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..."
Options
Replies
-
Its funny how the European Union came to a different conclusion. I wish i could remember the date of the findings.
0 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »Scott The Truck Driver just posted a 48 minute video on this subject and he's burning with passion on the issue. I wish he'd come here and debate because he'd be throwing around kittens left and right and he wouldn't take any kitten from anybody here.
I know when I want advice based on sound scientific judgement, I look to some wanna-be YouTube star instead of doctors and scientist who have spent years of their lives being educated, working in the field, and conducting and reviewing research.
That's how I get my opiates, too.
0 -
Ugh I try not to get dragged into anything involving Monsanto because it just becomes a sh*tstorm of emotion where no rational conversation is possible.
That said a little bit about what glyphosate is and what it is used for.
Glyophosate is a shikimate pathway inhibitor. The shikimate pathway is a biosynthetic pathway that allows plants and some bacteria, fungi and protazoa to produce the amino acids trytophan, tyrosine and phenylalanine. Without this pathway plants cannot produce those amino acids and they die. Without that pathway some bacteria won't be able to produce those amino acids and they will have to get them from another source.This pathway is not present in animals and we derive those amino acids in a completely different manner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shikimate_pathway
As a quick aside when talking about amino acids in animals (such as humans) all 20 are required for life but some are called "essential". The "essential" amino acids are the ones that we cannot produce biosynthetically ourselves from parts and therefore we have to injest them directly. Regardless humans don't have the shikimate pathway at all.
Glyphosate works by inhibiting one enzyme within this pathway, specifically 5-enolpyruvylshikimate 3-phosphate or EPSPS
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC29264/
Inhibition of this enzyme stops the shikimate pathway and prevents plants from being able to produce amino acids they need to survive. As a result glyphosate kills most plants (some are naturally resistant).
Glyphosate is the active ingredient of the Monsanto produced herbicide round-up. Monsanto additionally used modern genetic engineering techniques to introduce a bacterial EPSPS enzyme from agrobacteria which are resistant to glyphosate because the enzyme is a slightly different shape and is not inhibited by glyphosate despite carrying out an identiical funciton. Addition of the agrobacterial EPSPS enzyme to plants means that those plants now have a functional Shikimate pathway even in the presence of glyphosate and are therefore immune to it. By genetically engineering crop plants to include this alternate enzyme and provide glyphosate resistance glyphosate could then be sprayed over the crops in order to kill any invasive weeds or plants in the field and prevent the need for mechanical tilling, additional crop spacing or use of directly applied organophosphate herbicides which are typically animal neurotoxic and quite dangerous.
To date there is no conclusive evidence that glyphosate causes any harm to humans at all. We don't have the pathway it inhibits and I have no idea how it would give you cancer because it isn't a mutagen or teratogen (it doesn't cause DNA damage). I could imagine that it might negatively affect ones gut microbiome as bacteria do have the shikimate pathway but most that do can derive those amino acids by uptake rather than the pathway so inhibition of the pathway wouldn't actually harm them in an enviornment that has lots of amino acids in it, like your gut. So I have my doubt that glyphosate would kill bacteria within your microbiome and I'm not sure there has been a study that has demonstrated that it does. That said that is the one potentially negative effect I would at least think there is the possibility it would have.
As for courts deciding it is a carcinogen that isn't actually based on any concrete study, that is just people deciding that since it "might" be a carcinogen (the same way pretty much anything "might" be a carcinogen) that it is best to ban it or give large payouts to anyone who claims it gave them cancer.
There is a lot of fearmongering associated with it and very little actual understanding. As for "tons of it" being sprayed that certainly is true, but it has just supplanted previously used and far worse herbicides and pesticides. The total amount of pesticide use has actually gone down, not up, because you can use a single broad spectrum herbicide that does not affect animals to cover a field without requiring it to be at a very high concentration. You also don't have to space your crops out as much because it means you don't have to mechanically till to get rid of certain weeds. That means less erosion and higher crop density.
I invite people to look into this beyond youtube and sensationalistic news pieces because just knee-jerk banning glyphosate would not actually be a good thing for our health or the enviornment because something has to be used to maintain the output of farms and if we ban that then something likely worse that just doesn't have the public stigma will end up being used instead.27 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Ugh I try not to get dragged into anything involving Monsanto because it just becomes a sh*tstorm of emotion where no rational conversation is possible.
