* glyphosate is safe at doses of 1% of food intake * the study found it in food at 160 parts per billion ... or 0.000016 of the safe dose This is anti-scientific fear mongering.https://twitter.com/PollySpin/status/1139017934410518529 …
-
Show this thread
-
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs Retweeted Dedicating Ruckus
2/ The study I'm referencing is re chronic exposure. Rats showed slightly elevated signs of liver toxicity when glyphosate was something like 10% of their food for 2 years.https://twitter.com/ded_ruckus/status/1139143401289453569 …
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs added,
2 replies 2 retweets 16 likesShow this thread -
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs Retweeted
3/ This is an excellent argument. You have indicated that you haven't looked up any study, don't know who funds it, and have an unqantified suspicion. YOU HAVE CLEARLY DONE A LOT OF RESEARCH ON THIS AND THEREFORE I CARE A LOT ABOUT YOUR OPINION. https://twitter.com/IChoseFakeNews/status/1139144085355319296 …
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs added,
This Tweet is unavailable.3 replies 3 retweets 23 likesShow this thread -
4/ The two arguments "I don't want chemicals in my food" / "I want clean food" are both useless and bad. They are useless in the same way, but bad in different ways.
2 replies 1 retweet 14 likesShow this thread -
5/ They are both useless because they are not actionable in any sort of sane consistent way.
1 reply 0 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
6/ They are bad in distinct ways. "I don't want chemicals in my food" is bad because EVERYTHING is a chemical. Water is a chemical. Fructose is a chemical. Citric acid is a chemical. Your organic apple, grown on an island never visited by mankind, plucked by elves? Chemicals.
3 replies 2 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
This Tweet is unavailable.
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.
