yes, please paste all the reddit talking points. source from the Atlantic, Vox, Huffington Post, and Mother Jones would really convince everyone. NYT and WaPo would throw us over the top and yearn for the days of Rachel Levine in that position.

You are aware that anyone who isn't vaxxing because of RFK would have only begun that in the last year or two?

An unvaccinated 9-year-old would have begun that long before RFK

And I'd like to remind you that last years measles outbreak in Texas was in a Mennonite community who probably never heard of RFK

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

oh no said:

---

yeah; domestic production of roundup is needed for national security. therefore RFK jr is a hypocrite. hence, we should bring back this guy, right commies?




at least Joe Biden and this guy knew we needed to source more plexiglass from China to eradicate the deadly covid 19 disease before opening schools back up.

---

Both sides can be wrong, you know? Stop thinking in binary. Doesn't matter who you vote for, politicians work for the people. Make them work for us, not for special interest.

---

relax. it was a facetious post because most of the programming/brainwashing for the low IQ masses to hate RFKjr is based on fake news lies, misinterpretations, and embellishments.

SunrayAg said:

---

The ignorance of the general public in matters of most everything agriculture is mind boggling.

Yep. Y'all go ahead and do away with all those ag chemicals that sound so scary when paid internet influencers with no scientific background trash them on the internet.

Then enjoy your $30 loaf of bread and your $75 cheeseburger.

What the EO actually said was, if we are using a crapton of it, we should make it at home and not rely on imports from China.

---

FIFY

Quote:

---

I buy bread from a glyphosate free bakery and it's $6-$8 a loaf. Sure, more expensive than the bread that doesn't go bad for a month, but I'm happy to pay a bit of a premium to ensure I get good bread.

FWIW, I don't buy the bread specifically because it's glyphosate free. Although, I do appreciate that aspect of it.

---

You're getting good bread because it's from a local bakery. It's fresh, and it's not mass-produced. Thank God for mass production that feeds billions cheaply, but if you can afford boutique bread, good for you.

It's kind of funny because they advertise Roundup free, especially how this thread has shown that it is hard to test for it.

Maybe they buy from 'certified organic' producers. But read up on the list of chemicals allowed in 'organic', and you may be begging for roundup bread.

Quote:

---

Also, the article states that the highest amount of glyphosate measured was about 190 parts per billion...

The article states that the EPA tolerance for glyphosate is 30 parts per million (equivalent to 30000 parts per billion). The amount measured in the testing is 150 times below that limit.

According to the article, the limit in the EU is 700 parts per billion. The UK, Australia, and New Zealand have a limit of 5000 parts per billion.

---

There was a small town where the biggest employer unfortunately was dumping a pollutant into the river. The mayor called the plant's CEO into his office, and discussed the problem. The CEO admitted that the level they were dumping was 100 parts per thousand. The mayor was scandalized. "That's way too high! You've got to do better than that!" The CEO agreed.

A year later, controls have been implemented, profits are down 10%, 5% of the workforce have been laid off. But the pollution was less, and the CEO proudly reported the level was now 100 parts per million. The mayor was scandalized. "That's way too high! You've got to do better than that!" The CEO reluctantly agreed.

Another year later, more controls have been implemented, profits are down 30%, 25% of the workforce have been laid off. But the pollution was less, and the CEO proudly reported the level was now 100 parts per billion. The mayor was scandalized. "That's way too high! You've got to do better than that!" The CEO thought the mayor was crazy, but he had no choice but to agree.

Yet another year later, even more controls have been implemented, cutting edge methods used, but profits are down an additional 50%, 90% of the original workforce have been laid off. The parent company is strongly considering shutting down the plant. But the pollution was significantly less, and the CEO proudly reported the level was now 100 parts per trillion. The mayor was scandalized. "That's way too high! You've got to do better than that!" The CEO exploded!

"What the **** do you mean? We've laid off workers, we've lost money, the plant is on the brink of collapse, and you're still not happy. Just what in Hades is the problem????"

"Well", said the Mayor. "It's just that 100 is such a big number."

Quote:

---

I'm just saying what I see. There are plenty of chemicals and environmental contaminants and stuff that haven't been studied extensively that people are saying are safe because the "other guys" say it's dangerous, and vice versa.

---

The EPA has a concept called GRAS. Generally Regarded As Safe. Aspirin would be a good example, though it would be FDA, not EPA. Been around 100 years, seems to work, doesn't seem to be killing people. So the government isn't going to make Bayer spend billions of dollars doing studies to prove it is safe.

Same goes with a lot of old products used with crops, such as nitrogen fertilizer.

No one has the time and money to research every thing out there.

Pesticides, however, go through a long, laborious, expensive, and and extensive process to gain approval for use. Back when I was an Agronomy major and dinosaurs walked the earth, it was accepted that it took 5 years and $25,000,000 to get a new chemical approved.

I'm sure those numbers have quadrupled.

Pizza said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

Pizza said:

---

I've always found that people who are paranoid about herbicide have almost no experience, self-education, or formal-education with respect to Agriculture...

When used according to the Label (which is the law) Herbicides are a vital tool that improve yield, prevent the spread of pests/pathogens, and subsequently help keep our food supply secure.

---

What if your name is Herb?

---

Then you're gonna have a bad Thyme.

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

You are aware that anyone who isn't vaxxing because of RFK would have only begun that in the last year or two?

An unvaccinated 9-year-old would have begun that long before RFK

And I'd like to remind you that last years measles outbreak in Texas was in a Mennonite community who probably never heard of RFK

---

Yes, but RFK has been at the anti-vax game for a while. Can't blame him directly for the current outbreaks - though he could also go out there and promote vaccination as a way of preventing morbidity and mortality. I have seen an increase in unvaccinated children - observation bias? Not sure. Also seen an increase in pregnant women decliing tylenol.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm just saying what I see. There are plenty of chemicals and environmental contaminants and stuff that haven't been studied extensively that people are saying are safe because the "other guys" say it's dangerous, and vice versa.

---

The EPA has a concept called GRAS. Generally Regarded As Safe. Aspirin would be a good example, though it would be FDA, not EPA. Been around 100 years, seems to work, doesn't seem to be killing people. So the government isn't going to make Bayer spend billions of dollars doing studies to prove it is safe.

Same goes with a lot of old products used with crops, such as nitrogen fertilizer.

No one has the time and money to research every thing out there.

Pesticides, however, go through a long, laborious, expensive, and and extensive process to gain approval for use. Back when I was an Agronomy major and dinosaurs walked the earth, it was accepted that it took 5 years and $25,000,000 to get a new chemical approved.

I'm sure those numbers have quadrupled.

---

Yeah, interestingly enough I believe RFK is now making food manufacturers prove that the GRAS ingredients are indeed safe.

But again, look at PFAS. You have people on here trying to claim they are a big liberal fear mongering conspiracy. As are microplastics. Yet the evidence is mounting that PFAS is indeed quite harmful, and microplastics potentially as well. Recent study showed decreased birth weights and increased mortality for infants exposed to higher levels of PFAS and other similar chemicals.

Absence of evidence doesn't indicate evidence of absence. Sometimes the methodology and testing advances allow us to detect things in the future that we weren't able to see in the past. That's how science works. We go based on the best evidence at the time. Round up may be safe in the past, and it may be safe in the future, doesn't mean we should stop evaluating it. Same with other things. OTherwise we'd always be too afraid to try something new or we could be continually harming ourselves because we lacked the technology to identify a potential harm way in the past.

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

You are aware that anyone who isn't vaxxing because of RFK would have only begun that in the last year or two?

An unvaccinated 9-year-old would have begun that long before RFK

And I'd like to remind you that last years measles outbreak in Texas was in a Mennonite community who probably never heard of RFK

---

Yes, but RFK has been at the anti-vax game for a while. Can't blame him directly for the current outbreaks - though he could also go out there and promote vaccination as a way of preventing morbidity and mortality. I have seen an increase in unvaccinated children - observation bias? Not sure. Also seen an increase in pregnant women decliing tylenol.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm just saying what I see. There are plenty of chemicals and environmental contaminants and stuff that haven't been studied extensively that people are saying are safe because the "other guys" say it's dangerous, and vice versa.

---

The EPA has a concept called GRAS. Generally Regarded As Safe. Aspirin would be a good example, though it would be FDA, not EPA. Been around 100 years, seems to work, doesn't seem to be killing people. So the government isn't going to make Bayer spend billions of dollars doing studies to prove it is safe.

Same goes with a lot of old products used with crops, such as nitrogen fertilizer.

No one has the time and money to research every thing out there.

Pesticides, however, go through a long, laborious, expensive, and and extensive process to gain approval for use. Back when I was an Agronomy major and dinosaurs walked the earth, it was accepted that it took 5 years and $25,000,000 to get a new chemical approved.

I'm sure those numbers have quadrupled.

---

Yeah, interestingly enough I believe RFK is now making food manufacturers prove that the GRAS ingredients are indeed safe.

But again, look at PFAS. You have people on here trying to claim they are a big liberal fear mongering conspiracy. As are microplastics. Yet the evidence is mounting that PFAS is indeed quite harmful, and microplastics potentially as well. Recent study showed decreased birth weights and increased mortality for infants exposed to higher levels of PFAS and other similar chemicals.

---

You're not helping your argument with these examples.

There are over 10,000 compounds regarded as PFAS, yet only a handful of PFAS have strong, proven humanhealth evidence based on authoritative sources (EPA, ATSDR, NIEHS, IARC). Yet the rank and file liberals call all of them hazardous and demand they be banned without relying on independent, verified science.

Similar story with microplastics. The media would have you believe that plastic packaging is a leading cause of microparticles found in the water. Yet scientists have demonstrated that three of the leading causes of microplastics are 1) clothes wear and tear in the washing machine. Many clothes are made of synthetic plastic fibers. The washing machine beats them, they degrade, and they get discharged through municipal sewage systems in rivers, lakes, and oceans 2) tire wear -- your tires wear when you drive down the road. They are made of plastic particles. The rain washes those particles into the creeks, rivers, and oceans 3) Paint wear -- many external paints are composites of plastics. Same thing, the sun, rain, and wind erode those microfibers and they get swept away into the rivers and oceans. Plastic packages are not believed by credible scientists to be remotely responsible for microplastics in the water, yet you wouldn't know that from what you hear in the media.

I don't think I ever made an argument related to the source of environmental contaminants, just that they exist and the harm isn't always immediately apparent.

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

I don't think I ever made an argument related to the source of environmental contaminants, just that they exist and the harm isn't always immediately apparent.

---

That's fair, and I agree with that.

And I'm not picking at you... I am picking at those two topics of PFAS and microplastics as examples of issues where NGO's proclaim harm far greater than anything they -- or independent scientists -- verify, and they get away with it because the leftist media is generally aligned with them. Man-made climate change is another.

It's actually very harmful for us and the planet because it desensitizes us to the legitimate claims. It can be hard to tell one from the other. Kind of like the boy who cried wolf.

RFK

Quote:

---

Round up may be safe in the past, and it may be safe in the future, doesn't mean we should stop evaluating it.

---

I have no problem with that.

I have huge problems with ambulance chasers and "influencers" trying to rip off companies with pseudoscience.

Spot on. I'll also point out that the analysis methods for microplastics have come into question, particularly in human tissue. PFAS analysis has similar issues. Bottom line is, detecting these chemicals in complex sample matrices and at very low levels is complex and prone to errors.

The fats and lipids in human tissue, particularly the brain, look a lot like certain plastics when analyzed, causing false positives. Not to mention laboratories full of plastic supplies and equipment that can be sources of sample contamination.

There isn't even a scientific consensus on the best way to analyze for some of these compounds, so data across studies may not be comparable.

Scientists are questioning each other and the data based on these issues, as they should be.

Yet we have headlines about how "microplastics in the human brain" are killing us or causing dementia.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be studying this or suggesting that there is no reason for concern. But this is very much still a new and developing area of research, and there is not sufficient data to support the fear-mongering headlines.

The analytical component is really significant - that fact can't be overstated. Anytime you are measuring something that hasn't been measured before or at lower levels than have been previously quantified, method development is part of the research process. And even the experts won't always get it right the first time, or even the first 5, 20, or 50 times.

Roundup (glyphosate) is one of the least most dangerous herbicides.

I get a kick out of the opponents warning that all wheat is sprayed with glyphosate prior to harvest for even ripening, like farmers just pour chemicals on their crop out of expediency. The only wheat that is sprayed with glyphosate pre harvest is when there has been abnormal rainfall that allowed grasses and weeds to grow up over the wheat canopy. Very rare.

Of all the herbicides I have used, paraquat is the only one that I am scared of. I would take a bath in glyphosate before I let paraquat sit on my skin for more than a minute

As i recal, Paraquat is highly damgerous if swallowed. Few herbicides are that toxic

It also smells exactly like dog ***** Probably for good reason

Law-Apt_3G said:

---

We have a big network here: Maybe someone got sick or personally knows someone who got sick from Roundup weed killer. No bot stories, just regular 10 finger and toes, former students from Texas A&M with a story.

The townspeople are getting fed up with the boy who cried wolf.

---

One of my aerospace classmates' father died of cancer caused by Roundup while I was in school. I don't think he was following manufacturer instructions when he routinely reached into the sprayer tanks bare handed to clear screens.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

I think we do need it.

---

Shocking

Maroon Elephant said:

---

What I've read before is that he surfactant ingredient in Roundup is more acutely toxic than glyphosate itself and the combination of the two is even more toxic. Maybe that's a myth and I've been duped. Still never gonna use it around my house. BTW, I'm no hippie, far from it.

---

I would imagine that people using Roundup from hand held sprayers around the house will typically use far greater concentrations of it than any farmer.

I think that one gallon of roundup would be about right six or seven acres on corn.

How much would a typical homeowner actually use in their yard?

eric76 said:

---

Maroon Elephant said:

---

What I've read before is that he surfactant ingredient in Roundup is more acutely toxic than glyphosate itself and the combination of the two is even more toxic. Maybe that's a myth and I've been duped. Still never gonna use it around my house. BTW, I'm no hippie, far from it.

---

I would imagine that people using Roundup from hand held sprayers around the house will typically use far greater concentrations of it than any farmer.

I think that one gallon of roundup would be about right six or seven acres on corn.

How much would a typical homeowner actually use in their yard?

---

I use about a 5 Gal backpack sprayer every 3 months. Nozzle close to the ground. Never on a windy day. Use the super concentrate and dilute to instructions.

As Canyon pointed out earlier, if you're buying "Roundup" in a retail store like Lowes or Home Dept it doesn't contain glyphosate. The manufacturer changed active ingredients as a result of a lawsuit settlement.

If you want glyphosate, you have to go to an ag supply store like Tractor Supply or others. To this day I still buy it by the gallon and apply as needed around the house and on my place in the country.

TyHolden said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

TyHolden said:

---

Monsanto is the company that tried to blow up George Clooney right?

Pretty weak attempt. If you're going to bomb a car, make sure they're in it first.

---

Haven't heard that. Link?

---

Watch Michael Clayton and thank me later

---

never try to kill the fixer.
he's the guy you pay to go away.

---

Now accepting bitcoin...

NEW: In major reversal, Trump administration “retreats” on plan to ban artificial colors in food & significantly loosens FDA labeling requirements.

— Dominic Michael Tripi (@DMichaelTripi) February 21, 2026

AggieVictor10 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

I think we do need it.

---

Shocking

---

That I know what I'm talking about and don't get the vapors because I read hysteria on the internet?

Yeah, that's pretty much who I am. I'm not very susceptible to bull*****

I'll just drop this here…..

https://www.agdaily.com/insights/farm-babe-no-there-isnt-glyphosate-in-your-food/

No Spin Ag said:

---

ETFan said:

---

It's almost like they don't have a single principled bone in their body and just follow the money no matter what. Crazy stuff.

Not being partisan. Both sides are trash.

---

I did get a chuckle out of this in the story:

Quote:

---

If Secretary Kennedy remains at HHS after this, it will be impossible to argue that his past warnings about glyphosate were anything more than campaign rhetoric designed to win trust and votes."

---

It's as if people in maha believed THEIR guy would be no different than every other person who gets into office or a position like Kennedy's.

Bless their hearts.

---

I have no dog in this hunt as I am not a farmer and don't know dick about this topic.

This could simply be RFK getting into office and getting more exposure to science that simply made him change his mind. The cynics will obviously laugh at that, but it does happen. Talk a big game on the trail and then when they get access to real data once in office they change their tune because they realize their campaign position was wrong, impractical, etc.

Considering how unrelenting he's been on other topics where the "science" according to the left is overwhelming against him and he's ignored it, I don't see him just bending over easily.

But, the farmer lobby is huge, and considering the rocky road for mid-terms the WH very may well have told him to STFU and get in line.

MavsAg said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

American agriculture depends on Roundup. The poster above was absolutely correct about $30 bread without it.

---

I buy bread from a glyphosate free bakery and it's $6-$8 a loaf. Sure, more expensive than the bread that doesn't go bad for a month, but I'm happy to pay a bit of a premium to ensure I get good bread.

---

Good for you.

I'll never intentionally buy glyphosate free bread because it's a waste of money to me. And it won't take a second off of my life. But you can do whatever you'd like.

ETFan said:

---

It's almost like they don't have a single principled bone in their body and just follow the money no matter what. Crazy stuff.

Not being partisan. Both sides are trash.

---

Both sides suck but one is for the complete destruction of Western Civilization and the other is just scared and incompetent.

Quote:

---

One of my aerospace classmates' father died of cancer caused by Roundup while I was in school

---

No, one of your classmate's father died of cancer. He also used Roundup. To assert a definite link between the two is nonsense with no scientific basis.

B-1 83 said:

---

I'll just drop this here…..

https://www.agdaily.com/insights/farm-babe-no-there-isnt-glyphosate-in-your-food/

---

Folks really need to read this

Quote:

---

But, the farmer lobby is huge,

---

Based on what?

Less than 2% of the population, if you count all the little hobby farms. Actual production farms, not 10 acre weekend playpens, are probably a few hundred thousand

Zachary Klement said:

---

NEW: In major reversal, Trump administration “retreats” on plan to ban artificial colors in food & significantly loosens FDA labeling requirements.

— Dominic Michael Tripi (@DMichaelTripi) February 21, 2026

---

Good. Consumers can make choices. You don't want artificials? There are plenty of options

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

But, the farmer lobby is huge,

---

Based on what?

Less than 2% of the population, if you count all the little hobby farms. Actual production farms, not 10 acre weekend playpens, are probably a few hundred thousand

---

Maybe I should say they have substantial influence? We certainly seem to cater to them and I'm not saying that in a negative way, necessarily.