That said a little bit about what glyphosate is and what it is used for.
Glyophosate is a shikimate pathway inhibitor. The shikimate pathway is a biosynthetic pathway that allows plants and some bacteria, fungi and protazoa to produce the amino acids trytophan, tyrosine and phenylalanine. Without this pathway plants cannot produce those amino acids and they die. Without that pathway some bacteria won't be able to produce those amino acids and they will have to get them from another source.This pathway is not present in animals and we derive those amino acids in a completely different manner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shikimate_pathway
As a quick aside when talking about amino acids in animals (such as humans) all 20 are required for life but some are called "essential". The "essential" amino acids are the ones that we cannot produce biosynthetically ourselves from parts and therefore we have to injest them directly. Regardless humans don't have the shikimate pathway at all.
Glyphosate works by inhibiting one enzyme within this pathway, specifically 5-enolpyruvylshikimate 3-phosphate or EPSPS
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC29264/
Inhibition of this enzyme stops the shikimate pathway and prevents plants from being able to produce amino acids they need to survive. As a result glyphosate kills most plants (some are naturally resistant).
Glyphosate is the active ingredient of the Monsanto produced herbicide round-up. Monsanto additionally used modern genetic engineering techniques to introduce a bacterial EPSPS enzyme from agrobacteria which are resistant to glyphosate because the enzyme is a slightly different shape and is not inhibited by glyphosate despite carrying out an identiical funciton. Addition of the agrobacterial EPSPS enzyme to plants means that those plants now have a functional Shikimate pathway even in the presence of glyphosate and are therefore immune to it. By genetically engineering crop plants to include this alternate enzyme and provide glyphosate resistance glyphosate could then be sprayed over the crops in order to kill any invasive weeds or plants in the field and prevent the need for mechanical tilling, additional crop spacing or use of directly applied organophosphate herbicides which are typically animal neurotoxic and quite dangerous.
To date there is no conclusive evidence that glyphosate causes any harm to humans at all. We don't have the pathway it inhibits and I have no idea how it would give you cancer because it isn't a mutagen or teratogen (it doesn't cause DNA damage). I could imagine that it might negatively affect ones gut microbiome as bacteria do have the shikimate pathway but most that do can derive those amino acids by uptake rather than the pathway so inhibition of the pathway wouldn't actually harm them in an enviornment that has lots of amino acids in it, like your gut. So I have my doubt that glyphosate would kill bacteria within your microbiome and I'm not sure there has been a study that has demonstrated that it does. That said that is the one potentially negative effect I would at least think there is the possibility it would have.
As for courts deciding it is a carcinogen that isn't actually based on any concrete study, that is just people deciding that since it "might" be a carcinogen (the same way pretty much anything "might" be a carcinogen) that it is best to ban it or give large payouts to anyone who claims it gave them cancer.
There is a lot of fearmongering associated with it and very little actual understanding. As for "tons of it" being sprayed that certainly is true, but it has just supplanted previously used and far worse herbicides and pesticides. The total amount of pesticide use has actually gone down, not up, because you can use a single broad spectrum herbicide that does not affect animals to cover a field without requiring it to be at a very high concentration. You also don't have to space your crops out as much because it means you don't have to mechanically till to get rid of certain weeds. That means less erosion and higher crop density.
I invite people to look into this beyond youtube and sensationalistic news pieces because just knee-jerk banning glyphosate would not actually be a good thing for our health or the enviornment because something has to be used to maintain the output of farms and if we ban that then something likely worse that just doesn't have the public stigma will end up being used instead.
Slow Clapping. @Aaron_K123 Thank you for providing reliable sources.5 -
"To date there is no conclusive evidence that glyphosate causes any harm to humans at all. We don't have the pathway it inhibits and I have no idea how it would give you cancer because it isn't a mutagen or teratogen (it doesn't cause DNA damage). I could imagine that it might negatively affect ones gut microbiome as bacteria do have the shikimate pathway but most that do can derive those amino acids by uptake rather than the pathway so inhibition of the pathway wouldn't actually harm them in an enviornment that has lots of amino acids in it, like your gut. So I have my doubt that glyphosate would kill bacteria within your microbiome and I'm not sure there has been a study that has demonstrated that it does. That said that is the one potentially negative effect I would at least think there is the possibility it would have."
