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 5 hours ago | parent [-]

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 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 42 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Surely there are no other lifestyle, supply chain, or medical system differences between the UK and Germany! Open and shut!

▲

bigbadfeline 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		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.