Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I agree.

As a biologist, Glyphosate and it's concoctions aren't a concern in terms of environmental exposure. The concentrations simply aren't there.



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.


Probably correct. But if the studies are suppressed or influenced, we can't know for sure.


what about bioaccumulation, rate of degradation, toxic metabolites, ph changing properties, etc etc etc.

i bet they haven't even done the research on these things.


They have, and found nothing.

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.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: