re: Read the labels folks

quote:

---

That's not really how it works.

Excerpt from the NIH:

"Similarly, because mammals do not bioaccumulate glyphosate and it is rapidly excreted, negligible levels of glyphosate in cattle, pig and poultry meat, milk, and eggs have been reported."

Link to NIH library

---

Sorry I was in a rush. Thank you for correcting me.

You are correct about glyphosate, I was meaning to say the pesticides, antibiotics used in feedlots etc. could increase you exposure. Think DDT and Eagles etc.

You can search for food test results and see where glyphosate turns up.

I won't argue the finer points but lowering your exposure to the various chemicals is a good thing.


ETA: How do you view chronic glyphosate exposure from eating exposed foods even if the amount in the food is "low"? Do you think it matters over a period of years? Wouldn't it be prudent to avoid it if possible? What about other sprays/chemicals? Not trying to badger you just wondering about the "professor" name and would welcome input.

GMO's are primarily to increase yield. A "natural" tomato plant may only get you 10 pounds of tomatoes. But when you monkey with the genes, it will get you 20 pounds. The glyphosate resistance stuff is just a bonus. Less weeds mean less watering and less fertilizer and less land needed to grow X amount of food. These are all good things for the environment and humanity.

quote:

---

No problem and I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I come from the ag/food world so I think it's important to have the discussion about these type things be grounded in facts. Sorry if it came off as anything other than that.

---

Not at all, I welcome corrections, there is enough misinformation out there.

quote:

---

Fair enough. It's all about what a consumer chooses for themselves and family. For me, I'm comfortable with the risk assessments that FDA has done on tolerance levels which often have outrageously large safety factors built in.

---

I don't absolutely avoid all GMO but I do avoid it when I can. It is pretty easy to find alternatives. I have little faith in the FDA,USDA or the US food industry in general so I will avoid whatever pitfalls I can. The main problem is there is so little information on long term exposure and in combination with exposure to other chemicals etc. It's a soup and hard to make heads or tails of what is actually bad.

The main thing is you are aware and made a choice, most can't be bothered.

What kind of a heathen bumpkin is eating Hellmans anyway?

Dukes or blue plate TYFYS

quote:

---

ETA: How do you view chronic glyphosate exposure from eating exposed foods even if the amount in the food is "low"?

---

Glysophate isn't as "durable" as you're thinking it is.

quote:

---

Only 1% of the absorbed dose of glyphosate remains in the rat’s body after 7 days, which demonstrates that it does not accumulate in the body. It has been demonstrated that glyphosate does not undergo enterohepatic circulation [14]. The highest concentrations of glyphosate in the body have been detected in the small intestine, liver, kidneys and bones [3,14,46].

Glyphosate is poorly metabolized both in plants and animals [47]. It is excreted mostly unchanged, and only about 1% undergoes metabolism, via hydrolysis, originating aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), the main metabolite of glyphosate [43,46].

5.3. Excretion
Feces are the main route for rats’ glyphosate elimination, and about 60 to 70% of the administered dose is eliminated by this route [3]. The remaining 20 to 30% are rapidly eliminated by the urinary route [46,48]. The excretion via the bile and lungs is residual [46].

It is estimated that glyphosate’s half-life is between 6 and 12 h. The great majority of glyphosate and its metabolites are excreted after 48 h, and after 7 days practically all of them have been eliminated from the body

---

[14,46].

Link here

quote:

---

quote:
ETA: How do you view chronic glyphosate exposure from eating exposed foods even if the amount in the food is "low"?

---

quote:

---

Glysophate isn't as "durable" as you're thinking it is.

---

I said chronic as in "continuing or occurring again and again for a long time". As in getting small doses constantly in many things you eat. With the highly processed diet most Americans eat it is in many things many people consume regularly. Even in small amounts in any one food it is possible to have a steady exposure. What is the long term effects of exposure as in years?

I don't understand the need of some to rationalize how a herbicide(or any other added chemical) in your food is not something to avoid if possible when it is possible to limit exposure. But it is your choice, you can use it as salad dressing if it is so innocuous, I will avoid it and others whenever possible.

