Jon Entine

Dad, journalist, iconoclast, founder - ag biotech/biomedicine/sustainability/ethics. Emmy-winning TV news producer, book author

[Jon Entine @JonEntine]

I've been writing about the fact that the press narrative on bee and insect health has been wrong since 2013--more than two dozen articles. Here's my first one, in Forbes. The entire campaign to ban neonicotionid insecticides and other crop chemicals because they allegedly kill insects in massive numbers is absolutely not supported by science...and never has been: https://t.co/d3PHfncnGG

[@camjenglish @camjenglish]

The so-called "beepocalypse" has always been a myth. @JonEntine, @DrLizaMD and I will explain why tomorrow at 12 pm central. Until then, here's some background reading to get you up to speed. 🧵 https://t.co/zrJHjepcF7

[Jon Entine @JonEntine]

@TheNether2 I agree, totally. My post was a necessary response to a brain-dead poster who claimed the conviction rate is high. I don’t like disinformation to simmer on the X pot—hence my reply.

[Jon Entine @JonEntine]

Glyphosate jury conviction rate is 0.0000573 or 0.0057%. There have been an estimated 192,000 cases filed against Bayer over glyphosate over the past 10 years. 11 jury convictions. If you eliminate all settlements in which there was no admission of guilt, the number rises to 0.0001692 or 0.17%

[Kit Christensen @KitChri75116757]

@Notmethanwho @JonEntine 11 is not many.
It is because jurors can't be experts and the trials are a theatrical performance to prey on their emotions.
People sympathize easily with cancer sufferers.

[Jon Entine @JonEntine]

Is glyphosate poisoning freshwater streams and aquatic articles as activists—and someone’s here—like to claim?

The contention that glyphosate kills all plants and microorganisms with the shikimate pathway is scientifically false.

Glyphosate interferes with a process that plants and some bacteria use to produce essential nutrients. That's how it kills susceptible weeds. Many bacteria have natural resistance to glyphosate, even though they use that same process. Possessing the shikimate pathway does not establish that glyphosate will kill a microorganism. Your claim betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how glyphosate works.

What about claims that glyphosate seriously damages human’s gut microbiome? Equally baseless. Some gut bacteria possess the shikimate pathway, but there is ZERO evidence that glyphosate residues in food damage the human gut microbiome or cause disease. Petri dish experiments exposing bacteria to glyphosate do not establish harm from dietary exposure. Tests on animals and humans show no effect. Dose and exposure matter. You can’t turn a high school-level laboratory observation into a frightening health claim without the science to support it.

The oft-cited declaration that glyphosate is an environmental disaster in America's freshwater streams is another gross distortion of the evidence. Glyphosate can enter streams through agricultural runoff, but detecting a chemical in water does not establish environmental harm.

A 2025 New York study found that glyphosate concentrations in surface water posed no ecological risk. A 2021 scientific review reached the same conclusion: Glyphosate concentrations in surface water pose minimal to no risk to aquatic organisms.

Now consider one of the most used organic chemicals in the world: copper sulfate. It’s a copper-based fungicide widely used in farming, mostly organic but conventional on some crops, like grapes. Almost all the wine in the world comes from grapes grown with one of the more toxic chemicals in agriculture.—and it’s 100% organic.

Copper sulfate is highly toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Copper persists in the environment, accumulates in sediments and can damage aquatic ecosystems. EPA records have identified thousands of river and stream segments impaired by copper.

The idea that glyphosate is devastating America's waterways while pesticides used in organic farming are environmentally benign is scientific nonsense. The presence of a chemical is not the same as proof of harm. We need to take into account the importance of exposure, and challenge those who manipulate science turning basic biochemistry into environmental scare tactics.

[Jon Entine @JonEntine]

Congratulations! You've discovered Google. Now try reading the studies you cite and understand what they establish..

Finding glyphosate in freshwater is not evidence that it's destroying aquatic ecosystems. Casey’s really closed, but I’ll do you the favor if reviewing what you think several-dunk studies.

