However, this is contradicted by epidemiological trials that have failed to establish a link between glyphosate and cancerpic.twitter.com/Xvw39R5h5A
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
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
Last time I looked, humans are an animal.
I could use "rodent studies" but I think there may have been a primate one hence "animal" Forgive me the colloquialism!
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.