I am simply searching through PubMed to find reviews of the safety of glyphosate, and this is what I find. You can do the same, it’s a user-friendly searchable database. There is a remarkable consistency to the reviews – they all agree that the evidence does not support an association between glyphosate exposure and any adverse health outcome. The IARC are the only outliers, and yet their flawed and quirky conclusion is the one that garnered the most attention.
There is also a theme in the reviews that we could use more and better quality studies. To put that into context, however, that is almost always the conclusion of such reviews. It is difficult to prove a negative – a lack of a correlation. Such a negative conclusion is only as good as the data supporting it, and therefore the more and more rigorous the data the better the conclusion.
We can always use more and better data when it comes to safety, but the existing data is robust, consistent, and independently replicated, and includes both glyphosate and formulations with glyphosate.
Glyphosate, in fact, is one of the safer pesticides in use (including many organic pesticides). It has replaced far more toxic herbicides. Opposing glyphosate because of unwarranted fears of toxicity is likely to cause harm due to whatever replaces it. Tilling is bad for the soil and releases CO2 into the atmosphere, and we cannot feed the world through hand weeding. Herbicides have to be part of the equation, and glyphosate is one of the safest out there.
Meals are not healthy or unhealthy. They are simply part of one’s total diet. To claim that a restaurant menu is unhealthy is to extrapolate a meal into much more than it is. Most people would consider an apple to be “healthy” but if all you ate were apples, your diet would be very unhealthy. The same applies to restaurant meals. Here, lame-o food nannies are simply trying to pressure restaurants into designing politically correct kids’ menus — tasteless food that most kids won’t enjoy or eat.
The media release is below. Original Article
Nutritional quality of kids’ menus at chain restaurants not improving
HARVARD T.H. CHAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Boston, MA – U.S. chain restaurants participating in a National Restaurant Association initiative to improve the nutritional quality of their children’s menus have made no significant changes compared with restaurants not participating in the program, according to a new study led by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Among both groups, the researchers found no meaningful improvements in the amount of calories, saturated fat, or sodium in kids’ menu offerings during the first three years following the launch of the Kids LiveWell initiative in 2011.
They also found that sugary drinks still made up 80% of children’s beverage options, despite individual restaurant pledges to reduce their prevalence.
The study will be published online January 11, 2017, in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
“Although some healthier options were available in select restaurants, there is no evidence that these voluntary pledges have had an industry-wide impact,” said lead author Alyssa Moran, a doctoral student in the Department of Nutrition at Harvard Chan School. “As public health practitioners, we need to do a better job of engaging restaurants in offering and promoting healthy meals to kids.”
In 2011 and 2012, more than one in three children and adolescents consumed fast food every day, according to the study. For kids, eating more restaurant food is associated with higher daily calorie intake from added sugar and saturated fats.
This is the first study to look at trends in the nutrient content of kids’ meals among national restaurant chains at a time when many were making voluntary pledges to improve quality. By 2015, more than 150 chains with 42,000 locations in the U.S. were participating in Kids LiveWell–which requires that at least one meal and one other item on kids’ menus meet nutritional guidelines.
Using data obtained from the nutrition census MenuStat, the researchers examined trends in the nutrient content of 4,016 beverages, entrees, side dishes, and desserts offered on children’s menus in 45 of the nation’s top 100 fast food, fast casual, and full-service restaurant chains between 2012 and 2015. Out of the sample, 15 restaurants were Kids LiveWell participants.
The researchers found that while some restaurants were offering healthier kids’ menu options, the average kids’ entrée still far exceeded recommendations for sodium and saturated fat. Kids’ desserts contained nearly as many calories and almost twice the amount of saturated fat as an entrée. And even when soda had been removed from children’s menus, it was replaced with other sugary beverages such as flavored milks and sweetened teas.
The authors would like to see the restaurant industry adhere to voluntary pledges and consider working with government agencies, researchers, and public health practitioners to apply evidence-based nutrition guidelines across a broader range of kids’ menu items. They also suggest tracking restaurant commitments to determine whether restaurants currently participating in Kids LiveWell improve the nutritional quality of their offerings over time.
Well, poor animals. Since there is no causal link between any version of cholesterol and CVD and/or premature death they suffered flatulence for nothing.
Too many times the cholesterol myth has been debunked to repeat it here, if so inclined search this site on with the keyword ‘cholesterol’ to get a less biased view.
