The New York Times published a story just the other day, using their own study and their own methods to detect Glyphosphate in Ben & Jerry’s ice creams.
The news site published a paper on the 25th of July that talked about Glyphosphate found in Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. Glyphosphate is a controversial herbicide that is used widely in conventional agriculture, and is often noted as a carcinogen in large amounts. The New York Times, despite their notoriety as a respectable news publication, published the article, despite issues appearing from the very first line.
The main issue was that the levels were so low, often less than one part per billion, that even mentioning this in a news article seems to be activist research. The levels were, according to The New York Times itself, “at levels far below the ceiling set by the Environmental Protection Agency.” The levels are so small that the article itself states “a 75-pound child would have to consume 145,000 eight-ounce servings a day of Ben & Jerry’s Chocolate Fudge Brownie ice cream to hit the limit set by the Environmental Protection Agency.” So why is this news?
They posted further evidence showing that a study done on mice using very low levels of Glyphosphate causes adverse effects, however, humans are still about 300 times or more the size of a mouse, making the research null with the small levels of the herbicide available. Rats and humans also metabolize products differently, some things are harmful to rats, but not humans, making vivisection pointless in many areas.
Another big red flag that this is activist research, is that they advertise a book for Carey Gillam, a known anti-glyphosphate activist that is also paid by the very people the article promotes, the The Organic Consumers Association. The OCA is by no means a reputable source of information. Kevin Folta, a land-grant scientist, wrote an article blasting the piece, claiming:
“The results are published without peer review as a sensational newspaper headline, manufactured information with the intent to erode trust in food while targeting a particular company and a technology known to be safe. And even if the results are real, the levels detected are not a threat by a longshot.”
The New York Times should retract this article, and issue a formally written apology for this. The article itself is full of flaws, and obviously shows a rather strong bias. If the NYT keeps publishing stories like this, their credibility as a respectable source will plummet.