Glyphosate in Chicken Feed- Should I be concerned or not?

[saysfaa]

any of you want to know the long term affects from having glyphosates in your food?

"high doses"

All those symptoms are scary.

So are the symptoms of all other substances when more are ingested than the body can handle.

Another substance also sounds really scary.

"Ultimately the swelling of brain cells will cause your central nervous system to malfunction. Without treatment, you can experience seizures, enter into a coma, and ultimately die." Source of quote. On the other hand, you're going to have problems if you don't drink water.

We don't need Round Up like we need water. We do need food, though. Preferably, a reliable, affordable supply of it. That might be possible without Round Up. It might not be. I think it would be wise to at least consider what the food supply and costs would be like without it.

Also, have you considered why Round Up is used so much? One of the main reasons is that is orders of magnitude safer than most of the other herbicide options ever developed.

It is even in your Cheerios.

Yes, minuscule amounts have been found in cheerios. Most references say 300 – 1670 ppb of glyphosate.

the EPA determines a safe threshold by taking a given percentage (100th or 1000th, depending on the substance) of the minimum amount that would cause any detectable effect in lab animals.

EPA allows 30,000 parts per billion of glyphosate. Which means it takes at least 3,000,000 parts per billion to result in a detectable difference. Not a significant difference - just a detectible difference.

The World Health Organization gives a threshhold of 1 milligram per kilogram of body weight per day for chronic toxicity.

 

[Kenya Mwangi]

"high doses"

All those symptoms are scary.

So are the symptoms of all other substances when more are ingested than the body can handle.

Another substance also sounds really scary.

"Ultimately the swelling of brain cells will cause your central nervous system to malfunction. Without treatment, you can experience seizures, enter into a coma, and ultimately die." Source of quote. On the other hand, you're going to have problems if you don't drink water.

We don't need Round Up like we need water. We do need food, though. Preferably, a reliable, affordable supply of it. That might be possible without Round Up. It might not be. I think it would be wise to at least consider what the food supply and costs would be like without it.

Also, have you considered why Round Up is used so much? One of the main reasons is that is orders of magnitude safer than most of the other herbicide options ever developed.


Yes, minuscule amounts have been found in cheerios. Most references say 300 – 1670 ppb of glyphosate.

the EPA determines a safe threshold by taking a given percentage (100th or 1000th, depending on the substance) of the minimum amount that would cause any detectable effect in lab animals.

EPA allows 30,000 parts per billion of glyphosate. Which means it takes at least 3,000,000 parts per billion to result in a detectable difference. Not a significant difference - just a detectible difference.

The World Health Organization gives a threshhold of 1 milligram per kilogram of body weight per day for chronic toxicity.

Hello Were you or a loved one led to believe that some parts per billion of glyphosate is safe in your food and then your stomach fell off? You could get compensation.

Those commercials.

 

[saysfaa]

... eggs, the ones we buy in our stores, were found to have Glyphosate contamination in 85% of the brands tested (both Organic and non-organic).

...Should I really be this concerned?
Thanks,

Jimmy

85% of the brands..., how many eggs in any given brand did they test before they found one that tested positive?

When they did find one, how many parts per billion did it have?

I didn't try to find the study you referenced but usually studies of this are technically true but very, very misleading.

 

[No Coop No Problem]

Another substance also sounds really scary.

"Ultimately the swelling of brain cells will cause your central nervous system to malfunction. Without treatment, you can experience seizures, enter into a coma, and ultimately die." Source of quote. On the other hand, you're going to have problems if you don't drink water.

Comparing literal poison to water is absurd. Do you defend rat poop in hamburger meat with the same logic?

the EPA determines a safe threshold by taking a given percentage (100th or 1000th, depending on the substance) of the minimum amount that would cause any detectable effect in lab animals.

EPA allows 30,000 parts per billion of glyphosate. Which means it takes at least 3,000,000 parts per billion to result in a detectable difference. Not a significant difference - just a detectible difference.