Rivers and streams contain countless naturally occurring and human-made chemicals, including pesticides, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals and industrial compounds. Conventional and organic.
Copper-based pesticides used in organic farming are omnipresent in waterways, and copper is toxic to aquatic organisms. Yet you single out glyphosate as an environmental catastrophe without demonstrating that it's causing harm?

That’s what scientific simpletons and ideologues (same thing) do.

The presence of a chemical tells us nothing about its toxicity at the concentrations detected.

The most comprehensive study addressing glyphosate in fresh water undermines your specious claims.

A 2025 study of 229 New York water samples found minimal ecological risk from glyphosate, with risk quotients below 0.1 in more than 97% of surface-water samples.

https://t.co/msJQ6J1TzR…

Your 2018 Argentine study identified pollution problems in one river basin. Ho hum.

Your PAN Europe citation is toilet paper. PAN is one of the lest science-grounded environmental activist groups. A bottom feeder.

So we have a joke of a ‘study’: an activist sampling exercise involving 23 river; and stream samples. Forgive me that I don’t concede your argument.

Neither of the two research study turds demonstrates that glyphosate is killing American riverbanks or causing trees to collapse into waterways.

Yes, long-term effects on aquatic biodiversity are worth investigating. But the sky-is-falling Cassandras began by declaring an environmental disaster, complete with dead riverbanks and collapsing trees, and you have a ready-made villain. That’s not science; it’s a litigation strategy.

[Jon Entine @JonEntine]

Is glyphosate poisoning freshwater streams and aquatic articles as activists—and someone’s here—like to claim?

The contention that glyphosate kills all plants and microorganisms with the shikimate pathway is scientifically false.

Glyphosate interferes with a process that plants and some bacteria use to produce essential nutrients. That's how it kills susceptible weeds. Many bacteria have natural resistance to glyphosate, even though they use that same process. Possessing the shikimate pathway does not establish that glyphosate will kill a microorganism. Your claim betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how glyphosate works.

What about claims that glyphosate seriously damages human’s gut microbiome? Equally baseless. Some gut bacteria possess the shikimate pathway, but there is ZERO evidence that glyphosate residues in food damage the human gut microbiome or cause disease. Petri dish experiments exposing bacteria to glyphosate do not establish harm from dietary exposure. Tests on animals and humans show no effect. Dose and exposure matter. You can’t turn a high school-level laboratory observation into a frightening health claim without the science to support it.

The oft-cited declaration that glyphosate is an environmental disaster in America's freshwater streams is another gross distortion of the evidence. Glyphosate can enter streams through agricultural runoff, but detecting a chemical in water does not establish environmental harm.

A 2025 New York study found that glyphosate concentrations in surface water posed no ecological risk. A 2021 scientific review reached the same conclusion: Glyphosate concentrations in surface water pose minimal to no risk to aquatic organisms.

Now consider one of the most used organic chemicals in the world: copper sulfate. It’s a copper-based fungicide widely used in farming, mostly organic but conventional on some crops, like grapes. Almost all the wine in the world comes from grapes grown with one of the more toxic chemicals in agriculture.—and it’s 100% organic.

Copper sulfate is highly toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Copper persists in the environment, accumulates in sediments and can damage aquatic ecosystems. EPA records have identified thousands of river and stream segments impaired by copper.

The idea that glyphosate is devastating America's waterways while pesticides used in organic farming are environmentally benign is scientific nonsense. The presence of a chemical is not the same as proof of harm. We need to take into account the importance of exposure, and challenge those who manipulate science turning basic biochemistry into environmental scare tactics.

[Jon Entine @JonEntine]

More deranged postings from the glyphosate-is-destroying-global-fresh waterways extremists.

Read the junk science claim… and then this. Here are the facts:

*******£***

Congratulations! You've discovered Google. Now try reading the studies you cite and understand what they establish..

Finding glyphosate in freshwater is not evidence that it's destroying aquatic ecosystems. Casey’s really closed, but I’ll do you the favor if reviewing what you think several-dunk studies.

Rivers and streams contain countless naturally occurring and human-made chemicals, including pesticides, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals and industrial compounds. Conventional and organic.
Copper-based pesticides used in organic farming are omnipresent in waterways, and copper is toxic to aquatic organisms. Yet you single out glyphosate as an environmental catastrophe without demonstrating that it's causing harm?

That’s what scientific simpletons and ideologues (same thing) do.

The presence of a chemical tells us nothing about its toxicity at the concentrations detected.

The most comprehensive study addressing glyphosate in fresh water undermines your specious claims.

A 2025 study of 229 New York water samples found minimal ecological risk from glyphosate, with risk quotients below 0.1 in more than 97% of surface-water samples.

https://t.co/msJQ6J1TzR…

Your 2018 Argentine study identified pollution problems in one river basin. Ho hum.

Your PAN Europe citation is toilet paper. PAN is one of the lest science-grounded environmental activist groups. A bottom feeder.

So we have a joke of a ‘study’: an activist sampling exercise involving 23 river; and stream samples. Forgive me that I don’t concede your argument.

Neither of the two research study turds demonstrates that glyphosate is killing American riverbanks or causing trees to collapse into waterways.

Yes, long-term effects on aquatic biodiversity are worth investigating. But the sky-is-falling Cassandras began by declaring an environmental disaster, complete with dead riverbanks and collapsing trees, and you have a ready-made villain. That’s not science; it’s a litigation strategy.

Where is the evidence for that impending catastrophe?

You've produced chemical detections, a localized risk assessment and speculation. Your sweeping conclusion is evidence-free bunk.

[Jon Entine @JonEntine]

Congratulations! You've discovered Google. Now try reading the studies and understanding what they establish—I’m certain that’s beyond your IQ level.

Finding glyphosate in freshwater is not evidence that it's destroying aquatic ecosystems. Rivers and streams contain countless naturally occurring and human-made chemicals, including pesticides, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals and industrial compounds. Copper-based pesticides used in organic farming are omnipresent in waterways, and copper is toxic to aquatic organisms. Yet you single out glyphosate as an environmental catastrophe without demonstrating that it's causing harm? That’s what simpletons and ideologues (sane thing) do.

The presence of a chemical tells us nothing about its toxicity at the concentrations detected.

The most comprehensive study addressing glyphosate in fresh water undermines your specious claims.

A 2025 study of 229 New York water samples found minimal ecological risk from glyphosate, with risk quotients below 0.1 in more than 97% of surface-water samples.

https://t.co/cvMzo8Nlnq

Your 2018 Argentine study identified potential risks in one river basin. Ho hum.

Your PAN Europe citation is toilet paper. PAN is one of the lest science grounded environmental artist groups. A bottom feeder. So we have a joke of a ‘study’: an activist sampling exercise involving 23 river and stream samples.

Neither of the two research turds demonstrates that glyphosate is killing American riverbanks or causing trees to collapse into waterways.

Yes, long-term effects on aquatic biodiversity are worth investigating. But you began by declaring an environmental disaster, complete with dead riverbanks and collapsing trees, and you have a rest-made villain. That’s not science; it’s a litigation strategy.

Where is the evidence for that impending catastrophe?

You've produced chemical detections, a localized risk assessment and speculation. Your sweeping conclusion is evidence-free bunk.

[Jon Entine @JonEntine]

You seem like a sweet guy but your posts are a mix of delusional and boneheaded.

Trees falling into rivers are not evidence of glyphosate poisoning. Where are the water measurements, vegetation studies or scientific investigations linking these observations to glyphosate? You haven't provided any—There is none. No study in the world—zero—links the phenomenon you’re describing to glyphosate.

And your patent argument is wrong. US Patent 3,160,632, issued to Stauffer Chemical in 1964, concerned a class of chemical compounds and their manufacture. Glyphosate was mentioned as a compound that could be produced, but the patent did not establish that glyphosate was used to remove biological “gunk.” A published scientific analysis of the patent specifically refuted the claim that Stauffer patented glyphosate as a chelator.

https://t.co/sRUA5pldeJ⁠
https://t.co/fXs4k9IWjC⁠

And even if glyphosate had been patented as a cleaning agent, so what? A chemical's original application tells us nothing about its environmental risks at actual exposure levels. You've offered a patent number and an anecdote about falling trees in place of scientific evidence. Neither supports your claims.

And here's a twist thar further destroys your patent argument: A 2017 US patent application proposed using glyphosate to treat precancerous skin lesions, including actinic keratosis. In other words, glyphosate was postulated as a CANCER CURW!! This illustrates how absurd it is to judge a chemical's dangers by citing a patent. The same chemical can be investigated as a herbicide, a cleaning agent or a medical treatment. Its effects depend on how it's used and at what dose.

https://t.co/TN4ybJXCsU

[Jon Entine @JonEntine]

Stupid, stupid, stupid. The 2019 University of Washington glyphosate study is one of the most notorious and frequently cited papers among activist scientists seeking to falsely link the herbicide to cancer. Its headline claim—that glyphosate exposure increases the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma by 41%—is flat out wrong. It has been repeatedly challenged by mainstream scientists for selectively misrepresenting the underlying evidence, particularly findings from the massive, long-running Agricultural Health Study.

The problem wasn’t merely that the researchers reached a questionable conclusion. It was how they manipulated the statistical presentation to produce a frightening result that the strongest underlying evidence did not support. Epidemiologist Geoffrey Kabat is one of many experts who exposed the methodological failures in a series of detailed analyses published by the Genetic Literacy Project, the nonprofit that I founded.

Here’s what the researchers actually did—and why their widely publicized conclusion is so misleading.

1. They cherry-picked the one estimate that supported their hypothesis. The Agricultural Health Study, which followed tens of thousands of pesticide applicators, examined glyphosate exposure using several latency periods. Four of the five estimates showed no increased cancer risk; the fifth, using a 20-year lag, suggested a small, statistically insignificant increase. The 2019 researchers selected that fifth estimate for their meta-analysis—and ignored all the other evidence. That’s science malfeasance.

2. The AHS, a large prospective study conducted by federal scientists, found ZERO statistically significant association between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin lymphoma overall, including among the most heavily exposed workers. The 41% figure did not come from the AHS. It emerged from combining the researchers’ selected AHS estimate with five smaller case-control studies. it was concocted by these now notorious scientists and then aggressively misrepresented as government data.

3. Unlike the prospective AHS, retrospective case-control studies rely on reconstructing past exposures, sometimes decades later. It’s made up by researchers based on interviews. ZERO hard data. It’s about feelings and decades-old recollections. Anecdotes, not science. Such studies are soaked in recall bias, exposure misclassification, and confounding. Pooling them with the AHS did not eliminate those weaknesses, though it did fool the original wave of media which misrepresented this made-up study when it first appeared.

4. The activists relied on a questionable latency assumption. They justified selecting the 20-year lag by hypothesizing (made it up out of whole cloth) that glyphosate-related cancers would require a long latency period. But they lacked convincing glyphosate-specific evidence establishing that assumption, which is now known as false. Their preferred lag just so happened to produce the estimate most supportive of their hypothesis—what a surprise!!!

5. Their fake alarming result was based entirely on that statistical sleight of hand. After publication, the EPA reanalyzed the meta-analysis using a different AHS estimate, the pooled relative risk fell from 1.41 to approximately 1.14 and was no longer statistically significant.

The larger lesson here is that the botched meta-analysis generated a fake, highly politicized narrative. Selective choices about which data to include profoundly distorted the result, transforming negative findings from the most substantial prospective study into an alarming headline that continues to circulate years after its methodological weaknesses were exposed. You fell for it. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Read Geoffrey Kabat’s detailed investigation:

The glyphosate debacle: How a misleading study about the weedkiller Roundup and gullible reporters helped fuel a cancer scare — Genetic Literacy Project, February 9, 2021

[Firehorse4J @Notmethanwho]

@KitChri75116757 @JonEntine @Tonysmarkettips Oh just one guy related to an attorney huh? How about this:
Do you like having hair? Do you like having fertility? Maybe read the UW and other studies.

