Significant levels of glyphosate found in popular breakfast cereals(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Significant levels of glyphosate found in popular breakfast cereals
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/16/weedkiller-cereal-monsanto-roundup-childrens-food
56 comments
- Q: "I don't understand what this article is trying to convey."
- A: Getting as much hits as possible so they have more income from ads.
Also: "Cancer-linked herbicide, sold as Roundup by Monsanto, present in 45 products including granola, snack bars and Cheerios" is very sensational because there are a lot of types of herbicides.
Glyphosate is possible connected to cancer but there is not much proof for it.
Edit: (disclaimer) I think it's still crazy companies are allowed to add toxic synthetic chemicals to nature.
For example: In the US and Netherlands there is now GenX [1] in drinking water because it is unsure if GenX can cause any harm. Well imho that should be the other way around: only allow chemicals to be dumped in open water if you are 100% sure it can't do harm.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenX
- A: Getting as much hits as possible so they have more income from ads.
Also: "Cancer-linked herbicide, sold as Roundup by Monsanto, present in 45 products including granola, snack bars and Cheerios" is very sensational because there are a lot of types of herbicides.
Glyphosate is possible connected to cancer but there is not much proof for it.
Edit: (disclaimer) I think it's still crazy companies are allowed to add toxic synthetic chemicals to nature.
For example: In the US and Netherlands there is now GenX [1] in drinking water because it is unsure if GenX can cause any harm. Well imho that should be the other way around: only allow chemicals to be dumped in open water if you are 100% sure it can't do harm.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenX
Even the recent court case about Roundup was careful to avoid looking at glyphosate, but instead focused on other additives mixed into the Roundup brand.
The levels the EPA considers safe is for use on crops.
These are the levels deemed safe for levels in food[1]. The median seems to be about 0.2ppm for glyphosate levels in food meant for human consumption.
[1] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=0f2a0a6738...
These are the levels deemed safe for levels in food[1]. The median seems to be about 0.2ppm for glyphosate levels in food meant for human consumption.
[1] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=0f2a0a6738...
In the case of oats (and cereal grains in general), it's 30 ppm (30,000 ppb).
[deleted]
Using parts per billion for one stat and parts per million for the other is just wrong. If that is not a typo it's shameless sensationalism at its worst. Surprising to see this from the guardian.
Even at 1 ppm it is above the line, so they didn't need to sensationalize it.
Even at 1 ppm it is above the line, so they didn't need to sensationalize it.
0.1 ppm is the limit for popcorn; the limit for oats and other grains is 30ppm, so 1ppm is well under the limit for oats.
The 310 ppm mentioned in the article is the limit for "grain aspiration fraction", which I believe is the stuff that falls off grain when you clean it with air(?), which is not something you'd normally be eating, so I don't know why the Guardian pulled that number out. The highest limit I saw in the EFCR tables for anything people would be eating seemed to be mint at 200ppm; most everything else was under 100ppm for human consumption, and the things with 200, 300, 400 ppm limits was animal feed.
The 310 ppm mentioned in the article is the limit for "grain aspiration fraction", which I believe is the stuff that falls off grain when you clean it with air(?), which is not something you'd normally be eating, so I don't know why the Guardian pulled that number out. The highest limit I saw in the EFCR tables for anything people would be eating seemed to be mint at 200ppm; most everything else was under 100ppm for human consumption, and the things with 200, 300, 400 ppm limits was animal feed.
That's my impression when I read the headline and article too. Analytic methods have become so highly sensitive that the tiniest trace is detectable, but that doesn't mean it's significant.
Combine that with a "think of the children" perspective and it makes great sensational-but-vacuous news.
As they say, the dose makes the poison...
Combine that with a "think of the children" perspective and it makes great sensational-but-vacuous news.
As they say, the dose makes the poison...
For a long time, the story of pro-GMO advocates was "RoundUp is safer than other weed-killers because it's applied when the plant is still young and not growing edible parts yet, so there won't be any of it in your food".
Looks like they were wrong.
(Note that I'm not saying that RoundUp is worse than other stuff, or that there's more of it in our food that of other stuff.)
Looks like they were wrong.
(Note that I'm not saying that RoundUp is worse than other stuff, or that there's more of it in our food that of other stuff.)
They may not be wrong. The article says that glyphosate was found present in all but two of the 45 oat-derived products. There are no GMO oats available on the market.
Glyphosate is sometimes used on wheat and oats when the plant is at the end of its lifecycle when it is fine, if not desirable, if it kills the crop. We can reasonably conclude that the traces showed up because of the crop being non-GMO, delaying application until the plants are old.