The EPA killed more Americans on 9/11 than the terrorists themselves did when they told first responders that it was okay to breath asbestos. 50,000 first responders are dead from cancer. They're incompetent at best and evil at worst

Here's an example of the EPA calling something safe that has repeatedly been demonstrated as harmful in countless independent studies-

"A court order stemming from a lawsuit filed by Food and Water Watch against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) forced the report’s release this week. “The data support a consistent inverse association between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ …
“The results were robust to stratifications by risk of bias, gender, age group, outcome assessment, study location, exposure timing, and exposure type (including both drinking water and urinary fluoride).”
Of the 19 high-quality studies assessing the association between fluoride and IQ in children, 18 reported an association between higher fluoride exposure and lower IQ in children. Forty-six of the 53 low-quality studies also found evidence of that association."
Link to report-
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/bsc/2023/fluoride/documents_provided_bsc_wg_031523.pdf

Here are 64 studies demonstrating that fluoride exposure lowers IQ in children. 64 studies. Yet the organization you cite on glyphosate safety claims fluoride is safe. The EPA does not protect our health, it protects the profit of billionaires

 

[BDutch]

One of the problems of inhaling/eating /drinking a mix of too much pesticides /herbicides is that people get Parkinsons disease many years later.

 

[Kenya Mwangi]

Comparing literal poison to water is absurd. Do you defend rat poop in hamburger meat with the same logic?

The EPA killed more Americans on 9/11 than the terrorists themselves did when they told first responders that it was okay to breath asbestos. 50,000 first responders are dead from cancer. They're incompetent at best and evil at worst

Here's an example of the EPA calling something safe that has repeatedly been demonstrated as harmful in countless independent studies-

Here are 64 studies demonstrating that fluoride exposure lowers IQ in children. 64 studies. Yet the organization you cite on glyphosate safety claims fluoride is safe. The EPA does not protect our health, it protects the profit of billionaires

Hello I wanted to say things like this about the world health organization, but I was scared I would get bullied.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Hello Were you or a loved one led to believe that some parts per billion of glyphosate is safe in your food and then your stomach fell off? You could get compensation.

Those commercials.

"those commercials" are why only a single government body has found concern with Glyphosate. Because a schill for the Class Action firms was placed into the study group analyzing Glyphosate. As result, they rejected most all prior research, cherry picked some data, and rewrote their interim report to reach an opposite conclusion.

Though that was the IARC, a body of the WHO, the WHO itself has rejected their conclusion. as has the EPA, and every other major health org to review the available research.

The "researcher" has since moved on as a well paid professional plaintiff's expert.

Real world evidence - such as an increase in non-Hodgkins lymphomas (a rather nebulous broad category of cancer) in persons occupationally exposed to Glyphosate is lacking - there is in fact no time/dosage correlation in the real world reporting, nor even a statistically significant increase in incidence among the industrial exposed populace as compared to the general population*.

See, for example, the linked articles in this opinion
https://reason.com/2019/02/21/roundup-ready-cancer/

When last I looked at the research, a few years back.

and while yes, its true that the EPA withdrew its 2020 guidance on Glyphosate, they say they were essentially forced to do so by the opinions of 12 jurors and a judge in a single court room.

 

[Kenya Mwangi]

"those commercials" are why only a single government body has found concern with Glyphosate. Because a schill for the Class Action firms was placed into the study group analyzing Glyphosate. As result, they rejected most all prior research, cherry picked some data, and rewrote their interim report to reach an opposite conclusion.

Though that was the IARC, a body of the WHO, the WHO itself has rejected their conclusion. as has the EPA, and every other major health org to review the available research.

The "researcher" has since moved on as a well paid professional plaintiff's expert.

Real world evidence - such as an increase in non-Hodgkins lymphomas (a rather nebulous broad category of cancer) in persons occupationally exposed to Glyphosate is lacking - there is in fact no time/dosage correlation in the real world reporting, nor even a statistically significant increase in incidence among the industrial exposed populace as compared to the general population*.

See, for example, the linked articles in this opinion
https://reason.com/2019/02/21/roundup-ready-cancer/

When last I looked at the research, a few years back.

and while yes, its true that the EPA withdrew its 2020 guidance on Glyphosate, they say they were essentially forced to do so by the opinions of 12 jurors and a judge in a single court room.

Hello I'm not trying to stop you from eating poison at your own desire. I'm just striving to eat poison free and give my opinion to curious people that it is not safe.

Oh, and billions of dollars of settlement payments and paid for studies might have something to do with it being only a single government body. Just saying.

