Several days ago I wrote a column about the wrong-headed claim that glyphosate is a carcinogen and the huge number of tort cases that has resulted from this error. It was only after I posted the column that a naïve question presented itself, Why is there so little government research on the toxicity of glyphosate, particularly from the FDA, which is responsible for food safety? After all, the FDA has studied a wide range of contaminants that occur in food and animal feed, including soy phytoestrogens, arsenic, acrylamide, pigments, and combustion products.
I put this question to a veteran scientist who has spent his/her career studying the toxicity of various compounds for the federal government …. [Glyphosate] has been in use for over forty years and …. has been so thoroughly studied for toxicity and the concentrations found in humans are so low that there is no need for further study …. there is really nothing left to justify further research!
In conclusion, my contact made a stunning comment which puts the vexed issue of glyphosate — and other similar controversies — in a very different perspective,
“There is nothing left to understand, except how groups of humans can be incited to question the underlying science. Oh, right, IARC and Prop 65.”
Read full, original article: Tribal Epistemology: The Final Frontier