Obviously it’s a real moneymaker for the pharmaceutical companies to promote statins. Imagine selling an expensive molecule which you have to take the rest of your natural life even at relative young age but can’t be proven either way to do anything but cause serious life threating side effects
In order to be able to continue to sell statins or other cholesterol influencing drugs you need to keep the story going where you have ‘good’ and ‘bad’ cholesterol.
You know what your brain and nervous system is mostly made of? Yep. Very ‘bad’ cholesterol.
Furthermore your smart body limits cholesterol intake from diet to about 300 mg a day. So you can eat 1 pound of pure cholesterol and the only result will be you’ll be visiting the toilet a lot.
a few insights
well, whatever. The only thing for sure is that your lifespan/wellbeing is mostly determined at conception. You can be lucky and get genes that make you capable to live to beyond 100 years are bad luck and die at 5 years old from cancer.
It’s for you to decide if you want to live life constrained in the hope you can beat the odds, or just life live till you inevitable die. Hopefully of a massive coronary in your sleep
But whilst celebrex may have some positive effects statins don’t. There is no causal link between any form of cholesterol and CVD, there is however a direct link between profits and statins.
to make a point
The mindless anti-sugar nanny state strikes again.
Short and sweet: This study is all based on self-reported (i.e., unreliable) diet and sleep data. I doubt the authors’ claim that the diet data have been “validated” and they admit that the sleep data are of unknown quality
First, in the actual study, the researchers only conclude the following (note highlighted text):
So their actual conclusion is a lot smaller than their headline. But even that is an obvious false claim.
If the little bit of PM2.5 inhaled from outdoor/indoor air damaged the blood vessels of health young men, what would massive amounts of PM2.5 do to sick, old men?
Believe it or not, there are many oxygen users who smoke. Despite that each cigarette delivers PM2.5 at a rate anywhere from 10,000 to 40,000 times greater than breathing typical air, and that sick people are supposedly more vulnerable to the alleged effects of PM2.5 (according to EPA), smoking is not known to cause them any short-term harm.
The “results” of the new study just don’t jibe with the real world. That they don’t is not surprising considering that the lead researcher is C. Arden Pope, one of EPA’s main cheerleaders for the bogus notion that PM2.5 kills.
This is the ultimate fact sheet for debunking what has become the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s most potent regulatory weapon — the claim that fine particulate matter (soot and dust called PM2.5) in outdoor air kills people. This sheet will be updated regularly as needed. This will be Version 1 (September 22, 2016). Please let me know if you have comments/suggestions.
Transparent science conflicts with EPA’s secret science. The EPA’s claim that PM2.5 causes long-term death is grounded in two long-term epidemiologic studies, commonly referred to as the (1) Harvard Six-Cities Study  and the (2) “Pope” study . Both studies are controversial for many methodological reasons. But the methodological controversies cannot be resolved because EPA refuses to release and/or refuses to compel release of the mortality data used in the studies to independent researchers for purposes of re-analysis and replication. For results to be considered to be scientifically credible, they must be capable of being independently replicated. In contrast, a large analysis of the recent daily air quality and daily death data from California for 2007-2010 reports no association between PM2.5 and death.  The data from the California study are available upon request from the researchers.
But haven’t EPA’s PM2.5 claims been validated by its independent science advisers? No. The group of independent science advisers formed to review EPA air quality science is the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). In 1996, when the CASAC was actually mostly comprised of independent advisers, CASAC concluded that EPA had not shown that PM2.5caused death. While subsequent CASAC panels have ruled in EPA’s favor, these panels are almost exclusively comprised of researchers who receive hundreds of millions of dollars worth of research grants from EPA — and wind up passing judgment on their own work. These more recent CASAC panels can hardly be considered as independent of EPA. The nature of the PM2.5 science has not changed since 1996 — but composition of EPA’s “independent” panels has. 
What about claims that PM2.5 from indoor cooking kill people? The World Health Organization (WHO) claims that smoke from indoor cooking kills more than 4 million people die every year.  The studies used to support this claim depend entirely on the EPA’s claim that PM2.5 kills people. So the WHO’s claim is not supportable. While many individual researchers (not EPA-related) have attempted to examine whether indoor cooking increases deaths rates, they have so far not been able to link PM2.5 with death. 
Conclusion: PM2.5 does not kill anyone. The EPA’s claims of PM2.5 lethality rank among the most nonsensical, fraudulent and readily disprovable scientific claims ever.