Started By
Message

re: What is happening to the MAHA movement?

Posted on 2/23/26 at 8:08 am to
Posted by Burt Reynolds
Monterey, CA
Member since Jul 2008
24558 posts
Posted on 2/23/26 at 8:08 am to
quote:

For those against glyphosate, I'd like to hear your concerns about it specifically. Not farming practices or other concerns, I want to hear your concerns about the chemical itself.


It affects gut health, causes celiac disease, leaky gut and it’s carcinogenic.

Go drink some of it and see what happens
Posted by Flats
Member since Jul 2019
28127 posts
Posted on 2/23/26 at 8:19 am to
quote:

and it’s carcinogenic.



I don't know enough about glyphosate to have a strong opinion, but California has rendered this claim meaningless. It's like calling someone a racist these days.
Posted by Jake88
Member since Apr 2005
79920 posts
Posted on 2/23/26 at 8:31 am to
I guess they realize the importance of glyphosate in food production.

The artificial coloring? I don't know. I always figured they were probably bullshiting.
This post was edited on 2/23/26 at 8:42 am
Posted by Penrod
Member since Jan 2011
55459 posts
Posted on 2/23/26 at 8:40 am to
quote:

Not sure if that is true. If it is then they need a phased in approach starting now. Feeding people poison to keep farmers in business isn’t a great trade off.

What is the phased-in approach? Put 20% of the farmers out of business?
Posted by Harry Caray
Denial
Member since Aug 2009
21045 posts
Posted on 2/23/26 at 8:41 am to
Boy who could've seen this coming!
Posted by Diamondawg
Mississippi
Member since Oct 2006
38343 posts
Posted on 2/23/26 at 8:48 am to
What would kill the farmers is their inability to use roundup on their "Roundup ready" seeds. Millions and millions of acres are planted in these things and Bayer (which bought Monsanto and their lawsuits) has a strangle hold on the planters. It's an unfair fight but you would have to do something slowly to get out of the mess that Monsanto started and Bayer continues.
Posted by Harry Caray
Denial
Member since Aug 2009
21045 posts
Posted on 2/23/26 at 8:49 am to
quote:

This administration is a clown show

Always has been
Posted by deuceiswild
South La
Member since Nov 2007
5000 posts
Posted on 2/23/26 at 8:55 am to
I just want drug company commercials off my TV. That'd be a huge win for multiple reasons.
Posted by TigerDoc
Texas
Member since Apr 2004
11847 posts
Posted on 2/23/26 at 8:55 am to
Good series of posts. Every movement that moves from critique to governing eventually hits this moment - you have to show how you weigh competing risks, not just identify villains. The swings on glyphosate and food dyes is similar to this situation with mercury:

EPA to weaken rule limiting harmful mercury, air toxins from coal plants

If mercury is framed as a major public health concern (e.g., years of debate around thimerosal), then easing mercury limits on coal emissions seems like it would at least require a clear explanation of why that risk is acceptable. What’s the framework here? Cost-benefit? Exposure thresholds? Precautionary principle sometimes but not others?
Posted by Diamondawg
Mississippi
Member since Oct 2006
38343 posts
Posted on 2/23/26 at 9:38 am to
quote:

I just want drug company commercials off my TV. That'd be a huge win for multiple reasons.
Followed by attorneys and car dealerships. I guess the TV stations would go broke if they did that. I guess maybe the ad sales' department would just have to work harder.
Posted by Burt Reynolds
Monterey, CA
Member since Jul 2008
24558 posts
Posted on 2/23/26 at 12:49 pm to
quote:

I don't know enough about glyphosate to have a strong opinion, but California has rendered this claim meaningless. It's like calling someone a racist these days.


Well It’s plant poison. Do you really think that is something you should put in your body?
Posted by TigerDoc
Texas
Member since Apr 2004
11847 posts
Posted on 2/23/26 at 1:11 pm to
Worth separating hazard from risk. glyphosate can cause harm under certain conditions, but that’s true of almost any biologically active chemical. The debate is about risk at real-world exposure levels (this same principle is relevant to the mercury in vaccines vs. emissions issue as well). Some groups classified it as “probably carcinogenic” while some regulators like EPA have generally concluded typical dietary exposure is low risk. That gap is why the issue stays contentious. If we’re going to worry about it, the conversation should probably focus on exposure levels and evidence, not just the fact that it kills plants because things you put in your body all the time without a thought (e.g. salt & caffeine) can also do that.
Posted by Flats
Member since Jul 2019
28127 posts
Posted on 2/23/26 at 1:34 pm to
quote:

Well It’s plant poison.


