• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

ThomasBackhaus

Random comments on life, the universe and everything

  • Research
  • Teaching
  • Publications
  • Opinion pieces (English)
    • Acknowledging that Science Is Political Is a Prerequisite for Science‐Based Policy
    • Chemical Risk Assessment: Pressures, Perceptions and Expectations
    • Science and anti-science
    • Communicating environmental science to the public
    • Review of “The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters” by Tom Nichols
  • Debate articles (Swedish)
    • Domen mot COOP går emot vetenskapen
    • EU vågar inte ta strid mot farliga kemikalier
    • Sex steg för att lyckas med säkra nanomaterial
    • Farliga kemikalier måste fasas ut snabbare
    • Kemikalieskatter bidrar till en giftfri miljö
  • Our Chemicalized World
  • Videoclips
  • Who?
    • Overview
    • Environmental Consultancy
You are here: Home / Archives for Chemical Risk Assessment

Chemical Risk Assessment

Glyphosate: a stupid comparison of toxicity data

October 27, 2017 by Thomas 3 Comments

For some reason, I recently managed to get into a discussion on glyphosate (the active ingredient of Roundup and other herbicidal products) on twitter. 140 characters might be sufficient for exchanging quick comments (and, obviously, for discussing US politics). But they are certainly not sufficient for exchanging any real arguments. So, here’s the story and some background:

It started with at tweet from @CharlesAnyan posting the following infographics:

Attached to the following tweet:

I replied with the comment

Which then lead to a vivid exchange between the two us, plus some other people chiming in.

So, to clarify things a bit, here are the two main reasons why such statements and infographics are misleading (or, simply put: wrong).

A comparison with pure glyphosate? Really?

The table compares the toxicity of pure glyphosate with other pure chemicals (sucrose, sodium bicarbonate etc.). But glyphosate is never, ever used in its pure form. It is used in a formulated product.
So, the pure compound is diluted and at the same time mixed with dozens of other chemicals that are toxic in their own right. Which means, that basically every glyphosate-containing product has a unique toxicity. Which is quite different from the toxicity of pure glyphosate.

All of this makes the above comparison meaningless.

LD50’s? Really?
The table compares LD50 values. In a nutshell, an LD50 gives the concentration that kills half the organisms after short-term exposure to the compound in question. In this case, the experiment was conducted with rats that were exposed to glyphosate for just a couple of days. 50% died after being exposed to 5600 mg/kg bodyweight.

However, nobody is concerned with glyphosate causing lethal effects. The critical endpoints are skin irritation, developmental effects, or carcinogenicity. All quite unrelated to acute lethality.

Just for the sake of comparison with a real risk assessment: EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority, has set the acute reference dose (i.e. the “safe” level after short term exposure) at 0.5 mg/kg. 10 000 times (!) lower than the LD50.

Again: all of this makes the above comparison meaningless.

Just to be clear: all of this does not touch on any of the controversial issues, i.e. whether or not glyphosate is a carcinogen, its possible effects on soil fertility, its indirect promotion of GMO crops, etc.

On a side-note: I always enjoy it when people are running out of arguments and then resort to ad hominem attacks:

But, all in all, the discussion was actually quite civilized…

Thomas

Filed Under: Chemical Risk Assessment, Glyphosate, Pesticides Tagged With: glyphosate

  • « Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • …
  • Page 8
  • Page 9
  • Page 10

Primary Sidebar

My Tweets

7 hours ago
Thomas Backhaus's Twitter avatar
Thomas Backhaus
@ThoBaSwe

The Risk Assessment Committee of @EU_ECHA supports the proposal to restrict #PFAS in firefighting foams in Europe. t.co/fnWoFeEk2H

  • Reply
  • Retweet 1
  • Like 3
20 hours ago
FragDenStaat.de's Twitter avatar
FragDenStaat.de
@fragdenstaat

Bei @Maischberger behauptete Verkehrsminister #Wissing vor einigen Wochen, sein Expertenbeirat für klimaneutrale Mo… t.co/hGvOd85416

Retweeted by Thomas Backhaus
  • Reply
  • Retweet 749
  • Like 2.7K
3 days ago
Stéphane Horel's Twitter avatar
Stéphane Horel
@stephanehorel

🏭💦 Today a 6-months long public consultation on the EU #PFAS restriction proposal begins. Any citizen can make an i… t.co/Nf9lGpbzV5

Retweeted by Thomas Backhaus
  • Reply
  • Retweet 3
  • Like 10
2 days ago
Johan Rockström's Twitter avatar
Johan Rockström
@jrockstrom

Our Nature Commentary on the need for new economics of water. We are pushing the entire global water cycle out of b… t.co/CPTvfTkoDI

Retweeted by Thomas Backhaus
  • Reply
  • Retweet 131
  • Like 258
1 day ago
Thomas Backhaus's Twitter avatar
Thomas Backhaus
@ThoBaSwe

@NABU_de @ETH Schade, dass #Glyphosat (als Reinstoff) nicht vergleichend auch getestet wurde. Dann hätte man eine b… t.co/1amS56GxlW

  • Reply
  • Retweet 2
  • Like 2

Previous Posts

  • June 2019 (1)
  • May 2019 (1)
  • April 2019 (3)
  • March 2019 (1)
  • January 2019 (1)
  • December 2018 (1)
  • July 2018 (1)
  • June 2018 (1)
  • February 2018 (1)
  • January 2018 (1)
  • November 2017 (3)
  • October 2017 (3)

Categories

  • Chemical Regulation (2)
  • Chemical Risk Assessment (10)
  • Environmental Politics (1)
  • Glyphosate (4)
  • Misc (1)
  • Our chemicalized world (4)
  • Personal (1)
  • Pesticides (7)
  • Plastic and Microplastic (3)
  • publications (1)
  • Science Communication (3)
  • Uncategorized (3)

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2023 · Genesis Sample on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in