@otivaeey@Johnkempf@FarmerSimonC@Ndfarmgirl1 Ok. I will be more clear. With no data presented to support the claim I think it’s bogus. If I think it’s bogus why would I go collect data? I have other things I can spend my efforts on. The data presented in the linked article above are interesting. I look forward to more
@Johnkempf@FarmerSimonC@Ndfarmgirl1 I’m not trying to prove anything. I am curious. But no I will not bother collecting data on something that I don’t think (which is different than believe) is an issue in our soils. The burden of proof is on the party making the claim
Glyphosate isn’t controversial because it’s understudied.
It’s controversial because the evidence is ignored.
Fact 1. This chemical is exhaustively studied:
•40+ years of data.
•Thousands of studies.
•Reviewed repeatedly across continents.
Fact 2. Global regulators agree:
Every major regulatory authority that assesses real-world exposure reaches the same conclusion:
•US EPA
•EFSA
•ECHA
•Health Canada
👉 Not carcinogenic at human exposure levels.
👉 Not genotoxic.
👉 No unacceptable health risk when used as directed.
This is not one agency.
This is not a global conspiracy.
Fact 3: The largest human study says no.
•54,000+ pesticide applicators.
•Followed since 1993.
•No link to overall cancer.
•No consistent link to non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
If glyphosate caused cancer, this study should have found it.
It didn’t.
Fact 4: Food residues are not the issue.
•Residues are far below safety limits.
•Dietary exposure does not pose a cancer risk.
•Drinking water exposure is not a health hazard.
“Toxic” without dose is not toxicology.
Fact 5: Worker exposure is also low.
•Measured exposures are far below NOAELs.
•Regulators repeatedly conclude: not of concern.
So where does the scare come from?
One outlier → IARC
IARC did a hazard classification, not a risk assessment.
They put glyphosate in the same category as:
•Red meat.
•Hot beverages.
•Being a barber.
IARC explicitly ignores exposure.
Regulators do not.
This is the entire conflict:
Hazard-only classification
vs
Risk-based regulation.
Confuse the two - and fear wins.
Bottom line:
No pesticide regulator on Earth currently considers glyphosate a cancer risk at real-world exposure levels.
The science is boring.
It’s to put a stop to the misinformation.
@MLBONFOX Game 6 of the ALCS in 2015… the Jays magic ran out that year. Started pressing and lost their fundamentals. Two best teams in the AL that year. But it still stings!
@5eagoat@meredithheron@Baseball_Jenn Different valuation of the same player using different metrics? I also loved teo, but his defense will drive you crazy
@DMEASrecruiting Probably a habitual holdover from him at 3rd. He had hot and cold streaks as a defender there. Schneider got used to what his “best” defensive lineup was with barger as an infielder.
@sellis_1994@broketard If you can’t scale it, it isn’t really sustainable.
Wage/salary is pay for labour. Profit is return on capital. Farmers no different than other small businesses with significant sweat equity.
And other small businesses have years of zero or negative profit.
🌱Plot season is underway in Bruce County!
Soybean plot was planted June 2nd in Mildmay, and the results are in:
🥇 DKB11-84 — 60.45 bu/ac
🥈 DKB11-11XF — 60.09 bu/ac
🥉 Viper — 58.28 bu/ac
Looking forward to seeing how the rest of our plots perform this fall!