Significant levels of glyphosate found in popular breakfast cereals

[koliber]

I don't understand what this article is trying to convey.

> One sample of Quaker Old Fashioned Oats measured at more than 1,000 parts per billion of glyphosate.

That's 1 part per million (ppm), found in one particular sample. I imagine this was the most extreme outlier, as otherwise it would not be mentioned as prominently.

And then, right in the next sentence:

> The Environmental Protection Agency has a range of safe levels for glyphosate on crops such as corn, soybeans, grains and some fruits, spanning 0.1 to 310 parts per million.

So one sample measured within the bounds that are deemed safe. On the one hand, 1ppm is well above the 0.1ppm that is deemed safe for some of these crops by the EPA. On the other hand, this egregious sample is way lower than the 310ppm deemed safe for some other crops by the EPA.

What gives. What is this article trying to say? It seems like it is trying to be sensationalistic.

Can someone explain if I am reading this wrong? Maybe there's a typo in the article?

[pasta]

- Q: "I don't understand what this article is trying to convey."

- A: Getting as much hits as possible so they have more income from ads.

Also: "Cancer-linked herbicide, sold as Roundup by Monsanto, present in 45 products including granola, snack bars and Cheerios" is very sensational because there are a lot of types of herbicides.

Glyphosate is possible connected to cancer but there is not much proof for it.

Edit: (disclaimer) I think it's still crazy companies are allowed to add toxic synthetic chemicals to nature.

For example: In the US and Netherlands there is now GenX [1] in drinking water because it is unsure if GenX can cause any harm. Well imho that should be the other way around: only allow chemicals to be dumped in open water if you are 100% sure it can't do harm.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenX

[darpa_escapee]

The levels the EPA considers safe is for use on crops.

These are the levels deemed safe for levels in food[1]. The median seems to be about 0.2ppm for glyphosate levels in food meant for human consumption.

[1] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=0f2a0a6738...

[ajju]

Using parts per billion for one stat and parts per million for the other is just wrong. If that is not a typo it's shameless sensationalism at its worst. Surprising to see this from the guardian.

Even at 1 ppm it is above the line, so they didn't need to sensationalize it.

[userbinator]

That's my impression when I read the headline and article too. Analytic methods have become so highly sensitive that the tiniest trace is detectable, but that doesn't mean it's significant.

Combine that with a "think of the children" perspective and it makes great sensational-but-vacuous news.

As they say, the dose makes the poison...

[tomp]

For a long time, the story of pro-GMO advocates was "RoundUp is safer than other weed-killers because it's applied when the plant is still young and not growing edible parts yet, so there won't be any of it in your food".

Looks like they were wrong.

(Note that I'm not saying that RoundUp is worse than other stuff, or that there's more of it in our food that of other stuff.)

[theprotocol]

Good catch. It looks like human error on the part of the author. The validity of the article hinges on this one paragraph and could go either way.

[nealdt]

Well spotted - It must be a typo because normally I hear parts per billion in reference to these figures, never ppm.

[masto]

The reason it looks sensationalistic is that it is. This is the result of an anti-science advocacy group called EWG that put out a press release that's being republished by various lazy news outlets. This is the same group that has made claims that vaccines cause autism and cell phones cause brain cancer. Unfortunately, this type of article is irresistible to the media and it's getting a ridiculous amount of traction. The science on glyphosate has not changed, and these "findings" by the EWG are junk.

Here's something a little more reputable. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roun...

[roel_v]

It's the Guardian. It's the British equivalent of Fox but from the other side of the political spectrum. I don't understand why so much Guardian drivel is upvoted here every day.

[nealdt]

All the more reason to select organic produce and where possible start growing your own veggies or link up with local co-operatives. It's something we've done and having a close relationship with local growers and knowing about your food is fantastic and something kids love. The [roduce tends to have more nutrients as well (yet more positives). Can it be done large scale? I remember hearing in a talk about permaculture that a hectare of land can support a hundred people throughout a year.

[darpa_escapee]

While you won't have to worry about glysophate on organic food, just as much, if not more, pesticides are used on organic crops.

[zeroego]

I work for the customer service department of one of the companies listed. Yesterday was hell and today is shaping up to be pretty terrible. People aren't even reading the article and they're calling in telling us how we're personally killing their children. I just had a customer telling me how GMO's are toxic and how I'm personally complicit in giving her young son cancer. Read the original article people. At least know the difference between GMO's and glyphosate for Pete's sake.

[beenBoutIT]

It'll be interesting to see if the mountain of lawsuits against Bayer grows to include parents of autistic children. https://www.csail.mit.edu/research/toxic-environmental-chemi...

[Grue3]

Wait until they learn about dihydrogen monoxide. This chemical has a 100% mortality rate!

[TsomArp]

I don't understand why aren't they forbidden from selling that shit.

[s21n]

Probably because it's not toxic or cancerogenic in the quantities that it is used.

It's less toxic (LD50) than table salt. There's no evidence that the glyphosate residues in food could cause cancer. It's even much safer for farmers than many other pesticides, despite the fact that farmers get in contact with much greater quantities. It's not linked to cancer in farmers, except in case of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, but even this link is weak, and debatable at least: https://plantoutofplace.com/2018/08/glyphosate-and-cancer-re...

[harryh]

You don't understand this because you have no understanding of the science behind food safety. If you were more educated about this sort of thing your understanding would improve.

[masto]

Because there's nothing wrong with it.

[simontc]

The Trump administration just allowed the usage of asbestos. I don't think there is a chance of getting a Monsanto product banned.