How much glyphosate is really in your beer? Health Ranger test 26 popular beers in science lab to reveal surprising answer

Natural News) According to media reports, beer products are heavily saturated with glyphosate, a toxic, cancer-causing weed killer chemical. But is the media really telling the truth?

To find out, we tested 26 popular beers in our mass spec laboratory, using LC-MS-MS instrumentation that’s sensitive below 1 ppb. The findings may surprise you, because they contradict what the media is dishonestly reporting about glyphosate in beer. (See full chart of results and video below…)

We began to suspect the media was being dishonest about glyphosate in beer when we saw the media claiming beer products “tested positive” for glyphosate. But “testing positive” is scientifically meaningless, because it says nothing about the concentration of glyphosate in the beer products. Just one molecule of glyphosate could qualify as “testing positive,” yet one molecule by itself has zero risk of harm. Like other agricultural chemicals, glyphosate’s toxicity is directly proportional to its concentration in your blood. This is determined by the concentration of glyphosate in the products you are consuming or putting on your skin.

When media outlets don’t report the concentrations but say a product “tests positive” for glyphosate, they are being deceptive and utterly non-scientific. That’s not surprising, considering that nearly all mainstream media journalists are scientifically illiterate, which is why they’ve all been stupidly brainwashed to believe that carbon dioxide is bad for the planet. In truth, CO2 is the “miracle molecule” for plant life that’s re-greening the planet, even according to NASA.

being tested:

Understanding the units of concentration for glyphosate in liquids

For glyphosate and other pesticides or herbicides, by the way, food scientists describe concentrations in units of micrograms per milliliter. (ug / ml). A microgram is one millionth of a gram. A milliliter is one one-thousandth of a liter. One ug / ml equates to 1 ppm in common lab science language. So when someone says a pesticide is present in water at 1 ppm, what they means is 1 ug /ml. (Note carefully that ug is a unit of mass, while ml is a unit of volume, which means this expression is mass / volume, meaning it’s the mass of the herbicide that’s present in a volume of liquid.)

A nanogram per milliliter (ng / ml) is 1 ppb, or one part per billion. If a liquid such as beer or water contains 1 ng / ml of glyphosate, it means there is 1 part per billion of glyphosate in the liquid.

Glyphosate herbicide purchased at retail outlets for use on lawns and landscape applications is often 41% glyphosate, which is equal to 41 parts per hundred, or 410 parts per thousand, or 410,000 parts per million, or 410,000,000 parts per billion. (Those are all equivalent expressions.)

If you spill just one milliliter of 41% glyphosate on your skin, you are exposed to 410,000 ug of glyphosate, which goes right through your skin and into your blood. In contrast, if you drink a full liter of beer that contains just 10 ppb of glyphosate, your total exposure is just 10 ug.

Thus, you would have to drink 41,000 liters of beer to equal the same glyphosate exposure as spilling 1 milliliter of glyphosate concentrate on your skin. (A milliliter is just a few drops.)

Watch my video, exclusively on, to learn the rest of the shocking truth about glyphosate in beer and how the media is deceiving you:


America is Still Free to a Fault

Original Post

"Overall, we rate Natural News a Questionable source based on promotion of quackery level pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, as well as extreme right wing bias. This is one of the most discredited sources on the internet."

"[note 1] and its sister site are websites run by Mike Adams (self-labeled "The Health Ranger") which promotes alternative medicine and related conspiracy theories.[2] Even other quacks think it's a quack site.[3] The site particularly specializes in vaccine denialism and the alleged vaccines-autism link,[4] AIDS/HIV denialism,[5] quack cancer treatments,[6] and conspiracy theories about "Big Pharma".[7] If there's an alternative medicine or alternative medical treatment out there, you can guarantee that NaturalNews has one article singing its praises to the sky and one more bashing the stupid "skeptics".

In short: If you cite NaturalNews on any matter whatsoever, you are almost certainly wrong."

WIKI is very liberal in content, a socialist arm of the Democratic party.
If you want to defend Big Pharma go ahead with your commie anti
American crap. 
This day and time the people that count know better, you liberal liars
aren't fooling no one but you fools today.

"Overall, we rate RationalWiki Left-Center biased based on use of loaded language against conservatives and High for factual reporting due to pro-science reporting coupled with proper sourcing and a clean fact check record."



Founded in April 2007 by Peter Lipson, a doctor of internal medicine, RationalWiki Analyzes and refutes pseudoscience and the anti-science movement, documenting the full range of crank ideas, explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism, analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.  

From a historical perspective, RationalWiki was created as a response to Conservapedia, which is routinely critical of liberals and atheists. MBFC lists Conservapedia as a Questionable source based on the publication of right wing Christian Propaganda, as well as false reports.

Funded by / Ownership

RationalWiki is owned by the RationalMedia Foundation and is funded through donations.

Analysis / Bias

In review, RationalWiki is a wiki site that is open source and editable by anyone. RationalWiki is different from Wikipedia in that they openly use loaded language to describe conservatives and those who promote conspiracies and pseudoscience. In general, RationalWiki does not attempt to hide their bias as they routinely poke fun at conservatives. This has led to them being labeled leftists. Perhaps RationalWiki leans left, but in the end they are a pro-Science source. In general, all information is sourced to credible sources of evidence, much like Wikipedia.

A factual search reveals they have not failed a fact check. "


Add Reply

Likes (0)