Bayer to Pull Glyphosate Products, from U.S. Home and Garden Market
The key words that oversight organizations keep repeating are basically &quot;There&#x27;s no evidence of long term health effects when used as directed.&quot;<p>The problem with glyphosate is that even if it does turn out to cause some kind of cancer, it&#x27;s acute toxicity is incredibly low, lower than table salt.  As as a result, people can easily ignore the directions for years with minimal, if any, health effects.<p>However, the anti-glyphosate crowd has completely failed for the last 40 years to provide any definitive proof that it causes cancer, what cancers it might cause, any kind of dose-response curve, or any other evidence that what we&#x27;re seeing is anything else that chance. Non-hodgkin&#x27;s lymphoma is relatively rare, but glyphosate usage is not. Take any popular product, nail polish, Nike shoes, Cheeze-its, and with enough scrutiny you will be able to correlate the population of heavy users with some rare and critical health condition. It&#x27;s inevitable. You can tell such a claim is likely spurious by weak and contradictory findings, alongside frequent goalpost moving and changing claims from the product&#x27;s critics. This is exactly what we see with glyphosate.<p>So why is glyphosate so criticised?  Why did Greenpeace fight nuclear power so hard in the 60&#x27;s and 70&#x27;s, even though fossil fuels were far worse for their claimed cause?  Why are there so many anti-vaxers? Why was golden rice destroyed? People don&#x27;t need a rational reason to fervently take up a cause. Especially if they think they&#x27;re fighting an evil empire.<p>The craziest thing is that even if glyphosate is as carcinogenic as its detractors claim, it&#x27;s still far less toxic than most, if not all, of the other less controversial herbicides. In other words, anti-glyphosate campaigners are not choosing targets based on harm, they&#x27;re choosing targets based on popularity.