[Jon Entine @JonEntine]

Totally, completely WRONG. The claim that glyphosate kills all plants and microorganisms with the shikimate pathway is scientifically false.

Glyphosate interferes with a process that plants and some bacteria use to produce essential nutrients. That's how it kills susceptible weeds. Many bacteria have natural resistance to glyphosate, even though they use that same process. Possessing the shikimate pathway does not establish that glyphosate will kill a microorganism. Your claim betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how glyphosate works.

Your assertion about colon bacteria is equally baseless. Some gut bacteria possess the shikimate pathway, but there is ZERO evidence that glyphosate residues in food damage the human gut microbiome or cause disease. Petri dish experiments exposing bacteria to glyphosate do not establish harm from dietary exposure. Tests on animals and humans show no effect. Dose and exposure matter. You're turning a high school-level laboratory observation into a frightening health claim without the science to support it.

Your declaration that glyphosate is an environmental disaster in America's freshwater streams is another gross distortion of the evidence. Glyphosate can enter streams through agricultural runoff, but detecting a chemical in water does not establish environmental harm. A 2025 New York study found that glyphosate concentrations in surface water posed no ecological risk. A 2021 scientific review reached the same conclusion: Glyphosate concentrations in surface water pose minimal to no risk to aquatic organisms.

Now consider one of the most used organic chemicals in the world: copper sulfate. It’s a copper-based fungicide widely used in farming, mostly organic but conventional on some crops, like grapes. Almost all the wine in the world comes from grapes grown with one of the deadlier chemicals in agriculture.—and it’s 100% organic.

Copper sulfate is highly toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Copper persists in the environment, accumulates in sediments and can damage aquatic ecosystems. EPA records have identified thousands of river and stream segments impaired by copper.

The idea that glyphosate is devastating America's waterways while pesticides used in organic farming are environmentally benign is scientific nonsense. You've confused the presence of a chemical with proof of harm, ignored the importance of exposure, and turned basic biochemistry into environmental scare tactics.

SHAME on you. But you are a winner in one way: You do qualify for a job in the Trump administration where arrogance and ignorance are signature character traits.

[Jon Entine @JonEntine]

Totally, completely WRONG. The claim that glyphosate kills all plants and microorganisms with the shikimate pathway is scientifically false.

Glyphosate interferes with a process that plants and some bacteria use to produce essential nutrients. That's how it kills susceptible weeds. Many bacteria have natural resistance to glyphosate, even though they use that same process. Possessing the shikimate pathway does not establish that glyphosate will kill a microorganism. Your claim betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how glyphosate works.

Your assertion about colon bacteria is equally baseless. Some gut bacteria possess the shikimate pathway, but there is ZERO evidence that glyphosate residues in food damage the human gut microbiome or cause disease. Petri dish experiments exposing bacteria to glyphosate do not establish harm from dietary exposure. Tests on animals and humans show no effect. Dose and exposure matter. You're turning a high school-level laboratory observation into a frightening health claim without the science to support it.

Your declaration that glyphosate is an environmental disaster in America's freshwater streams is another gross distortion of the evidence. Glyphosate can enter streams through agricultural runoff, but detecting a chemical in water does not establish environmental harm. A 2025 New York study found that glyphosate concentrations in surface water posed no ecological risk. A 2021 scientific review reached the same conclusion: Glyphosate concentrations in surface water pose minimal to no risk to aquatic organisms.

Now consider one of the most used organic chemicals in the world: copper sulfate. It’s a copper-based fungicide widely used in farming, mostly organic but conventional on some crops, like grapes. Almost all the wine in the world comes from grapes grown with one of the deadlier chemicals in agriculture.—and it’s 100% organic.

Copper sulfate is highly toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Copper persists in the environment, accumulates in sediments and can damage aquatic ecosystems. EPA records have identified thousands of river and stream segments impaired by copper.

