High levels of weedkiller (glyphosate/e.g. Roundup) found in more than half of sperm samples, study finds

zabadoh@ani.social to World News@lemmy.world – 265 points –
High levels of weedkiller found in more than half of sperm samples, study finds
theguardian.com

The levels (of glyphosate that the) French researchers found in sperm were four times higher than in the men’s blood

Eating organic produce did not have a clear impact on levels.

36

You are viewing a single comment

The article links this to global fertility rates dropping? So people aren't marrying later and using birth control, and surveys suggesting fewer people want to have children aren't a more important part of that mix?

The article did link the research article so you could have read it instead of jumped to conclusions. In this case fertility rates are being defined as rate of infertile couples, or couples who cannot conceive. Specifically, the worry is that the global sperm count is declining, and that the decline is accelerating.

The news article should report accurately. They directly linked out "global fertility rates are dropping" to a lancet article which looked only at demographics of how many children are born to different age groups. I followed that link to confirm it wasn't about people unable to have children before commenting.

The drop in global fertility has fuck-all to do with glyphosate.

The drop in global fertility has fuck-all to do with glyphosate.

The article doesn't comment on linking fertility and glyphosate in sperm either way, but it's worth researching, if someone hasn't studied that already.

The paper comes as researchers look for answers to why global fertility rates are dropping, and many suspect exposure to toxic chemicals like glyphosate is a significant driver of the decline.

It's a statement of suspicion, not a conclusion of causality towards glyphosate specifically.

Fertility rates aren't the same as people choosing something... How the fuck do you not understand this? I really hope this was a shitty troll attempt because the level of idiocy required for your comment shouldn't be possible.

"Fertility rates" is used one way in the news article and another way in the journal article it is representing. The news article linked out to the wrong kind of fertility rate. See my parallel comment or follow the link yourself.

As to why you don't know that "fertility rates" can mean the rate of births divided by the population? I think it was simple ignorance. There's nothing wrong with that as long as you aren't a dick to others out of said ignorance.