Glyphosate is sometimes used on wheat and oats when the plant is at the end of its lifecycle when it is fine, if not desirable, if it kills the crop. We can reasonably conclude that the traces showed up because of the crop being non-GMO, delaying application until the plants are old.
>There are no GMO oats available on the market
That's not true at all. Many companies offer Non-GMO oats. There's is a big difference between crops being sprayed with glyphosate and crops coming from non-GMO seeds.
That's not true at all. Many companies offer Non-GMO oats. There's is a big difference between crops being sprayed with glyphosate and crops coming from non-GMO seeds.
> There's is a big difference between crops being sprayed with glyphosate and crops coming from non-GMO seeds.
Being a grain farmer, I know. :)
Being a grain farmer, I know. :)
Good catch. It looks like human error on the part of the author. The validity of the article hinges on this one paragraph and could go either way.
Well spotted - It must be a typo because normally I hear parts per billion in reference to these figures, never ppm.
regulations site also says ppm: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=a3b649316ccb17c312... (warning: massive HTML file)
The reason it looks sensationalistic is that it is. This is the result of an anti-science advocacy group called EWG that put out a press release that's being republished by various lazy news outlets. This is the same group that has made claims that vaccines cause autism and cell phones cause brain cancer. Unfortunately, this type of article is irresistible to the media and it's getting a ridiculous amount of traction. The science on glyphosate has not changed, and these "findings" by the EWG are junk.
Here's something a little more reputable. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roun...
Here's something a little more reputable. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roun...
There's nothing reputable about that site. Deal with it, reputable organisations have classified glyphosphate as a carcinogen.
> reputable organisations have classified [glyphosate] as a carcinogen
That's a bit of an oversimplification.
This article helps clarify the situation: https://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/glyphosate-cause-cancer/
An important point is the following:
> "An FAQ page on WHO’s website clarifies why the IARC’s and the pesticide residue experts’ conclusions aren’t contradictory.
> "The 2015 IARC conclusion aimed to identify any potential cancer hazard glyphosate may pose to humans at some level of exposure, WHO explains. But in 2016, the pesticide residue experts at WHO and the U.N. assessed the actual cancer risk the herbicide poses to consumers at a specific level of exposure, namely the level commonly found in foods."
Further:
> "In fact, a yet-to-be-published study that found no link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, may have changed IARC’s 2015 analysis of the herbicide had it been published."
It's also worth noting that the IARC's finding is somewhat speculative, as described in https://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-... :
> "The IARC review notes that there is limited evidence for a link to cancer in humans. Although several studies have shown that people who work with the herbicide seem to be at increased risk of a cancer type called non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the report notes that a separate huge US study, the Agricultural Health Study, found no link to non-Hodgkin lymphomas. That study followed thousands of farmers and looked at whether they had increased risk of cancer.
> "But other evidence, including from animal studies, led the IARC to its ‘probably carcinogenic’ classification. Glyphosate has been linked to tumours in mice and rats — and there is also what the IARC classifies as ‘mechanistic evidence’, such as DNA damage to human cells from exposure to glyphosate."
There's a good amount of research showing no cancer links in practice at realistic levels, though, for example. Here are a couple of studies (one of which is mentioned above):
Cancer Incidence among Glyphosate-Exposed Pesticide Applicators in the Agricultural Health Study - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253709/ - "Glyphosate exposure was not associated with cancer incidence overall or with most of the cancer subtypes we studied."
Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and cancer: A review - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027323001... - "Seven cohort studies and fourteen case-control studies examined the association between glyphosate and one or more cancer outcomes. Our review found no consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between total cancer (in adults or children) or any site-specific cancer and exposure to glyphosate."
In short, this is not an issue that justifies running around with one's hair on fire, unless that happens to be your hobby, which it does seem to be for some people.
That's a bit of an oversimplification.
This article helps clarify the situation: https://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/glyphosate-cause-cancer/
An important point is the following:
> "An FAQ page on WHO’s website clarifies why the IARC’s and the pesticide residue experts’ conclusions aren’t contradictory.
> "The 2015 IARC conclusion aimed to identify any potential cancer hazard glyphosate may pose to humans at some level of exposure, WHO explains. But in 2016, the pesticide residue experts at WHO and the U.N. assessed the actual cancer risk the herbicide poses to consumers at a specific level of exposure, namely the level commonly found in foods."
Further:
> "In fact, a yet-to-be-published study that found no link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, may have changed IARC’s 2015 analysis of the herbicide had it been published."
