The report is here (and in French): https://www.anses.fr/fr/system/files/CONSO2017SA0019Ra.pdf … To be clear, my French is thoroughly mediocre and I have only read part of the report
Without going into too much detail, the margins of error for these estimates are VERY HIGH. It's entirely possible that babies absorb far less (or far more) than the estimates
-
-
They then compare the worst-case scenario estimates - the highest end of their wide confidence interval - with reference doses for these pollutants Reference dose = dose at which toxicity is likely/possible for a specific chemical
Show this thread -
And guess what? GLYPHOSATE WAS SAFE. IT WASN'T ONE OF THE PROBLEMATIC POLLUTANTS (green = lower maximum estimated exposure than reference dose over lifetime)pic.twitter.com/3OaRwnXX5B
Show this thread -
There were, however, plenty of pollutants that were higher - many of them only by tiny amounts - than the reference doses That's ~potentially~ an issue
Show this thread -
The report then goes on to recommend that the substances be removed from nappies This is a fair recommendation, because although there's no evidence that they are harmful in these doses for this exposure, babies are very vulnerable and we want to be carefulpic.twitter.com/LSYZA5MGsc
Show this thread -
Wow, that thread went on for far longer than I was expecting. Take-homes: 1. These exposures probably aren't harmful 2. They are in ~tiny~ doses, even across 4,000+ nappies 3. BUT we are careful where infants are concerned 4. This doesn't mean you should worry
Show this thread -
All that being said, it's worth noting how truly absurd it is that a report that found that glyphosate WASN'T AN ISSUE is being reported on as an indication that we should be scared of nappies because glyphosate
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.