What I think he’s trying to say is that Glyphosate affects the shikimate pathway, which is a biological pathway in plants. This doesn’t exist in human cells, but it does exist in our gut microbiota.
We also know now that Glyphosate is a glycine analogue and can displace glycine anywhere in protein synthesis, with unknown effects. It’s also likely an endocrine disrupter.
You’re saying a lot here and I’m sure it’s valid and interesting but let’s make this easy:
If it’s not food, it shouldn’t go in the food supply unless the benefits to consumers outweigh costs.
But you’re talking about US policy, so the actual metric is that it shouldn’t go in the food supply unless the benefits to corporations outweigh the costs.
What I think he’s trying to say is that Glyphosate affects the shikimate pathway, which is a biological pathway in plants. This doesn’t exist in human cells, but it does exist in our gut microbiota.
We also know now that Glyphosate is a glycine analogue and can displace glycine anywhere in protein synthesis, with unknown effects. It’s also likely an endocrine disrupter.
You’re giving him far too much credit and help being cogent…
It always puzzles me why otherwise intelligent people go so far to make excuses for morons who obviously don’t know what they’re talking about.
Is he wrong then for banning its use?
You’re saying a lot here and I’m sure it’s valid and interesting but let’s make this easy: If it’s not food, it shouldn’t go in the food supply unless the benefits to consumers outweigh costs.
But you’re talking about US policy, so the actual metric is that it shouldn’t go in the food supply unless the benefits to corporations outweigh the costs.