Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

"Oatmeal, breakfast foods contain unsafe amounts of cancer-linked weed killer..."

2

Replies

  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Regarding the lawsuit I listened to an interview with the claimant/gardener (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation radio). He was exposed to extreme amounts of glysophate. The spray attachment was non standard and on occasion it broke and soaked him with glysophate.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    The radio interview.

    https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-monday-edition-1.4783188/how-a-groundskeeper-with-cancer-took-on-agricultural-giant-monsanto-and-won-1.4783194
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Here's a link to the claim:
    https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2016cv01244/296571/52/

    The employer was Benicia Unified School District. "Niche" gives it a B- classification.

    https://www.niche.com/k12/d/benicia-unified-school-district-ca/

    The school district has all it's minutes online. I don't see anything untoward other than the district is facing possible strike action.

    http://www.agendaonline.net/public/agency.aspx?PublicAgencyID=198&AgencyTypeID=1

    How much money does a school district have in it's kitty to deal with an injury like this?
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,860 Member
    The_Enginerd wrote: »
    Or you could trust the actual science on this instead of reacting to the latest scare based on fear and scaremongering.

    https://thoughtscapism.com/2016/09/07/17-questions-about-glyphosate/

    Specifically:
    https://thoughtscapism.com/2016/09/07/does-glyphosate-cause-cancer/

    And the EWG overstates risks on chemicals and their recommendations are backed more by fear than by science. They are the same group that puts out the "dirty dozen" list trying to scare you into thinking organically produced produce is safer.

    https://acsh.org/news/2017/05/25/dear-ewg-why-real-scientists-think-poorly-you-11323

    Yes.. The EWG finds some issue with just about every possible ingredient out there.
  • hesn92
    hesn92 Posts: 5,966 Member
    I really wish I could read some of this sciencey stuff without my eyes glazing over. My husband is super into all this "non stick is bad" "Fish is bad" "vaccines are bad" etc. and I'm just like yea, whatever. But I don't have any actual responses or retorts for him.
  • The_Enginerd
    The_Enginerd Posts: 3,982 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    This kind of thing is infuriating. Ignores the science completely or politicians cherry picking whatever data supports their narrative and the public piling on ignoring the recommendations of actual experts within the area. California just decided that glyphosate causes cancer despite there being no clear evidence that it does nor any clear explanation as to how it even could...

    kimny72 wrote: »
    It was just a matter of time before we made the leap from people getting medical advice from former Playboy Playmates on FB to governments bowing to social pressure and declaring something causes cancer because that's what everyone wants them to say. <sigh>


    California's Prop 65 cancer advisories are absolutely looney. EVERYTHING causes cancer in California. If you went by their advisories to avoid carcinogens, you'd live by yourself under a tree on a mountain top in a full biochemical protection suit and consume nothing but boiled rain water collected in an organically constructed still.

    I was just going to post something to this effect (I live in CA). You can't go into a public place here - coffee shops, grocery stores, drug stores, restaurants - without passing a hazard sign that the establishment contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer. It's ridiculous, and completely negates the impact of warnings for places where precautions should really be taken.

    Maybe some common sense starting to peak through? We'll see the ultimate results and decision of the public hearing.

    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-coffee-cancer-warning-20180815-story.html
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    A rebuttal to the EWG by the Genetic Literacy Project:

    https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/08/17/children-killer-glyphosate-found-in-cheerios-experts-dismantle-environmental-working-groups-glyphosate-study/
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,563 Member
    The_Enginerd wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    This kind of thing is infuriating. Ignores the science completely or politicians cherry picking whatever data supports their narrative and the public piling on ignoring the recommendations of actual experts within the area. California just decided that glyphosate causes cancer despite there being no clear evidence that it does nor any clear explanation as to how it even could...

    kimny72 wrote: »
    It was just a matter of time before we made the leap from people getting medical advice from former Playboy Playmates on FB to governments bowing to social pressure and declaring something causes cancer because that's what everyone wants them to say. <sigh>


    California's Prop 65 cancer advisories are absolutely looney. EVERYTHING causes cancer in California. If you went by their advisories to avoid carcinogens, you'd live by yourself under a tree on a mountain top in a full biochemical protection suit and consume nothing but boiled rain water collected in an organically constructed still.

    I was just going to post something to this effect (I live in CA). You can't go into a public place here - coffee shops, grocery stores, drug stores, restaurants - without passing a hazard sign that the establishment contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer. It's ridiculous, and completely negates the impact of warnings for places where precautions should really be taken.

    Maybe some common sense starting to peak through? We'll see the ultimate results and decision of the public hearing.

    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-coffee-cancer-warning-20180815-story.html

    It would be a start. Too bad it's limited to coffee, though, and can't be used as a precedent for other products, which I guess means every single product with trace amounts of acrylamide will have to initiate a separate action to get the warning removed.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    hesn92 wrote: »
    I really wish I could read some of this sciencey stuff without my eyes glazing over. My husband is super into all this "non stick is bad" "Fish is bad" "vaccines are bad" etc. and I'm just like yea, whatever. But I don't have any actual responses or retorts for him.

    Could always just ask him why he thinks he knows better about the safety of something (vaccines for example) than the experts in that area when he himself has no background in it. I assume the answer would be something along the lines of that it is a conspiracy and all safety testing is done by people who are in the pocket of big bnb pharma or something like that. Can then always ask how he knows that. In the end it's just belief born out of a desire to have special knowledge.

    Honestly though best not to be confrontational about it probably.
  • Purplebunnysarah
    Purplebunnysarah Posts: 3,252 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    Here's an anti-sensationalist article (not a study) that goes into why trace amounts of glyphosate are present in a lot of food, not just cereal, and it provides food (haha) for thought. It points out that the EWG study is not peer-reviewed and used a lower "safe" threshold than the publicly available, peer-reviewed studies that conclude residual levels are safe. It's telling that the actual methodology used and the actual data are not available for review.

    https://mashable.com/2018/08/17/cereal-glyphosate-pesticide-study-debunk/#5Wm55fRkZmqT

    As someone who used to work on pesticide residue / dissipation studies, this is accurate.

    Also, glyphosate is very commonly used off-label as a dessicant at crop harvest to make it easier to bring in the crops, especially in wet years. For oats, specifically, as well as pulses and soybeans. We did environmental testing as well as GLP testing and we would get hundreds of bean samples. If they were above 4ppm (EU limit at the time) the client would mix the batch that was high with another farm that tested low and then retest, keep mixing until the results were low enough to export.
  • TonyB0588
    TonyB0588 Posts: 9,520 Member
    SuzySunshine99 wrote: »
    My husband threw out the oatmeal yesterday after seeing this. He's very concerned about it, but I'd like to see more data and research.

    Why? I'm a cereal lover, and if it's already bought i'm eating it. Might re-examine my choices in the days or weeks ahead, but I doubt I'll stop using this stuff.
  • elsie6hickman
    elsie6hickman Posts: 3,864 Member
    I was born in the 50's and grew up through the 1960s, when we used to follow the mosquito spray truck around. I figure at this point, I've consumed enough chemicals to kill me, so I don't worry too much about it. I like oatmeal, I don't worry about GMO. If you get excited about this, you also probably believe that chickens are raised without hormones, which they aren't and never were. When the FDA says to avoid something, I will think about it then.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories