Submitted by Jealous-Pop-8997 t3_z4g1ab in science
eng050599 t1_ixs88xf wrote
Reply to comment by perfmode80 in Glyphosate associated with lower birth weights by Jealous-Pop-8997
This study has some more significant issues than that, with the biggest one being that their their entire population was heavily biased.
From the study:
"...our study participants were not selected other than prospectively attending a Maternal-Fetal Medicine Specialty Obstetrics Clinic for high-risk pregnancies."
They then go on to indicate that high risk pregnancies only account for 6-8% of the total in the US and that, as a result, "...our findings cannot be easily generalized to low-risk pregnancies."
Funny how so many of the anti-biotech groups seem to neglect bringing up this point...let alone the issues with them being unable to account for a wide range of variables.
fasthpst t1_ixx9b16 wrote
If it was the only study laiming harm your point may be valid, however all the independent research is pointing this way. Glyphosate and AMPA seem to have endocrine effects, they certainly disrupt development on lower life forms.
Researchers can't justify projects like this without background evidence. It's not like they just woke up one day and published on what if Roundup disrupts difficult pregnancies
eng050599 t1_ixxped9 wrote
Actually, it's literally every study capable of showing causation that indicates there is no increased risk of harm at the current exposure limits.
The only studies that try to claim this can only test for correlative effects, and even then they are riddled with design issues. Insufficient sample size, non-standard treatment, inappropriate animal model, deviating from normal histopathological assays without indicating why, and of course, incorrect statistical methods and insufficient power of analysis.
Over and over again, these studies all follow the same pattern. A correlation between glyphosate exposure and harm is claimed...and that's it. There's no attempt to validate the results by designing a study, or using the currently existing baseline, the OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, to test for causal effects.
Glyphosate has been through Tier I endocrine disruption screens in both the US and EU, and there is no indication that it has such effects.
Again, the only studies claiming this do not adhere to even the minimum standards in toxicology.
What's even worse for the anti-glyphosate narrative is that, even among the correlative observational studies, the strongest of these (in terms of statistical power), the Agricultural Health Study, a prospective cohort study (best you can get without moving to a DB-RCT), shows no increased risk from glyphosate exposure.
You need to remember that all studies are not equal, and the risk assessment for these chemicals involves weighting studies based on their power of analysis. Methods that have the power to test for causal effects are given more weight than those who can only conclude correlative ones, and one-off studies that don't adhere to the international standards get weighted far, far less.
As things stand, there are no OECD compliant studies indicating that there's an increased risk from glyphosate exposure until the exposure level is orders of magnitude above the current limits.
What you should really be asking is why the anti-biotech researchers seem to be incapable of following the same standards that all scientists, myself included, are expected to uphold.
The OECD methods have been the standard since 1981. Since that time they have been revised, added to, and removed when there is evidence to support this, and there's even a built in mechanism for scientists to instigate such a review.
Those same anti-biotech researchers haven't even tried to indicate that the current standards need revising.
Instead, they just continue to generate weak correlative studies that, unfortunately, individuals like yourself see on various blogs, but almost never in context with their statistical power.
fasthpst t1_ixxu3sk wrote
And yet they just keep coming year after year and you keep ignoring it.
A lot has changed since 1981
eng050599 t1_ixxvlwo wrote
A comment so vapid, you decided to post it twice?
Well, I'll just paste in the previous reply:
And you missed the fact that I specifically stated that they have been updated during that time.
You also missed that the anti-biotech researchers haven't even attempted to make use of the built in review protocols, and it's because you need to back up allegations with data, and yet again, literally none of the studies capable of showing causation support your allegations.
Oh, and FYI, the entire history of the study designs are openly available, and each modification recorded.
The only one here ignoring anything is you, and the fact that you can't seem to understand just how vast the gap between the power of the studies you're relying are, and those that my peers and I assign the most weight to.
We actually put the studies into context with their power of analysis, not by how the results align with our existing beliefs.
Want to keep going?
[deleted] t1_ixxyetj wrote
[removed]
eng050599 t1_ixy2l50 wrote
You seem to be removing your comments, but fortunately, they remain viewable. Let's start with this one:
You'll note that none of the studies indicating harm from glyphosate are compliant with the international standards, but even then, they can't test for causal effects.
Secondly, in the studies using the formulated herbicide mix, have you actually looked at any of them?
There are several reasons why the formulated mix isn't used for the standard toxicity metrics, but the most frequent ones are put on display quite nicely in your citation.