It's also worth noting that the IARC's finding is somewhat speculative, as described in https://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-... :
> "The IARC review notes that there is limited evidence for a link to cancer in humans. Although several studies have shown that people who work with the herbicide seem to be at increased risk of a cancer type called non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the report notes that a separate huge US study, the Agricultural Health Study, found no link to non-Hodgkin lymphomas. That study followed thousands of farmers and looked at whether they had increased risk of cancer.
> "But other evidence, including from animal studies, led the IARC to its ‘probably carcinogenic’ classification. Glyphosate has been linked to tumours in mice and rats — and there is also what the IARC classifies as ‘mechanistic evidence’, such as DNA damage to human cells from exposure to glyphosate."
There's a good amount of research showing no cancer links in practice at realistic levels, though, for example. Here are a couple of studies (one of which is mentioned above):
Cancer Incidence among Glyphosate-Exposed Pesticide Applicators in the Agricultural Health Study - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253709/ - "Glyphosate exposure was not associated with cancer incidence overall or with most of the cancer subtypes we studied."
Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and cancer: A review - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027323001... - "Seven cohort studies and fourteen case-control studies examined the association between glyphosate and one or more cancer outcomes. Our review found no consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between total cancer (in adults or children) or any site-specific cancer and exposure to glyphosate."
In short, this is not an issue that justifies running around with one's hair on fire, unless that happens to be your hobby, which it does seem to be for some people.
*glyphosate
It's the Guardian. It's the British equivalent of Fox but from the other side of the political spectrum. I don't understand why so much Guardian drivel is upvoted here every day.
They do investigative journalism with primary sources and documented references which puts them ahead of most news outlets these days. Yes they have a bias but it’s predictable.
Because, unlike Fox, the Guardian hires proper journalists, and the Guardian's profits are reinvested in journalism rather than to benefit its shareholders.
BTW: "drivel" my arse, as they say there.
BTW: "drivel" my arse, as they say there.
All the more reason to select organic produce and where possible start growing your own veggies or link up with local co-operatives. It's something we've done and having a close relationship with local growers and knowing about your food is fantastic and something kids love. The [roduce tends to have more nutrients as well (yet more positives). Can it be done large scale? I remember hearing in a talk about permaculture that a hectare of land can support a hundred people throughout a year.
While you won't have to worry about glysophate on organic food, just as much, if not more, pesticides are used on organic crops.
Considering reduction of pesticide use and exposure is one of the main objectives of the organic movement, which has been developing for over 60 years now - it would be a hopeless situation if it resulted in "just as much, if not more, pesticides".
Do you have any substantial sources for such a tragic claim?
For example here[1] is an EU funded meta-review from 2014 which finds: " the frequency of occurrence of pesticide residues was found to be four times higher in conventional crops, which also contained significantly higher concentrations of the toxic metal Cd. "
I personally have some faith that professional scrutiny involved in developing organic standards, selects the permissible pesticides with some insight and success. Not without possibility of some errors - to which the national and international trading standards are also susceptible, however the organic standards are a refined subset of those protections.
[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-n...
Do you have any substantial sources for such a tragic claim?
For example here[1] is an EU funded meta-review from 2014 which finds: " the frequency of occurrence of pesticide residues was found to be four times higher in conventional crops, which also contained significantly higher concentrations of the toxic metal Cd. "
I personally have some faith that professional scrutiny involved in developing organic standards, selects the permissible pesticides with some insight and success. Not without possibility of some errors - to which the national and international trading standards are also susceptible, however the organic standards are a refined subset of those protections.
[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-n...
>Considering reduction of pesticide use and exposure is one of the main objectives of the organic movement
why does that matter when the still spray as much pesticides you want and still call it "organic"? call it the "pesticide free movement" or something, but don't conflate it with "organic", which is essentially a meaningless marketing term at this point, at least when it comes to food safety.
why does that matter when the still spray as much pesticides you want and still call it "organic"? call it the "pesticide free movement" or something, but don't conflate it with "organic", which is essentially a meaningless marketing term at this point, at least when it comes to food safety.
Not to mention fungicides and herbicides, which are also permitted with "organic" farming. https://tilth.org/app/uploads/2014/12/can-i-use-this-pestici...
"Hydrogen peroxide and potassium bicarbonate, two familiar substances that are relatively new as fungicides, are also permitted."
"Various natural substances have been tried as herbicides with mixed success. Clove oil is a botanical that is effective."
"Hydrogen peroxide and potassium bicarbonate, two familiar substances that are relatively new as fungicides, are also permitted."
"Various natural substances have been tried as herbicides with mixed success. Clove oil is a botanical that is effective."
Right, those are ubiquitous chemicals and compounds with a relatively low uncertainty to their ecological and biological impacts. Unlike for example - synthetically augmented glyphosate compounds, and other contentious products which organic standards takes a precautionary stance towards.