The idea that glyphosate is devastating America's waterways while pesticides used in organic farming are environmentally benign is scientific nonsense. You've confused the presence of a chemical with proof of harm, ignored the importance of exposure, and turned basic biochemistry into environmental scare tactics.

SHAME on you. But you are a winner in one way: You do qualify for a job in the Trump administration where arrogance and ignorance are signature character traits.

[Genetic Literacy Project @GeneticLiteracy]

Much of the viral story traces back to @ClaytonTuckerTX, a Democrat who won the 2026 race for Texas agriculture commissioner, though he later conceded that “no veterinarian has confirmed the #stillbirths” and that “no study has tied data center noise to #livestock deaths.” #DataCenters https://t.co/wX2wO4qI5d

[Dale Artho @Daleartho66]

Agreed scientific malfeasance

[Jon Entine @JonEntine]

Understandably, nobody wants harmful chemicals in the food they serve their families. I understand why you might choose organic food, believing it's safer. But that's a misconception. Both organic and conventional farmers use pesticides, and some used in organic farming are more hazardous than conventional alternatives.

Pesticides help farmers produce the healthy, safe food you want on your family's dinner table. They're the good guys in this story, not the villains.

The campaign to demonize conventional farming, particularly glyphosate, has created needless fear about our food. Ironically, glyphosate is among the least toxic herbicides. Yet it has become the poster child for everything supposedly dangerous about modern agriculture.

There's also a widespread belief that buying organic food, which is grown without glyphosate, protects your family and the environment from harmful chemicals. That's not true.

Take grapes. Organic grape growers in California have been found to use roughly twice as much pesticide by weight as conventional growers. Pests don't distinguish between organic and conventional farms. Both need pesticides to prevent diseases that can devastate harvests. Does that mean you should avoid California organic wine? Absolutely not. Both organic and conventional wines are safe to drink.

This may startle you, but European farmers generally use more pesticides per hectare than American farmers, with France and Belgium among the heavier users.

These include copper-based fungicides, a mainstay of organic grape growing. Copper compounds are highly toxic to aquatic life, can harm other animals, accumulate in soil, contaminate waterways and seriously poison humans. Yet organic vineyards depend on them to prevent devastating fungal diseases.

Let's focus on your main concern, glyphosate. It's among the most extensively studied agricultural chemicals in history.

In the past few years, European agencies conducted major reviews of glyphosate, evaluating approximately 2,400 scientific studies, producing an 11,000-page assessment report and examining a supporting dossier of roughly 180,000 pages. The European Chemicals Agency concluded that glyphosate is not carcinogenic.

https://t.co/hUeqtnAbnb

More than 20 scientific and regulatory bodies have evaluated glyphosate, including the U.S. EPA, Health Canada, European regulators, authorities in Germany, Australia, New Zealand and Japan, and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization's joint pesticide panel. None of these pesticide risk authorities has concluded that glyphosate poses a cancer risk at ordinary exposure levels. Health Canada bluntly stated the consensus: “No pesticide regulatory authority in the world currently considers glyphosate to be a cancer risk to humans at the levels at which humans are currently exposed.”

https://t.co/PBYIplF498

Perhaps the most convincing evidence comes from farmers, who face far greater exposure than consumers. The National Institutes of Health's Agricultural Health Study tracked pesticide use and cancer diagnoses among American farmers for decades. Its analysis of 54,251 pesticide applicators, nearly 45,000 of whom used glyphosate, found no association with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the cancer at the center of the Roundup lawsuits.

https://t.co/WOh3UzTH8d

The traces of pesticides in our food are extraordinarily small, often measured in parts per million or billion. The glyphosate we consume in food is far below harmful levels, even over a lifetime. It doesn't build up in the body; most is eliminated. Finding a tiny trace of a chemical tells us nothing about its danger. What matters is the amount.

I understand your concerns about chemicals in our food, particularly glyphosate, but the public debate has become wildly disconnected from what decades of research tell us about chemical exposure and human health. Our food supply is safe, and glyphosate is a central component in ensuring that.