- Many of the studies using cell cultures aren't an appropriate model for real world conditions. Quite simply, you will see the same results if you subbed out the herbicide with dish soap. The reason for that is because the formulated herbicides contain surfactants to aid in penetrating the waxy cuticle present on most plant species. Surfactants of this type are soap...and disrupting lipids, like those present in the cytyoplasmic membrane of mammalian cells, are the reason why we've been using them for millennia.
- Using the forumlated mix isn't representative of what consumers will be exposed to, as there is a mandatory period, normally 2-3 weeks, where a farmer cannot harvest their crop after an application of pretty well any GBH. Using the formulated mix without accounting for the differential adsorption of the active ingredients (glyphosate, which is systemically transported), and the adjuvants (local exposure only, with little to no systemic spread).
- At no point do the studies listed counter any of the compliant studies conducted, as they lack the statistical power to even come close. Add on the fact that many of the OECD-compliant studies have been successfully replicated.
- Attacking the source of any study without evidence derived from experimental data of equal or greater power of analysis doesn't work in science, and you'll note that I have provided multiple critiques of the methods, and analyses used in the studies you've elected to cite.
One fun part about actually being a scientist is that it is extremely easy to determine when someone has no real understanding of a given topic, and is just parroting what they've seen online.
You definitely fall into this group.
fasthpst t1_ixy35sn wrote
I haven't removed any comments.
>There are several reasons why the formulated mix isn't used for the standard toxicity metrics
Glyphosate is never applied without the associated chemicals.
>Attacking the source of any study without evidence derived from experimental data of equal or greater powe
Yet you seem comfortable with doing it.
>as there is a mandatory period, normally 2-3 weeks, where a farmer cannot harvest their crop after an application of pretty well any GBH
Pre harvest application to dry crops is common. EPA os just fine with 3 days before harvest if I remember correctly.
It's pretty funny that you are speaking to some mythical list as if they are all the same. It's also pretty funny that you assume that I don't have more experience in this subject than you.
At what point does a steady stream of results demand attention? In your expert opinion? Like how many studies showing toxicity in a wide variety of organisms are necessary for you to take it seriously?
It would seem to me that you are satisfied with industry and regulator studies from decades past, do modern techniques not impress you? Hmm.
eng050599 t1_ixy5ivd wrote
Three days for swathing, 7 for harvest in wheat...and you don't know much about endosperm development in wheat do you?
When the crop reaches the point where harvest begins, how much head filling is still happening?
Almost nothing, and the plant is already starting the senesce at this point. There's almost no additional nutrients being transported to the harvested tissues, and that's why pre-application isn't an issue.
Want to know what evidence will change my mind?
The exact same evidence that my peers in the scientific community expect.
Empirical evidence from a study design that meets or exceeds the statistical power of the OECD compliant studies, or their regional equivalents.
You really don't seem to get that you have literally NOTHING like this.
That's actually one way that I know you're not a scientist, and most certainly are not up to speed on even the rudimentary aspects of toxicology.
As for the age of the studies...since there's been nothing to indicate that those ones are in error, you really don't have anything to justify excluding them.
I on the other hand can use the fact that the studies you laud lack the capability of testing for causal effects to assign them a lower weight in the Weight of Evidence Narrative section of the regulatory assessments.
fasthpst t1_ixy5r9j wrote
>and that's why pre-application isn't an issue.
Isn't an issue for crop yield, it is an issue for residues being found in consumer products. Your misdirection in this discussion shows you to be disingenuous.
> >The exact same evidence that my peers in the scientific community expect.
Doesn't really seem that way. Are you claiming all these studies bypassed peer review? >
eng050599 t1_ixy7a97 wrote
...look up what head filling is.
Glyphosate requires active transport for it to be systemic, and active transport to the wheat head stops after head filling is finished.
At this stage the plant is literally dying, but in a controlled manner. Nutrients aren't being transported to the head any longer, and as such, neither is the glyphosate.
Again, you're showing that you have no understanding of any of these topics.
>Doesn't really seem that way. Are you claiming all these studies bypassed peer review?
...seriously?
Peer review isn't the issue.
The issue is that there are literally no studies that can counter the compliant studies conducted to date.
Perhaps you're a bit more dense than even I thought, so I'll take this a bit slower.
Not all studies are created equal.
A basic component of experimental design is that a study need to provide enough power of analysis to accurately distinguish treatment effects from background noise.
Power of analysis isn't some subjective metric. It's a literal calculation that takes elements of the study such as sample size, population variance, and cutoff for significance into account.
The OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals were developed to ensure that studies used to assess the toxicity of chemicals had sufficient power to test for direct causal effects. Additionally, the standardized methods make falsification of the data much more difficult, as replicating such results is almost impossible without the same manipulation conducted each time.
The studies that you are relying on do not have the statistical power to test for causation. This isn't an arbitrary thing, and it's directly based on the ability of a study to accurately tease apart results from noise.
To date, not a single study capable of showing causal relationships has indicated anything other than there being no increased risk at the current exposure limits.
It really is that simple.
The standards in toxicology apply across the board here, and it's quite telling that you would exempt statistically weaker studies from these requirements just because they align with your pre-existing beliefs.
Again, this is good evidence that you are not a scientist.
fasthpst t1_ixz2rqg wrote
>Glyphosate requires active transport for it to be systemic
But not as residue on harvested product, which is the topic of discussion.
>The studies that you are relying on do not have the statistical power to test for causation
Which studies? What I rely on is the steady stream of publications that is being produced by independent researchers. Relying on one or a handful of papers is how you get stuck in the past.
Perhaps you arent aware
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Glyphosate+ampa+tocixity
eng050599 t1_iy0ryhg wrote
No, you're missing a key component here, and not taking the complete dataset into account.
We have multiple OECD-compliant studies showing that adverse effects are not significantly associated with exposure below the current limits.
This study claims that this isn't the case, but it does not have the statistical power to counter the ones that have the ability to test for causal effects.
Additionally, even the authors of this study concede that their results shouldn't be applied to normal pregnancies, and that their overall PoA is insufficient to account for a range of confounding and lurking variables.
As for your link, go through them and check if they can test for causation, or are just correlative assessments.
Your 15min at the U of Google doesn't quite equate to decades at the bench, and it's pretty obvious that you haven't actually taken a comprehensive look at the studies you elect to cite.
The number of studies doesn't really matter when it comes to topics like this, and the key metric is the design and strength of the studies involved.
Multiple weak studies, do not trump studies with a far greater PoA,.
Until you can wrap your mind around this fact, you will be doomed to see the scientific and regulatory communities reject your position.
Want to change things?
Commission a study with comparable statistical power to the OECD designs, and generate data that actually would be capable of countering the earlier studies conducted over the past 40 years.
Just make sure to adhere to the standards of this field in regards to experimental design and GLP in general.
fasthpst t1_ixy60km wrote
By the way, my comment is still there. Maybe you blocked me out of habit,
eng050599 t1_ixy7qcr wrote
If I had blocked you, I couldn't reply to you now could I?
I rarely block anyone, as that means that I can't keep tabs on what they might be posting.
That's all I see currently from your link. It might be a simple technical issue, but for now, all I can go on is the fact that, I haven't blocked you, and I see notifications relating to your replies, but I cannot reply to them as the comments are missing.
None of this changes the fact that you really have no clue about even basic experimental design, let alone the specifics relating to toxicology.
At least seeing another example of the Dunning Kruger Effect provides amusement enough for me.
fasthpst t1_ixz2kun wrote
I didnt remove it.
The density of insults in your comments shows your personality. It's all you have.
eng050599 t1_iy0pmho wrote
And the virtual mountain of data derived from studies capable of showing causal effects, along with the overwhelming consensus among my peers, and the regulatory agencies.
I also have over a decade of primary molecular research, and evaluating the merit of such studies is literally part of my job.
You're the one who decided to comment on a topic you know next to nothing about on a subreddit dedicated to science, and you got called out on it.
Rather than take the information provided in the earlier replies, you doubled down, relying on studies that you didn't bother to place in context with their power of analysis, and yet again, you were called out on it.
That's willful ignorance on your part, and not something I have any desire to coddle.
The truth is that scientists are very easy to convince about something. You just need to show us the data. We examine the methods used, how it was collected, how it was analyzed, and then how it was supports the conclusions reached.
To date, the data from the strongest studies (as determined by the statistical power of their design) does not support your position, and until this is why the overall consensus among us will not change until the data indicates otherwise.
[deleted] t1_iy1yqix wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixy4p0d wrote
[removed]
fasthpst t1_ixxubv7 wrote
And yet they just keep coming year after year and you keep ignoring it.
A lot has changed since 1981
eng050599 t1_ixxvfbq wrote
And you missed the fact that I specifically stated that they have been updated during that time.
You also missed that the anti-biotech researchers haven't even attempted to make use of the built in review protocols, and it's because you need to back up allegations with data, and yet again, literally none of the studies capable of showing causation support your allegations.
Oh, and FYI, the entire history of the study designs are openly available, and each modification recorded.
The only one here ignoring anything is you, and the fact that you can't seem to understand just how vast the gap between the power of the studies you're relying are, and those that my peers and I assign the most weight to.
We actually put the studies into context with their power of analysis, not by how the results align with our existing beliefs.
Want to keep going?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments