[tptacek]

Anything that reaches the gut intact disrupts (ie: manipulates, interacts with, alters, stimulates or suppresses, selects) the gut biome. I'm not pushing back on you except to say that as a mechanistic axiomatic claim of harm, it's missing most of the evidence. You could be right, but you could also be wrong; what you've said so far can't possibly be dispositive.

[rpmisms]

The mechanism of action of glyphosate inhibits several important amino acid production processes in the gut. I'm simplifying here, but not having glyphosate in the food supply would be a good thing for the gut, and the science agrees on this.

Glyphosate for field prep also doesn't really come through in food, it's much worse with the pre-harvest desiccation.

[mapt]

You are inferring from our crude understanding of processes in general. Evidence is more specific.

Do you have an exclusion trial comparing glyphosate vs non-glyphosate diets? This is amenable to natural experiments where one country bans it on a specific date and the neighbor does not.

[rpmisms]

Here's a decent one: 13% of the UK reports gluten intolerance symptoms, and only 7% of Germany does. The UK allows pre-harvest glyphosate desiccation, Germany doesn't. I would be happy to bet that the trend continues past my quick Google search.

[tptacek]

Surely there are no other lifestyle, supply chain, or medical system differences between the UK and Germany! Open and shut!

[fragmede]

I mean, I went to an Ikea and a McDonald's in both those places, and they were the same, so surely everything else must be homogenized!

[mapt]

N=2.

[bigbadfeline]

> Do you have an exclusion trial comparing glyphosate vs non-glyphosate diets?

That's a rather sneaky way to invert the issue. It's fishing for random luck when you ask for more and harder to obtain evidence given existing facts pointing to possible harm. A single study that doesn't show harm doesn't refute those that do.

You have to provide hard evidence that glyphosate (or another non-essential ingredient) does not cause adverse effects, and thoroughly explain the differences with the studies that show the opposite - until you do that, any in-vitro or other studies that show harmful effects count against the use of the product and you cannot ask for more evidence, you can only accept the remedies.

In this case, the appropriate remedies can be different: banning it altogether, limiting it to specific usage (e.g. no pre-harvest spraying), labeling using LARGE PRINT and scary language or some combination of the above.

[tptacek]

You can't even get smoked fish accepted through precautionary-principle logic like that. This is the same reasoning that puts cancer warnings on bags of potato chips.

[bigbadfeline]

> You can't even get smoked fish accepted through precautionary-principle logic like that.

No, you really can't do that without breaking the Code of Federal Regulations. Smoked products must be labeled "smoked" in addition to many other requirements, and that despite the distinctive stink that self-labels these products. Even the font size is specified to be no smaller than the letters for the kind of meat on the label.

The real issue is why there's no such requirement for glyphosate, having it would be a good starting point.

> This is the same reasoning that puts cancer warnings on bags of potato chips.

I don't think all potato chips deserve, or have, such warnings but some might. Regardless, there might be specific regulations that are over the top and I don't mind admitting or discussing such cases but glyphosate isn't among them.

[mapt]

Potato chips (and all other carbs that have been fried/baked/roasted/toasted at Maillard-browning temperatures) have an appreciable amount of acrylamide in them. Acrylamide is a probable human carcinogen and a neurotoxin.

[vkou]

Smoked fish is a side, wheat is a staple. Degree matters.

If 90% of the raw food at the grocery were 'processed' in the same way that a smoked fish, or a french fry was, I think we'd have very valid reasons to be displeased with many of the myriad problems that come with that.

[tptacek]

First, no it isn't, not in the cultures where it's believed to cause stomach cancer. Second: at the point where you're talking about distinguishing public policy based on whether something is a "side dish" or not, I think we've left the realm of plausibility and entered a wonderful new land I call "the voivodeship of special pleading".