Lack of proof does not equal lack of a problem. I don't know what the problem is with the US food supply, but we absolutely have one.

It is possible to support using whatever is legal but also questioning if it is safe, and continuing to test it to validate. Science gets things wrong from time to time -- imagine that.

Signel said:

---

Idon't know what the problem is with the US food supply, but we absolutely have one.

---

Can you elaborate?

Burdizzo said:

---

Oh, this debate again...

https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate

---

The point of the post was not meant to be re-litigating safety. I guess I should have counted on that to happen, mea culpa. IMO, the problem was the "research", the utter dishonesty of Monsanto, and the inability of "science" to see the issues for 25 years.

The same thing happens time after time, In many cases (like Alzheimer research) it set back advances for what 10 years going down the wrong path.

I don't remember making claims as to whether it causes cancer, did I?

ETA - Not trying to be defensive, btw. Like I said, I should have anticipated this reaction - totally on me.

It's not just that there isn't prestige in replicating studies, it's that many journals will not publish replications regardless of the results. Replication ends up being a waste of time for anyone needing to get published.

And OP is right. The "Peer Review" system of publishing and scientific acceptance is deeply flawed and incredibly broken. The quality of review in many specialty journals is suspect, the trust level is way too high, statistical rigor is often non-existent, and there is not nearly enough of a platform for unsuccessful replication. What we're inevitably left with is sloppy research, fraud, and sometimes pseudoscience parading around with a false veneer of veracity and authority. Not all science or research is bad, and indeed much or most of it is good, but a disturbing amount of it discredits the test due to a shocking lack of academic skepticism. We like to think we've moved on from the centuries of alchemists and crackpot scientists making fantastical claims about their research and abilities, but instead we've just given them more tools to feign legitimacy.

Been going on forever...

Even this:
https://gobraithwaite.com/thinking/edward-bernays-and-why-we-eat-bacon-for-breakfast/

The Gov said a few years ago that there was no science nor study behind the propaganda of reducing your cholesterol and reduce the number of eggs you eat. Probably Kellog and Big Cereal behind it.

This is an enormous issue, but I don't know how you solve it. Government involvement in research seems even worse in my eyes. You should have seen some of the parroting related to IRA funding. 1984 style language proposal agreements or no money for you.

TX_COWDOC said:

---

Signel said:

---

Idon't know what the problem is with the US food supply, but we absolutely have one.

---

Can you elaborate?

---

Bread…start with bread.

Being that you asked and have clearly never traveled to another country and saw this with your own eyes I'll pull it up for you.

Quick Genuine Query:

Question:

Tell me some of the things that are wrong with the US food supply and why it is unhealthy

Start with low hanging fruit like bread that American eat.

If you think there's nothing wrong with it and it's perfectly healthy tell me that as well.

Answer:

"The US food supply is often criticized for several issues that can make it unhealthy, and it's definitely not universally considered "perfectly healthy." These issues often stem from how food is produced, processed, and regulated.
Starting with your "low hanging fruit":
American Bread and Ultra-Processed Foods
Many common breads in the US are highly refined and fall into the category of ultra-processed foods (UPFs), which are a major concern across the entire food supply.
1. Refined Grains and Lack of Fiber
Most sliced white bread uses highly refined flour, where the bran and germ (which contain the majority of fiber, vitamins, and minerals) are stripped away.
This results in a high glycemic index (GI), meaning the carbohydrates break down quickly and can cause rapid spikes in blood sugar. Repeated spikes are linked to an increased risk of type 2 diabetes and obesity.
Though vitamins are sometimes "enriched" back into the flour, they don't offer the same complete nutritional benefit as the whole grain.
2. Additives and Preservatives
American bread often contains food additives, preservatives, and dough conditioners that are banned or heavily restricted in many other countries (like the European Union).
Potassium bromate (a dough conditioner) has been linked to potential cancer risk.
Azodicarbonamide (ADA) (a dough conditioner and bleaching agent) has been linked to cancer risk.
Bleaching agents like Benzoyl Peroxide and Chlorine Dioxide are used to whiten flour.
These chemicals extend shelf life and improve industrial production but raise concerns about long-term health effects.
3. Added Sugar
A significant amount of bread sold in the US, even some whole-grain varieties, contains added sugars (like high-fructose corn syrup or cane sugar) to improve flavor and texture. This is less common in bread from many other countries.
Broader Concerns with the US Food Supply
The issues extend far beyond bread to the broader food system:
1. Ultra-Processed Foods (UPFs) Dominance
This is arguably the most significant criticism. Over 70% of the US food supply is estimated to be composed of ultra-processed foods, which are commercially manufactured from ingredients that are extracted or synthesized (like starches, sugars, oils, and chemical additives).
Health Risk: Studies increasingly link high consumption of UPFs to a greater risk of obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, and other chronic illnesses. One study found that people on an ultra-processed diet ate more calories and gained more weight than when eating a minimally processed diet.
2. Chemical Contaminants and Additives
The sheer number of approved food additives (over 10,000) in the US is a concern. Many have not been re-reviewed with modern science in decades, or are allowed despite being banned in other developed nations.
Pesticides: The widespread use of chemicals like Glyphosate (Roundup) on non-organic crops, including wheat, is a significant concern for some people regarding the gut microbiome and potential cancer risk.
Other Additives: Ingredients like BHA (Butylated Hydroxyanisole) and certain food dyes (e.g., Yellow 5, Blue 1) are under scrutiny for potential links to cancer, hormone disruption, or behavioral issues in children.
3. Food Safety and Oversight
There are ongoing concerns about the effectiveness and structure of US food regulatory agencies (FDA and USDA).
Recent data has shown increases in foodborne illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths related to pathogens like Salmonella and E. coli.
The regulatory system is often criticized for being slower to ban or restrict controversial additives compared to the EU.
4. Market and Policy Incentives
Subsidy Misalignment: Federal agricultural policies often heavily subsidize a narrow set of commodities (like corn, soy, and wheat), which are the main ingredients for cheap, highly processed, calorie-dense foods (sugars, oils, and refined starches). This makes healthier, whole foods relatively more expensive.
Over-Consumption: The system is engineered to provide an abundance of low-cost, calorie-dense foods, which drives over-consumption and contributes to high rates of overweight and obesity.
In summary, while the US food supply is abundant and technically safe from acute food poisoning in most cases, the high level of processing, the use of controversial additives, and economic incentives that favor cheap, refined calories are the primary reasons critics consider it to be a key driver of chronic, diet-related diseases."

I took your comment about "there's obviously something wrong with American food", to be specifically related to the glyphosate and/or cancer. But you're just talking about in general we don't have good enough quality food?

I feel like they're two different issues. So it's weird that you should sort of dog on the poster that asked you for clarification.

AJ02 said:

---

I took your comment about "there's obviously something wrong with American food", to be specifically related to the glyphosate and/or cancer. But you're just talking about in general we don't have good enough quality food?

I feel like they're two different issues. So it's weird that you should sort of dog on the poster that asked you for clarification.

---

My intention was not to dog on anybody

He asked a very vague question about the safety of our food supply

I took it to the very lowest possible thing you could take it because I thought it to be an insane notion that somebody would question whether or not our food supply is safe and healthy. I assumed that maybe the guy was 19 years old and had never given a thought about it and had not traveled or read a book or looked at the Internet or looked at the back of a food package, wasn't aware of the platform that are president and health secretary ran on.

I tried to match the answer to the query. It was a simple "can you elaborate" to a very simple statement about "not sure what's wrong with our food supply, but something is".

I apologize. That was my fault.

Quote:

---

Pesticides: The widespread use of chemicals like Glyphosate (Roundup) on non-organic crops, including wheat, is a significant concern for some people regarding the gut microbiome and potential cancer risk.

---

Glyphosate is an herbicide, not a pesticide. If they can't even get that right I wonder what else is in that list.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Pesticides: The widespread use of chemicals like Glyphosate (Roundup) on non-organic crops, including wheat, is a significant concern for some people regarding the gut microbiome and potential cancer risk.

---

Glyphosate is an herbicide, not a pesticide. If they can't even get that right I wonder what else is in that list.

---

It kills pests like people…

In all seriousness, though, I think it would be difficult to say that this does not have an impact on insects, etc.

It's not harmful to people. It's also legal and used widely in Europe, which your list says has more healthy food than us.

Teslag said:

---

It's not harmful to people. It's also legal and used widely in Europe, which your list says has more healthy food than us.

---

For the most part, it's still not legal to use for 99.9% of people.

I think people on this thread pimping it, as the arbiters of knowledge and truth, portraying its use in Europe is dishonest. It's an extremely limited trial use only in which many countries are making it impossible to use.

Highly regulated commercial use only on a trial basis for 10 years to see how it goes

That said several countries are still essentially outright banning it, and several have put enough restrictions on it that it might as well be banned.

Are you implying that Europe is impervious to American style profit before the safety of its residents?

I don't think that I think it's pretty obvious looking at the demographics the leaders have instituted.

Same evil *******s.

