Skip to main content

A Frosty Mug of Glyphobia

When the news broke across the internet that beer was contaminated with glyphosate, my first response was to crack a cold can of Sierra Nevada and read the story. 

Soft-science activism has already concocted claims of physiologically-irrelevant detection of glyphosate in breast milk and fresh soybeans.  I don't partake of such commodities under normal circumstances.  But now beer!   You've crossed a line glyphosate.  Them's fightin' words. 

Or perhaps not.  Once again, we are reminded of two basic rules.


Beer contains high amounts of a potent carcinogen that accounts for a tremendous number of deaths each year.




1. We are extremely good at detecting extremely little
2. The dose makes the poison. 

How much glyphosate is there?  Well according to this analysis:


Yikes! Herbicides are detectable in my beer, and what's scary is that we can actually identify molecules that are almost not there. 

According to these data there is somewhere between 460 parts per trillion (equivalent to one second in seventy years) on the low end and 29.74 parts per billion (about one second in a year).  That's not scary, that's remarkable that we can detect something at those levels.

I didn't see the data or methods, and I have not been able to find them on the interwebs. This is not a published, scientific work, but since when does that matter?  This isn't honest science, this is fear mongering. 

However, I do believe that these levels are within the range of detection, and quite possibly legitimate, as glyphosate is used on grain in Europe.  The grain is not GMO. Glyphosate is used as a 'harvest aid' or herbicide applied to the crop to ensure that all the grain is dry at a same point at harvest.

So let's assume that these data are reproducible and spot on. Should you stop drinking beer? 

At the highest dose detected (30 ug/L) you'd have to drink a lot of beer to get to anything close to a physiologically relevant dose of the herbicide.  According to the German BfR, you'd need to drink 1000 L of beer in a day to hit acute toxicity levels. 

I don't know about you, but I lose my motivation for drinking beer after about 4 L in a sitting.  That's 0.4% of the level needed to get effects from glyphosate in the worst-case scenario. 

But there are a couple of other notes worth mentioning.  The use of glyphosate means that other harvest aids (paraquat or gramoxone) with much higher acute toxicity are not used. 

Also worth noting, alcohol is the most dangerous chemical in beer. According to the CDC, 10,000 ppm (or about a week out of that year) will kill you.   



Alcohol is also a known carcinogen.  While glyphosate is present at 30 ppb, alcohol is present at (assuming a 5% ethanol beer) at 50,000,000 ppb.  The IARC calls glyphosate a "probable carcinogen" based on limited/no data, and rates ethanol a Type I carcinogen based on mountains of data.

The point is simple.  This is more fear mongering. If these folks really cared about carcinogens in the diet
 they'd be writing articles about the beer itself and the dangers of alcohol-- in obfuscating acute choices and contributing to disease through chronic addiction. Instead they focus on a molecule at the foggy edge of detection, using it to scare concerned people away from modern farm technologies. 






Popular posts from this blog

Scientific American Destroys Public Trust in Science

This is a sad epitaph, parting words to an old friend that is now gone, leaving in a puff of bitter betrayal. 
When I was a kid it was common for my mom to buy me a magazine if I was sick and home from school.  I didn't want MAD Magazine or comic books.  I preferred Scientific American
The once stalwart publication held a unique spot at the science-public interface, bringing us interesting and diverse stories of scientific interest, long before the internet made such content instantly accessible.  It was our trusted pipeline to the new edges of scientific discovery, from the mantle of the earth to the reaches of space, and every critter in between.
But like so much of our trusted traditional science media, Scientific American has traded its credibility for the glitz of post-truth non-scientific beliefs and the profits of clickbait.The problem is that when a trusted source publishes false information (or worse, when it hijacked by activists) it destroys trust in science, trust in s…

Chipotle's Ag-vertising to Fix their Anti-Ag Image

After years of anti-farmer rhetoric, disgusting anti-agriculture videos, and trashing farmer seed choice, Chipotle now seems to have found a love for the American farmer that is as warm and inviting as the gooey core of a steak burrito.  Their new "Cultivate the Future of Farming" campaign raises awareness of the hardship being experienced in agriculture, and then offers their thoughts and some seed grants in order to reverse it. 

But are they solving a problem that they were instrumental in creating? 

The crisis in agriculture is real, with farmers suffering from low prices, astronomical costs, and strangling regulation.  Farmer suicides are a barometer of the crisis.  Farms, from commodity crops to dairies, are going out of business daily. It is good to see a company raising awareness. 


From Chipotle's website- The "challenge is real" and "It's a hard living"-- and companies like Chipotle were central in creating those problems. 

However, Chipotle&#…

Mangling Reality and Targeting Scientists

Welcome to 2019, and one thing that remains constant is that scientists engaging the public will continue to be targeted for harassment and attempted reputation harm.  

The good news is that it is not working as well as it used to.  People are disgusted by their tactics, and only a handful of true-believers acknowledge their sites as credible. 

But for those on the fence I thought it might be nice to post how a website like SourceWatch uses a Wikipedia-mimic interface to spread false and/or misleading information about public scientists. 

Don't get me wrong, this is not crying victim.  I'm actually is screaming empowerment.  I spent the time to correct the record, something anyone can check.  Please look into their allegations and mine, and see who has it right. 

This is published by the Center for Media and Democracy.  Sadly, such pages actually threaten democracy by providing a forum for false information that makes evidence-based decisions in policy issues more challenging.  It…