[Jon Entine @JonEntine]

Stupid, stupid, stupid. It appears you are too stupid to even do an updated search on the internet!! Those are stats from 2021. Now it's 28 cases, 18 for Bayer, the most recent one on October 29, and they've won most of the recent ones. NOTE: Australia through out more than 800 cases. So there are zero in Australia, France, Germany, Japan, Britain...and many more. Think thre are 2 or three in Canada that havent' gone to trial and might be dismissed.

https://t.co/jYdOKWY1hn

https://t.co/V1p0SwVdbT

[Jon Entine @JonEntine]

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Court cases--class actions or individual cases--do not "prove" anything, They are jury decisions. The only proof on toxicity is through research and monitoring the use by farmers. Every science agency in the world has concluded glyphosate is not a carcinogen and the monitoring of more than 45,000 Midwest glyphsoate-using farmers PROVED they had a lower rate of cancer than non-users.

In other words, you're a walking, talking idiot disinformation machine. How can you live with yourself. Ugly, ugly,ugly. Your anti-science lobbying, if your 'side' wins, will result in the deaths of millions of food-scarce people. You'll have blood on your hands.

[Jon Entine @JonEntine]

Understandably, nobody wants harmful chemicals in the food they serve their families. I understand why you might choose organic food, believing it's safer. But that's a misconception. Both organic and conventional farmers use pesticides, and some used in organic farming are more hazardous than conventional alternatives.

Pesticides help farmers produce the healthy, safe food you want on your family's dinner table. They're the good guys in this story, not the villains.

The campaign to demonize conventional farming, particularly glyphosate, has created needless fear about our food. Ironically, glyphosate is among the least toxic herbicides. Yet it has become the poster child for everything supposedly dangerous about modern agriculture.

There's also a widespread belief that buying organic food, which is grown without glyphosate, protects your family and the environment from harmful chemicals. That's not true.

Take grapes. Organic grape growers in California have been found to use roughly twice as much pesticide by weight as conventional growers. Pests don't distinguish between organic and conventional farms. Both need pesticides to prevent diseases that can devastate harvests. Does that mean you should avoid California organic wine? Absolutely not. Both organic and conventional wines are safe to drink.

This may startle you, but European farmers generally use more pesticides per hectare than American farmers, with France and Belgium among the heavier users.

These include copper-based fungicides, a mainstay of organic grape growing. Copper compounds are highly toxic to aquatic life, can harm other animals, accumulate in soil, contaminate waterways and seriously poison humans. Yet organic vineyards depend on them to prevent devastating fungal diseases.

Let's focus on your main concern, glyphosate. It's among the most extensively studied agricultural chemicals in history.

In the past few years, European agencies conducted major reviews of glyphosate, evaluating approximately 2,400 scientific studies, producing an 11,000-page assessment report and examining a supporting dossier of roughly 180,000 pages. The European Chemicals Agency concluded that glyphosate is not carcinogenic.

https://t.co/hUeqtnAbnb

More than 20 scientific and regulatory bodies have evaluated glyphosate, including the U.S. EPA, Health Canada, European regulators, authorities in Germany, Australia, New Zealand and Japan, and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization's joint pesticide panel. None of these pesticide risk authorities has concluded that glyphosate poses a cancer risk at ordinary exposure levels. Health Canada bluntly stated the consensus: “No pesticide regulatory authority in the world currently considers glyphosate to be a cancer risk to humans at the levels at which humans are currently exposed.”

https://t.co/PBYIplF498

Perhaps the most convincing evidence comes from farmers, who face far greater exposure than consumers. The National Institutes of Health's Agricultural Health Study tracked pesticide use and cancer diagnoses among American farmers for decades. Its analysis of 54,251 pesticide applicators, nearly 45,000 of whom used glyphosate, found no association with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the cancer at the center of the Roundup lawsuits.

https://t.co/WOh3UzTH8d

The traces of pesticides in our food are extraordinarily small, often measured in parts per million or billion. The glyphosate we consume in food is far below harmful levels, even over a lifetime. It doesn't build up in the body; most is eliminated. Finding a tiny trace of a chemical tells us nothing about its danger. What matters is the amount.