 

[SourRoses]

Have you ever tried to garden without pesticides and herbicides?
Maybe it's because we live in a southern, bug infested state... but I found it rather eye opening.
I don't feel good about pesticides and herbicides, especially when used to desiccate crops rather than protect them. But the world would starve without them. Horses would starve without hay, domestic chickens would starve without grains.
Without modern agriculture, the earth could only support a fraction of the people.
This isn't only a US thing. Monsanto has a firm grip in most countries. Where it isn't in use, something else is, potentially worse.

My mom likes to tell of growing up in Australia, which is crazy for flying insects... and this is the 60's we're talking about, before widespread AC use... so the family would sit down to dinner and the flies would try to land on the food. Her mom would jump up and grab the fly spray that smelled horrible and spray it over the table with open food bowls and such. Mom says it wasn't until the 90's that she realized what her mom was spraying was DDT.

Some of those chemicals linger in our soil and water today.
And a lot of this is generational... I wonder what my IQ might be if my parents, grandparents, great grandparents, hadn't been exposed to chemicals and heavy metals. Epigenetics are scary.
I mean, I was in utero in the 80's, my mom smoked just like many other mothers. Her OB even encouraged a daily small glass of red wine.

My point is, you can accept that some stuff is unavoidable, and yet not seek it out. I would choose organic produce, but the truth is it's not safer.
Organic labeled produce is allowed to use pesticides and herbicides up until a certain number of weeks before harvest. Some organic produce actually tests higher in glyphosate.

There's a 3rd party non-profit that tests baby food and other grocery store food every year. Much of the time, organic baby food is just as bad as the GMO stuff. A lot of which has to do with the fruits and vegetables chosen for baby food. Softer produce without a rind allows more glyphosate to enter.
Rice (imported) is notoriously high in arsenic. Lead levels still frequently exceed recommended limits (not the FDA's, which aren't valid due to interference).

In the end, I feel safer about animal products than fresh produce. Their liver has done some of the filtering for us. Thank you, chickens.

 

[BDutch]

Have you ever tried to garden without pesticides and herbicides?
Maybe it's because we live in a southern, bug infested state... but I found it rather eye opening.
I don't feel good about pesticides and herbicides, especially when used to desiccate crops rather than protect them. But the world would starve without them. Horses would starve without hay, domestic chickens would starve without grains.
Without modern agriculture, the earth could only support a fraction of the people.
This isn't only a US thing. Monsanto has a firm grip in most countries. Where it isn't in use, something else is, potentially worse.

My mom likes to tell of growing up in Australia, which is crazy for flying insects... and this is the 60's we're talking about, before widespread AC use... so the family would sit down to dinner and the flies would try to land on the food. Her mom would jump up and grab the fly spray that smelled horrible and spray it over the table with open food bowls and such. Mom says it wasn't until the 90's that she realized what her mom was spraying was DDT.

Some of those chemicals linger in our soil and water today.
And a lot of this is generational... I wonder what my IQ might be if my parents, grandparents, great grandparents, hadn't been exposed to chemicals and heavy metals. Epigenetics are scary.
I mean, I was in utero in the 80's, my mom smoked just like many other mothers. Her OB even encouraged a daily small glass of red wine.

My point is, you can accept that some stuff is unavoidable, and yet not seek it out. I would choose organic produce, but the truth is it's not safer.
Organic labeled produce is allowed to use pesticides and herbicides up until a certain number of weeks before harvest. Some organic produce actually tests higher in glyphosate.

There's a 3rd party non-profit that tests baby food and other grocery store food every year. Much of the time, organic baby food is just as bad as the GMO stuff. A lot of which has to do with the fruits and vegetables chosen for baby food. Softer produce without a rind allows more glyphosate to enter.
Rice (imported) is notoriously high in arsenic. Lead levels still frequently exceed recommended limits (not the FDA's, which aren't valid due to interference).

In the end, I feel safer about animal products than fresh produce. Their liver has done some of the filtering for us. Thank you, chickens.

Much of what you claim is very untrue. It makes me sooo sad that people really think its true what Monsanto and other damaging industries claim to be the case.

The soil with a yearly dose of poison becomes a desert. This is not the way to go on to feed the people in the future.

If farmers stop using poisons their infertile land becomes healthy again within a few years. The food they harvest is healthier and insects start coming back. They are important to fertilise the fruit trees and many other crops. We and other lifeforms like birds need insects.

If we stop using so much good land to grow food for animals in factory farming (pigs, milk cows, broilers) and grow healthy vegetables/bean products there is enough land to feed the world.