Yes, but that goes both ways. On the other side we have government telling us what is safe or not, and their track record isn’t very good either.
I’m not on the anti-gluten band wagon, as it currently appears to mostly be a psychosomatic and fad issue.
But the question is scientifically valid, and worth exploring. Increasing levels of glyphosate may have some effects on sensitive people, and that reaction could be mistaken for a gluten problem, when it is really a contamination issue.
What do you mean? I think their track record is very good. My beef is that I think the're over cautious. For example, I read somewhere that something upwards of 90% of things that work in mouse studies don't work in human studies. What if the inverse is also true? What if 90% of the research that dead ends at mouse studies would have worked in human studies?
What do you mean? I think their track record is very good. My beef is that I think the're over cautious. For example, I read somewhere that something upwards of 90% of things that work in mouse studies don't work in human studies. What if the inverse is also true? What if 90% of the research that dead ends at mouse studies would have worked in human studies?
Is there any relationship between gluten problems and glyphosate levels?