Weedkiller found in "popular" beer brands

Exaggerated fear mongering by an organization with an agenda. It is pretty easy to pick out the allegations presented as fact in this article, so I don't trust much of it at all.

 

This article is so filled with exaggerations, half truths, and outright lies that it would take me all day to debunk it.

 

What do you think is their agenda, besides keeping harmful chemicals out of food and drink ?

 

Probably everything we eat and drink has something bad in it, nothing really new.

 

Yeah, sure but the question now becomes:
"Is Round-Up® an adjunct or a flavoring addition?"

 

Monsanto is an evil company. Pure and simple.

 

Anyone arguing this isn't a bad thing, go out in your shed and just take a whiff of weedkiller. Then come back and tell me you want to be ingesting that. Companies really should try and ween this out, but that is unlikely. I'll be thinking twice between my local brews and Sierra Nevada at the bar for sure.

 

Do you think it's worth the effort to keep it to a minimum ?

 

So, if it's in your shed, you're part of the problem, since the malting barley growers say they are against its use...

Somebody cue up the Pogo quote...

 

Except that most of your local breweries are getting grain from the same sources as SN. If anything, they have less influence over how their base malt is grown than a large volume brewer like SN. I don't think your local breweries are likely to have significantly different results if they were tested.

 

That's one of the many inaccuracies (putting it kindly) in that article. It lumps all "grain" together. But, as already stated by someone else, it would take a lot of time to debunk the article, and I am not willing to devote the time.

 

Don't have a shed #ApartmentLife, but I see your point. Nonetheless, is it really too much to ask to not drink harsh chemicals?

 

May be true, but I'll put my money in the hands of the "little guy" who maybe cannot control it, over the large corporation who blatantly ignores the problem!

 

Some background on Seralini : he tried to replicate the (company & company-funded) studies that showed it was safe. He came up with different results, and published them.
Then his work was un-published for faulty methods. The same methods that were used to show it was safe. He knew that, and pointed it out before doing his own work. The editor & journal both get Monsanto funding in some form, btw.
So........ a mixed bag.&......???

As for how it gets into things, as they said, drift in one form or another.I'd also ask if anybody is lying, about crops being organically-grown? It's been used more & more on wheat, a few days before harvest, to dry it out.That improves yield. Not sure about barley. Someone that occasionally posts on BA is a barley grower for AB-I. I don't remember his handle. . The overwhelming majority of the corn grown in the US is Roundup-Ready.

One other thing, that I wonder about, and would maybe be more concerned about, is the "inert" ingredients in with the glyphosate. They were originally classified as inert, because they are, as far as herbicide activity. Then when RR crops came along, they were pointed to as safe, because they are labeled as inert. Sort of Catch-22 in reverse? Plants yeah, but with animals, not necessarily so.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/17/new-evidence-about-the-dangers-of-monsantos-roundup/

True, as far as it goes - if you can smell it, you're being exposed - but irrelevant to this. Different material. Roundup is close to scentless, btw.

Btw, one common disingenuous way of showing safety, is to use test animals that are less prone, or ~immune to the effects of what is being tested. Want to show that there is no endocrine-disruption with your product? Test using a strain of rats that are just about immune to endocrine disruptors.

Voila! Safe! Then it's up to somebody to prove otherwise. There is so much stuff out there, and not enough resources to do much of that. The revolving door is well-greased and spinning at FDA,EPA, & Ag Dept, so the inclination is usually to accept what they are presented, and OK it, without challenge.

 

What I think is that if you look hard enough you can find fault with just about anything. In our modern world you are going to find trace amounts of just about everything in our food/water. I won't waste my time worrying about it because its almost always a hyped up subject. If you ask a doctor I bet he/she would tell you the alcohol in the beer does far greater damage to you than this every could.

 

I'm not worried about this as far as beer drinking goes. The bigger issue for me is these chemicals becoming part of everything we eat or drink. Or in some cases, smoke. I recently read an article about all the nasty stuff that's sprayed on Marijuana plants. For those of you who partake, I'd be a lot more worried about that.

 

I bet you could write a good scare story about how beer contains Dihydrogen monoxide and that it can be fatal to humans in large doses.

 

My main problem is with the websites who run these sensationalist headlines. If you look to the sides of the articles, you will almost always find advertisements for pseudoscience supplements, often through the website's own store. The majority of products inside a GNC are worthless. There is a joke in medicine that Americans have the most expensive urine in the world because of it.

I'm not about to go and drink a glass of roundup and would like to keep exposure to a minimum, but I also realize I'm going to receive some exposure regardless. Keep things in moderation.

 

I read the article, thank you for sharing it.

The article did say that certain beer brands were tested, and listed them. But, I suspect that all beer brands if tested, would have the same or similar results.

Good to know, I need to cut down on my beer drinking, although I think it may be a little too late...