I started reading label when I got diagnosed with diabetes

quote:

---

I honestly do not think you get any that way.

---

quote:

---

I do not believe that.

---

Chemical residue of glyphosate and others is present in the food supply, of that there is no question. Just one link, if you really wanted to know you could find plenty more, but you seem to have you mind already made up.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/cfia-report-glyphosate-1.4070275

quote:

---

Canada's food regulator has found traces of the controversial herbicide glyphosate in nearly 30 per cent of about 3,200 food products it tested, and residue levels above the acceptable limits in 1.3 per cent of the samples.

---

quote:

---

Nothing.

---

Of course all of the alphabet agencies and the CFIA in the article above state the levels are "safe". You can put your trust in them if you want, after all when has a Gov agency been wrong or a large corporation ever put profits above safety? I see no need to ingest herbicide in any amount if possible to avoid even if proclaimed "safe". There is still a lack of long term research on chronic exposure.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9101768/

quote:

---

Glyphosate, a non-selective systemic biocide with broad-spectrum activity, is the most widely used herbicide in the world. It can persist in the environment for days or months, and its intensive and large-scale use can constitute a major environmental and health problem. In this systematic review, we investigate the current state of our knowledge related to the effects of this pesticide on the nervous system of various animal species and humans. The information provided indicates that exposure to glyphosate or its commercial formulations induces several neurotoxic effects. It has been shown that exposure to this pesticide during the early stages of life can seriously affect normal cell development by deregulating some of the signaling pathways involved in this process, leading to alterations in differentiation, neuronal growth, and myelination. Glyphosate also seems to exert a significant toxic effect on neurotransmission and to induce oxidative stress, neuroinflammation and mitochondrial dysfunction, processes that lead to neuronal death due to autophagy, necrosis, or apoptosis, as well as the appearance of behavioral and motor disorders. The doses of glyphosate that produce these neurotoxic effects vary widely but are lower than the limits set by regulatory agencies. Although there are important discrepancies between the analyzed findings, it is unequivocal that exposure to glyphosate produces important alterations in the structure and function of the nervous system of humans, rodents, fish, and invertebrates.

---

Of course there are studies/papers that claim it is harmless, I just think the science isn't settled.

quote:

---

Because I am not a herb.

---

Feel free to ingest any and all herbicides/pesticides you wish, it is your prerogative.

quote:

---

Why do you think this is bad?

---

Because the link I provided and other studies indicate it can cause problems even at levels called "safe".

quote:

---

How is this defined? What are these traces, and if it is a trace, then is it really glyphosate?

---

Why does it matter? Why focus on "trace"? It is obviously measurable. What about the ones above the set limits? At first you say it isn't there but now you switch to it's so low it's no problem? Why the moving goal posts? I have posted a link that shows harm can be caused at levels lower than labeled "safe".

quote:

---

And that's the real key isn't it? This thread isn't really about direct exposure to Glyphosate.

---

No it isn't but the question was asked to why GMO is bad and the glyphosate "problem" is a big answer to it. Many GMO crops are engineered to be sprayed heavily with glyphosate to increase yields and this increased spraying can lead to higher concentrations in the food chain and can also increase exposure to other chemicals by "add on" spraying when the glyphosate is sprayed.

quote:

---

Pretty sure I ingest none.

---

Pretty sure the vast majority of Americans do. With the rate it is found in all types of grains, HFCS etc. and the use of them in so many food products it is hard to avoid completely, especially if you eat out. The amount may be small, or may be large, I just try to keep to the small side.

quote:

---

Serious question, and I mean no harm in asking it, but are you female?

---

No, why do you ask?

You seem so sure of your position even though I have provide information that at the minimum shows there should be more research on the subject.

Why do you reject that humans should try to keep their exposure to pesticides to a minimum even if they have been proclaimed "safe"? Avoiding GMO can help lower exposure since the labeling doesn't tell you why the product was genetically modified. It could be harmless or could be so they can spray more pesticides on it.