"they still spray as much pesticides you want"
Organic labelled produce cant, it is subject to greater restrictions of pesticide use than general international farming regulations. Honestly, if you dont acknowledge this very basic reality of organic certification then your arguments against it are besides reason.
Organic certification is not a "meaningless marketing term" like for example "family farm" can be. It means the farm has been advised and reviewed to follow restrictions on pesticide, fertilizer use and other practices which are applied in addition to regional and national farming regulations.
Organic labelled produce cant, it is subject to greater restrictions of pesticide use than general international farming regulations. Honestly, if you dont acknowledge this very basic reality of organic certification then your arguments against it are besides reason.
Organic certification is not a "meaningless marketing term" like for example "family farm" can be. It means the farm has been advised and reviewed to follow restrictions on pesticide, fertilizer use and other practices which are applied in addition to regional and national farming regulations.
> Organic labelled produce cant, it is subject to greater restrictions of pesticide use than general international farming regulations
Kinds, yes, which often results in greater and more environmentally harmful quantities. And the kinds are not based on any scientific evaluation of safety or health, but on what amounts to religious preference.
Organic certification is like kosher or halal certification.
Kinds, yes, which often results in greater and more environmentally harmful quantities. And the kinds are not based on any scientific evaluation of safety or health, but on what amounts to religious preference.
Organic certification is like kosher or halal certification.
> which often results in greater and more environmentally harmful quantities.
Do you have any substantial references of such results happening "often" or is that idea just gathered from anecdotes and casual articles ?
Do you have any substantial references of such results happening "often" or is that idea just gathered from anecdotes and casual articles ?
Without knowing more, it seems a logical deduction. If the "organic" pesticides were more effective than the "chemical" pesticides, farmers would always choose to use them. If the alternatives aren't as effective, then you need to spray more for the same result.
So this then claim stems not from knowledge but from a "seemingly logical deduction". It is clear that there is no actual substance to this idea that "organic farms often use more pesticides" - even the notion is false that "more pesticides" is a meaningful concept as it alludes only to pesticide weight or mass and ignores all qualities of the substances involved - in the accompanying "logical deduction" - such as ecological and biological impact.
Organic standards are not so simply drawn as to focus on the weight or mass or price of pesticides - they concern the ecological impact and risk of agricultural materials and practices.
Organic standards are not so simply drawn as to focus on the weight or mass or price of pesticides - they concern the ecological impact and risk of agricultural materials and practices.
>Organic labelled produce cant, it is subject to greater restrictions of pesticide use than general international farming regulations.
is that a feature of some organic certification programs, or just some?
is that a feature of some organic certification programs, or just some?
There is generally only one organic certification program per country, in the US it is administered by the United States Department of Agriculture [0] - which also administrates most standard regulations. Of course, no organically certified products are exempt from any standard regulations - the organic regulations exist in addition to general standards.
[0]https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/organic-certification/beco...
[0]https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/organic-certification/beco...
I took a quick skim of the "farmers guide" https://web.archive.org/web/20170217143321/https://www.ams.u...
and couldn't find anything saying you can't "spray as much pesticides you want", only that you can only spray certain pesticides. can you provide a link to the regulation preventing unlimited usage of allowed organic pesticides?
and couldn't find anything saying you can't "spray as much pesticides you want", only that you can only spray certain pesticides. can you provide a link to the regulation preventing unlimited usage of allowed organic pesticides?
"they can spray as much pesticides as they want" equates substances with pesticidal properties like pepper with the likes of glyposate and chlorpyrifos products. It was a deceptively simplistic statement from the get go, which you should put aside.
Where there may be substances used for pest control which are not limited by organic certification or EPA or USDA general standards, those substances will almost certainly be ubiquitous in nature with zero conceivable impact on health and environment.
Organic standards most contentious pesticide is perhaps Copper sulphate, which has potential to taint soil biology.
Here is description of its controls and others.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/04/2018-06...
"Copper Sulfate—for use as an algicide in aquatic rice systems, is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to those which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent."
Where there may be substances used for pest control which are not limited by organic certification or EPA or USDA general standards, those substances will almost certainly be ubiquitous in nature with zero conceivable impact on health and environment.
Organic standards most contentious pesticide is perhaps Copper sulphate, which has potential to taint soil biology.
Here is description of its controls and others.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/04/2018-06...
"Copper Sulfate—for use as an algicide in aquatic rice systems, is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to those which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent."
Glyphosate is a an herbicide, not a pesticide.
Herbicides are a subset of pesticides by the technical definition, though “pesticide” is often used to mean something closer to (but sightly broader than) “insecticide” in popular use.
I keep forgetting this fact.
In light of this, the idea that commercial produce could ever be "pesticide-free" is unlikely. Avoiding the use of pesticides altogether is going to be extremely expensive and/or extremely inefficient .
I work for the customer service department of one of the companies listed. Yesterday was hell and today is shaping up to be pretty terrible. People aren't even reading the article and they're calling in telling us how we're personally killing their children. I just had a customer telling me how GMO's are toxic and how I'm personally complicit in giving her young son cancer. Read the original article people. At least know the difference between GMO's and glyphosate for Pete's sake.
It'll be interesting to see if the mountain of lawsuits against Bayer grows to include parents of autistic children. https://www.csail.mit.edu/research/toxic-environmental-chemi...
Wait until they learn about dihydrogen monoxide. This chemical has a 100% mortality rate!
I don't understand why aren't they forbidden from selling that shit.
Probably because it's not toxic or cancerogenic in the quantities that it is used.
It's less toxic (LD50) than table salt. There's no evidence that the glyphosate residues in food could cause cancer. It's even much safer for farmers than many other pesticides, despite the fact that farmers get in contact with much greater quantities. It's not linked to cancer in farmers, except in case of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, but even this link is weak, and debatable at least: https://plantoutofplace.com/2018/08/glyphosate-and-cancer-re...
It's less toxic (LD50) than table salt. There's no evidence that the glyphosate residues in food could cause cancer. It's even much safer for farmers than many other pesticides, despite the fact that farmers get in contact with much greater quantities. It's not linked to cancer in farmers, except in case of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, but even this link is weak, and debatable at least: https://plantoutofplace.com/2018/08/glyphosate-and-cancer-re...
You don't understand this because you have no understanding of the science behind food safety. If you were more educated about this sort of thing your understanding would improve.
Because there's nothing wrong with it.
The Trump administration just allowed the usage of asbestos. I don't think there is a chance of getting a Monsanto product banned.
“A little background: In 1989, the EPA tried to ban asbestos outright, under a 1976 law called the Toxic Substances Control Act. The phased prohibition was overturned by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991, and the agency succeeded in halting only six then-obsolete uses of asbestos, including corrugated paper and flooring felt.
So the June rule ensures that any U.S. companies who want to use asbestos in all its nonbanned uses—products like reinforced plastics, millboard, floor tiles, and roofing felt—are subject to EPA review. As the EPA points out, without the June rule, any company could start importing or processing asbestos for floor tiles whenever it wanted. (Note: You can still comment on this rule through the Federal eRulemaking Portal until Friday.)”
https://slate.com/business/2018/08/the-trump-administration-...
So the June rule ensures that any U.S. companies who want to use asbestos in all its nonbanned uses—products like reinforced plastics, millboard, floor tiles, and roofing felt—are subject to EPA review. As the EPA points out, without the June rule, any company could start importing or processing asbestos for floor tiles whenever it wanted. (Note: You can still comment on this rule through the Federal eRulemaking Portal until Friday.)”
https://slate.com/business/2018/08/the-trump-administration-...
Please stop repeating this. Its just not completely accurate. I keep hearing it from people. First asbestos has been in use for a long time. Still to this day before anything to do with Trump. What has been happening is the number of companies that produce or use it have greatly declined. Due to legal issues. Second not all asbestos is created equal. Some of the fibers are completely save for there intended purpose. There are many studies that argue claims that it is the direct cause of illness. We really don't know. The people at the greatest risk and I'm sure this risk is universal for such materials. Are the ones working with it on a daily basis.
I have nothing to do with asbestos nor did I vote for Trump. But the knee-jerk reaction does nothing to inform anyone of reality.
I have nothing to do with asbestos nor did I vote for Trump. But the knee-jerk reaction does nothing to inform anyone of reality.
> One sample of Quaker Old Fashioned Oats measured at more than 1,000 parts per billion of glyphosate.
That's 1 part per million (ppm), found in one particular sample. I imagine this was the most extreme outlier, as otherwise it would not be mentioned as prominently.
And then, right in the next sentence:
> The Environmental Protection Agency has a range of safe levels for glyphosate on crops such as corn, soybeans, grains and some fruits, spanning 0.1 to 310 parts per million.
So one sample measured within the bounds that are deemed safe. On the one hand, 1ppm is well above the 0.1ppm that is deemed safe for some of these crops by the EPA. On the other hand, this egregious sample is way lower than the 310ppm deemed safe for some other crops by the EPA.
What gives. What is this article trying to say? It seems like it is trying to be sensationalistic.
Can someone explain if I am reading this wrong? Maybe there's a typo in the article?