*Rage intensifies* This is getting ridiculous Glyphosate (RoundUp) is almost certainly safe /threadhttps://twitter.com/TheNewDailyAu/status/1049479589687435264 …
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
However, this is contradicted by epidemiological trials that have failed to establish a link between glyphosate and cancerpic.twitter.com/Xvw39R5h5A
3. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT GLYPHOSATE CAUSES CANCER
I cannot stress this enough. Animal models are great, but there is limited applicability when it comes to actual people
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
Meta-analyses of similar studies also show no association THERE IS NO LINK BETWEEN GLYPHOSATE AND CANCER IN HUMANS
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
4. COURT DECISIONS DO NOT IMPACT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
I mean, honestly, this is a no-brainer. Convincing a jury in California does not mean much in terms of 'truth'
5. IARC CLASSIFICATIONS ARE GARBAGE FOR CONVEYING RISK
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
Glyphosate being a "probable carcinogen" simply means that animal models have shown some association, but human studies have not Which is exactly the point
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
6. EVEN THE ANIMAL STUDIES THAT SHOW GLYPHOSATE IS CARCINOGENIC DON'T ACTUALLY SHOW THAT AT ALL
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
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
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
P.S. I'm paid entirely by the Australian Government and have no competing interests, so don't @ me with your hilarious shill accusations
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.