Is Soylent glyphosate free?


I found a way to manipulate the 20 character limit, at least visually. You can put in the html code for a blank space, and it counts that as 6 characters for each one. The code is: & nbsp;
Remove the space in between & and n. Had to put that space in because otherwise it would show up as blank. (Kind of the point.) So, you can add one or two blank spaces (which no one will ever see) and it will allow you to get over the 20 character limit. Just FYI.

(Note: This didn’t warrant a thread of itself, and since this has become a fairly useless thread, I thought I’d just post it here to contribute the least to forum clutter.)


I don’t recall ever seeing pro-GMO trolling, but I’m probably not haunting the kind of forums liable to get that kind of trolling. As others noted above, the Soylent discourse pages are largely GMO-neutral, so we don’t see much of that here.

I do see pro-GMO statements often made after anti-GMO trolling… we’ve seen a bit of anti-GMO trolling on these forums. And, to be honest, this thread feels more like anti-glyphosate trolling and anti-GMO trolling than a question about levels detectable in Soylent (if any.)

If it were about the question, the question could simply be asked. Instead, the OP opined about the need for everyone to learn “what the molecule of glyphosate is, what it does and how dangerous it is…” What’s more, the inclusion of a blatantly propagandic video on the “dangers of glyphosate and engineered food” turns what was otherwise a question into an anti-glyphosate and anti-GMO troll. Let’s be honest - Soylent is engineered food, and the opening post refers to “the dangers of engineered food.”

Also, just for the record, glyphosate is very rarely sprayed on grains just prior to harvesting. That complaint refers to the use of glyphosate as a drying agent, which is not prevalent, but more importantly would be useless just prior to harvesting. It needs to be applied weeks before harvesting for the drying effects to make a difference. In tests, application of glyphosate 5-7 days prior to harvest makes absolutely no difference in grain dryness or yield. But in tests where it was applied several weeks earlier, it ensured that more grains ripen fully and completely by the same date - ripening isn’t hastened for grains that were already ripening, but grains that were behind (late and high in moisture) would speed up and be ripe and dry in time for harvest. Spraying glyphosate just before harvest would allow time for any benefit, and would be a waste of time and money.


Exactly what I was thinking.


Bro did you just eat an encyclopedia one day and absorb all the information or what

(no sarcasm)


Dunno if its bad or anything but this video certainly opens questions.


Some more background on the guy in the video:

#51 based on this I wouldn’t drink a glass of it either… I am not stupid.

Human acute toxicity is dose-related. Acute fatal toxicity has been reported in deliberate overdose.[45][46] Early epidemiological studies have not found associations between long-term low-level exposure to glyphosate and any disease.[47][48][49] Neither glyphosate nor typical glyphosphate-based formulations (GBFs) pose a genotoxicity risk in humans under normal conditions of human or environmental exposures.[50]

I don’t know the dose, but I imagine a glass could be in the range of ‘not good’. :smiley:


LOL the good ol’ non-breaking space. Hilarious… nice little cheat, me likey!


Soylent isn’t in favor of GMO in principle. What it’s in favor of in principle is trying to achieve fast/easy, healthy and cheap without dogmatic restrictions. Soylent has GMO in it now but not because it’s GMO per se but rather because it’s the way that best achieves the goal. If tomorrow some other non-GMO source achieved the goal even better I feel quite sure that Soylent would switch to that.

Not being dogmatic about food (or anything) is the best approach but it’s not the most popular approach. That’s okay though, because it’s popular enough.


Haha, thanks. Presumably various pieces of code would work. (Line breaks, new paragraph, etc.)

I surmised it after putting a picture into a post. I didn’t use any text, but it still said I was above 20 characters due to the code it pasted in to display the picture. I realized it counts characters of not only what text is displayed, but characters of everything that is used in a post. (hidden or displayed)


As the expression goes, anything in a large enough dose is toxic and anything in a small enough dose is safe.

Asking someone to drink a glass of pesticide (or anything) with the idea that if they decline that means they think the pesticide (or whatever) is unsafe in any dose is just silly and anyone that is fooled by it isn’t thinking very critically.


To be fair, the guy in the video did say you could drink a quart of it and it wouldn’t hurt you and then said he would be happy to drink it before declining. Obviously, one person misspeaking is neither here nor there when it comes to using it for other applications, but he did misspeak.

You are right to point out everything is unsafe if you consume enough of it. Everything has some level of toxicity and will kill you if you consume enough of it: alcohol, cheese,…even water.


Okay, I didn’t watch the video, so I stand corrected on that.


Just scrolling straight to reply…
Glyphosate is not classified as safe. The World Health Organization, just (like literally last week) classified glyphosate as carcinogenic to humans— that is, cancer-causing. This was declared after tests on lab animals found that exposure to glyphosate caused cancer; furthermore, studies found it was directly related to non-hodgkin’s lymphoma in humans. Monsanto relies on glyphosate for their production $$$ so you better bet that they and all their lobbying firm strong arms are going to fight this in anyway possible…

I’d say, I prefer to not be exposed to glyphosate if possible.

Top dogs of Soylent: glyphosate is becoming bad (well, worse) for business, so steer clear if you can.


To clarify, IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) which is a branch of the WHO (World Health Organization) classified glyphosate as a 2A carcinogen.

Other things under that classification: manufacturing glass, burning wood, emissions from high temperature frying, and work exposure as a hairdresser.

It is a fairly low classification of carcinogen. Many other things are deemed to cause cancer at a higher rate. (For instance, exposure to radiation levels consistent with being out in the sun.)

It is generally considered a warning for workers who have daily contact with the compound, and not a warning for consumers who would have very little contact.

It is also in contradiction to other agencies (such as the EPA), and not as a result of any new research, but a review only of existing research.



It’s also worth pointing out, as per your first link, that the IARC has said glyphosate is “probably” a carcinogen, not definitively one. This makes the 2a classification make more sense, as it is more of a probation than an actual sentencing.


Exactly what i was thinking.


In defense of this guy – a stranger was offering a noxious drink. Was the drink purely what he said it was, or did it contain other hazardous substances? I’m not certain I would accept a glass of water from such a person under similar circumstances.


It has not been found to be carcinogenic in the dose humans get it. Also, fruits and vegetables have carcinogens in them by your standard regardless of what, if anything, is sprayed on them. Things in nature, such as plants and weeds and bugs, are in a constant war with each and as such they develop weapons to protect themselves, which in the case of plants are chemicals that are toxic to intruders. All that is independent of humans. Then humans come along and they invent agriculture (which is unnatural) and in the process they devise ways for the plants to grow better without interference from weeds and bugs.

Point being, it’s not a case of perfect nature existing in harmony and harmful humans interceding, rather it’s a case of things in nature battling each other already, then humans come along and trying to use it for their own purposes, such as to produce food.


Right - group 1 is carcinogens, group 3 is non-carcinogen, and group 2 is the “in-betweens” that we think are likely to be carcinogens but are not sure. Group 2a, specifically, are things we’re pretty sure are carcinogens, especially in high-exposure situations.

All carcinogens, but especially group 2a substances, bring a dose-based risk; classification in type 2a doesn’t mean any residual exposure brings any meaningful risk, but rather, it means that people working in environments that create a lot of exposure should be taking precautions. Hence the reference to people like hairdressers having potentially risky exposure levels - likewise, farm workers involved in applying glyphosate, or working in fields where it has been applied, need to precautions.