Our food supply is like our healthcare. We have worked hard to remove risk, commoditize it, and be as efficient as possible. The result is that we have fewer people providing it in order to reduce cost, and it lacking a lot of detail and finesse. But it is readily available, and it one who truly needs it can get it because the cost is spread among a lot of people. We keep most everyone's bellies full and their hearts beating, but they may not necessarily be healthy. As is often stated, American is one of the few places in the world where people labelled as poor are also fat and have heart disease and diabetes. We keep everyone alive because that is the metric we use, but we rarely talk about health.

Teslag said:

---

It's not harmful to people. It's also legal and used widely in Europe, which your list says has more healthy food than us.

---

Yes it is.

"90% of doctors prefer camel" - SCIENCE!!

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

It's not harmful to people. It's also legal and used widely in Europe, which your list says has more healthy food than us.

---

For the most part, it's still not legal to use for 99.9% of people.

I think people on this thread pimping it, as the arbiters of knowledge and truth, portraying its use in Europe is dishonest. It's an extremely limited trial use only in which many countries are making it impossible to use.

Highly regulated commercial use only on a trial basis for 10 years to see how it goes

That said several countries are still essentially outright banning it, and several have put enough restrictions on it that it might as well be banned.

Are you implying that Europe is impervious to American style profit before the safety of its residents?

I don't think that I think it's pretty obvious looking at the demographics the leaders have instituted.

Same evil *******s.

---

This is a bunch of hogwash.

Wait do you actually think it's harmful?

Teslag said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

It's not harmful to people. It's also legal and used widely in Europe, which your list says has more healthy food than us.

---

For the most part, it's still not legal to use for 99.9% of people.

I think people on this thread pimping it, as the arbiters of knowledge and truth, portraying its use in Europe is dishonest. It's an extremely limited trial use only in which many countries are making it impossible to use.

Highly regulated commercial use only on a trial basis for 10 years to see how it goes

That said several countries are still essentially outright banning it, and several have put enough restrictions on it that it might as well be banned.

Are you implying that Europe is impervious to American style profit before the safety of its residents?

I don't think that I think it's pretty obvious looking at the demographics the leaders have instituted.

Same evil *******s.

---

This is a bunch of hogwash.

---

OK, tell me about it. This is not something that I've given a ton of thought to but a really low level. Basic query shows most of what you're saying is not true.

If I have bad information, I would like to know that

I presented you with information that I looked up

Glyphosate use in the EU is still the mostly wide used herbicide and is expected to keep growing to 2031. Stop using generic AI searches for your info.

https://www.cognitivemarketresearch.com/regional-analysis/europe-glyphosate-market-report

Teslag said:

---

Wait do you actually think it's harmful?

---

Yes, I do. I also think Tylenol is harmful. So are dough conditioners and modern wheat.

Just because it's on the market and you can use it doesn't mean that it's not harmful to do so

You have to decide whether or not to use herbicides. I will if I find that I need to.

Very carefully and in very limited amounts.

I've seen an extension agent literally spray roundup in his mouth and spit it out to show an old lady he wasn't trying to lie to her about the safety

Teslag said:

---

I've seen an extension agent literally spray roundup in his mouth and spit it out to show an old lady he wasn't trying to lie to her about the safety

---

Well, that guy is stupid

It also doesn't do anything to you immediately. I don't think anybody has claimed that.

It's long-term exposure. Neurological.

I bet he didn't swallow it.

Where do you get the idea that it is not legal for 99.9% of people to use? You have it delivered to your front door from Amazon.

EFR said:

---

Where do you get the idea that it is not legal for 99.9% of people to use? You have it delivered to your front door from Amazon.

---

That was in reply to Europe using the herbicide.

They very strictly regulate its commercial usage, and it is not available for non-commercial use in most countries

The answer was contextual based upon the previous post that is where I "get the idea "

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Wait do you actually think it's harmful?

---

Yes, I do. I also think Tylenol is harmful. So are dough conditioners and modern wheat.

Just because it's on the market and you can use it doesn't mean that it's not harmful to do so

You have to decide whether or not to use herbicides. I will if I find that I need to.

Very carefully and in very limited amounts.

---

I agree with you to a point.

think all synthetic pesticides, herbicides, and medications are harmful when not utilized per labels. I use glyphosate regularly, but I don't spray it into the wind to blow all over me and I try not to drink it as part of my morning coffee.

I think that if you use RoundUp in your underwear 5 days a week and spray it into the wind and let it blow on you and into you and you breathe it and you completely ignore all safety precautions outlined explicitly on the label...it absolutely will harm you eventually. If it didn't, there wouldn't be a label outlining its use.

Moderation and safe usage is the key...that's true for Sivanto, Glyphosate, Yellow #5, and questionable women.

You should probably look that up, in the EU is is publicly available in most countries. There are several that have banned it for private use but not a majority.