"Mayayana" writes:

| The EPA considers glyphosate to be noncarcinogenic and relatively low
| in dermal and oral acute toxicity.[20] The EPA considered a "worst
| case" dietary risk model of an individual eating a lifetime of food
| derived entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields with residues at their
| maximum levels. This model indicated that no adverse health effects
| would be expected under such conditions.
|

I realize that you've already made up your mind
that you don't want to worry about this sort of thing,
so you're going to cherry pick any data you find, and
thus you'll find the data you want to know.

Cherry pick?

You are officially out of your mind.

I went directly to where everyone else that has background
in the issue has gone. The wikipedia authors have undoubtedly fought
out the exact wording of that section for years. What remains is full
of attributions (cites). Any of which you are free to research
yourself.

By the way, I spent some time looking at other sources for the lethal
dose of glyphosate. They're in agreement.
I did NOT look at random Joe Blow opinions. Only cases where the
issue was actually studied.

For anyone else reading this thread, there are other
points to consider:

1) First is the obvious point: Why would anyone decide to
trust a gov't agency that says it's safe to eat poison?

Because, obviously, the EPA wants to poison you.
Sometimes we hear rants about EPA over-regulation.
But in this case, the EPA just wants to kill people.

2) The issue being discussed here is not specifically
how dangerous glyphosate might be, but rather the
general issue of GMO crops. Roundup Ready GMO
crops are designed to tolerate *even more* toxic
herbicide than other crops.

Sorry, the issue of glyphosate came up and I commented
directly on the issue raised.

3) At the EPA's own site they make clear, as they
always have, that they see their job as one of balanced
assessment and action. They don't just decide whether
something is poison and should therefore be banned.
They weigh economic and other factors.

And that's a problem how?

--------------------------------
http://www.epa.gov/risk_assessment/basicinformation.htm
Risk assessment provides "INFORMATION" on potential health or ecological
risks, and risk management is the "ACTION" taken based on consideration of
that and other information, as follows:

........

a.. Economic factors inform the manager on the cost of risks and the
benefits of reducing them, the costs of risk mitigation or remediation
options and the distributional effects.
-------------------------------

4) The referenced EPA fact sheet is *22* years old.
Why, when glyphosate is so common in the food
supply, has it not been looked at in 22 years? Could
that possibly have anything to do with Monsanto's
clout in gov't? Maybe not. But if one searches for
'monsanto revolving door' a lot of interesting links
come up.

Congratulations. More idiocy.
You have been watching all this time and no further
research has been done? How do you know that?

So, from the right, we hear about how the Dems are trying
to destroy business with over regulation, but your theory now is that
the EPA is in cahoots with Monsanto (for at least 22 years).

So, I've cherry picked my data and my mind is already made up.
Your counter arguments don't even make sense.
Especially where you tell me I'm not on topic.
My reply was obviously not addressing GMO.
Roundup came up, someone asked a question and I found
what I consider the best answer.
Come up with some facts by someone with some data or
give it up.

--
Dan Espen