As a scientist, I had read the research on glyphosate and felt pretty safe about it. The surfactant used with it seemed more dangerous, which tells you a lot. But what do I do if the science, was just untrue? This is the ugly secret about science I keep discovering the longer I am in it. Science is great, but people are so fallible.
My limited understanding was that they wanted to test only glyphosate and not glyphosate in combination with the surfactant, which is after all how people would encounter it in the real world, as that is how RoundUp is distributed to users.
For instance, could the surfactant allow glyphosate to more easily be absorbed?
Yes the surfactant helps it cross membranes. But what I meant is that when people tested the two parts separately the reasonably safe surfactant seemed more toxic than glyphosate, which provided me peace of mind that glyphosate can't be too toxic if soap is worse. But if a lot of the data is faked or manipulated that assumption isn't valid.
Oh, the only data I've seen are the published papers. I have no inside info.
#2 won't load for me
For #1 and 3 I would say that the concentrations used are very high. I would not expect anyone except workers spraying Roundup maybe to ever encounter something like millimolar levels of it. We usually deal with things at the nanomolar or micromolar scale of concentrations in science.
Can't remember where I read this, but I believe in the EU the "maximum residue levels" of the active ingredients of pesticides are set orders of magnitude lower than the estimated safe ingestion threshold. That gives a significant leeway for errors in judgement or scientific process, which is understandable when it comes to public health. Must be a major concern for homeopaths, mind.
There have been many studies in recent years examining the sub-lethal effects of agricultural dosages of glyphosate on honeybees. Newer research is showing conclusions of long-term negative consequences. Renewed studies have been done in the face of devastating managed bee losses, which widespread deployment of ag chemical combinations are undoubtedly direct contributors.
Glyphosate application is susceptible to extensive drift, affecting non-target vegetation and animals potentially hundreds of meters from the target site. Beyond direct exposure, this results in habitat destruction for many organisms.
It seems like we're a long way from claiming there is no environmental concern. The effects on non-target organisms through both direct exposure and indirect exposure through ecosystem (food, habitat, etc) changes may be far more widespread than we realize.
>There have been many studies in recent years examining the sub-lethal effects of agricultural dosages of glyphosate on honeybees
Poorly done studies, whose effect pales in comparison to neonicotinoid (and other) pesticides.
The authors of said studies clearly have a conclusion looking for data.
>Glyphosate application is susceptible to extensive drift,
This is true of all pesticides and doesn't impact the chemicals specific effect.
>It seems like we're a long way from claiming there is no environmental concern
The media is a long way away. The scientific consensus is crystal clear however.
Much like other hot-topics such as GMOs, Global Warming, and Vaccines, there are those who ignore data and cite specious articles to support a false debate among experts.
People want to find these effects. It is in academic scientists best interests to make headlines. Look at the lead in flint for evidence. It turns professors into heros. The only problem is when there is nothing to actually find.
as a scientist, i wouldn't trust a single iota of "evidence" that passes through a private corporation with a financial interest in the results reading a certain way.
they won't outright fabricate, usually. but they'll repeat experiments with various perversions until they get the result they want. and this is commonplace elsewhere in science, too, but it's typically disclosed in the methods section and people can put the pieces together for themselves.
The issue I have here is that research data can often be falsified or biased when there are billions of dollars on the line, and there are so many unknowns with some of these things that it's hard to make absolute safety conclusions.
When you take something and spread it so pervasively that it has the chance to impact such a wide spectrum of life, the risks are extreme. Perhaps there is no level of scientific evidence acceptable for this kind of widespread usage, but we are probably far less conservative than we should be.
If you go through all the available studies on Glyphosate (there aren't that many peer reviewed), you will find Monsanto consults or is directly involved in EVERY SINGLE ONE. This is because, while Monsanto does not have a monopoly on Glyphosate anymore, they meticulously collected the data when they did and use/manipulate it (supposedly) when providing it to data scientists. This is the primary way they have been able to steer the data. The one study being cited in this story wasn't particularly good and had no basis for the finding. The correlation was just noise.
"...every study I've seen uses and SOLELY RELIES on Monsanto supplied data and is usually run by a Monsanto agent (current employ, previous employ, or political friend of Monsanto), although there was one study from Germany that did not have a Monsanto agent and came up with "probably not carcinogenic". You do not get data on how Roundup affects a population, excepting through Monsanto's blessing."
This leads someone to believe that the data can be considered "known to be tainted" or "pure". I would suggest that you can't have a data source of this nature, because of the almost certain bias (now for certain after the internal memos).
Part of science is assuming that people are dishonest, incompetent, or subject to influence.
But the scientific method should correct for those occasions when other individuals attempt to reproduce the original results. If we're not doing that, it really isn't science. Appearing in a peer reviewed journal is just the first step for an idea to become an accepted scientific truth.
With enough money you can distort the results for decades before the truth comes out. The sugar industry and tobacco industry spring to mind as examples of vested interests completely owning the narrative in spite of a growing body of incriminating evidence. Selectively choosing scientists to fund is a choice method in that regard.
