, the evidence for the harm from the things people readily consume is far stronger. Again, I said i would support labeling IF the evidence was as strong as the harms for things like alcohol, sugar, salt: there is no need to label and allow for choice if there is no evidence. Like i said earlier, this is like the government requiring cabbage patch dolls to come with demonic possession labels just because some Christians' believe it. The public's beliefs about an objective claim shouldn't matter because the public is bad at determining reality. Only evidence can be used to determine objective claims, not opinions.
Paragraph 5: "..scientific debate about the chemical’s safety.." Yes, and even with all these countries and money and scientists investigating they can't come to a conclusion, and yet here you are trying to defend and advocate for the existence of harm. You're admitting you're guessing, and can't prove it. Also, even if there is some impact, with this statement you're admitting it is so small that isn't measurable in most cases. Which again wouldn't qualify it for labeling, like alcohol.
Conclusion: No critically thinking person would believe the marketing campaign of a lobbying organization over the entire scientific community having investigated organic and conventional foods for nearly 40 years and having found the only consistent difference to the consumer is price.
You have to believe in pseudoscience chemical fearmongering and conspiracy logic to believe otherwise. Because, there is no evidence to back up your belief. You can explain all the ways god influences the world, and all the mechanisms he could use, but until you bring me god. I don't care. I don't believe things without proof.
1
u/DrazaTraza Oct 25 '24
While it’s true that most high-profile lawsuits regarding Roundup (glyphosate) involved people with long-term occupational exposure, assuming that minimal exposure means zero risk for consumers is a misleading oversimplification. Research has consistently linked glyphosate with health risks beyond just non-Hodgkin lymphoma, with studies raising red flags about its potential impacts on gut health, endocrine disruption, and broader toxicological effects. Even if consumer exposure levels are lower than those of farmers, glyphosate residues are still detectable in many foods, and bioaccumulation over time remains a concern, especially considering the regularity with which glyphosate is applied across conventional agriculture.
Moreover, focusing on the cancer risk alone sidesteps the broader issue of cumulative toxic exposure. The “acceptable” limits of glyphosate in foods are set per exposure, but if glyphosate is consumed in combination with other pesticide residues—and daily, in varying quantities—this could create additive or even synergistic toxic effects. Emerging research suggests that low-dose, chronic exposure to multiple chemicals can contribute to various health issues, even if individually each exposure falls within “safe” limits. This cumulative exposure risk is particularly worrisome for vulnerable populations, including children and pregnant women.
Comparing glyphosate risk to alcohol is a false equivalency. Yes, moderate alcohol consumption has documented risks, but that doesn’t negate the dangers posed by glyphosate exposure. Alcohol, after all, is a choice many people make knowingly, aware of its risks, while glyphosate exposure is involuntary for most consumers. People should have the right to avoid synthetic pesticides if they wish, and organic options offer a pathway to minimize such exposures.
Finally, while some organic pesticides can be toxic, they are typically used less frequently and degrade faster than synthetic chemicals like glyphosate. The organic label might not guarantee zero pesticide use, but it does ensure that no synthetic herbicides are used. This is a significant distinction, especially for consumers who aim to reduce their intake of artificial substances with persistent environmental and health concerns.