I understand your concerns about chemicals in our food, particularly glyphosate, but the public debate has become wildly disconnected from what decades of research tell us about chemical exposure and human health. Our food supply is safe, and glyphosate is a central component in ensuring that.

[Lana-Lu @LanaLuBerry]

@Tonysmarkettips @JonEntine @Notmethanwho It could mean u have burner accounts u liked yr own post. It could mean u have more bots following yr account. 🤷‍♀️ It could mean anti-science's popularized on this platform. But never in reality land does a few annon clicks provide evidence that overturns the ECHA & EFSA research

[Jon Entine @JonEntine]

Clearly, jackass Firehorse is on the pay from tort lawyers or he wouldn’t keep posting this totally debunked sensationalist garbage.

This is breathtakingly irresponsible. You've taken a mother's unsubstantiated belief that a Roundup spill caused her son's cancer and circulated it as though it were an established medical fact. The young man's illness is tragic. Exploiting that tragedy to promote a scientifically unsupported accusation is indefensible. Both the mother and Firehorse are pathetic.

The original allegation came from Serene Allison, whose son Arden allegedly developed Hodgkin lymphoma after reportedly being drenched with Roundup while working on a cell-tower maintenance crew. Her account offers no medical evidence establishing that connection.

https://t.co/FqWjWZrqGB

The story was subsequently amplified by Children's Health Defense, the organization founded by RFK Jr. CHD has become one of America's most notorious science-denying propaganda operations, a crackpot factory of anti-vaccine falsehoods, chemical scares and conspiracy theories masquerading as a children's health charity. It has promoted the thoroughly debunked claim that vaccines cause autism, helped finance a film alleging that the COVID pandemic was deliberately engineered, and built an extensive media operation to spread medical misinformation. Kennedy used the organization to expand his audience, influence and public notoriety. Its treatment of this young man's cancer follows the same playbook: Take an emotionally wrenching personal tragedy, attach an unsupported scientific accusation, and broadcast it to an audience already primed to distrust mainstream medicine and science.

https://t.co/TR4Te78Ohp

https://t.co/FDfCvCT7yj

https://t.co/x9VojPW8MA

There’s a glaring, easily fact check able scientific problem with this junk science claim. Arden developed Hodgkin lymphoma. There is no scientific link between that form of cancer and Hodgkin lymphoma. None. Zero.

Roundup cancer litigation and the IARC controversy have never raised it because there is no possibility of a link, even remotely. The controversy focused only on non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a different disease. There is ZERO established causal link between glyphosate exposure and Hodgkin lymphoma.

The claim that his cancer developed precisely where the herbicide spilled is also medically meaningless as proof of causation. Hodgkin lymphoma arises in the lymphatic system. Enlarged lymph nodes in the neck are a common presentation of the disease. Their location cannot establish that a chemical spilled on the skin caused the malignancy. That’s not how science works. It’s medically impossible.

Nor does the subsequent diagnosis of stage 4 cancer prove anything about the spill. Stage 4 describes how far lymphoma has spread through the body. It provides no evidence of what caused the cancer.

The science is overwhelming that claims of a link between glyphosate and non Hodgkin’s lymphoma is bogus. Tracy’s multiple times more bogus. It’s sensationalist horseshit. It’s disgusting a mother would exploit her sons health tragedy to get attention. It’s creepy.

You've taken an emotionally powerful but medically impossible story, borrowed the insinuations promoted by RFK Jr.'s crackpot organization, and passed them along as if they are revealed truth.

You must be a jackass whore on the pay of ambulance chasing tort lawyers.

Disgusting.

[@camjenglish @camjenglish]

@Notmethanwho @JonEntine @KitChri75116757 Are we playing the counting game? Because the numbers don't help your argument.

Surely the juries in this majority of cases—infallible arbiters of truth that they are—shouldn't be questioned.