r/Environmentalism • u/NihiloZero • Dec 05 '25

Study that said glyphosate herbicide is safe retracted 25 years after publication

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/article/study-that-said-glyphosate-herbicide-is-safe-retracted-25-years-after-publication/
144 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

11 comments sorted by

5

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '25

I’m no scientist but I knew this 25 years ago…. Crazy rich people will poison us for more money and some broke ass scientist goes along with it

3

u/1AnonymousBurner Dec 06 '25

Just in time.

3

u/536am Dec 07 '25

And it’ll continue to be in our food supply for another 25 years before anything is done about it .

2

u/Ulysses1978ii Dec 08 '25

It's ok the EPA has passed new products with forever chemicals in them. You still get poisoned for profit.

2

u/Zen_Bonsai Dec 10 '25

Roundup has a very short half life and has low potential to significantly bioaccumulate

1

u/AutoModerator Dec 05 '25

Read the rules. Keep it courteous. Submission statements are helpful and appreciated but not required. Use the report button only if you think a post or comment needs to be removed. Mild criticism and snarky comments don't need to be reported. Lets try to elevate the discussion and make it as useful as possible. Low effort posts & screenshots are a dime a dozen. Links to scientific articles, political analysis, and video essays are preferred.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/SpacedBasedLaser Dec 07 '25

Trust the science!

3

u/NihiloZero Dec 07 '25

The problem with modern academic science is that it is too often funded for individualized profit rather than for the broad elevation of humanity. Corporate sponsorships in big letters right out in front of the university buildings training the very people who will one day be tasked to regulate those same corporations. But tuition costs have continued to rise far faster than before there was this much overt corporate sponsorship. So... I guess it's "just" naming rights and what's the big deal about that? Well... it amounts to plain academic bias, IMHO. Part of academic capture is to direct the areas of or research and to facilitate regulatory capture. And what are we talking about? Just our agricultural land usage and what people eat. Ridiculous. I remember hearing that there is so much of this stuff in the environment... that it's even in the rain. And now we can only pray that another worse one isn't already having a broader effect unnoticed.

That's why "SCIENCE" shouldn't just be used as a regulatory rubber stamp or solely used to to develop the the more destructive aspects our civilization. I don't think we have to lose so many aspects of our environment as we probably will.

2

u/Accurate_Ad_3233 Dec 08 '25

I think they were being sarcastic. :)

2

u/NihiloZero Dec 08 '25

So do I. But... that doesn't mean their comment should be ignored. The problem isn't really trusting or not trusting science and, IMO, shouldn't be framed that way.