Meanwhile, the EPA and other international agencies have detailed risk assessments that have been used to calculate the 1-2mg/day dose 9/ i.e. https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/glyphosate/earlier-assessment_en … https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/reregistration/fs_PC-417300_1-Sep-93.pdf … https://apvma.gov.au/node/13891
-
-
Is this a problem? Impossible to know. It is, however, strange that the EWG has gone against all international advice to set a threshold low enough that breakfast cereals are an issue 19/pic.twitter.com/fAWDuvVBIF
Show this thread -
I should note - I don't think the EWG has done anything explicitly wrong here. They've set their own threshold for risk, based on their own assessment. It conflicts with most established scientific estimates, but that's not uncommon 20/
Show this thread -
The problem is that we don't really know WHY it's so low. It's more than 10x lower than the next most conservative estimate that I can find, which is California who are usually BY FAR the most conservative anyway 21/
Show this thread -
It's very hard for me to understand why they'd consider such low levels a problem, given that there are numerous studies that have not shown an issue even at much higher doses 22/
Show this thread -
For some context - the California reference dose of 1.1mg/day is based on their "no significant risk" threshold, which means that an intake of this much is associated with a increase of less than 0.0001% lifetime risk 23/
Show this thread -
To put it another way, this means that eating 1.1mg/day of glyphosate would be expected to harm 1 in 100,000 people over the course of 80 years 24/
Show this thread -
Blog is now out on thishttps://medium.com/the-method/roundup-isnt-poisoning-your-cheerios-626d61f4c3d8 …
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.