I believe there have been studies that demonstrate this but they have been mixed.
Here's one of the more in depth studies on it.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749117328099
1 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »"To date there is no conclusive evidence that glyphosate causes any harm to humans at all. We don't have the pathway it inhibits and I have no idea how it would give you cancer because it isn't a mutagen or teratogen (it doesn't cause DNA damage). I could imagine that it might negatively affect ones gut microbiome as bacteria do have the shikimate pathway but most that do can derive those amino acids by uptake rather than the pathway so inhibition of the pathway wouldn't actually harm them in an enviornment that has lots of amino acids in it, like your gut. So I have my doubt that glyphosate would kill bacteria within your microbiome and I'm not sure there has been a study that has demonstrated that it does. That said that is the one potentially negative effect I would at least think there is the possibility it would have."
I believe there have been studies that demonstrate this but they have been mixed.
Here's one of the more in depth studies on it.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749117328099
Thanks...haven't had the chance to read in depth yet but a quick skim and a read of the highlights suggests that it is in line with my assumptions of what it would do to your gut microbiome in vivo...ie not much considering there are plenty of amino acids in your gut so de novo synthesis via shikimate pathway is unlikely to be needed or even used really.
My statement about that in my original post on glyphosate is pretty much reflected in the studies graphical abstract
You put bacteria somewhere under starvation conditions where they have to produce their required amino acids through internal biosynthetic pathways then yeah they will probably be affected by glyphosate. You put them somewhere nutrient repleat like your gut or you just simply add aromatic amino acids phenylalanine, trytophan and tyrosine to minimal media and it isn't going to do anything.
And again, can't stress this enough, animals don't even have a shikimate pathway.11 -
Its funny how the European Union came to a different conclusion. I wish i could remember the date of the findings.
Some background on the EU decision is in this article.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roundup-lawsuit/4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »"To date there is no conclusive evidence that glyphosate causes any harm to humans at all. We don't have the pathway it inhibits and I have no idea how it would give you cancer because it isn't a mutagen or teratogen (it doesn't cause DNA damage). I could imagine that it might negatively affect ones gut microbiome as bacteria do have the shikimate pathway but most that do can derive those amino acids by uptake rather than the pathway so inhibition of the pathway wouldn't actually harm them in an enviornment that has lots of amino acids in it, like your gut. So I have my doubt that glyphosate would kill bacteria within your microbiome and I'm not sure there has been a study that has demonstrated that it does. That said that is the one potentially negative effect I would at least think there is the possibility it would have."
I believe there have been studies that demonstrate this but they have been mixed.
Here's one of the more in depth studies on it.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749117328099
Thanks...haven't had the chance to read in depth yet but a quick skim and a read of the highlights suggests that it is in line with my assumptions of what it would do to your gut microbiome in vivo...ie not much considering there are plenty of amino acids in your gut so de novo synthesis via shikimate pathway is unlikely to be needed or even used really.
My statement about that in my original post on glyphosate is pretty much reflected in the studies graphical abstract
You put bacteria somewhere under starvation conditions where they have to produce their required amino acids through internal biosynthetic pathways then yeah they will probably be affected by glyphosate. You put them somewhere nutrient repleat like your gut or you just simply add aromatic amino acids phenylalanine, trytophan and tyrosine to minimal media and it isn't going to do anything.
And again, can't stress this enough, animals don't even have a shikimate pathway.
Note that such conditions would be impossible in a living human. One would have to be dead for this biome-based prokaryotic pathway to be relevant.6 -
If it makes anyone feel better, I've seen this getting lots of traction on FB:
https://amp.slate.com/technology/2018/08/glyphosate-from-monsantos-weed-killer-roundup-in-breakfast-cereal-isnt-something-to-worry-about.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_ru&__twitter_impression=true
And several people I spoke to who don't really pay attention to scientific research all thought the lawsuit award was absolutely ridiculous and unfounded. So there's that.3 -
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.2
-
-
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.
Then he has a worker's comp claim and shouldn't have been going after Monsanto. His employer should probably have been a codefendant. IANAL.8 -
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?1 -
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.3 -
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.0
-
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...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.6 -
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...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.html0 -
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/4 -
The_Enginerd 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...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.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions