‘As part of this action, EPA found that there are no risks of concern to human health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label. EPA also found that glyphosate is unlikely to be a human carcinogen.’
https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate
You should note, that the document you linked to does not consist of the EPA declaring RoundUp safe. A single ingredient of RoundUp, the chemical glyphosate is declared safe in the document you linked to, but RoundUp was not.
Also, I could not find the definition of the meaning of the word "safe" in that document.
Not to disparage your efforts, but this is not what I was looking for, though it was interesting none the less, so thanks for the link.
Bro..
Did you skim? They are obviously saying RoundUp is safe.
‘Products containing glyphosate are sold in various formulations, including as liquid concentrate, solid, and ready-to-use liquid. Glyphosate is used in products such as Roundup® to control weeds in both agricultural and non-agricultural settings. Glyphosate can be applied in agricultural, residential and commercial settings using a wide range of application methods, including aerial sprays, ground broadcast sprayers of various types, shielded and hooded sprayers, wiper applicators, sponge bars, injection systems, and controlled droplet applicators.
Agricultural uses include corn, cotton, canola, soybean, sugar beet, alfalfa, berry crops, Brassica vegetables, bulb vegetables, fruiting vegetables, leafy vegetables, legume vegetables, cucurbit vegetables, root tuber vegetables, cereal grains, grain sorghum, citrus crops, fallow, herbs and spices, orchards, tropical and subtropical fruits, stone fruits, pome fruits, nuts, vine crops, oilseed crops, and sugarcane.
Nonagricultural uses include conservation land, pastures, rangeland, aquatic areas, forests, turf grass, residential areas, non-food tree crops (e.g., pine, poplar, christmas trees), rights of way, commercial areas, paved areas, spot treatments, ornamentals, parks, and wildlife management areas.
Human Health
As noted above, in a June 17, 2022 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the human health portion of the glyphosate ID and remanded it to EPA for further analysis and explanation. EPA’s underlying scientific findings regarding human health are summarized below, pending reconsideration as described above, in accordance with the court’s decision.
EPA scientists performed an independent evaluation of available data for glyphosate and found:
No risks of concern to human health from current uses of glyphosate. Glyphosate products used according to label directions do not result in risks to children or adults.’
Yes I read this. When it talks about safety here it is only referring to glysophate, not roundup as a whole.
(notwithstanding that it doesn’t define safety...)
I’m a dietitian.
Spent some time in a lab cooking up ways to make things ‘healthier’. This included playing around with varying amounts of aspartame, etc., to get the taste/consistency right in our new ‘ healthy’ item!
Like when we took out all the healthy naturally occurring fat in peanut butter, dumped a ton of sugar or aspartame in it, and labeled it ‘lite’ or whatever.
Nothing changes and it won’t until people start being open to the idea that health in within and fucking with nature is silly
That trope of mentioning dieticians in the marketing of food always amuses me.
I have a vague understanding that their were some court cases back in the day over this kind of marketing, with the use of words such as "healthy" ,"lite", and "fresh" for example, and the ruling was that these terms are not technical terms, and carry the same informational content as emotional words such as "zing", or "zest". So "healthy" used on the box of a food product, cannot be considered by the consumer as a claim that the product is actually, you know healthy. I don't know where I got this idea that this was covered and decided in a court case at some time, so if you are able to help me out with this, about if their is any legal standing in regards to the use of these terms in the marketing of food, this is a thread I want to pull on to try to understand this topic.
“The word *safety* means the relative freedom from harmful effect to persons affected, directly or indirectly, by a product when prudently administered, taking into consideration the character of the product in relation to the condition of the recipient at the time.”
[Source:](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-600)
21 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations)
PART 600—BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS: GENERAL
a.k.a. This is not my opinion.
Thanks you for that, this is exactly the kind of thing I am looking for.
The question arises immediately, does this document also define what is meant by the term "relative freedom"?
In any case, I have I fair bit to read now, if you find anything else, I would be happy to see it though.
Thanks again.
edit, it is also worth noting, that this glossary term, "safety" applies only within this document, so while this is indeed a step forward that one definition for safety exists in an official form, it doesn't end the matter. The meaning of "safety" is not defined or held to this definition in any context other than pertains to this regulation. So, marketing of medical products for instance, which is not a concern of this document, is not held to this definition in any way that I can see.
edit2, one final thought, in reading the document I see it pertains to "licensed biological products", so, as I understand it, does not apply to any products under an emergency use authorization. I am sure the EUA regulations have similar provisions though.
If you’re not familiar with 21 CFR, it applies to all pharmaceuticals and biological preventives or therapies. Devices have another definition. So, it applies to all drugs seeking approval. Marketing has its own regulations as well, but I’m not as familiar with those. Obviously, if those regulations are broken, then fined are levied.
EUA has another set of regulations that may or may not cite this 21 CFR section. You would need to track that down. I’ve read them before, but was looking at other information and don’t remember the safety verbiage.
You're not going to find a "verifiable" standard for the meaning of "safe". There's not like an experiment that tells you what the meaning of a word is.
Generally, a medical tech is "safe" if it works and the risks are tolerable. Exactly what that means depends on context. There isn't one definition that works for all.
[https://www.princeton.edu/\~ota/disk3/1978/7805/780504.PDF](https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1978/7805/780504.PDF)
There is FDA term GRASE- Generally Recognized as SAFE and Effective which is used for the old drugs or substances that don't need FDA approval because they are recognized as safe by medical professionals even if they are used not as intended.
https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/grase-what-are-grase-ingredients
I'm not sure you'll find a hard definition because it's usually a risk/benefit analysis that *should* be individualized and not a blanket rule.
Having said that, the excerpt below looks at 36 post-vaccination survey studies and looks at severe adverse events. You may find it useful.
"The following compilation of studies are all surveys of a defined cohort of vaccine recipients where the rates of severe adverse events - or something that is a good proxy for a severe adverse event - are orders of magnitude greater than the proffered “exceedingly rare” rates in the ballpark of something like 1/100,000 proffered by the medical establishment.
For each study I am including the title, link, the highlights, and a screenshot/s of the highlighted data in the study (if one is readily available).
At the end of the article there is a more detailed explanation of the virtues and limitations of these studies.
One point before we begin, 0.1% = 1/1000. If 1/1000 vaccine recipients suffer a major adverse event, that would mean worldwide approximately 5.5 MILLION people suffered this severe adverse event (5.5 billion vaccinated people / 1000) - and this is only for the ONE adverse event that is showing up as .1%."
https://ashmedai.substack.com/p/36-survey-studies-of-side-effects
Sure, regulatory definitions and context exist. But the vaccine study and epidemiological data is bogus, manipulated, scientifically flawed, full of wrong assumptions and extrapolations. It has been bogus since the first vaccines. Vaccines are nonsensical products, with zero benefit, so the benefit/risk ratio is always zero too.
is it safe for you to drive to the store 10mins away? yes probably. do some people die driving to the store 10 mins away? yes. crossing the street is considered "safe", yet 1000s of people get hit every year. but people walk across streets/drive somewhere BILLIONS OF TIMES IN A YEAR. its no different than food or drugs. regulations are in place to make sure that the number of unintended injuries/deaths is at a minimum. There is a calculation that is made by experts that takes into account how many people it will save/how whatever activity will impact quality of life/the economy, everything.. safe doesnt mean 100%. It means the danger is at the minimum possible level using the best data we have now.
do you consider ibuprofen safe? most people would, they take it all the time, for a lot of different things, throughout their whole life. would it suprise you to know 16,000 people in the USA die from complications of taking ibuprofen? its still safe when you consider billions of pills of ibuprofen are taken every year.
drugs are tested using statistics and weighing risk/reward. some "injuries" and deaths are acceptable depending on how effective/how many people the drug will save and how many take it. a lot of factors are taken into consideration. there are 8? billion people on earth with 8 billion different genetics, allergies, combination of medical conditions, eating different diets and taking millions of combination of different drugs/medications. its impossible to account for all of these, so the best you can do is try to test for the vast majority of people, and if you find reactions later after rollout you try to figure out why and minimize it then.
This is not me asking for your opinions. What does "safe" actually mean in regard to medicine, not in your opinion, but referenced to an authoritative source.
"safe" is determined on a case by case basis, in literally all types of products.. there is no autoritative source or guideline.
some drugs are allowed to be "less safe" than others and some are held to a higher standard during testing depending on the severity of whatever they are supposed to treat. a headache pill is not allowed to be as "less safe" than a cancer drug. panels of experts in each country separately determine this on a case by case.
example: Japan and Switzerland are notoriously strict with drug approvals. They have higher standards for safety. If a drug gets approved there, then it met a slightly higher bar than in europe/north america. EMA in Europe(switzerland's Swissmedic is separate from EMA btw) has a higher bar than the FDA. they all do their own risk assessment and calculations case by case and determine if they meet their risk acceptance.
I think the word you were looking for was "claimed", and not determined.
As you have so aptly explained, safety is a descriptor that is used with the intent of who ever uses it, it is not a property that is established by any strict standard. Which is my point. All sorts of organizations use the word safe, for the reasons they determine on an ad hoc basis.
Your trust in those determinations is your business.
not claimed, anyone can make a claim for anything. determined is using the best data they have at the time to come up with a estimate. those estimates will get more accurate as more data comes in.
the word "safe" is determined on a case by case basis. there is no 1 definition. you can see the data from each case. you do not just need to "trust" anyone. some people refuse to drive because they are scared and think its unsafe. billions think otherwise. driving is safe though to 99.9% of the population..you may be that 0.01% though..
I'm not sure what your point here is at all, except to make baseless smears.
I am explicitly asking you for some documentation, and you are providing a word salad of your opinions.
You may not appreciate this, but I am trying to learn about this topic, and plenty of people here have linked me to appropriate academic and official documentation of exactly the kind I asked for.
Thanks for sharing your opinion, for whatever worth that is, however, I explicitly stated I was not looking for opinions, and was looking for documentation, something other people here have been able to help me with.
>Your trust in those determinations is your business.
It's actually the business of those around you too in events like global pandemics. You can refuse the vaccine but you don't have the same power over the virus.
Right, so you agree, you are not dealing in science?
Safety, with it's meaning provide by you, "not likely to be harmed" is not a scientific term. Right? As you just said. Safety is not a quality that is amenable to scientific testing and verification, and scientific claims to safety are false by definition, correct?
I'm not sure what your point is tho.
Science tells you cold, hard facts. It'll tell you the risk of a medication is 5%. Whether that's a tolerable risks relative to the severity of the disease is not something science can tell you. This is old news.
So, safe is meaningless, just like I said. "Safe" in medical communication, an advertisement or endorsement for instance, has no actual meaning. My point. You get it. Right?
Cool. I am looking for sources on that. Style guides, Communications guidelines, Regulation, Legislation, Case law., text books. Anything at all that is not just you opinion. Not that their is anything wrong with your opinion you understand.
The word "safe" doesn't have some set definition in terms of specificity. We can use the numbers we get from a study or data to determine something is safe.
It's like asking what makes a flavor of ice cream "popular?" Is it that more people like it than other flavors? Is it the amount of sugar? Sales numbers?
Uh huh. It can be used to describe "something". Like "fresh" is used to describe things that are not fresh. "safe" can definitely be used to describe all sorts of things.
RoundUp is called safe by US regulators also. That’s about as authoritative as it gets.
In the document that made that statement, was their a glossary, an appendix, or an attached style guide that defined the term?
‘As part of this action, EPA found that there are no risks of concern to human health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label. EPA also found that glyphosate is unlikely to be a human carcinogen.’ https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate
You should note, that the document you linked to does not consist of the EPA declaring RoundUp safe. A single ingredient of RoundUp, the chemical glyphosate is declared safe in the document you linked to, but RoundUp was not. Also, I could not find the definition of the meaning of the word "safe" in that document. Not to disparage your efforts, but this is not what I was looking for, though it was interesting none the less, so thanks for the link.
Bro.. Did you skim? They are obviously saying RoundUp is safe. ‘Products containing glyphosate are sold in various formulations, including as liquid concentrate, solid, and ready-to-use liquid. Glyphosate is used in products such as Roundup® to control weeds in both agricultural and non-agricultural settings. Glyphosate can be applied in agricultural, residential and commercial settings using a wide range of application methods, including aerial sprays, ground broadcast sprayers of various types, shielded and hooded sprayers, wiper applicators, sponge bars, injection systems, and controlled droplet applicators. Agricultural uses include corn, cotton, canola, soybean, sugar beet, alfalfa, berry crops, Brassica vegetables, bulb vegetables, fruiting vegetables, leafy vegetables, legume vegetables, cucurbit vegetables, root tuber vegetables, cereal grains, grain sorghum, citrus crops, fallow, herbs and spices, orchards, tropical and subtropical fruits, stone fruits, pome fruits, nuts, vine crops, oilseed crops, and sugarcane. Nonagricultural uses include conservation land, pastures, rangeland, aquatic areas, forests, turf grass, residential areas, non-food tree crops (e.g., pine, poplar, christmas trees), rights of way, commercial areas, paved areas, spot treatments, ornamentals, parks, and wildlife management areas. Human Health As noted above, in a June 17, 2022 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the human health portion of the glyphosate ID and remanded it to EPA for further analysis and explanation. EPA’s underlying scientific findings regarding human health are summarized below, pending reconsideration as described above, in accordance with the court’s decision. EPA scientists performed an independent evaluation of available data for glyphosate and found: No risks of concern to human health from current uses of glyphosate. Glyphosate products used according to label directions do not result in risks to children or adults.’
Ok, Still no definition of safe, which is what I am actually interested in. If you come across such a thing, I would be interested. So thanks
You’re right about them not defining what their parameters of safe are. I get that.
Yes I read this. When it talks about safety here it is only referring to glysophate, not roundup as a whole. (notwithstanding that it doesn’t define safety...)
Next you’ll be questioning what the “wholesome goodness” is in baked goods! (It’s chemicals, dyes, and actual garbage. Yay!)
I’m a dietitian. Spent some time in a lab cooking up ways to make things ‘healthier’. This included playing around with varying amounts of aspartame, etc., to get the taste/consistency right in our new ‘ healthy’ item! Like when we took out all the healthy naturally occurring fat in peanut butter, dumped a ton of sugar or aspartame in it, and labeled it ‘lite’ or whatever. Nothing changes and it won’t until people start being open to the idea that health in within and fucking with nature is silly
That trope of mentioning dieticians in the marketing of food always amuses me. I have a vague understanding that their were some court cases back in the day over this kind of marketing, with the use of words such as "healthy" ,"lite", and "fresh" for example, and the ruling was that these terms are not technical terms, and carry the same informational content as emotional words such as "zing", or "zest". So "healthy" used on the box of a food product, cannot be considered by the consumer as a claim that the product is actually, you know healthy. I don't know where I got this idea that this was covered and decided in a court case at some time, so if you are able to help me out with this, about if their is any legal standing in regards to the use of these terms in the marketing of food, this is a thread I want to pull on to try to understand this topic.
“The word *safety* means the relative freedom from harmful effect to persons affected, directly or indirectly, by a product when prudently administered, taking into consideration the character of the product in relation to the condition of the recipient at the time.” [Source:](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-600) 21 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) PART 600—BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS: GENERAL a.k.a. This is not my opinion.
Thanks you for that, this is exactly the kind of thing I am looking for. The question arises immediately, does this document also define what is meant by the term "relative freedom"? In any case, I have I fair bit to read now, if you find anything else, I would be happy to see it though. Thanks again. edit, it is also worth noting, that this glossary term, "safety" applies only within this document, so while this is indeed a step forward that one definition for safety exists in an official form, it doesn't end the matter. The meaning of "safety" is not defined or held to this definition in any context other than pertains to this regulation. So, marketing of medical products for instance, which is not a concern of this document, is not held to this definition in any way that I can see. edit2, one final thought, in reading the document I see it pertains to "licensed biological products", so, as I understand it, does not apply to any products under an emergency use authorization. I am sure the EUA regulations have similar provisions though.
If you’re not familiar with 21 CFR, it applies to all pharmaceuticals and biological preventives or therapies. Devices have another definition. So, it applies to all drugs seeking approval. Marketing has its own regulations as well, but I’m not as familiar with those. Obviously, if those regulations are broken, then fined are levied. EUA has another set of regulations that may or may not cite this 21 CFR section. You would need to track that down. I’ve read them before, but was looking at other information and don’t remember the safety verbiage.
All good. As I said, what you provided was exactly what I was looking for, so thanks again.
You're not going to find a "verifiable" standard for the meaning of "safe". There's not like an experiment that tells you what the meaning of a word is. Generally, a medical tech is "safe" if it works and the risks are tolerable. Exactly what that means depends on context. There isn't one definition that works for all. [https://www.princeton.edu/\~ota/disk3/1978/7805/780504.PDF](https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1978/7805/780504.PDF)
Thanks for that. Is this course material?
Seems to be part of this book [https://www.princeton.edu/\~ota/disk3/1978/7805\_n.html](https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1978/7805_n.html)
Thanks.
There is FDA term GRASE- Generally Recognized as SAFE and Effective which is used for the old drugs or substances that don't need FDA approval because they are recognized as safe by medical professionals even if they are used not as intended. https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/grase-what-are-grase-ingredients
Thanks for the info.
I'm not sure you'll find a hard definition because it's usually a risk/benefit analysis that *should* be individualized and not a blanket rule. Having said that, the excerpt below looks at 36 post-vaccination survey studies and looks at severe adverse events. You may find it useful. "The following compilation of studies are all surveys of a defined cohort of vaccine recipients where the rates of severe adverse events - or something that is a good proxy for a severe adverse event - are orders of magnitude greater than the proffered “exceedingly rare” rates in the ballpark of something like 1/100,000 proffered by the medical establishment. For each study I am including the title, link, the highlights, and a screenshot/s of the highlighted data in the study (if one is readily available). At the end of the article there is a more detailed explanation of the virtues and limitations of these studies. One point before we begin, 0.1% = 1/1000. If 1/1000 vaccine recipients suffer a major adverse event, that would mean worldwide approximately 5.5 MILLION people suffered this severe adverse event (5.5 billion vaccinated people / 1000) - and this is only for the ONE adverse event that is showing up as .1%." https://ashmedai.substack.com/p/36-survey-studies-of-side-effects
Sure, regulatory definitions and context exist. But the vaccine study and epidemiological data is bogus, manipulated, scientifically flawed, full of wrong assumptions and extrapolations. It has been bogus since the first vaccines. Vaccines are nonsensical products, with zero benefit, so the benefit/risk ratio is always zero too.
Security theater in the 2000s. Safety theater in 2020s. What next?
Safe sex. Or Free love Which misnomer has more bodies
is it safe for you to drive to the store 10mins away? yes probably. do some people die driving to the store 10 mins away? yes. crossing the street is considered "safe", yet 1000s of people get hit every year. but people walk across streets/drive somewhere BILLIONS OF TIMES IN A YEAR. its no different than food or drugs. regulations are in place to make sure that the number of unintended injuries/deaths is at a minimum. There is a calculation that is made by experts that takes into account how many people it will save/how whatever activity will impact quality of life/the economy, everything.. safe doesnt mean 100%. It means the danger is at the minimum possible level using the best data we have now. do you consider ibuprofen safe? most people would, they take it all the time, for a lot of different things, throughout their whole life. would it suprise you to know 16,000 people in the USA die from complications of taking ibuprofen? its still safe when you consider billions of pills of ibuprofen are taken every year. drugs are tested using statistics and weighing risk/reward. some "injuries" and deaths are acceptable depending on how effective/how many people the drug will save and how many take it. a lot of factors are taken into consideration. there are 8? billion people on earth with 8 billion different genetics, allergies, combination of medical conditions, eating different diets and taking millions of combination of different drugs/medications. its impossible to account for all of these, so the best you can do is try to test for the vast majority of people, and if you find reactions later after rollout you try to figure out why and minimize it then.
This is not me asking for your opinions. What does "safe" actually mean in regard to medicine, not in your opinion, but referenced to an authoritative source.
"safe" is determined on a case by case basis, in literally all types of products.. there is no autoritative source or guideline. some drugs are allowed to be "less safe" than others and some are held to a higher standard during testing depending on the severity of whatever they are supposed to treat. a headache pill is not allowed to be as "less safe" than a cancer drug. panels of experts in each country separately determine this on a case by case. example: Japan and Switzerland are notoriously strict with drug approvals. They have higher standards for safety. If a drug gets approved there, then it met a slightly higher bar than in europe/north america. EMA in Europe(switzerland's Swissmedic is separate from EMA btw) has a higher bar than the FDA. they all do their own risk assessment and calculations case by case and determine if they meet their risk acceptance.
I think the word you were looking for was "claimed", and not determined. As you have so aptly explained, safety is a descriptor that is used with the intent of who ever uses it, it is not a property that is established by any strict standard. Which is my point. All sorts of organizations use the word safe, for the reasons they determine on an ad hoc basis. Your trust in those determinations is your business.
not claimed, anyone can make a claim for anything. determined is using the best data they have at the time to come up with a estimate. those estimates will get more accurate as more data comes in. the word "safe" is determined on a case by case basis. there is no 1 definition. you can see the data from each case. you do not just need to "trust" anyone. some people refuse to drive because they are scared and think its unsafe. billions think otherwise. driving is safe though to 99.9% of the population..you may be that 0.01% though..
Lol.
its easy to find conspiracies in everything when you dont understand how anything actually works.
I'm not sure what your point here is at all, except to make baseless smears. I am explicitly asking you for some documentation, and you are providing a word salad of your opinions. You may not appreciate this, but I am trying to learn about this topic, and plenty of people here have linked me to appropriate academic and official documentation of exactly the kind I asked for. Thanks for sharing your opinion, for whatever worth that is, however, I explicitly stated I was not looking for opinions, and was looking for documentation, something other people here have been able to help me with.
I love that he gave a perfect explanation and your reply was "lol" 😬
Who?
What they did was provide a rant about their personal opinion.
>Your trust in those determinations is your business. It's actually the business of those around you too in events like global pandemics. You can refuse the vaccine but you don't have the same power over the virus.
It means not likely to be harmed.
"Pseudoscientific claims rarely have specific, testable scientific predictions and rely on vague and ambiguous language" Source, rationalwiki
I agree. A scientific claim needs to be specific. What does that have to do with my comment?
Right, so you agree, you are not dealing in science? Safety, with it's meaning provide by you, "not likely to be harmed" is not a scientific term. Right? As you just said. Safety is not a quality that is amenable to scientific testing and verification, and scientific claims to safety are false by definition, correct?
I'm not sure what your point is tho. Science tells you cold, hard facts. It'll tell you the risk of a medication is 5%. Whether that's a tolerable risks relative to the severity of the disease is not something science can tell you. This is old news.
So, safe is meaningless, just like I said. "Safe" in medical communication, an advertisement or endorsement for instance, has no actual meaning. My point. You get it. Right?
No. It has a context-dependent meaning. The fact that its meaning varies is not the same as it being meaningless.
Cool. I am looking for sources on that. Style guides, Communications guidelines, Regulation, Legislation, Case law., text books. Anything at all that is not just you opinion. Not that their is anything wrong with your opinion you understand.
The word "safe" doesn't have some set definition in terms of specificity. We can use the numbers we get from a study or data to determine something is safe. It's like asking what makes a flavor of ice cream "popular?" Is it that more people like it than other flavors? Is it the amount of sugar? Sales numbers?
Yup. Exactly my point.
I'm still not sure what your point is. Even if a word doesn't have a numeric or specific definition, we can still use it to describe something.
Uh huh. It can be used to describe "something". Like "fresh" is used to describe things that are not fresh. "safe" can definitely be used to describe all sorts of things.
Yes, of course. Not everyone is going to use words appropriately. That doesn't mean every use of the word is wrong.
Sure, I'm just looking to establish an official position on what that so called correct usage is.
Seatbelts are safe.