So is salt.

Again, I'm not stumping for glyphosate, I'm just saying that calling it "carcinogenic" is meaningless without some sort of objective metric.
Posted by Vacherie Saint
Member since Aug 2015
47571 posts
Posted on 2/23/26 at 1:45 pm to
It’s 100% true

Glyphosate is applied to 3/4 of all US cropland. Nearly 300 MM acres.
Posted by TigerDoc
Texas
Member since Apr 2004
11847 posts
Posted on 2/23/26 at 1:45 pm to
Yeah - “carcinogenic” by itself doesn’t tell you much. Sunlight, alcohol, and processed meat are all on carcinogen lists too. The meaningful question is always at what dose and exposure? That’s why toxicologists hammered us on the idea that the dose makes the poison - it keeps us from arguing past each other with labels instead of numbers.
Posted by Burt Reynolds
Monterey, CA
Member since Jul 2008
24558 posts
Posted on 2/23/26 at 2:49 pm to
What objective metric do you need?

Go drink it and put it on your food like salt if you think those are analogous
Posted by Burt Reynolds
Monterey, CA
Member since Jul 2008
24558 posts
Posted on 2/23/26 at 2:51 pm to
inflammation and chronic diseases, including liver damage and microbiome disruption, which are key mechanisms in leaky gut theories. There are several studies showing glyphosate exposure correlates with more severe nonalcoholic fatty liver disease it’s a factor in rising gluten sensitivities and inflammation

But it makes food companies more money because it makes farming easier. Just because something is profitable doesnt mean it is good for you ‘doc’
Posted by TigerDoc
Texas
Member since Apr 2004
11847 posts
Posted on 2/23/26 at 3:02 pm to
Pointing to specific pathways is good - much more informative than just saying “it’s poison”. The profit angle is also real in agriculture, but it cuts both ways - yield, food prices, farmer economics, and environmental tradeoffs all get mixed in. That’s why people end up arguing about evidence rather than motives. What were you hoping MAHA was going to do with glyphosate?
Posted by Burt Reynolds
Monterey, CA
Member since Jul 2008
24558 posts
Posted on 2/23/26 at 6:42 pm to
Stop spraying glyphosate on crops because it’s retarded
Posted by Ailsa
Member since May 2020
8338 posts
Posted on 2/23/26 at 6:45 pm to
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

President Trump’s Executive Order about Glyphosate had me thinking there has to be more to this… and to my surprise, of course there was, and it honestly does make me feel a little better.

?? Did you know…
The majority of our crops are compromised? Many common crops have been genetically modified specifically to tolerate Roundup (or more precisely, its active ingredient glyphosate).

?? Did you know…
The majority of glyphosate (the active ingredient in herbicides like Roundup) is produced in China? China has been the world's largest producer of glyphosate producing 600,000–830,000 tons annually for many years.

?? Did you know…
In President Trump’s Executive order, he invoked the Defense Production Act, aimed at boosting and securing DOMESTIC (U.S.-based) production of glyphosate?

So what does that tell you?

China has been in a long silent war with America for a very long time, slowly killing off the U.S. population via many hidden means.

I’m no expert on glyphosate, but I feel like I can safely assume maybe China has done something to the glyphosate they manufacture or maybe it can be manufactured better to lessen the risks. I don’t know, but Honestly, I do feel A LOT better knowing it would at least be manufactured here in the US.

In addition to this, RFK JR recently as HHS secretary openly and honestly discussed Glyphosate with FULL TRANSPARENCY. He told us the truth about it, how dangerous it is, and how we are sadly reliant on it — but more importantly says they are optimistic that laser technology can replace it. (Clip here rumble.com/v75obeu-glyphosat…)

Overall, I realize the concerns, but I want everyone not to always jump to the worse possible conclusions. I really do think RFK JR and Trump are trying to make the best of a lot of already “legally” established shitty situations. I’m gonna wait and see how this turns out.

What do you think?
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram