There’s nothing credible to suggest glyphosate affects anything except plants. There are some pretty bad herbicides out there, but Roundup ain’t one of them.
I am here to learn (and possibly be entertained), not downvote everything I might not agree with.
I do find it a heady statement to say glyphosates affect nothing but plants, so as my curiosity was piqued in plantology I searched and did find this webpage near the top of my results (using Startpage):
Glyphosate, the most commonly used herbicide in the world, inhibits the production of melanin. Melanin is an important pigment and a key component of the insect immune system; this study shows that glyphosate weakens insects’ melanin-based immune system and makes them more vulnerable to infections, including with the human malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum.
I would not call this a non-credible source so it would seem there are indeed some deleterious affects with insects.
So I can’t see in that study where they correlate actual field concentrations to what they’re applying to the test insects. From what I can tell, they’re using very high concentrations and observing reduced melanization. Interestingly, in lower concentrations, there’s a tendency for the mosquitos to develop a better response to the infection, presumably because the survivors are less susceptible.
Further, while the 10 mM-treated mosquitoes had the worst survival outcome, the mosquitoes that survived the drugging showed low susceptibility to P. falciparum infection. These observations suggest a potentially interesting effect whereby very high concentrations of glyphosate reduce mosquito survival, but bolster the immune system or general physiology of survivors, which then allows them to resist P. falciparum infection with greater success. Alternatively, very high glyphosate treatment could be selecting for mosquitoes within the population more resistant to P. falciparum infection.
What you normally see in these studies is that they have to directly apply concentrations much, much higher than found in the field to develop a response. The runoff levels are tested to be in the nM range, but they’re applying 10-50 mM to each insect directly injected. Even if they’re in the field and encountering mM concentrations as applied, contact with an insect probably isn’t going to transfer much to the bloodstream as there’s no direct transfer pathway for animals.
The runoff levels are tested to be in the nM range, but they’re applying 10-50 mM to each insect directly injected. Even if they’re in the field and encountering mM concentrations as applied, contact with an insect probably isn’t going to transfer much to the bloodstream as there’s no direct transfer pathway for animals.
wouldn’t the primary technicality here be exposure time? Rather than exposure levels. Ultimately depends on the lifespan of the insect itself. But this is a pretty significant factor to why things like leaded gas got banned.
Presumably. Also would be determining a pathway that gets those low concentrations through to the organism in levels high enough to induce the effects that they’ve determined with artificial exposures. But that’s not even hinted at in the study, and that’s usually where these studies fail.
I can introduce high levels of NaCl to a cell and kill it, but without finding a way that dunking someone in seawater kills them via mere exposure, saying the ocean is hazardous is a bit of a stretch.
When Monsanto and Bayer are paying out billions in compensation to people with glyphosate-related cancers, but still refusing to admit liability so they can keep it on the market, you’ve got to at least be a little suspicious about their safety claims. It’s still cheaper for them to pay people off than stop selling it, I guess?
A jury trial for damages is about as far away from a scientific determination as one could get. People have gotten settlements for cancers “caused” by LTE power meters.
I have no clue why people trot out this sort of thing as some sort of evidence.
IDK probably because if you were a multi billion dollar company that has already proved the science behind it’s safety, apparently. It would seem rather trivial to prove it’s effectiveness in court. No?
Settling doesn’t mean you’re guilty, but it doesn’t mean you’re innocent either. At best it’s a PR move.
If you do a cursory search you’ll find lots of studies describing the negative impacts of glyphosate to insect health, such as to gut biota and immune function, and straight up increased mortality
There’s nothing credible to suggest glyphosate affects anything except plants. There are some pretty bad herbicides out there, but Roundup ain’t one of them.
Downvote away.
I am here to learn (and possibly be entertained), not downvote everything I might not agree with.
I do find it a heady statement to say glyphosates affect nothing but plants, so as my curiosity was piqued in plantology I searched and did find this webpage near the top of my results (using Startpage):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8115815/
I would not call this a non-credible source so it would seem there are indeed some deleterious affects with insects.
So I can’t see in that study where they correlate actual field concentrations to what they’re applying to the test insects. From what I can tell, they’re using very high concentrations and observing reduced melanization. Interestingly, in lower concentrations, there’s a tendency for the mosquitos to develop a better response to the infection, presumably because the survivors are less susceptible.
What you normally see in these studies is that they have to directly apply concentrations much, much higher than found in the field to develop a response. The runoff levels are tested to be in the nM range, but they’re applying 10-50 mM to each insect directly injected. Even if they’re in the field and encountering mM concentrations as applied, contact with an insect probably isn’t going to transfer much to the bloodstream as there’s no direct transfer pathway for animals.
wouldn’t the primary technicality here be exposure time? Rather than exposure levels. Ultimately depends on the lifespan of the insect itself. But this is a pretty significant factor to why things like leaded gas got banned.
Presumably. Also would be determining a pathway that gets those low concentrations through to the organism in levels high enough to induce the effects that they’ve determined with artificial exposures. But that’s not even hinted at in the study, and that’s usually where these studies fail.
I can introduce high levels of NaCl to a cell and kill it, but without finding a way that dunking someone in seawater kills them via mere exposure, saying the ocean is hazardous is a bit of a stretch.
uhm, drowning, hypothermia, being stranded in the middle of it. I can think of a few.
When Monsanto and Bayer are paying out billions in compensation to people with glyphosate-related cancers, but still refusing to admit liability so they can keep it on the market, you’ve got to at least be a little suspicious about their safety claims. It’s still cheaper for them to pay people off than stop selling it, I guess?
A jury trial for damages is about as far away from a scientific determination as one could get. People have gotten settlements for cancers “caused” by LTE power meters.
I have no clue why people trot out this sort of thing as some sort of evidence.
IDK probably because if you were a multi billion dollar company that has already proved the science behind it’s safety, apparently. It would seem rather trivial to prove it’s effectiveness in court. No?
Settling doesn’t mean you’re guilty, but it doesn’t mean you’re innocent either. At best it’s a PR move.
If you do a cursory search you’ll find lots of studies describing the negative impacts of glyphosate to insect health, such as to gut biota and immune function, and straight up increased mortality
mmmmm glyphosate, sounds yummy. Cant wait to eat it.
Don’t worry, you already are :)
i meant drinking it, straight up, i’m already filled with micro plastics, i’m sure my tissue is part PFAS as well.