1. Let's start with a simple fact: GLYPHOSATE IS NOT A CARCINOGEN
-
-
Show this thread
-
If you want to be accurate, it is a "probable carcinogen" Even this classification is disputed, but it is factually inaccurate to say that glyphosate is a "controversial carcinogen" in the headline
Show this thread -
2. GLYPHOSATE IS A PROBABLE CARCINOGEN ONLY AT INDUSTRIAL EXPOSURES
Show this thread -
This is a vitally important point. There is NO EVIDENCE that glyphosate causes cancer in people who eat fruit/vegetables grown using glyphosate
Show this thread -
There is evidence from animal models that high doses of glyphosate over long periods of time - what you would see in farmers handling the stuff every day for decades - MAY cause cancer
Show this thread -
However, this is contradicted by epidemiological trials that have failed to establish a link between glyphosate and cancerpic.twitter.com/Xvw39R5h5A
Show this thread -
3. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT GLYPHOSATE CAUSES CANCER
Show this thread -
I cannot stress this enough. Animal models are great, but there is limited applicability when it comes to actual people
Show this thread -
Studies in actual people have not shown a link between glyphosate and cancer. The largest study ever done on the subject, which followed 55,000 people for over a decade, found no link whatsoeverpic.twitter.com/kAPFuNMgXn
Show this thread -
Meta-analyses of similar studies also show no association THERE IS NO LINK BETWEEN GLYPHOSATE AND CANCER IN HUMANS
Show this thread -
There *may* be a small increase in risk for people who are exposed to enormous amounts for decades (like farmers), but that is a) not demonstrable and b) not applicable to most people
Show this thread -
4. COURT DECISIONS DO NOT IMPACT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Show this thread -
I mean, honestly, this is a no-brainer. Convincing a jury in California does not mean much in terms of 'truth'
Show this thread -
5. IARC CLASSIFICATIONS ARE GARBAGE FOR CONVEYING RISK
Show this thread -
There is a lot of utility for epidemiologists/public health in determining which products definitely do and do not cause cancer, but for your average person the IARC classification of "probable carcinogen" for glyphosate is worthless
Show this thread -
Glyphosate being a "probable carcinogen" simply means that animal models have shown some association, but human studies have not Which is exactly the point
Show this thread -
Moreover, "probable carcinogen" does not give you any idea of the magnitude of the risk. To see the doses that they use in animal trials, you'd have to drink the stuff for years
Show this thread -
6. EVEN THE ANIMAL STUDIES THAT SHOW GLYPHOSATE IS CARCINOGENIC DON'T ACTUALLY SHOW THAT AT ALL
Show this thread -
There have been a number of animal studies into glyphosate over the years. Thus far, the evidence has been spotty and very inconclusive The IARC decision, for example, was based on only a handful of positive studies
Show this thread -
Of the dozen or so animal studies into glyphosate, about half have shown no association, and a further quarter have shown only a very weak association Not exactly damning
Show this thread -
So, to recap: 1. Glyphosate is not a carcinogen 2. It is a "probable carcinogen" 3. But only at industrial exposures 4. This evidence is weak and spotty in animals 5. And non-existent in humans 6. GLYPHOSATE ALMOST CERTAINLY DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER /end thread
Show this thread -
P.S. I'm paid entirely by the Australian Government and have no competing interests, so don't @ me with your hilarious shill accusations
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.